Tier 3A ($30-60)
(3A1) RadioPaq Jazz
Reviewed Nov 2009
Details: One of the four RadioPaq IEMs ‘acoustically tuned’ for different genres
Current Price
£30 from AdvancedMp3Players.co.uk (MSRP: £60.00)
Specs: Driver:
Dynamic | Imp:
16 Ω | Sens:
120 dB | Freq:
18-20k Hz | Cord:
3.9’ I-plug
Nozzle Size:
5mm | Preferred tips:
Stock tips, VSonic $2 foamies
Wear Style:
Straight down or over-the-ear
Accessories
(1/5) – Silicone single-flange tips (3 sizes)
Build Quality
(4/5) – Metal housings have a very solid feel and classy looks. Metal nozzle is very sturdy although the lack of filters is pretty odd-looking. Cabling is strong but plasticky and a cable cinch is nowhere to be found
Isolation
(2.5/5) – Fat housings make it difficult to get a deep seal but they can isolate well even with stock tips if a good fit is achieved
Microphonics
(3.5/5) – Pretty average when worn cord-down, much better over-the-ear
Comfort
(2.5/5) – Shells are quite large and weighty. Insertion is shallow and they can sometimes break seal or even fall out, requiring re-insertion. If inserted deeply enough the edges of the housings can hurt ears
Sound
(6.8/10) – Sound is warm and dynamic. Definitely cannot be called analytical, but can be more fun than the proverbial barrel of monkeys. Soundstage is just a bit wider than average but instrumental separation is quite good. The high end boasts good extension and plenty of detail for a budget-oriented dynamic IEM but has some peaks. The mids also boast good detail and clarity but are somewhat recessed compared to the bass and treble. They need a very good seal for the optimal bass experience, but can be incredibly deep and smooth. Bass often feels layered over the mids rather than integrated, yielding a pretty unique sound signature. The treble can be slightly hot-tempered on some tracks but remains sibilance-free nevertheless.
Amplification – not required to enjoy the smooth, easy-going sound. However, a good neutral amp will bring out more detail and make the Jazz more accurate and balanced all-around performers.
Value
(8.5/10) – The Jazz is a very interesting earphone at its price point. It provides a big, powerful, smooth, and warm sound that keeps it true to its name, and does all this at a bargain-basement price. Should be especially high on the short-list for European Head-Fiers who may have an easier time acquiring one of these than, say, a Nuforce or Maximo product. Price fluctuates wildly, so adjust accordingly. At the lowest-to-date £27 price, these are nothing short of unbeatable.
Pros: Good looking, sturdy, lots of fun, excellent bass and very smooth-sounding overall
Cons: Lacks accessories, large size can lead to fit issues
(3A2) Nuforce NE-6 / NE-7M
Reviewed Nov 2009
Details: Long-time head-fi favorite budget dynamic earphone
Current Price
: N/A (discontinued) (MSRP: $39); $49 for NE-7M with microphone
Specs: Driver:
Dynamic | Imp:
12 Ω | Sens:
100 dB | Freq:
20-22k Hz | Cord:
3.9’ L-plug
Nozzle Size:
5.5mm | Preferred tips:
Comply T400, Soundmagic Bi-flanges
Wear Style:
Straight down or over-the-ear
Accessories
(2.5/5) – Pleather carrying pouch and silicone single-flange tips (three sizes)
Build Quality
(3/5) – Shell is made out of plastic with a metal insert. It feels fairly solid but there are numerous reports of shell splitting at the metal/plastic interface, which happened to my set as well
Isolation
(3.5/5) – Fairly deep fit for solid isolation. Comply tips help further
Microphonics
(4/5) – Very low when worn over-the-ear, but still not too bad otherwise
Comfort
(4/5) – Straight-barrel IEM with a fairly long body. Stemless design very conducive to over-the-ear fit
Sound
(6.1/10) – Not always pitch-perfect but still lots of fun, the NE-7M is smooth, with slight treble roll-off and a voluminous bottom end. Despite the good overall balance, somewhat long decay times at the bottom end give the impression of greater bass quantity. The low end does extend quite deep, though with a noticeable mid-bass emphasis. The midrange is smooth and enjoyable, boasting good clarity and realistic tone. The highs are not too detailed but also not at all fatiguing, rolling off gently near the very top. Overall the sound is a little too colored for my liking but I am sure there are many head-fiers who will find their perfect budget earphone in the NE-6.
Value
(8.5/10) – Though not in a field of its own like it was a year ago, the Nuforce NE-6 and NE-7M are still safe choices in the $50 range. They do nearly everything right and manage to retain the fun factor without significant sacrifices to SQ. And let’s not forget Nuforce’s excellent customer service.
Pros: Comfortable, low microphonics, very solid sound characteristics
Cons: May be too colored for some, not too strong in the highs, common build issues
(3A3) JVC HA-FX300 “Bi-Metals”
Reviewed Nov 2009
Details: JVC’s mid-range IEM featuring a bi-metal construction
Current Price:
$50 from Amazon.com (MSRP: $99.99)
Specs: Driver:
Dynamic | Imp:
16 Ω | Sens:
100 dB | Freq:
8-25k Hz | Cord:
3.3’ I-plug
Nozzle Size:
5.5mm | Preferred tips:
Comply T400
Wear Style:
Over-the-ear
Accessories
(3/5) – Egg-shaped hardcase and asymmetric silicone single-flange tips (three sizes)
Build Quality
(4/5) – Very solid all-metal housing; cabling is identical to the low-end JVC models, which is a bit disappointing at this price point
Isolation
(3/5) – Not designed for deep insertion but the included asymmetric tips do a good job of compensating for the shallow fit. Foamies work better still.
Microphonics
(4/5) – Low due in part to forced over-the-ear design. Same cabling as other JVC models
Comfort
(4/5) – Shells sit in the ear nicely, but could be too large for some. Insertion can be challenging due to the round housing and the way the nozzle is angled
Sound
(4.3/10) – Medium-size soundstage with very good positioning. Sound is slightly cold and metallic, but very dimensional and can be quite fun. Unfortunately, it can also be very tiring with hard rock and metal. Good high-end extension and detail, but treble can sound artificially sharp, especially with silicone tips. I believe the proper term is ‘edgy’. The mids also boast good detail and clarity but are somewhat hollow-sounding and metallic, making the whole midrange sound recessed. The bass is punchy, but not very powerful, missing the ‘oomph’ of some other phones. Accuracy is good but extension could be better.
Value
(6.5/10) – At $50, the FX300s are another solid earphone from JVC, but as with the lower-end models better options can sometimes be had for the price. Sound can be characterized as somewhat bright and aggressive, sometimes harsh. Foam tips help tone down the timbre a bit. Not recommended for hard rock and metal listeners.
Pros: Solid construction, comfortable, low microphonics, good detail and clarity
Cons: Slightly bright with odd peaks in frequency response, can be tiring
(3A4) MEElectronics M11
Reviewed Nov 2009
Details: New MEElectronics flagship. A version with a microphone is also available.
Current Price: N/A (discontinued) (MSRP: $44.99)
pecs: Driver:
Dynamic | Imp:
16 Ω | Freq:
20-20k Hz | Cord:
4.6’ 45°-plug
Nozzle Size:
5.5mm | Preferred tips:
Stock Bi-flanges, Soundmagic PL30 Foamies
Wear Style:
Over-the-ear or Straight down
Accessories
(4.5/5) – Hard clamshell carrying case, cord wrap, airplane adapter, shirt clip, and single- (three sizes), bi-, and tri-flange silicone tips
Build Quality
(4.5/5) – For the price, the build is sublime. Housing is all-metal and has a very solid and weighty feel while at the same time maintaining a feel of being delicately machined. The cable is the same thick and flexible design found on all Meelec IEMs. The only issue with my (silver) set is that the L/R markings printed in a tiny white font are nearly impossible to see under certain lighting.
Isolation
(3.5/5) – The housing is very narrow and they lend themselves well to deep insertion. However, they sound better inserted shallowly with the bi-flanges or foam tips and still isolate quite well
Microphonics
(4.5/5) – Nearly non-existent whether worn cord-up or cord-down
Comfort
(4.5/5) – This is about as good as conventional straight-barrel IEMs get. The housing is tiny but easy to grip when inserting/removing
Sound
(4.4/10) – A more conventional sound signature than the M6 and M9, the M11 is smooth, thick, and intimate but lacks the detail and refinement of the M6. Sound is very dependent on the tips used. Soundstage is lacking but positioning is precise. Certain tips (e.g. Comply foams) can make it sound distant and uninvolving. Good high-end extension but too laid back for my taste. The mids are a little warm, but still very pleasant. Bass is smooth and powerful with a fair amount of reach and decent definition. Overall, they are smoother, warmer, and darker compared to the M6. They would be an interesting alternative but some of the detail and all of the sparkle is lost in the differences.
Value
(7.5/10) – At $36, the M11 is a competitive entry. While slightly below the older M6 SQ-wise, its extreme user-friendliness and stellar build quality make it worth a look. It is one of the most well-designed IEMs I have encountered, and we can only hope that MEElectronics can keep improving their lineup to breed even more well-rounded earphones.
Pros: Outstanding build quality, no microphonics, good bass
Cons: Not as resolving or detailed as the M6
(3A5) Soundmagic PL50
Reviewed Nov 2009
Details: Soundmagic’s flagship IEM and first Armature-based design
Current Price:
$55 from Focalprice.com (MSRP: $55)
Specs: Driver:
BA | Imp:
55.5 Ω | Sens:
109 dB | Freq:
15-22k Hz | Cable:
3.9’ L-plug
Nozzle Size:
4mm | Preferred tips:
Sony Hybrids
Wear Style:
Over-the-ear
Accessories
(4.5/5) – Hard carrying case, a set of over-the-ear cable guides and a large selection of single-flange silicone and foam tips
Build Quality
(4/5) – Housings are tiny and very, very light. The cables are fairly thick, rubberized, and feature articulated strain reliefs at the y-joint and an L-plug. An early batch had problems with removing the stock foam tips, which sometimes resulted in splitting, but this has been resolved.
Isolation
(2.5/5) – Not bad at all but the design does not allow a very deep fit
Microphonics
(4.5/5) – Pretty much nonexistent
Comfort
(5/5) – With properly-fitting tips these are some of the most comfortable IEMs out there. The tiny size and low profile make it easy to forget about them
Sound
(6.9/10) – The sound signature of these is a little different from most of the other IEMs I’ve tried in the price range. Instead of focusing specifically on the bass, the highs, or both, the PL50’s single balanced armature surprises with the smoothness and evenness of response across its entire (rather wide) frequency range. Extension on both ends is quite a bit better than average – on par, if not better than, the better dynamics, which is surprising for a single armature setup, especially at such a low price point. I can see some people finding them bass light, and truly they don’t have any significant humps in the low-end response, but it is very detailed and can be felt as well as heard. Same goes for the highs – just a tiny bit of sparkle, no emphasis. If I had to attribute a term to these, I would call them mid-centric just because nothing draws attention away from the silky-smooth, liquid midrange. Soundstage is above average, but not as airy as the lower-end PL30. Imaging, however, is superb – easily as good as it gets for the price. Overall, the sound they produce is very, very effortless. They are one of the least tiring earphones to listen to in my experience and also very forgiving of poor source material.
Amping: Good if it can be used as a hardware equalizer (i.e. a Fiio E5 with bass boost for those craving more bass), but these are quite efficient and don’t need one in general. They do respond very well to software equalization and can be molded to fit individual preferences quite well.
Value
(8.5/10) – With their unbeatable comfort, excellent accessory set, low microphonics, good build quality, and smooth sound I find very hard to find any cons whatsoever in these for the price. The sound may not be for everyone, but for what they offer they are incredible. I do recommend using them with Sony Hybrid tips, which add about $10 on top of the price but color the sound less than stock foamies and seal better than stock silicone tips.
Pros: Astonishingly comfortable, useful accessory pack, very practical, excellent sound
Cons: Laid back, mid-centric sound signature may be boring to some
More Impressions can be found
here
(3A6) Cyclone PR1 Pro
Reviewed Nov 2009
Details: Discontinued IEM from Chinese manufacturer Cyclone, succeeded by the PR100 and PR200 under their new ECCI brand
Current Price: N/A (discontinued) (MSRP: $55)
Specs: Driver:
Dynamic | Imp:
32 Ω | Sens:
106 dB | Freq:
20-22k Hz | Cable:
4.3’ I-plug j-cord
Nozzle Size:
5.5mm | Preferred tips:
Stock Bi-flanges
Wear Style:
Over-the-ear or straight down
Accessories
(3.5/5) – Silicone single-flange (3 sizes) and bi-flange tips, small clamshell carrying case
Build Quality
(3/5) – Housing is made of metal and sturdy plastic. Metal filters are nice but the lack of strain reliefs is a cause for concern
Isolation
(3/5) – Ported but still adequately isolating, especially with bi-flange tips; slightly susceptible to wind noise
Microphonics
(4.5/5) – Nearly non-existent
Comfort
(4/5) – Very typical of straight barrel IEMs. I find them light and comfortable. J-cord can be a bother
Sound
(7.4/10) –These have a very natural presentation. The soundstage is very wide and airy, with good positioning and separation. They have tremendous clarity across the range and the level of detail they put out, though not on-par with the RE0, is impressive. They have very gradual roll-off at both ends, which results in well-controlled high and low notes. No harsh treble or bass bloat here. I like the bass especially – it can go down pretty deep, but it never imposes and always stays musical. Their unique, gentle signature really agrees with me and works especially well with live recordings, acoustic music, and anything else that can take advantage of the incredible soundstage.
Value
(8.5/10) – The PR1 Pro is stellar value for money when it comes to audio quality. The unique sound signature alone makes them worth the price of admission = there is nothing else in their category that can match the wide open feel of these Unfortunately, the j-cord can be bothersome and many similarly-priced sets offer better build quality.
Pros: Wide, airy sound, great clarity and instrumental separation, comfortable
Cons: Lack strain reliefs on the cords, j-corded
Full review can be found
here
More impressions and a comparison to several competitors can be found
here
(3A7) Skullcandy TiTan
Reviewed Nov 2009
Details: Skullcandy’s latest creation hailed by HeadRoom as a 5-star value
Current Price:
$30 from amazon.com (MSRP: $49.99)
Specs: Driver:
Dynamic | Imp:
16 Ω | Sens:
N/A | Freq:
20-20k Hz | Cable:
4.3’ I-plug
Nozzle Size:
5.5mm | Preferred tips:
Comply T400
Wear Style:
Over-the-ear or straight down
Accessories
(3.5/5) – Mesh clamshell case, single flange silicone tips (Medium), and 2 pairs of Comply T400 foamies. I don’t understand the case since it protects from neither significant impact nor dust
Build Quality
(3/5) – Housings are metal and look pretty solid but still somehow feel cheap. The biggest problem is the “strain reliefs” on housing entry – they are made out of a hard, sharp-edged plastic that’s bound to damage cables over time. The strain relief on the plug isn’t much better. Cabling is a little thin but nicely rubberized and doesn’t tangle much.
Isolation
(2.5/5) – Ported; comply tips help isolation quite a bit
Microphonics
(3/5) – Very microphonic when worn straight-down. Over-the-ear is fine though
Comfort
(2.5/5) – The big metal bulge on the housings hurts my ears after I wear them cable down for more than an hour. Over-the-ear is much better but I still prefer straight-barrel designs
Sound
(4.1/10) – The sound is tolerable. As expected, bass is their focus. I don’t mind big bass when it’s done right, but the Titans are only halfway there. While an improvement over the Ink’d, the bass is still fairly muddy, fat, and slow. The treble is harsh with the stock silicone tips but can be toned down a little with the (included) Comply T400 foamies. The mids are somewhat dry and can boast some clarity but very little detail. Though terms such as “soundstage” and “positioning” are not applicable here, these don’t sound anywhere near as flat as the Ink’d buds – in fact, they are quite full-sounding and dimensional with that massive bass impact - but they are still very confused about where and how far away things are.
Value
(5/10) – They may well be the best-sounding earphone Skullcandy has ever made, but in pure sound quality they are easily beaten by other manufacturers’ similarly-priced offerings. Still, they are a step in the right direction from the Ink’d and FMJ and I am sure that like any Skullcandy product these will often receive massive markdowns, raising their relative value. Do keep in mind that they sound much better with the included Comply tips, replacing which can become costly very quickly.
Pros: Big bass, included Comply tips
Cons: Big bass, harsh treble, painful and microphonic when worn cable-down, longevity concerns
Full review can be found
here
(3A8) Apple Dual-Driver IEMs (ADDIEM)
Reviewed Dec 2009
Details: Apple’s ‘premium’ earphone; one of the cheapest dual-armature IEMs on the market
Current Price:
$57 from bhphotovideo.com (MSRP: $79.99)
Specs: Driver:
Dual BA | Imp:
23 Ω | Sens:
109 dB | Freq:
5-21k Hz | Cable:
4.6’ I-plug
Nozzle Size:
4 mm | Preferred tips:
Sony Hybrids, Stock single-flanges
Wear Style:
Over-the-ear or straight down
Accessories
(2.5/5) - Silicone single-flange tips (3 sizes) and plastic case
Build Quality
(3.5/5) – The front parts of the housings are metal while the rear parts are plastic. Earphones feel well-put together but the cabling is thin and generic. Attention to detail is impressive – Filters can be removed for cleaning, L/R markings are easier to read than most, and the three sets of tips are labeled with their sizes
Isolation
(2.5/5) – Average isolation; quite reasonable for my commute
Microphonics
(4/5) – Slightly present when worn straight down; very low when worn over-the-ear
Comfort
(4/5) – The housings are very small and light. The long stem makes it a little awkward to wear them cord-up but the fit is absolutely effortless cord-down
Sound
(6.5/10) – The sound is analytical and highly detailed. The dual armatures can really dissect a piece of music into fine details and still manage to maintain coherency. The clarity is outstanding for the price and the whole signature is a bit relaxed. I really like the sound these put out – the treble and upper mids are very crisp, the bass is fairly tight and doesn’t creep up, and instrumental separation is good. The mids are nowhere near as liquid as those produced by the other budget BA phone in my possession – the Soundmagic PL50 – and soundstaging is pretty average. They might sound a little “thin” to some but that’s inherent to the signature – for an analytical signature on a budget I can’t find much fault with them.
Value
(8/10) – At the MSRP there are certainly other options out there. However, at the common ebay price of ~$35 these are an excellent earphone to be had. They make a lot of the competition sound muddy and congested but at the same time aren’t cold enough in tone to turn off the average listener. The well-thought-out, tiny housings make these a pleasure to use and the functionality doesn’t lag far behind the ergonomics.
Pros: Nice design touches, very comfortable, some of the crispest sound to be had, iPhone controls may be handy for apple users
Cons: Included case can be a pain to use, hard to wear over-the-ear, may be bass-light for some
(3A9) Maximo iMetal iM-390 / iP-HS3
Reviewed Dec 2009
Details: Maximo’s entry-level earphone
Current Price:
$33 from amazon.com (MSRP: $39.99); $35 for iP-HS3 with mic
Specs: Driver:
Dynamic | Imp: N/A | Sens:
100 dB | Freq:
18-22k Hz | Cable:
4.3’ I-plug
Nozzle Size:
5.5mm | Preferred tips:
stock single-flanges
Wear Style:
Over-the-ear or straight down
Accessories
(4/5) – Hard carrying case with cable winder, 3.5mm to 2.5mm adapter, 2’ extension cable, airline adapter, and single-flange silicone tips (3 sizes)
Build Quality
(3/5) – Housings are metal and feel pretty solid. The biggest problem is the lack of strain relief on housing entry. The cabling itself is on the plasticky side as well, but doesn’t seem too thin. A cable cinch is auspiciously missing and driver flex often rears its ugly head.
Isolation
(2.5/5) – Slightly above average isolation even with stock silicone tips
Microphonics
(3/5) – Present when worn straight-down but much better over-the-ear
Comfort
(2.5/5) – The big metal bulge on the housings hurts my ears after I wear them cable down for more than an hour. Over-the-ear is much better but I still prefer straight-barrel designs
Sound
(4.6/10) – The sound of the iM-390 is fairly run-of-the-mill as far as budget dynamic-driver IEMs go. It is lively, punchy, and warm. The warmth can sometimes cause the tonality of instruments to be a bit unrealistic and the overall lack of detail doesn’t help, but other than that I don’t find them lacking in anything. The tight, impactful bass is fun; the soundstage is about average and features decent positioning; the balance doesn’t seem biased much in any direction, though the treble is slightly recessed. An enjoyable signature overall, and one that bests the similarly-priced and similar-looking Skullcandy Titans in my book.
Value
(6/10) – With a solid set of accessories, decent build quality, and good overall sound the Maximo iM-390 is a competitive earphone in its category. However, the $33 street price is too close to that of Maximo’s higher-end earphone, the iM-590, which bests the iM-390 in every way. I can’t help but feel that the iM-390 would be better off competing at a lower price point, not because it can’t run with the big dogs, but because it’s being pummeled by its own big brother.
Pros: great accessory pack, good sound
Cons: driver flex, can be uncomfortable when worn cable-down
(3A10) Maximo iMetal iM-590 / iP-HS5
Reviewed Dec 2009
Details: Maximo’s current flagship and one of my long-time favourite sub-$50 IEMs
Current Price:
$42 from amazon.com (MSRP: $59.99); $55 for iP-HS5 with mic
Specs: Driver:
Dynamic | Imp: N/A | Sens:
100 dB | Freq:
18-22k Hz | Cable:
4’ I-plug
Nozzle Size:
5mm | Preferred tips:
stock fused bi-flanges
Wear Style:
Over-the-ear or straight down
Accessories
(4.5/5) – Hard carrying case with cable winder, 3.5mm to 2.5mm adapter, 2’ extension cable, airline adapter, shirt clip, and fused bi-flange silicone tips (4 sizes)
Build Quality
(3.5/5) – The metal housings, nylon-sheathed cable, and molded rubber strain reliefs all give the iM-590 a quality feel. There is a bit of driver flex and the rubber molding could potentially become detached from the metal, but overall the iM-590s really feel like a quality product. The cable has a tendency to kink (even more than most nylon cables) but doesn’t tangle much
Isolation
(3/5) – Quite decent with the fused bi-flanges and can be improved slightly with a simple
mod (all credit to ClieOS)
Microphonics
(3/5) – Microphonics are present when worn straight-down but nearly unnoticeable when worn over-the-ear. The included shirt clip helps as well
Comfort
(4/5) – The driver-containing bulge on the housing is smaller and farther from the nozzle than on the lower-end iM-390. It is also concealed by the unique fused bi-flange silicone tips and as a result does not cause discomfort. Aside from the bulge they are relatively thin straight-barrel IEMs and are fittingly comfy
Sound
(6.6/10) – The iM-590 first impressed me many months ago when I used a set as my primary day-to-day IEMs. I am glad to say that despite my now having a much larger IEM stable and far more experience under my belt, the iM-590 still sounds just as good today. The sound is smooth, natural, and very detailed. The neutrality of the iM-590 is uncanny when compared to the majority of the competition, yet they still manage to remain fun and involving. The bass is tight, precise, and just right in quantity. It is also quite deep and will go below 40Hz rolling off only slightly. Actually, extension on both ends is quite impressive – nearly as good as the RE0 on the bottom and pretty respectable at the top. The mids are realistic and well-positioned. The entire sound is quite wide and airy, with impressive clarity and good separation. The highs are fairly crisp and as clear as the rest of the range. If there’s one bone to pick with these is that they can be a tiny bit sibilant at high volumes due to some spikes in the upper mids/lower treble, but other than that they are an excellent choice for anyone looking for a more analytical sound from an IEM.
Value
(8.5/10) – With an excellent accessory pack, solid build quality, and an extremely balanced and enjoyable sound the Maximo iM-590 remains one of my favorite sub-$50 in-ears. They are a downright stellar value for money and have only small flaws – a bit of driver flex, a kink-prone cable, and slight microphonics – that keep them from beating out the Meelectronics earphones and the Soundmagic PL50s in user-friendliness. What I like most, though, is the innovation that went into the design of the iM-590s – from the unique housings to the fused biflange tips to the combined split-slider/shirt clip, the iM-590s seem anything but formulaic in the crowded land of budget earphones.
Pros: great accessory pack, great sound quality, solid build quality and comfort
Cons: some driver flex, need to be worn over-the-ear due to microphonics, cable can kink
(3A11) Zune Premium Headphones V2
Reviewed Dec 2009
Details: Microsoft’s answer to the ADDIEMs – a ‘premium’ earphone for the Zune
Current Price:
$40 from Radioshack (MSRP: $49.99)
Specs: Driver:
Dynamic | Imp: N/A | Sens: N/A | Freq: N/A | Cable:
3.9’ I-plug
Nozzle Size:
5.5mm | Preferred tips:
stock single flanges
Wear Style:
Over-the-ear or straight down
Accessories
(3/5) – Velvet carrying pouch and single flange silicone tips (3 sizes)
Build Quality
(2.5/5) – The housings are made of a lightweight matte plastic. While there are no technical flaws in the molding, I struggle not to call them downright cheap-feeling. The magnets in the housings are a nice touch and help keep the earphones neat. The cloth-wrapped cords are a redeeming factor but the lack of proper strain reliefs makes one wonder how long they will last
Isolation
(3/5) – Surprisingly good for a low-end dynamic IEM
Microphonics
(3.5/5) – Present when worn straight-down but unnoticeable when worn over-the-ear
Comfort
(3/5) – The hous/iings are extremely light and can be worn either cord-up or cord-down. People with smaller ears may have trouble getting a good seal with these, but I like them just fine
Sound
(4.2/10) – The most surprising thing about the sound produced by the Zune buds is just how nondescript the signature is. The sound is quite balanced and neutral – really very inoffensive. The bass is there and neither lacking nor excessive. The treble is neither shrill nor sparkly. I like the fact that these aren’t mainstream-oriented bass cannons but still manage to be fun at times. Clarity is quite good but they could certainly be more detailed. The presentation is also a bit two-dimensional (not much depth), sometimes resulting in a ‘flat’ sound, but the stereo cues are still very easy to grasp. Overall the Zune buds are good performers but lack a musical ‘personality’ that would differentiate them from the competition.
Value
(5/10) – While the Zune buds are respectable performers as far as low-end aftermarket earphones go, the $50 MSRP is not justified by the mediocre build and plain sound. At $20 the Zune buds would be top competitors. At the current price, the magnets just feel like a gimmick designed to drive up the value of an otherwise mediocre product.
Pros: Inoffensive, balanced sound; magnets are handy for storage
Cons: currently overpriced, mediocre build
(3A12) Klipsch Custom 1
Reviewed Jan 2010
Details: Klipsch’s budget single-armature earphone
Current Price:
$60 from amazon.com (MSRP: $129.99)
Specs: Driver:
BA | Imp:
30 Ω | Sens:
108 dB | Freq:
12-19k Hz | Cable:
4.2’ L-plug
Nozzle Size:
3.5mm | Preferred tips:
Sony Hybrids
Wear Style:
Over-the-ear
Accessories
(4/5) – Silicone single-flange (3 sizes) and bi-flange (2 sizes) tips, cleaning tool, and 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 cabling, however, is atrocious. It kinks and tangles endlessly and would be the bane of my existence if these were my primary earphones
Isolation
(3.5/5) – The long, steeply angled nozzles allow the C1 to be inserted quite deeply with smaller tips, resulting in impressive isolation.
Microphonics
(2.5/5) – Quite 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
(4.7/10) –If the frequency response rating of the Custom 1 is to be believed, the single armature is tuned slightly towards the low end to combat the usual bass-light nature of single-armature setups. Bass is indeed present and fairly extended but lacks punch and texture. It’s very tight but too cold for my liking and lacks presence. The midrange is where the strengths of the Custom 1 lie – it’s clear, articulate, smooth, and very musical. Vocals are airy, have good tonal balance, and are well-positioned in the medium-sized stage. Getting up into the high end, though, the C1s again stray away from my expectations. The treble lacks detail and sparkle, as well as dimensionality - the high end is where these quite literally fall flat for me. They can also be unpleasantly bright and edgy, bringing out harshness/sibilance in some tracks. The low impedance of these also results in high amounts of hiss with some amps and sources when running them without an adapter.
Value
(6.5/10) – The current price point of the Klipsch is about right for them to be mildly competitive. The MSRP is excessive for the lackluster sound these single armatures put out. The atrocious cabling helps seal their place in earphone mediocrity but the quirky treble is the real downfall for me. While by no means bad earphones, they just don’t stack up to my many of the dynamics in the price range and can be extremely fatiguing with much of my hard rock and metal. Lovers of vocal genres may want to give these a go but the rest of us would likely do better to pass.
Pros: Comfortable, well-isolating, lush and airy midrange
Cons: Downright awful cabling, excessive microphonics, presence of hiss, lackluster bass & treble
(3A13) VSonic R02ProII
Reviewed Feb 2010
Details: The last earphone released by large Chinese OEM VSonic before the company split
Current Price:
$40 from ebay.com
Specs: Driver:
Dynamic | Imp:
24 Ω | Sens:
105 dB | Freq:
12-25k Hz | Cable:
4.3’ 45°-plug
Nozzle Size:
5.5mm | Preferred tips:
Stock Bi-flanges
Wear Style:
Straight down
Accessories
(3/5) – Single-flange (3 sizes) and bi-flange silicone tips, pleather carrying pouch, and shirt clip
Build Quality
(4.5/5) – The bare housings are shared with the Cyclone PR1 Pro and Lear LE01+ but with an additional rubber strain relief on cord entry. The cabling is different as well – the Teflon-coated silver cable is soft, smooth, tangle-resistant, and has just enough memory character to make it easy to manage
Isolation
(3/5) – Very adequately isolating for a ported dynamic IEM, especially with bi-flange tips
Microphonics
(4/5) – The silver cable doesn’t conduct much noise and the included shirt clips helps
Comfort
(3.5/5) – Quite comfortable when worn straight down but the long strain reliefs prevent over-the-ear wear. Can be inserted fairly deeply with the biflange tips.
Sound
(6.4/10) – The R02ProII is the last revision of VSonic’s flagship released before the company split up. Though VSonic is an OEM for quite a few earphones in this lineup, the sound signature of the R02 is unique, featuring an intimate soundstage and a decidedly in-head sound. The low end is impactful and surprisingly extended. Mid-bass is emphasized slightly but doesn’t throw off the balance. It does creep up slightly on the lower midrange, giving the sound some coloration. The mids are slightly warm and quite full. Both the midrange and treble are extremely smooth – definitely no sibilance here. Extension at the high end is better on the Cyclone PR1 and the Head-Direct RE2, but not by much. The smoothness also ends up glossing over some of the fine detail but the overall sound is very ‘likeable’, beating the far more popular Nuforce NE-6 and Head-Direct RE2 in my book.
Value
(8.5/10) – The R02ProII falls in the same price category as the Cyclone PR1 but offers a very different sound – intimate, bassy, and slightly warm. It’s a very dynamic and likeable earphone and the revised build addresses the issues I had with the PR1, with proper strain reliefs all around and excellent cabling. For those in search of an all-around budget earphone with a slightly warm midrange and solid bass punch the R02ProII should be in the running.
Pros: Balanced, intimate, and slightly warm sound; excellent cabling
Cons: L/R markings hard to see, no cord cinch, susceptible to wind noise
More impressions and a comparison to several competitors can be found
here
(3A14) Music Valley SP1
Reviewed Feb 2010
Details: First model from Chinese manufacturer Music Valley, promisingly dubbed ‘Silver Prologue One’
Current Price: N/A (discontinued) (MSRP: $55)
Specs: Driver:
Dynamic | Imp:
39 Ω | Sens:
107 dB | Freq:
10-26k Hz | Cable:
4.3’ I-plug
Nozzle Size:
5.5mm | Preferred tips:
Soundmagic Single Flange, Faux Hybrids
Wear Style:
Straight down or over-the-ear
Accessories
(2.5/5) – Imitation Sony Hybrid tips (3 sizes), Soundmagic-style foamies, and shirt clip
Build Quality
(3/5) – Made completely out of plastic and with a cheap-feeling plasticky cable the SP1 does not impress. Lack of strain reliefs does not help
Isolation
(2.5/5) – Oddly-shaped housings make isolation somewhat mediocre. Nozzle is not angled as it is on the similarly-shaped JVC HA-FXC50
Microphonics
(3/5) – Can be bothersome when moving about
Comfort
(3/5) – My problem with these is the same as with the JVC HA-FXC50 – when the plastic process on the side of the housing is hooked into the antitragus of my ear the plastic strain relief hurts the bottom of my ear quite badly. I find them hard to wear for more than an hour at a time unless I use longer tips and flip the housings upside down
Sound
(6.6/10) – The sound of the SP1 does not disappoint - it is a very detailed and well-balanced earphone that falls just short of the Cyclone PR1 in overall clarity. Soundstaging is average but the sonic images are all where they need to be, with the vocals upfront and drums at the back. Bass is extended and tight with the right tips (fit is the limiting factor as the stock single-flange tips sound great but don’t seal for me). Low-end texturing is impressive and the quantity of bass makes low-end detail easier to distinguish than with the Cyclones. The mid-range is recessed slightly compared to the bass and on the dark side, but still quite lush and rich. Compared again to the Cyclones the midrange sounds thicker and more liquid at the expense of some of the clarity and instrumental separation, making them sound just a bit more congested. The treble is less extended and lacks sparkle. Overall, the SP1 are smooth and non-fatiguing, quite detailed, and with very punchy and well-behaved bass.
Value
(6/10) – Though the MV SP1 offer a wider soundstage and a bit more detail than the VSonic R02ProII, they lack the usability factor of the R02. I would prefer a more conventional housing, which would alleviate the mediocre comfort and isolation issues. A nicer cable would do wonders as well. With rumors of a new Music Valley model on the horizon, the sound of the Silver Prologue One makes me quite anxious to hear the successor.
Pros: Smooth, dark, non-fatiguing sound
Cons: hit-or-miss comfort, tangle-prone cable, no cord cinch, may sound too dark for some
More impressions and a comparison to several competitors can be found
here
(3A15) Lear Le01
Reviewed Feb 2010
Details: Entry-level earphone branded as a Lear and OEM’d by VSonic
Current Price: N/A (discontinued) (MSRP: $35)
Specs: Driver:
Dynamic | Imp:
20 Ω | Sens:
112 dB | Freq:
12-26k Hz | Cable:
4.3’ I-plug
Nozzle Size:
5.5mm | Preferred tips:
Stock Bi-flanges
Wear Style:
Over-the-ear or straight down
Accessories
(2/5) – Single-flange (3 sizes) and bi-flange silicone tips and shirt clip
Build Quality
(2/5) – All-plastic version of the Cyclone PR1 Pro housing. No strain reliefs and the thin rubberized cable is quite tangle-prone
Isolation
(3/5) – Very adequate for a ported dynamic IEM, especially with bi-flange tips
Microphonics
(4.5/5) – Nearly non-existent when worn over-the-ear; very low otherwise
Comfort
(4.5/5) – All-plastic housing is weightless and can easily be worn cord-up or cord-down
Sound
(5.8/10) – The signature is quite flat and neutral but the tonal balance and texturing could be better. The Le01 are not bass-heavy earphones and lag slightly behind the Cyclones and other higher-end models in control and accuracy, sounding just a little boomy. Low-end extension isn’t quite on par with the VSonics and the Music Valleys. The midrange is forward in the average-sized soundstage and boasts good clarity, falling slightly behind the Cyclones. The treble is quite accurate and fairly extended, if somewhat grainy. All things considered I like the sound of the Le01. Considering the fact that it is a bottom-of-the-range earphone from a little-known Chinese company, the Le01 is a stellar performer.
Value
(7.5/10) – Despite the low-rent plastic build, the Lear Le01 is a good all-around earphone that lacks the smoothness and refinement of higher-end models. It is one of the better-balanced earphones in the price range and a clear upgrade from the usual Soundmagic/JVC budget crop. Despite the lack of emphasis on bass and/or treble the Le01 still manages to sound fun and full, which alone makes it worthy of consideration in this price range.
Pros: Balanced and clear sound, very competent all-around
Cons: tangle-prone cabling, no cord cinch, mediocre construction
More impressions and a comparison to several competitors can be found
here
(3A16) Lear Le01+
Reviewed Feb 2010
Details: ‘Pro’ version of the Le01, boasting better build quality and enhanced bass
Current Price: N/A (discontinued) (MSRP: $50)
Specs: Driver:
Dynamic | Imp:
40 Ω | Sens:
112 dB | Freq:
12-26k Hz | Cable:
4.3’ I-plug
Nozzle Size:
5.5mm | Preferred tips:
Stock Bi-flanges
Wear Style:
Over-the-ear or straight down
Accessories
(2.5/5) – Single-flange (3 sizes) and bi-flange silicone tips, Soundmagic-style black foamies, and shirt clip
Build Quality
(3/5) – Same plastic/metal housing as the PR1 Pro and R02ProII but with half-length strain reliefs and the same thin, tangle-happy cord as the Le01
Isolation
(3/5) – Very adequate for a ported dynamic IEM, especially with bi-flange tips
Microphonics
(4.5/5) – Nearly non-existent when worn over-the-ear; very low otherwise
Comfort
(4/5) – Just a bit heavier than the all-plastic Le01, the Le01+ is still a very comfortable IEM whether worn cord-up or cord-down
Sound
(5.3/10) – The Le01+, besides offering a better build than the Le01, “improves” on the sound by adding a large mid-bass hump to the sound signature. Though the mid-bass is downright overpowering at times, the tuning also improves low-end extension and the Le01+ can drop below an impressive 25Hz. The boom found in the bass of the Le01 is magnified by the hump, which is also large enough to creep up on the lower midrange and makes them sound a good amount warmer and darker than the Le01. The resulting sound smoothes over some fine detail and causes a loss in the crispness of the Le01 but provides for a less grainy and ‘plasticky’ overall sound. The change from the Le01 is personally not to my liking but the signature of the Le01+ is certainly a more popular one.
Value
(6/10) – The Le01+ is recommended only for die-hard bassheads. Tuned for the maximum possible mid-bass response, the resulting mountain of bass negatively affects mid-range detail, clarity, and separation. Though the sound becomes fuller and smoother, the drop in resolution is detrimental to my personal enjoyment of the earphones. I feel like the Le01 is more of an audiophile set despite its small flaws while the pricier and better-built Le01+ is geared toward the mainstream market.
Pros: Bassy, smooth, and more organic-sounding than the Le01
Cons: Mid-bass can be excessive, sound is not as clear and detailed as the Le01, tangle-prone cabling, no cord cinch
More impressions and a comparison to several competitors can be found
here
(3A17) Ankit Stay True
Reviewed Mar 2010
Details: New line of fashion-conscious IEMs from Ankit
Current Price: N/A (discontinued) (MSRP: $49.99)
Specs: Driver: N/A | Imp: N/A | Sens: N/A | Freq: N/A | Cable:
3.9’ I-plug
Nozzle Size:
3mm| Preferred tips:
Jays Single flanges
Wear Style:
Straight down
Accessories
(1/5) – Single-flange silicone tips (3 sizes)
Build Quality
(4/5) – Weighty housings made of a thick, sturdy plastic with metal designs attached. Cable is fairly thick and rubberized to reduce tangling but lacks strain relief
Isolation
(3/5) – Insertion depth is quite good due to angled nozzles, yielding reasonable isolation
Microphonics
(4.5/5) – Nearly nonexistent
Comfort
(4/5) – Angled-nozzle design makes them quite comfortable for prolonged stretches
Sound
(5.5/10) – Ankit’s marketing mumbo-jumbo lauds something called ‘G-Bass Technology’, which is said to reduce low-end clipping and provide deep, clear bass. Unexpectedly, I found these claims to be true to a surprising extent. The bass response can occasionally be slightly boomy, but no more than certain head-fi favorites and certainly not enough to make the Ankits sound unbalanced, remaining taut and dynamic most of the time. Sub-bass extension is very reasonable although there is a mid/upper-bass emphasis that gives a small amount of coloration to the midrange. Vocals are slightly on the warm side of neutral. Clarity is good and the mids are lush and thick, though some microdetail is glossed over. Treble presentation is soft, almost timid, but at least they steer far clear of sibilance. There are some peaks in the lower treble but not enough to cause harshness. Soundstaging is average, with adequate width and depth and decent separation. Drums are sometimes brought too far forward for my liking, but for the most part everything is positioned properly in the sonic stage. Overall, the sound is natural and boasts good dynamics and a surprising amount of clarity, definitely an enjoyable signature, even if it is not one to be used for monitoring purposes.
Value
(7/10) – The Ankit Stay True earphones offer an ergonomic design, above-average isolation, solid build quality, and four unique visual styles. With sound quality to match their practicality, the Ankit earphones should not be dismissed as another blingy piece of jewelry for the Skullcandy generation. Smooth, natural, and very enjoyable, the sound is refined enough for these to be among IEMs to consider in the sub-$50 range. If turning heads is a priority alongside all of the usual concerns, the Ankit earphones might just beat out the best of the rest in the crowded market.
Pros: Comfortable, reasonable isolation, almost zero microphonics, unique looks, engaging and natural sound
Cons: Meager accessories, poor strain reliefs on cable
Full review can be found
here
(3A18) ECCI PR200
Reviewed Mar 2010
Details: The pricier of the two ECCI models currently on the market, the PR200 is related very closely to its lower-end PR100 sibling
Current Price: N/A (discontinued) (MSRP: $45)
Specs: Driver:
Dynamic | Imp:
55 Ω | Sens:
102 dB | Freq:
20-20k Hz | Cable:
3.9’ I-plug
Nozzle Size:
5.5mm | Preferred tips:
Stock (wide-tube) single flanges
Wear Style:
Over-the-ear or straight down
Accessories
(3.5/5) - Narrow-tube (3 sizes) and wide-tube (3 sizes) single-flange silicone tips, shirt clip, and oversize clamshell carrying case
Build Quality
(4/5) – Sturdy two-piece metal shells feel solid and are finished in a handsome gunmetal color with the model name etched on the front. The dark-grey TPE (Thermoplastic Elastomer) cable is thick and sturdy, with proper strain reliefs on cable entry and a functional cord cinch. Sadly, the translucent hard plastic sheath on the 3.5mm plug is more likely to damage to the cord than protect it, tainting an otherwise excellent build
Isolation
(3.5/5) – The extra long nozzles allow for deep insertion of the earphones, boosting isolation above what one would expect for a ported straight-barrel dynamic. On the downside, the bottom-facing vents make the earphones more susceptible than most to wind noise
Microphonics
(3.5/5) –bothersome when worn cord-down; good otherwise
Comfort
(4/5) – The extra-long sound tube allows the earphones to be inserted deeply without pressing the wearer’s ear into the housings - a good thing as the front edges of the shells are rather sharp. Short strain reliefs and elongated bodies make the earphones easy to wear cord-up as well as cord-down. Either way they are quite comfortable for prolonged listening sessions
Sound
(5.9/10) – The sound of the PR200 is extremely similar to that of the lower-end PR100. It is similarly-balanced with tight bass, smooth mids, and relaxed treble. The differences between the two models are actually rather minute – the higher-impedance PR200 boasts better clarity, a smoother and more balanced frequency response, slightly better imaging, and deeper bass extension. It is also expectedly difficult to drive, requiring several more volume notches from my mp3 player and tightening up better with a portable amp than the PR100. The PR200 also exhibits no hiss with my netbook’s not-too-clean HPO while the 16Ω PR100 hisses slightly.
Value
(7.5/10) – The ECCI PR200 is best summarized as a slightly-more-refined version of the cheaper PR100. Whether the price premium is justified is a personal preference. Make no mistake – the PR200 is the sonically superior earphone, but the competition is a bit stiffer at its price point than that of the PR100. If using the earphones with a not-so-clean source like a laptop or hissy DAP (e.g. Amp3), the PR200 is easily worth the extra money. But if the PR200 didn’t fit in my budget, I would not fret settling for the PR100.
Pros: Good isolation and build quality, comfortable, balanced sound
Cons: Microphonics can be bothersome
Full review can be found
here.
(3A19) Audio-Technica ATH-CK6
Reviewed Apr 2010
Details: Mid-range dynamic-driver earphone from Audio-Technica
Current Price: N/A (discontinued) (MSRP: $59.99)
Specs: Driver:
Dynamic | Imp:
16 Ω | Sens:
100 dB | Freq:
15-28k Hz | Cable:
4’ I-plug
Nozzle Size:
N/A (Oval)| Preferred tips:
Stock Single flanges
Wear Style:
Over-the-ear or straight down
Accessories
(3/5) – Single-flange silicone tips (3 sizes), detachable ear inserts (3 styles), and soft carrying pouch
Build Quality
(3/5) – Housings are made of metal with oval-shaped plastic nozzles and paper filters. Though strain reliefs are excellent all-around, the cabling itself is hugely disappointing (especially coming from the excellent cables on the ATH-CK10) – thin, rubberized, and prone to kinking. The cable tangles itself into a ball of knots if you so much as think about it
Isolation
(2/5) – Poor due to shallow insertion and vented design
Microphonics
(3/5) – Cable is too energetic and tends to bounce around a lot. Lack of cord cinch and shirt clip means these have to be worn over-the-ear to be usable
Comfort
(4/5) – Small, light housings make them very easy to wear. The rubber ear inserts can be used to further stabilize them but aren’t necessary
Sound
(3.9/10) – Unfortunately the ATH-CK6 is decidedly underwhelming when it comes to sound quality. The bass lacks extension, is boomy, and becomes somewhat muddy on dense tracks. There is no definite moment of impact, which results in drums sounding too soft and at times hollow. The midrange is veiled and vocals lack both presence and smoothness. Treble is harsh and tiring. The entire signature lacks clarity and resolution. On the upside, they don’t sound closed and soundstaging is better than average. A small consolation but it made listening to them for a few days bearable.
Value
(3.5/10) – I wanted to like Audio-Technica’s mid-range offering, I really did. But the ATH-CK6 suffers from mediocrity on all fronts, from isolation to sound to build quality. All things considered it’s just not a very strong competitor in an increasingly crowded field. The line is due for a refresh anyway and hopefully Audio-Technica will apply at least some of the design principles of their top-tier entries to the mid-range earphones.
Pros: Very small, light, and comfortable
Cons: Poor isolation, awful cable, no cable cinch, non-standard nozzle shape, mediocre sound
(3A20) ViSang R02 / Brainwavz ProAlpha
Reviewed May 2010
Details: ViSang’s budget-oriented model, familiar in both sound and appearance
Current Price:
$40 from ebay.com (MSRP: $45)
Specs: Driver:
Dynamic | Imp:
20 Ω | Sens:
112 dB | Freq:
20-20k Hz | Cable:
4.2' I-plug (note: latest version carries 45°-plug)
Nozzle Size:
5.5mm | Preferred tips:
Stock biflanges
Wear Style:
Over-the-ear or straight down
Note: The mp4nation Brainwavz ProAlpha is identical to the R02 in every way except the 3.5mm plug (45-degree plug identical to that on the Beta Brainwavz is used on the ProAlpha)
Accessories
(4/5) – Single- (3 sizes) and bi-flange silicone tips, shirt clip, and clamshell carrying case
Build Quality
(4/5) – Generic IEM housings used by Cyclone/Lear/VSonic but with short functional strain reliefs. Cable is identical to that of the ViSang R03 – a twisted Cu-Ag alloy cord that is tough yet flexible but lacks a cable cinch and has some long-term memory character
Isolation
(3/5) – Very adequate for a ported dynamic IEM, especially with bi-flange tips
Microphonics
(4/5) – Slightly noticeable when worn cord-down, negligible otherwise
Comfort
(4/5) – Lighter than the R03 and very unobtrusive despite the slightly larger housings. Can easily be worn cord-up or cord-down. Work best with a relatively shallow fit
Sound
(6.7/10) – Like the R03, the R02 boast a full-bodied and weighty low end with an emphasis on mid- and upper bass. The low end is very smooth and calm, completely unobtrusive until called for. The tonal balance is slightly dark, with a warmed-up midrange and treble that is devoid of sparkle. The midrange is right where it needs to be, clean and clear and with no lack of emphasis. Detail is very good for the price, though the R02 is certainly no RE0, especially in the treble. Soundstage width is quite good and seems to be one of the areas in which the R02 has the R03 beat by a very narrow margin. Depth is similarly average, though instruments are very well-separated and imaged.
The midrange transitions effortlessly into the treble becoming a bit more laid-back along the way. Treble smoothness is very impressive and extension is perfectly tolerable, though not class leading. The treble is never fatiguing – harshness and sibilance are terms the R02 is not familiar with. Overall, the treble of both ViSang earphones takes a backseat to the bass and mids, though I wouldn’t go so far as to call them recessed at the top. Like the R03, the R02 also surprise with their speed, which is very close to the much more expensive and very fast Monster Turbines, and natural timbre, which really puts most of the other sub-$50 earphones to shame.
As for the differences between the two ViSang models, they are minute and most likely resulting from the different acoustic properties of their respective housings. The R03 sounds a little bit thicker and more ‘concentrated’ in tone, with the R02 sounding slightly more diffuse in comparison, with less immediate bass punch and more ethereal positioning. The R03 seems to place instruments with slightly more precision than the R02 but again the differences are extremely minute. I am sure there are head-fiers out there who would be able to tell the two apart without a direct comparison but I am not among them and the average consumer probably isn’t either.
Value
(9/10) – The ViSang R02 is more than just another high bang/buck contender for the best sub-$50 IEM title. With the release of the R02, ViSang has nearly undercut their own higher-end R03 model and really taken the sub-$50 bang/buck crown from the defunct Cyclone PR1 Pro. The sonic differences between the two ViSang models are small. What it comes down to is the generic housings used on the R02 versus the excellent metal shells of the R03. The R02 housings are slightly larger in volume and look a bit bigger in the ear. There are other small differences – such as the R02 being slightly susceptible to wind noise – but for many users I would expect the R02 to be the better deal.
Pros: Time-tested design, solid build quality, bi-flange tips included (unlike R03), solid sound quality
Cons: Cord has a bit of memory character
(3A21) Woodees IESW101B
Reviewed May 2010
Details: Budget wooden earphone from Canadian car audio firm iConnects
Current Price:
$42 from Amazon.com (MSRP: $69.99)
Specs: Driver:
Dynamic | Imp:
16 Ω | Sens:
105 dB | Freq:
20-20k Hz | Cable:
4’ I-plug
Nozzle Size:
5.5mm | Preferred tips:
Comply T/Tx400
Wear Style:
Over-the-ear or straight down
Accessories
(3/5) – Single-flange silicone tips (4 sizes), shirt clip, and black velour drawstring pouch
Build Quality
(3/5) – The light housings don’t feel particularly solid next to other wooden earphones. The painted-on logos and L/R markings tend to rub off and the metal mesh filters are too small to cover the entire nozzle opening. The cable is thick and decently relieved but has a tendency to tangle
Isolation
(3/5) – Fairly average due to shallow fit
Microphonics
(3.5/5) – Present when worn cord-down, very low when worn over-the-ear
Comfort
(3.5/5) – While very light, the housings of the Woodees are actually rather large. Those with smaller ears may have trouble getting a good fit. Despite the long strain reliefs they can be worn comfortably over-the-ear
Sound
(6.6/10) – The sound of the IESW101B is quite similar to the Thinksound TS01. Compared head-to-head, the IESW101B are the more analytical earphone of the two. The bass is accented slightly but remains tight and punchy, with less extension but better linearity than the TS01. A slight bit of warmth is added to the midrange but bass bleed is kept to a minimum. Overall the mids are lush and smooth, not forward but not recessed, either. Detail and clarity are both on par with other sub-$50 IEMs and a bit more apparent on the Woodees than the Thinksounds. Towards the upper midrange/lower treble, the Woodees exhibit mild harshness/sibilance, accented by the brightness of the treble. Comply foam tips can help attenuate some of the treble peaks and bring a bit more balance to the sound. The upper-end extension of the Woodees is quite decent and the bright sound gives the illusion of even greater clarity and air. Soundstage width is quite good and instruments are evenly distributed, as opposed the competing Thinksounds, which boast better depth but a more intimate overall presentation.
Value
(7.5/10) – The IESW101B are excellent earphones in their price bracket. Though the build could be better, they still feel like a quality product and compete well against other sub-$50 earphones. The lively sound signature is a good compromise between the more analytical sound of earphones like the ADDIEM and Head-Direct RE2 and the ‘fun’ signatures of the Thinksound TS01, Nuforce NE-6, and Meelec M6. Best of all, the sound qualities ascribed to the Woodees by the iConnects marketing team are not fluff – wooden housings or not, these earphones deliver.
Pros: Solid performance
Cons: Sloppy build quality, large housings, slightly harsh-sounding
For a more in-depth review and comparisons to the Thinksound TS01 see
here.
(3A22) Thinksound TS01 / Thunder
Reviewed May 2010
Details: The cheaper of Thinksound’s two wooden IEMs, the TS01 boasts enhanced bass response over the higher-end Rain
Current Price:
$45 from Amazon.com (MSRP: $74.99)
Specs: Driver:
Dynamic | Imp:
16 Ω | Sens: N/A | Freq:
20-20k Hz | Cable:
4’ I-plug
Nozzle Size:
5.5mm | Preferred tips:
Comply T/Tx400
Wear Style:
Over-the-ear or straight down
Accessories
(3/5) – Single-flange silicone tips (4 sizes), shirt clip, and unbleached cotton drawstring pouch
Build Quality
(4/5) – The wooden housings are accented by machined-aluminum nozzles. Combined with the etched L/R markings and general attention to detail, the Thinksounds have a very upmarket feel. The short strain reliefs are functional and the rubberized cable, despite being rather thin, doesn’t tangle much. The 3.5mm I-plug is well-relieved and sturdy. Mild driver flex is present
Isolation
(3/5) – Fairly average due to massive rear vent
Microphonics
(4/5) – Slightly bothersome when worn cord-down, very low worn over-the-ear
Comfort
(4.5/5) – The housings of the TS01 are very small and taper towards the rear, cradling snugly in the ear. The TS01 is one of the few straight-barrel IEMs I can actually sleep in, which says quite a lot. The short strain reliefs are conducive to cord-up fitment
Sound
(6.5/10) – Like the slightly cheaper Woodees IESW101B, the sound of the Thinksound TS01 is lush and full, with accented bass and warmed-up mids. The TS01 have better low-end extension, more convincing timbre, and better texturing than the Woodees, resulting in an even more full-bodied low end response. The hefty low end imparts a bit of coloration and warmth on the midrange, making it sound lush and sweet. The midrange is a bit veiled compared directly to the flatter and more even-sounding Woodees but in the context of the Thinksounds sound it is nothing to complain about. Like the Woodees, the Thinksounds exhibit some unevenness in the upper midrange and lower treble, leading to mild sibilance and a tiny bit of harshness. Occasionally the crack of a drum is really jarring with the TS01, more so due to the contrast with the extremely smooth and liquid nature of the bass and lower mids. Using foam tips helps soak up some of the roughness in the upper reaches. The treble is fairly prominent on the Thinksounds but not as bright as with the Woodees. The Thinksounds also boast impressive soundstage depth, resulting in a more ‘layered’ sound and greater dimensionality, but overall the TS01 is definitely an intimate-sounding earphone, which actually works rather well with the sound signature.
Value
(8/10) – Though retailing for full MSRP at their inception, the Thinksounds have since fallen to a much more reasonable price. With their enhanced bass response, warm midrange, and intimate presentation the TS01 present a very coherent sonic picture that’s sure to appeal not only to audiophiles but to casual music listeners as well. Very comfortable and surprisingly well-built, the TS01 also compete well on the functionality front. Thinksound’s environmental angle adds value to the proposition but even those who don’t care are still getting a great set of earphones at a reasonable price.
Pros: Great aesthetics and attention to detail, solid performance, environmentally-friendly design & packaging
Cons: Mild driver flex, can be slightly sibilant with silicone tips
For a more in-depth review and comparisons to the Woodees IESW101B see
here.
(3A23) Brainwavz M1
Reviewed May 2010
Details: Latest budget offering from mp4nation’s house brand
Current Price:
$40 from mp4nation.net (MSRP: $40)
Specs: Driver:
Dynamic | Imp:
32 Ω | Sens:
110 dB | Freq:
20-20k Hz | Cable:
4.2’ 45°-plug
Nozzle Size:
5.5mm | Preferred tips:
Generic biflanges
Wear Style:
Over-the-ear or straight down
Accessories
(4/5) - Single-flange silicone tips (3 sizes), shirt clip, and hard clamshell case
Build Quality
(3.5/5) - Housings are identical to those used by the Cyclone PR1 Pro – light and sturdy but lacking strain relief. The cable is identical to that of the ViSang R02/R03 – a twisted Cu-Ag alloy cord that is tough yet flexible. Unlike the ViSang earphones, however, the Brainwavz are terminated with a sturdy 45-degree plug
Isolation
(3/5) – Very adequate for a ported dynamic IEM, especially with bi-flange tips
Microphonics
(4/5) - Slightly noticeable when worn cord-down but wearing them over-the-ear is easy and a shirt clip is included
Comfort
(4/5) – Lighter than the R03/M2 and very unobtrusive despite the slightly larger housings. Can easily be worn cord-up or cord-down. Work best with a relatively shallow fit
Sound
(7/10) – The sound of the Brainwavz M1 builds on the shared sound signature of the ViSang R03 and R02, which I’ve already reviewed at length. The 32Ω impedance of the M1 seems to be the major change from the R03/R02 specs. Aside from needing a bit of extra volume to achieve the same SPL as the R02/R03, the most noticeable thing about the sound of the M1 is that the bass is rather underemphasized compared to the ViSang earphones. They are by no means bass-light but the lack of as great of an artificial boost means that the M1 lacks the bass impact and extension of the R02/R03. The nature of the low end is more punchy and less boomy than with the R03/R02, though the difference is small. The R03/R02 are simply a little more powerful and immediate when it comes to reproducing bass, especially hard bass on rap and D&B tracks. The M1 is more laid back, more balanced. Vocals are placed a bit farther back and so are the drums, which is good in a way – drums tend to step out of line with the R03/R02. However, the treble is also slightly less sparkly despite the fact that the R03/R02 are nearly devoid of sparkle to start with. Still, the more laid-back presentation at the bottom does make the M1 sound more balanced.
The midrange is similar between the three. Smooth and non-fatiguing, it allows for a mellow but engaging listening experience. The R03 sounds a bit thicker than the R02/M1 and both ViSang earphones are warmer than the M1. In terms off presentation, the M1 has a wider left-right soundstage but a smaller range of depth (meaning it doesn't convey intimacy quite as well as the R02/R03). Distance is conveyed properly but I don't think the imaging is as good as the R03 – closer to the more ethereal positioning of the R02 but less intimate and a bit less accurate.
Value
(9.5/10) – The Brainwavz M1 are another very strong contender for the bang/buck crown. Like the ViSang R02, the M1s are a steal at the $40 mp4nation plans to ask for them. They are neither better nor worse than the similarly-priced ViSang R02 – simply different. The slightly more balanced signature is not as heavy-hitting as the ViSang earphones and Brainwavz M2 tend to be. The warmth of the earphones is reduced and some of the thickness is gone but the soundstage is more evenly spaced and distance is relayed quite well. The lack of a strain relief is slightly disheartening but the cable is extremely solid and the new 45-degree plug is excellent. Comfort, isolation, and microphonics are all what I’ve come to expect from earphones of this caliber. Listening to the M1 makes it perfectly clear to me that we are moving in the right direction – and any earphone that makes me feel this way is well-worth my hard-earned money.
Pros: Class-leading sound quality, great all-around usability
Cons: Cord has a bit of memory character, no strain reliefs on cable entry
Full review can be found
here.
(3A24) Klipsch Image S2 / X1
Reviewed May 2010
Details: Entry-level dynamic IEM from Klipsch
Current Price: N/A (discontinued) (MSRP: $49.99)
Specs: Driver:
Dynamic | Imp:
18 Ω | Sens:
106 dB | Freq:
12-18k Hz | Cable:
4.2’ L-plug
Nozzle Size:
3mm | Preferred tips:
Klipsch oval gels
Wear Style:
Over-the-ear or straight down
Accessories
(2.5/5) - Single-flange Klipsch oval gels (3 sizes) and cloth carrying pouch
Build Quality
(4/5) - The tubular plastic housings feel sturdy. The strain reliefs feel a bit too hard to be protective but the plastic cabling is thicker than that found on the S4 and the 3.5mm L-plug is well-relieved
Isolation
(3.5/5) - Tubular housings can be inserted rather deeply and the Klipsch ovals provide a good seal
Microphonics
(3/5) - Annoying when worn cord-down; fine otherwise
Comfort
(3.5/5) - Quite light and comfortable but fairly long and not entirely trivial to wear over-the-ear for those with smaller ears
Sound
(5.4/10) – Like that of their big brother, the Image S4, the sound of the S2 is very impressive at the outset; the flaws of the signature set in only with prolonged exposure. At their core the S2 are bottom-heavy earphones. They extend quite deep at the low end and provide gobs of impact with a proper seal. The impact has a softer character than that of the S4, making it sound slightly wooly and imprecise. Sub-bass is present but mid-bass is the dominant range and tends to cut into other frequencies when aggravated. The low end lacks the speed of something like the ViSang R02 but for the price it is quite lively and informative. The midrange is slightly warm and very smooth, positioned a bit too far back for an earphone with such a hefty low end but still boasting good presence. Midrange detail is impressive and clarity is quite competitive at the price point. The lower treble seems boosted for balance but is still slightly laid-back overall, lacking the sparkle and brightness of some of the competitors. As a result the S2 can’t quite keep up with the crispness and top-end detail present in earphones such as the Head-Direct RE2 and ADDIEM. For those bothered by hot treble, though, the S2 is a perfect match.
In terms of presentation the S2 come across as slightly confused and confusing. The soundstage is large in width but feels lacking in depth. The somewhat laid-back midrange results in a lack of intimacy so the presentation is hardly linear. Positioning precision could be better and instrumental separation is sub-par next to the ADDIEMs and Maximo iM-590. The S2 still do a good job of conveying a sense of space but never sound particularly airy. There are certainly genres they excel at – soft rock and jazz, for example, sound excellent. But when things start getting busy, the flaws of the sonic signature start to shine through the smooth veneer. A point to note is that despite boasting similar specs to Klipsch’s Custom line, the S2 are actually a bit harder to drive not nearly as prone to hissing.
Value (7.5/10) – The Klipsch S2 are capable IEMs, no doubt about that, but the competition is stern at the $50 price point. Not all music genres benefit from their peculiar presentation and treble junkies in general will probably be left wanting a little more balance out of them. Purely in terms of sound quality, they are hardly disappointing but in my opinion not particularly noteworthy at regular price. As a total package, however, the S2 might be the ticket for those in search of a well-built IEM with impressive isolation and a smooth, dynamic sound signature.
Pros: Solid build quality, impressive isolation, smooth and impactful sound
Cons: Slightly prone to wind noise, can be microphonic
(3A25) Arctic Sound E361
Reviewed Jun 2010
Details:Flagship IEM from Swedish PC components manufacturer Arctic Cooling
MSRP:
$32 from amazon.com; $35 for E361-WM/BM with microphone (E361-BM shown)
Specs: Driver:
Dynamic | Imp:
32 Ω | Sens:
105 dB | Freq:
18-26k Hz | Cable:
4.2’ L-plug
Nozzle Size:
5.5mm | Preferred tips:
Stock single-flanges
Wear Style:
Over-the-ear or straight down
Accessories
(4.5/5) - Single-flange silicone tips (3 sizes), hard clamshell carrying case, shirt clip, Arctic Cooling sticker, and PC headset/microphone adapter
Build Quality
(3/5) The front part of the earpiece is encapsulated in an aluminum shell while the rear part, nozzle, and strain relief are plastic. Sadly, the cable is quite thin and the hard strain reliefs are unlikely to relieve any strain
Isolation
(3/5) - Quite impressive for a ported dynamic-driver IEM. The angled nozzles help with insertion depth and the thick stock tips seem to isolate more than most
Microphonics
(4/5) - Very low when worn cord-down and absent when worn cord-up
Comfort
(4.5/5) - The ergonomic angled-nozzle design and light housings make them very comfortable for prolonged use and easy to wear cable-up or cable-down. The included silicone ear cushions are smaller than average, making the E361 quite friendly toward those with smaller ears
Sound
(4.4/10) – The arbitrary 10-point ratings on the Arctic Sound website give the E361 a 9/10 rating in bass, a 10/10 in the treble, and a 9/10 for clarity. Though it is unclear what scaling factor is used for these ratings, on a universal scale the E361 clearly falls short of such lofty claims. The E361 are bass-heavy IEMs, extending quite far down when the music calls for it. The bass tends to be boomy rather than punchy and occasionally intrudes on the lower midrange. This is a small detriment for rap, pop, soft rock, and similar genres but for music that benefits from balance and control, such as instrument-heavy rock and jazz tracks, the bass bloat is bad news. On the upside, the midrange is very smooth and not at all fatiguing, though it does gloss over a good amount of detail and clarity is slightly sub-par for the price. Treble extension is impressive and the upper end is quite natural-sounding. The E361 are neither warm nor cold in tonality and have a fairly natural timbre with most instruments. The soundstage is lacking in width but has decent depth, resulting in a fairly dimensional but not overly spacious sound. Overall these are definitely a stomp-your-foot kind of earphone – they manage to be bassy and impactful without sounding contrived or artificial. There is an added bonus to the relatively high impedance and low sensitivity of the E361 – they do a great job of cutting out hiss with noise-prone sources.
Value
(6/10) – Light, comfortable, and well-isolating, the E361 provides reasonable sound quality when used for music. The earphones crank out plenty of bass at the expense of clarity and overall resolution but still manage to be enjoyable nearly all of the time. Though they won’t win any awards for absolute fidelity, the E361 are easily on-par with most earphones put out by mainstream manufactures such as Sony and Skullcandy. Plus, they play nice with 128kbps mp3 files and sources that don’t normally jive with sensitive in-ear earphones. If you like your music heavy-handed and need an iPhone headset with a VOIP adapter, by all means give the iPhone versions of the E361 a second look. Purely for music, they aren’t quite up to snuff.
Pros: Headset version includes Skype adapter for use with PC, very light and comfortable, low microphonics, bass-heavy sound with impressive extension on either end
Cons: Mediocre build quality, sound lacks clarity and detail
(3A26) RadioPaq Classical
Reviewed Jun 2010
Details: One of RadioPaq’s four acoustically-tuned IEMs
Current Price:
£30 from AdvancedMp3Players.co.uk (MSRP: £60.00)
Specs: Driver:
Dynamic | Imp:
16 Ω | Sens: 120 dB | Freq:
18-20k Hz | Cord:
3.9’ I-plug
Nozzle Size:
5mm | Preferred tips:
Sony Hybrid
Wear Style:
Straight down or over-the-ear
Accessories
(1/5) – Silicone single-flange tips (3 sizes)
Build Quality
(3.5/5) – The small metal housings are very sturdy in feel. As with the Jazz, the off-size nozzles lack filters and the cabling is plasticky and kink-prone. Unfortunately, no cord cinch is present and the strain relief on the 3.5mm plug is all but completely useless
Isolation
(3.5/5) – The smaller housings of the Classicals make deeper insertion possible, raising isolation significantly over the Jazz
Microphonics
(3.5/5) – Slightly bothersome when worn cord-down, almost non-existent when worn cord-up
Comfort
(3.5/5) – The smaller housings of the Classical make them friendlier in fit than the Jazz. Deep insertion is still recommended, however, which compromises long-term comfort somewhat
Sound
(6.5/10) – Compared to the warm and lush Jazz, the Classical are noticeably more neutral and balanced. The low end is tight and accurate. When inserted shallowly they can sound somewhat anemic. With a deep seal, however, the bass is very impressive, providing more impact than note but maintaining smoothness. Because of the high-impact, low-texture nature of the bass, it can feel layered over the sound rather than integrated, which is a very unique and engaging way to present music. Impact drops off and texturing picks up towards the upper bass regions, transitioning smoothly and neatly to the midrange. As with the Jazz, the midrange of the Classical is not the focus of the presentation - it is clear, detailed, controlled, and has a very neutral tone but the treble is the most exciting aspect of the Classical’s signature, boasting a great amount of sparkle and clarity, coupled with impressive extension. The high end can be a little hot-tempered, as with the Jazz, but the added treble emphasis pushes the Classical over the line on occasion, especially on sibilant recordings. The soundstage of the Classical is wider than average and instrumental separation is quite good. However, despite not being particularly thick-sounding earphones, the Radiopaqs don’t sound airy and have a decidedly in-your-head feel. Still, they do a decent job of conveying both distance and direction; just don’t expect them to emulate full-size cans in presentation.
Value
(8.5/10) – The RadioPaq Classical provides a colder, more treble-happy alternative to the warm and deep sound of the Jazz. With average-sized housings that are slightly more friendly towards those with smaller ears than the monstrous shells of the Jazz and surprisingly impressive isolation, the Classical performs admirably as a day-to-day all-rounder. Those with treble sensitivities will really want to give these a pass but for the rest, the Classicals offer an interesting sound signature and a great all-around performance for the price.
Pros: Impressive isolation, excellent and rather unique sound
Cons: No accessories, plastic cabling, deep insertion crucial for proper sound
(3A27) JVC HA-FXC80 “Black Series”
Reviewed Jul 2010
Details: Mid-range earphone from JVC’s new ‘Black Series’ utilizing a high-definition micro driver
Current Price:
$43 from amazon.com (MSRP: $59.95)
Specs: Driver:
Dynamic | Imp:
16 Ω | Sens:
103 dB | Freq:
8-25k Hz | Cable:
4’ I-plug
Nozzle Size:
6mm | Preferred tips:
Stock single flanges
Wear Style:
Straight down or over-the-ear
Accessories
(4/5) – Single flange silicone tips (3 sizes), over-the-ear cable guides, and oval hard clamshell carrying case
Build Quality
(4/5) – The carbon housings feature the usual touch of solidity higher-end JVC products share. The metal accents and mesh-covered vents look quite good and the nozzle holds the carbon microdriver. Cabling is typical JVC as well – average in thickness but very soft and flexible and terminated with the usual straight plug
Isolation
(3/5) – Quite good despite large rear vents
Microphonics
(4/5) – Low when worn cord-down, nonexistent with the cord worn over-the-ear
Comfort
(3/5) – As with the other earphones containing JVC’s dynamic microdriver, the transducer of the FXC80 sits in the nozzle of the earphone. The housing shape is therefore not dictated by driver size or design. Though the odd pyramidal housings JVC chose are rather lightweight and can easily be worn cord-up or cord-down, the shape rules them out for smaller ears, at least with the stock tips. A conventional straight-barrel design would’ve actually been more ear-friendly
Sound
(6.5/10) – The sound of the HA-FXC80 is an evolutionary step up from the signature of the older FXC50. The 5.8mm “Micro HD” transducer is capable of extraordinary clarity and detail, which seem to be the driving forces behind the FXC80’s signature. The bass is very tight but surprisingly well-layered and full. The FXC80s are definitely not bass-heavy earphones but they have solid impact and a surprising amount of air at the low end. There is no mid-range bleed and the mids, while slightly underemphasized, are very smooth, clear, and detailed. They could stand to be a bit thicker next to the forward treble but remain very enjoyable nonetheless. Overall balance, while treble-leaning, is definitely impressive. The treble is crisp, bright, and carries an immense amount of sparkle. Despite this, the JVCs are mostly free of harshness or sibilance and lack the top-end extension of some of the pricier treble-focused earphones.
In terms of presentation, the JVCs are far from spacious – the soundstage is average in size – bigger than that of the FXC50 but not up there with the ViSang R03 or even Meelec M6. Instrumental separation is decent but the vast amount of treble detail, aggressive nature of the top end, and relative lack of air up top make them somewhat congested nonetheless. I really can’t think of a better way to describe the treble of the FXC80 than to call it ‘concentrated’ – the JVC HA-FXC80 has very concentrated treble. Combined with the class-leading clarity and detail afforded by the micro HD drivers, this makes listening to the FXC80 is a remarkably intense experience. I can’t say that the FXC80 is necessarily hotter up top than something like the ATH-CK10 but the much pricier Audio-Technicas are so much more spacious and resolving that the experience is richer for it. The JVCs have a stronger tendency to fatigue, though earphones with the opposite skew (monster bass, average treble) tire me out even quicker.
Value
(7.5/10) – The JVC HA-FXC80 is to the older HA-FXC50 what the Meelectronics M6 is to the M9 – a more refined sound with the same general signature and better all-around usability. The FXC80 really is quite good for the money – it is well-built, isolating, and not particularly microphonic – but the bell-like clarity and brightness will not appeal to everyone. This is an earphone for those who truly like their treble – a good upgrade to the FXC50 or Head-Direct RE2 without dropping the $80 on an RE0 or importing a RadioPaq Classical. Taken as such, the FXC80 is another competitive product from JVC’s audio division but one potentially limited to a niche target audience in the hi-fi crowd.
Pros: Amazing detail and clarity, solid but controlled bass, well-built, low microphonics
Cons: Housing design will not suit everyone, bright, can sound slightly congested
(3A28) H2O Audio Surge
Reviewed Aug 2010
Details: Workout-oriented waterproof earphones with enhanced bass
Current Price: N/A (discontinued) (MSRP: $59.99)
Specs: Driver:
Dynamic | Imp:
16 Ω | Sens:
106 dB | Freq:
18-20k Hz | Cord:
3.7’ I-plug
Nozzle Size:
6mm | Preferred tips:
Stock Single Flanges
Wear Style:
Straight down or over-the-ear
Accessories
(3.5/5) – Single flange rubber tips (5 sizes), foamhybrid tips (2 sizes), and zippered carrying pouch
Build Quality
(3.5/5) – The housings are made out of a tough plastic and feel solid but the dark blue L/R markings can be hard to see on the glossy black shells. Filters are absent from the nozzles as they would likely be ruined by water contact anyway. The cable is medium in thickness and sheathed in blue plastic. Small rubber sleeves take the place of strain reliefs on cord entry and a 2” long strain relief, designed to work with waterproof mp3 player cases, protects the 3.5mm plug. And yes, they will survive prolonged exposure to sweat and/or water as evidenced by perfect functionality after weeks of me bathing them in both (sorry!)
Isolation
(3/5) – The supplied thick rubber tips provide excellent isolation despite being rather shallow-sealing
Microphonics
(4/5) – Quite low when worn cable-down due to smooth plastic cabling; nearly nonexistent in over-the-ear configuration
Comfort
(4/5) – The Surge comes with five sizes of u Comfort nusually thick rubber tips which require some getting used to for those of us accustomed to silicone. Getting a good seal with them takes careful selection of the right size as well as a bit of fidgeting but once sealed the earphones will stay in surprisingly well even during intense physical activity. They may not be as comfortable as a similarly-shaped earphone with silicone tips (e.g. Sennheiser CX300) but the stable fit is hugely welcome in a ‘sports’ earphone. Several days may be required for the cables to break in for over-the-ear wear
Sound
(5.5/10) – The sound of the Surge is what surprised me most about the earphones – marketing phrases such as ‘bass amplified sound’ are usually the harbinger of doom when it comes to mainstream earphones. The bass of the H2O Surge, however, despite not being ruler-flat, is quite controlled and not at all intrusive. On bass-light tracks it stays completely out of the way and even with extremely bassy music it is still not particularly muddy or bloated. Low-end extension is average and the bass is not terribly impactful, meaning that it is heard more than felt. On the upside, the bass rarely intrudes on the midrange, which is slightly forward in nature, reminding me of the ViSang R02/R03. Vocals come across powerfully and smoothly. The 8mm drivers produce sound with surprising clarity though detail lags behind competitors like the Meelec M6 and Yamaha EPH-50. A few extra volume notches are enough to fix this – the waterproof drivers seem to require a bit more juice for optimum travel and speed.
The treble is equally smooth but slightly de-emphasized in comparison to the midrange. Harshness and sibilance are absent completely and the high end does roll off as expected from an in-ear in this price range, resulting in an unfatiguing sound. The general presentation is slightly distant, with vocals generally appearing more intimate and instruments placed farther back. Positioning is a bit vague but the earphones do at the very least give a sense of space. No, the Surge will not win any hi-fi awards this year, but keeping in mind the intended application both the sound signature and presentation are more impressive than I expected and compete easily with similarly-priced mainstream-sounding earphones such as the Sennheiser CX300 and UE MetroFi 220.
Value
(8/10) – The H2O Audio Surge follows its intended application through and through. A variety of rubber and foam tips are included so that the perfect fit - which is crucial for stability, isolation, and sound quality – is easy to attain after the first few trials. The build quality is quite good and the crown jewel of the earphones – the ability to survive underwater – is in fact not a marketing trick of any sort. Being able to come home from the gym and simply rinse off my earphones under running water is an extremely liberating experience and one that I am likely to repeat over and over because the Surge really doesn’t sound bad at all. The mid-forward presentation works especially well for low-volume listening as the vocals remain plenty coherent without being distracting but the entire signature is competent and pleasant. The surge can be considered a good all-around earphone that just happens to be waterproof or a waterproof earphone that just happens to be a good all-rounder. Either way, it’s pretty darn good value for money for anyone who may run the risk of ruining their IEMs with moisture of any sort.
Pros: Waterproof, reasonably well-built, secure fit, smooth and competent sound
Cons: 2” strain relief may not work well with tiny players such as the Shuffle/Clip, rubber tips can take some getting used to
(3A29) ViSang R01
Reviewed Aug 2010
Details: Entry-level model from ViSang
Current Price:
$32 from ebay.com (MSRP: $32)
Specs: Driver:
Dynamic | Imp:
20 Ω | Sens:
112 dB | Freq:
20-20k Hz | Cord:
4.2' I-plug (note: latest version carries 45°-plug)
Nozzle Size:
5.5mm | Preferred tips:
Stock biflanges
Wear Style:
Straight down or over-the-ear
Accessories
(2.5/5) – Single- (3 sizes) and bi-flange silicone tips, foamhybrid tips, and shirt clip
Build Quality
(3.5/5) – Same generic IEM housings as the higher-end R02 and a handful of other earphones. However, the twisted Cu-Ag alloy cable used by the R02/R03 is replaced with a more conventional rubbery cord, which is thinner and more tangle-prone. Cable cinch is missing as with all other ViSang models
Isolation
(3/5) – Very adequate for a ported dynamic IEM, especially with bi-flange tips
Microphonics
(3/5) – Slightly noisy when worn cord-down, almost nonexistent otherwise
Comfort
(4/5) – Same as with the R02 model – light and unobtrusive. Can easily be worn cord-up or cord-down. Work best with a relatively shallow fit
Sound
(6.3/10) – The general sound signature of the R01 is similar to the two higher-end ViSang models, which should not come as a surprise since it shares most of the hardware (with the obvious exception of the Cu-Ag alloy cable) with them. The bass is smooth and full-bodied, with a mid/upper-bass hump and a tendency to warm up the rest of the sound signature. Bass depth, texture, and detail are certainly not on level with heavyweights such as the FA Eterna but beat most budget in-ears quite easily. The midrange is smooth and clear, slightly forward in positioning but still very well-separated and yet extremely coherent. The treble transition happens with no harshness or sibilance and the treble is laid-back and extremely smooth. The very top is rolled off and treble ‘sparkle’ is nowhere to be found but the highs of the R01 are certainly extremely competent, if not particularly aggressive or exciting, for an earphone of its caliber. Soundstage width is quite good and depth is adequate, though once again the R01 performs far better than the asking price would indicate. Compared to most budget in-ears, even great ones like the Meelectronics M9 and Fischer Audio TS-9002, the R01 is effortlessly spacious and presents music in a believable way.
But the sound of the ViSang R01 is not identical to that of the higher-end R02. In terms of signature the two earphones are extremely similar but the R02 is just that little bit better all-around, putting it head and shoulders above the competition. The R01 sounds like a softened and more relaxed version of the R02, but it is hard to imagine anyone finding the R02 too aggressive in the first place. The overall sound of the R02 is slightly crisper and clearer, with marginally better bass control and a bit more treble presence. As a result of the superior clarity, the R02 also seems to have more air and a more separated sound. The soundstage of the R02 is not huge but manages to be very believable while the R01 sounds a tad more constrained. The R02 also carries a bit more detail and I found myself pushing the volume of the R01 up a few notches to get the same level of detail out of it. Again, the differences are not great by any means but they are enough to make the R02 one of the best earphones in the <$100 range and the R01 merely above-average in the same category (though do keep in mind that the R01 costs a measly $30). Having both, I found myself reaching for the R02 every time without hesitation, but I would be far from unhappy if 'stuck' with just the R01.
Value
(8.5/10) – The ViSang R01 promises the sound of the higher-end ViSang R02 in an even more reasonably-priced package. The ~$10 difference between the two accounts for the exclusion of the hard clamshell carrying case and Sony Hybrid knockoff tips from the accessory pack of the R01 as well as for the replacement of the Cu-Ag alloy cord with a more standard one. There are also minor sonic differences between the two which leave the pricier R02 a step above the R01 in overall sound quality. If you absolutely must only spend $30 on an earphone, the R01 is still the best way to do so. However, if tossing in the extra $10 to make the jump to the R02 won’t put you in the red for next month’s rent, I would recommend the upgrade. With the nicer cable and carrying case the earphones will last longer and the sonic differences, though probably not noticeable except in a direct comparison, are present nevertheless. At the end of the day either earphone provides great value for money but a few minor quibbles prevent the R01 from out-pacing its older brothers in bang/buck.
Pros: Time-tested design, class-leading sound quality
Cons: Not quite as stellar of an all-rounder as the R02 and only $10 cheaper
Full review can be found
here.
(3A30) ECCI PR300
Reviewed Aug 2010
Details: Flagship earphone from ECCI, the earphone division of Chinese amp manufacturer Storm
Current Price: N/A (discontinued) (MSRP: $52)
Specs: Driver:
Dynamic | Imp:
32 Ω | Sens:
105 dB | Freq:
20-22k Hz | Cord:
4.2' I-plug
Nozzle Size:
5.5mm | Preferred tips:
Narrow-tube stock single flanges
Wear Style:
Straight down or over-the-ear
Accessories
(3.5/5) – Narrow-tube (3 sizes) and wide-tube (3 sizes) single-flange silicone tips, shirt clip, and large clamshell carrying case
Build Quality
(3.5/5) – The gray metal shells are smaller and much lighter than those of the lower-end PR100/PR200 and feel a bit less solid. The sound tubes are protected by the same fine mesh filters as on the older earphones but the cable is a definite downgrade from the excellent silver cord used by the PR100/PR200. It is thinner, more rubbery, and far more prone to tangling. In addition, the sliding cord cinch is missing completely. The PR300 does feature larger and more flexible strain reliefs on either end of the cable but just doesn’t have the same ‘wow’ effect as the rock-solid construction of the ECCI’s two cheaper models
Isolation
(3/5) – Average at best as the PR300s are shallow-fitting and vented at the rear for increased airflow. Wind noise can be an issue in extremely windy conditions
Microphonics
(3.5/5) – Not bothersome when worn over-the-ear but quite annoying otherwise. The included shirt clip helps
Comfort
(4/5) – The housings of the PR300 are extremely light. They are also quite small and tapered towards the rear. Wearing them either cord-up or cord-down is very comfortable and the soft and thin cord conforms easily in either configuration
Sound (6.5/10) – The two previous models released by ECCI – the PR100 and PR200 – were balanced and capable all-rounders – mid-centric if anything. As such, they were a bit bland and boring despite the slight bass boost and strong midrange presence. In a nutshell, the PR300 is a slightly V-Shaped version of the PR100/PR200 sound with a bit more clarity and air thrown in. As such, the new model reminds me of the company’s former glory, finally delivering some of the spark that made the PR1 Pro so endearing to me.
The bass of the PR300 is tight and punchy – not particularly powerful but very accurate and quite impactful. Extension is good and bass is tight and controlled. The midrange is free of bass bleed and quite smooth and pleasant overall. The older ECCI earphones had mids that were thick and somewhat buttery. The PR300 sounds much more airy and resolved without becoming thin or dry a-la RE0/Hippo VB. The treble of the new ECCI earphones is quite accurate and sounds much livelier than that of the PR100/PR200. Top-end roll-off is reduced and the listener is faced with plenty of sparkle. Those who find treble tiring in large quantities may want to give these a pass but for the average listener the PR300 provides a good alternative to the similarly-sparkly Brainwavz M1, which is slightly more mid-forward and boasts better extension on either end but has even more vigorous bass and treble response. In terms of presentation, the PR300 mimics the reasonably-sized soundstages of the PR100/PR200 models. The improved sense of air, however, helps the PR300 image better than the older models do. The presentation isn’t perfect and doesn’t quite give the same overall sense of space as the similarly-priced Brainwavz M1 and ViSang R02 but it is very good for the asking price.
Value (8/10) – The ECCI PR300 is the company’s latest and most convincing attempt at offering hi-fi sound for lo-fi money. Those who have heard the PR100 or PR200 will find the general signature of the PR300 quite familiar but should note improved treble response and better all-around clarity and resolution. While the new housings are not quite as impressive to the touch and the eye as the shiny shells of the older ECCI models, they are smaller, lighter, and tapered towards the rear, offering a more compliant and unobtrusive fit. All things considered, the PR300 is a noteworthy entry in the increasingly crowded and amazingly competitive <$100 price bracket. Highly recommended for those in search of a balanced IEM with a bit of bass punch and energetic treble.
Pros: Small and comfortable, lively but accurate and controlled sound
Cons: Cabling is a step down from the PR100/PR200, presentation not as spacious as some of the competitors
Full review can be found
here.
(3A31) Xears TD100
Reviewed Aug 2010
Details: Current flagship of the Xears earphone line from Playaz
Current Price: N/A (discontinued) (MSRP: est $60)
Specs: Driver:
Dynamic | Imp: N/A | Sens:
124 dB | Freq:
6-28k Hz | Cord:
4.2’ I-plug j-cord
Nozzle Size:
5.5mm | Preferred tips:
Sennheiser short bi-flanges, generic bi-flanges
Wear Style:
Straight down or over-the-ear
Accessories
(2.5/5) – Single-flange (3 sizes) and tri-flange silicone tips, foamhybrid tips (2 pairs), and soft carrying pouch
Build Quality
(3.5/5) – The metal shells are quite obviously modeled after the Monster Turbines. The construction is quite good but the Xears don’t feel quite as solid as the Monsters. Mild driver flex is present as well
Isolation
(3.5/5) – For some reason Turbine-style housings just work well for me when it comes to isolation, the TD100 being no exception. Aside from the mediocre stock tips, the isolation is nearly on par with the Turbine Pros
Microphonics
(4/5) – Quite low but the j-cord is a two-edged sword – it reduces cable travel and therefore microphonics but at the same time makes the earphones more difficult to wear over-the-ear
Comfort
(4/5) – Very similar to Monster Turbines. The straight-barrel housings are average in size and rounded at the front. Unfortunately the stock tips are rather poor. In addition, the j-cord may be annoying for some
Sound
(7.5/10) – The TD100, along with several other Xears/Playaz earphones, has a cult following here at Head-Fi, and after several weeks with it I can see why. It is an extremely lush and sweet-sounding earphone. Those in search of analytical sound should quite clearly look elsewhere but as an alternative to the similarly-colored Fischer Audio Eterna or ViSang R03, the TD100 holds its own very well. Its bass is deep and full-bodied and plentifully impactful. The low end can match the ViSang R03 in quantity but runs closer to the subbass-heavy Hippo VB in extension. Despite the copious grunt, however, the low end of the TD100 carries lots of detail and very good resolution. Individual notes never run together and bass bloat/bleed are almost completely absent. The bass heft of the TD100 will surely be excessive for some, but from a technical standpoint it is very well-done.
The midrange is warmed up by the weighty low end and sounds lush and full. It is slightly forward but not as forward as the mids of the ViSang R03. Detail is quite good but the TD100 has a certain thickness to it that causes clarity to lag slightly behind the R03 and Hippo VB. It still sounds a bit less veiled than my rev2 Eterna; however, the Eterna is ‘handicapped’ by a larger soundstage and is generally a more distant-sounding earphone than the somewhat intimate TD100. The treble of the TD100 is smooth but relatively clear and detailed, though it won’t keep up with the Hippo VB, Brainwavz M1, or ECCI PR300 in crispness. It is laid back but not quite enough so to be called recessed. Like the midrange, the treble is a bit thick and lacks the air of some of the more analytical earphones. It is far from dull, however, and manages to keep my attention quite easily when necessary. All in all, for an earphone with the bass power of the TD100, the overall sound is surprisingly well-balanced and enjoyable. It is colored and exciting and I rather like it despite all of my analytical biases.
When it comes to presentation, the TD100 again performs above expectations. The soundstage has good width and depth and instrumental separation is quite decent for a mid-range dynamic. The earphone is also capable of delivering an excellent sense of distance but leans slightly towards intimacy. The fact that the notes it produces are usually a little thick makes it more musical and satisfying but reduces air. Tonally, the TD100 is not a dark earphone, nor does it sound ‘stuffy’ like certain bass-heavy competitors, but I wouldn’t call it bright, either. As far as fun-sounding earphones go, the presentation of the TD100 is just right.
Value
(8.5/10) – At its usual ~$60 retail price point, the TD100 is a stellar deal. The earphone is rather handsome and well-designed, though the budget-oriented nature shows through in the j-cord setup, driver flex, and poor quality of stock tips. More important, however, is that the sound quality of the Xears earphones far exceeds the asking price, putting them on-level with some of the absolute best IEMs I’ve heard in the <$100 bracket – the ViSang R03, Fischer Audio Eterna, and Hippo VB. The sound signature of the TD100 sounds like a cross of the VB and R03 – deep and powerful bass, smooth and slightly forward mids, and competent but neither overly edgy not completely sunk treble. It is true that the R03, Eterna, and VB feel like higher-tier products all things considered, but in terms of absolute audio enjoyment the TD100 holds its own very easily.
Pros: Very capable performance, comfortable with aftermarket tips
Cons: J-cord may be bothersome, mild driver flex, stock tips are rather poor
(3A32) Hippo Shroom
Reviewed Sep 2010
Details: Micro-driver earphone from Jaben’s house brand, Hippo
Current Price:
$57 from unclewilsons.com (MSRP: $57.00)
Specs: Driver:
Dynamic | Imp:
16 Ω | Sens:
95 dB | Freq:
10-20k Hz | Cable:
4.2’ L-plug
Nozzle Size:
6mm | Preferred tips:
Stock single flanges
Wear Style:
Straight down or over-the-ear
Accessories
(2.5/5) – Black (3 sizes) and color-coded (3 sizes) single flange silicone tips and soft carrying pouch
Build Quality
(3.5/5) – The slim housings of the Shrooms are mostly made of metal and the micro-driver is positioned at the tip of the nozzle. The cable is rubberized and resists tangling well but feels a bit cheap. The low-profile L-plug is quite nice, however
Isolation
(3.5/5) – Quite good due to the slim housings and forward driver placement
Microphonics
(2.5/5) – Bothersome when worn cable-down; not too bad otherwise. The omission of a shirt clip doesn’t help
Comfort
(4/5) – The tiny housings of the Hippos are light and fit quite well but are let down by the huge 6mm nozzle, which holds the driver. Those with smaller ear canals might have trouble getting the Shroom to fit comfortably
Sound
(6.4/10) – The Hippo Shroom is my third micro-driver earphone, the other two being the budget-oriented JVC HA-FXC50 and the slightly more upmarket HA-FXC80. The Shroom, like the two JVCs, is a light on the bass, heavy on the treble earphone with a few aces up its sleeve. In general, the sound of the Hippos amazes most with its quickness and transparency. The bass is tight and accurate but low on impact. Extension is good but the miniscule quantity of sub-bass put out by the drivers results in a lack of low-end rumble, which some may find disconcerting. The midrange is slightly forward and boasts great clarity. Transparency is excellent and the tonal character is quite realistic. Though a small amount of sibilance is present on certain tracks, for the most part the Shroom’s midrange is silky-smooth and extremely pleasant. As with the older Head-Direct RE2, the smooth, clear, and detailed mids are the real strength of the Shroom despite the treble being most gripping and vociferous element of the signature. The detail carried by the microdriver won’t quite compete with the Head-Direct RE0 but gets far closer than a $60 dynamic-driver earphone should.
The treble itself is sparkly, crisp, and extended. There is some unevenness lower down which results in mild sibilance with certain tracks and can make the treble somewhat piercing at times - those who are sensitive to treble artifacts will probably want to give the Shroom a pass as it can be a bit fatiguing. In terms of presentation, the overall brightness of the Shroom makes it sound airy and lightweight. The soundstage boasts surprisingly good width but lacks slightly in depth, which results in a wide but not particularly well-spaced sonic image. All in all, while the Shroom certainly won’t be a perfect match for every listener and music genre, it is a very impressive implementation of the typical microdriver sound signature and comes highly recommended as an upgrade for earphones such as the JVC HA-FXC50 and Head-Direct RE2.
Value
(7.5/10) – Yet another impressive midrange entry from Jaben’s house brand, the Hippo Shroom is a small-and-slim earphone that should be comfortable and well-isolating enough for most users. Its top-heavy sound signature and capacity for clarity and detail put it on-level with the likes of the JVC HA-FXC80 and RadioPaq Classical. In a nutshell, the Shroom is all about combining strong and smooth vocals with crisp and sparkly treble. The usual caveats are, of course, in full effect and those sensitive to strong treble need not apply. Taken for what it is, however, the Shroom is an impressive earphone and a good budget buy.
Pros: Impressive clarity and detail, small and comfortable, good isolation
Cons: Microphonics can be bothersome, distinctive sound signature not for everyone
(3A33) Yamaha EPH-50
Reviewed Sep 2010
Details: Top-of-the-line IEM from electronics giant Yamaha, boasting large 14mm drivers in an half in-ear form factor
Current Price:
$38 from amazon.com (MSRP: $99.95)
Specs: Driver:
Dynamic | Imp:
16 Ω | Sens:
104 dB | Freq:
20-21k Hz | Cable:
4’ L-plug
Nozzle Size:
5.5mm | Preferred tips:
Generic bi-flanges
Wear Style:
Straight down
Accessories
(1.5/5) – Single flange silicone tips (3 sizes) and ¼” adapter
Build Quality
(3.5/5) – The housings are made completely out of plastic and, except for the nozzles, look like conventional earbuds. The rubberized cabling is fairly sturdy and well-relieved but prone to tangling
Isolation
(2.5/5) – Like the cheaper EPH-20, the EPH-50 is a shallow-insertion earphone and is also vented. However, the EPH-50 is larger and seems to isolate slightly better, especially with aftermarket dual-flange tips
Microphonics
(3.5/5) – Cable noise is present and the EPH-50 cannot be worn over-the-ear, exacerbating the problem
Comfort
(4.5/5) – Unlike the miniscule EPH-20, the EPH-50, built around gigantic 14mm drivers, is a large but equally ergonomic earphone. Due to its greater size it doesn’t have a tendency to disappear when donned but remains very comfortable for those with ears large enough to accommodate the 15mm housings
Sound
(5.9/10) – The first question I usually ask myself when faced with two differently-priced IEMs from the same model line is whether the higher-end set is worth the price premium over the cheaper offering. With the two Yamaha IEMs, it’s a no-contest “yes” for the EPH-50. While the EPH-20 is a decent earphone for what it costs, it is by no means hi-fi and loses both clarity and detail to the out-of-control bass. The EPH-50 is by no means bass shy, but it manages to impress in other areas as well. A familial resemblance between the two phones is most notable in the way the low end is presented – it is deep and full, boasting plentiful impact and a pleasant warmth. The EP-50 are still bass monsters but the 14-mm drivers seem to be more precise than the tiny transducers used by the EPH-20 and the bass is generally cleaner and better-controlled on the larger earphones.
Midrange bleed is also reduced, though not eliminated completely. The big bass can still make detail harder to hear but the midrange itself is more forward, more neutral, and far more clear than it is on the EPH-20. The clarity is actually quite impressive, especially on bass-light tracks, beating out the Apple dual-drivers and Sleek SA1. The earphones also lack the upper midrange dip of the EPH-20s, giving them slightly more pronounced treble at the expense of slight harshness and a bit of graininess. Treble extension is quite reasonable and the high end sounds surprisingly realistic. Though sparkle is still nearly nonexistent, the EPH-50s generally sound more crisp and energetic than the EPH-20s do. The presentation of the earphones is surprisingly wide and airy. Compared to the similarly-priced Sleek SA1 and TDK EB900, the EPH-50s sound well-separated and quite spacious, though they don’t have particular accuracy in imaging or positioning. Overall, the sound is well-layered and avoids congestion, which is a must for the bottom-skewed balance of these earphones.
Value
(7.5/10) – Sound-wise, the EPH-50 is a competitive mid-range entry. Like the lower-end EPH-20, it boasts a large amount of very visceral bass but adds to it a fairly clear midrange and crisp, natural-sounding treble. Yes, the bass is excessive at times, but as a general rule it manages to be fun yet controlled – a tough order as far as budget-oriented in-ears go. The earphone is also quite pleasing aesthetically and very comfortable to wear for those with large enough ears. Sadly, the build quality, isolation, and microphonics are merely average for the price, but the sound should be enough to justify a purchase for those in search of moderately-isolating in-ears with hugely impactful bass. Of note, a set of bi-flange silicone tips off of eBay may be worth picking up along with these.
Pros: Very lightweight and comfortable, fun and dynamic sound
Cons: Bass can be excessive and negatively affects the rest of the spectrum
(3A34) Pioneer SE-CLX50
Reviewed Sep 2010
Details: Half in-ear IEM from Pioneer boasting a ‘flex nozzle’ design
Current Price: N/A (discontinued) (MSRP: 89.99)
Specs: Driver:
Dynamic | Imp:
16Ω | Sens:
105 dB | Freq:
5-24k Hz | Cable:
3.3’ I-plug + 1.6’ L-plug extension
Nozzle Size:
5mm | Preferred tips:
Generic bi-flanges
Wear Style:
Straight down
Accessories
(2.5/5) – Single-flange silicone tips (4 sizes), 1.6’ extension cable, and soft carrying pouch
Build Quality
(3.5/5) – The metal inner housings of the CLX50s are similar to conventional earbuds. A rigid silicone sleeve with a plastic nozzle makes them into IEMs with some success. The silicone part can be rotated and reshaped slightly for a more comfortable fit but has some limitations - angling it too much can cause it to slip off the earphone and there’s a vent hole that can be obscured, leading to muffled bass response and high end roll-off. In addition, changing tips can sometimes forcibly remove the entire silicone sleeve from the earphones. On the upside, the thick cable is rubberized to reduce tangling and terminated with a standard 3.5mm I-plug, though it does carry some annoying memory character
Isolation
(2/5) – Not bad for a half in-ear design when a proper seal is achieved
Microphonics (
4/5) – Quite low in the thick and rubbery cable but hard to avoid completely as the CLX50 cannot be worn over-the-ear
Comfort
(2.5/5) – Though the CLX50 boasts a ‘flex-nozzle’ design, getting a good seal with it can be unreasonably difficult, especially with the stock tips. The odd disk-shaped silicone bulge near the nozzle is angled incorrectly for my ears and the housings themselves are far too large and heavy. The Phiaton PS210, which is similar in size and weight, is far more ergonomic and the Yamaha EPH-50 is a featherweight in comparison
Sound
(6.7/10) – Pioneer claims that the 13mm dynamic driver and silicone in-ear adapter of the CLX50 were designed to provide the type of bass response that isn’t usually attributed to conventional earbuds. The biggest iss Microphonics ue with basimg alt=s, however, is that a proper seal is required to hear it and for the life of me I couldn’t make the CLX50 work with the stock tips. Large Sony hybrids, large bi-flanges, or foam tips were required for me to get any sort of bass out of them. With a proper seal, bass quantity was somewhere between the heavy-handed Yamaha EPH50 and light and agile Phiaton PS210s – deep and rumbly, yet controlled and accurate. I wouldn’t call the CLX50s bass monsters but they do have a very nice full-bodied punch to them – quite enough to please the moderate basshead. Nonetheless, it is a realistic sort of bass that doesn’t draw too much attention to itself, which is how I like it.
The midrange is quite clean and almost completely free of interference from the low end. It lacks a bit of emphasis but is generally smooth and competent. The 13mm drivers are quick and detail is surprisingly good, as is the clarity. Tonally the Pioneers are slightly bright despite the deep and powerful low end. The mids are sweet and work especially well for female vocals, which are given just the right amount of edginess and polish by the CLX50. The treble, too, is clear and very detailed. There’s plenty of sparkle but I doubt anyone would find the CLX50 fatiguing – there’s just so much clarity and resolution that the sparkle sounds well-appropriated. With a mediocre seal they can be a bit piercing but not using stock tips fixes that for me. Top-end extension is good – a bit better than the laid-back ViSang R03 but not quite up there with the Hippo VB or Head-Direct RE0.
Perhaps some psychology is in play here but I really hear a resemblance in presentation between the CLX50 and the Phiaton PS210, which shares the half in-ear form factor. Both are quite wide-sounding and have decent soundstage depth. Both position instruments surprisingly well and sound quite airy. The CLX50 even seems to separate instruments out a bit better than the PS210 does, though the Phiatons still present performances I’m familiar with in a more convincing way. On the whole, the CLX50 really is a competitive earphone for the asking price - all it is missing compared to the much pricier PS210 is a bit of ambience and a chunk of refinement.
Value
(6/10) – Though the sound quality of the CLX50 is well above average for the current asking price, I simply cannot recommend them due to the design. Plain and simple, the ergonomics of the CLX50 will either be a complete hit or complete miss, based on the individual. My ears, which are usually quite compliant when it comes to new and unfamiliar earphones, rebelled unequivocally against the CLX50. Aside from the fit, the CLX50 is a very usable earphone – well built and not very microphonic. For those who have the ability to return the earphones and are willing to take a chance on the fit, the CLX50 may be worth a shot but my pair is definitely going back to Pioneer.
Pros: Full-bodied bass, sparkly and atmospheric sound, decent build
Cons: Hit-or-miss fit, odd cable lengths
(3A35) Sennheiser CX280
Reviewed Sep 2010
Details: Latest addition to Sennheiser’s long-running CX in-ear earphone line
Current Price:
$50 from amazon.com (MSRP: $69.95)
Specs: Driver: Dynamic | Imp:
16Ω | Sens:
120 dB | Freq:
19-20.5k Hz | Cable:
3.9’ L-plug
Nozzle Size:
5.5mm | Preferred tips:
Stock single-flanges
Wear Style:
Over-the-ear or straight down
Accessories
(2.5/5) – Single-flange silicone tips (3 sizes) and leather carrying pouch
Build Quality (
4/5) – At first glance, the CX280 is an enlarged version of the older CX150/200/250 housing but it isn’t quite so – the construction consists of two types of plastic and feels a bit sturdier overall. Cabling is average in thickness, well-relieved at either end, and terminated with a sturdy 3.5mm L-plug
Isolation
(3/5) – About average for conventional in-ears due to large vent slit
Microphonics
(3/5) – Somewhat bothersome when worn cord-down, good when worn over-the-ear
Comfort
(4/5) – The housings are larger than those of the older CX250 but rounded at the front for an agreeable fit. The earphones are quite lightweight and the stock tips work well with the medium insertion depth
Sound
(5.8/10) – As with many of the other CX-series Sennheisers, the 280 is claimed to have ‘bass-driven sound’. Quite often a phrase like that would scare me but having heard the CX250 and CX300 in the past, I had a decent idea of what to expect. The CX280 does appear to be a step in the right direction from the CX250, which itself was a more enjoyable earphone than the ever-popular CX300. The bass of the CX280 falls between the CX250 and CX300 – there is a bit of mid-bass emphasis but not much bloat. Compared to the Meelec M9 the CX280 seriously lacks sub-bass weight and sounds slightly tamer overall. The low end of the CX280 is not thin by any means but it just doesn’t have the same well-rounded fullness as the rumbly and visceral bass of the M9.
The mids are smooth and in good balance with the bass and treble. As with the older CX-series earphones, the CX280 is a bit laid-back in the midrange. Clarity and detail are good though on the whole the CX280 lags behind the Meelec M9 on both counts. There is a bit of unevenness towards the upper midrange and the CX280 has much more prominent treble than the CX300 and slightly more sparkle and detail than the CX250 (though still not as much as the M9). At higher volumes the treble can be a bit fatiguing but during normal listening I found it perfectly pleasant – less harsh than that of the M9 but not rolled-off as with the CX300.
In terms of presentation, the CX280 is quite wide-sounding and airy. Depth is average in comparison to the width, resulting in a sound that’s well-distanced but relatively flat in the soundstage. Positioning is good and the CX280 has a somewhat harder time portraying intimacy than distance, though its soundstage has clear outer limits as well, not unlike that of the far-pricier IE7. Those who like a more intimate sound would probably find a better match with the similarly-priced CX281, which doesn’t sound as big as the CX280 does but is also more cohesive in its intimacy. Nearly everyone else will be impressed by the spacious presentation.
Value
(7/10) – Sennheiser’s latest foray into the ranks of entry-level in-ears takes us one step further from the bloated and boomy sound of low-end Sennhaiers of years past. The sound is fairly balanced and competent all-around. I don’t expect the CX280 to be as polarizing as the Meelec M9 – it lacks the amazing detail and clarity of the Meelecs but doesn’t sound as harsh or boomy, either. With good comfort and isolation as well as build quality that, while not as impressive as that of the CX281, puts the old CX300 to shame, the CX280 is a very agreeable earphone that manages to appeal both to the consumer and the (budget-minded) audiophile. Though the retail price is, as usual, excessive, the street value fluctuates quite a bit and any dips below $30 have the potential to make the CX280 a very competitive earphone.
Pros: Comfortable, rather wide-sounding and all-around competent
Cons: Can be microphonic
Special thanks to
kjk1281 for offering to lend me the CX280 upon hearing that I had the CX281 on-hand
(3A36) Sennheiser CX281
Reviewed Sep 2010
Details: Budget in-ear from Sennheiser’s “designed for women” line
Current Price: N/A (discontinued) (MSRP: $69.95)
Specs: Driver:
Dynamic | Imp:
16Ω | Sens:
120 dB | Freq:
19-20.5k Hz | Cable:
3.9’ L-plug
Nozzle Size:
5.5mm | Preferred tips:
Stock single-flanges
Wear Style:
Over-the-ear or straight down
Accessories
(2.5/5) – Single-flange silicone tips (3 sizes), 3.5mm splitter, and leather carrying pouch
Build Quality
(4/5) – The asymmetrical housings are made of solid plastics and feel fairly sturdy. Strain reliefs are short but the silver cable is identical to that used on the MX/OMX471 earbuds – thick, soft, and very flexible. A fairly large volume pot hangs not far below the y-split and the 3.5mm L-plug has a long and soft strain relief
Isolation
(3/5) – Good enough for daily use though the fit of the CX281 is rather shallow
Microphonics
(3.5/5) – Merely alright when worn cord-down, good when worn over-the-ear
Comfort
(4/5) – The housings are curved in an attempt at ergonomic design but really just aren’t small enough for the target market. The front edges are squared off and facilitate shallower insertion unlike the rounded housings of the older CX200/250 earphones. Comfortable, but not game-changing
Sound
(5.6/10) – Following hot on the heels of the new CX280, the designed-for-women CX281 follows pretty much the same formula. Like the CX280, the CX281 is advertised as having ‘bass-driven sound’ and like the CX280 it is rather controlled and delicate in nature. The CX281 is just a touch warmer and bassier than the CX280 but still falls squarely between the older CX300 and CX250 models in bass quantity. Mid-bass is expectedly emphasized but the extension of earphones such as the Meelec M9 is lacking in the CX281.
The midrange is probably the most agreeable aspect of the CX281, being almost identical to that of the CX280. Clarity and detail are quite good though the CX281 does sound just a touch more grainy than the CX280. The treble is prominent and can be fatiguing at high volumes but rolls off later than that of the CX300 and carries more detail throughout. In presentation the CX281 once again follows in the footsteps of the CX280 but lacks the soundstage width, opting instead for a slightly more intimate sound to match the slightly warmer tone of the earphones. Personally I find the presentation of the CX280 to be slightly more realistic despite the tone and timbre of the two earphones being nearly identical.
Value
(7/10) – Though not quite as impressive as the ‘mainline’ CX280, the CX281 is a competent budget IEM with an agreeable signature and great all-around usability. Sennheiser did source the excellent silver cable, including the notched-wheel volume control, for the CX281 from the MX471, giving it a leg up over the CX280 in microphonics and overall feel. Comfort and isolation are also quite reasonable for a budget-minded set. The sound signature is a bit less realistic than that of the CX280 but arguably more enjoyable, especially for the average listener. Like most of the CX-series earphones, the CX281 fluctuates wildly in street price but anything under $30 would make them a pretty good deal in my book.
Pros: Well-built and comfortable, low microphonics, all-around competent sound
Cons: No ‘wow’ factor, overpriced at MSRP
Special thanks to
jant71 for lending me the CX281
(3A37) TDK EB900
Reviewed Sep 2010
Details: Mid-range earphone from Japanese electronics giant TDK
Current Price:
$50 from bestbuy.com (MSRP: $69.99)
Specs: Driver:
Dynamic | Imp:
16 Ω | Sens:
101.5 dB | Freq:
20-20k Hz | Cable:
4’ I-plug
Nozzle Size:
5.5mm | Preferred tips:
Stock single flanges
Wear Style:
Straight down or over-the-ear
Accessories
(2.5/5) – Single flange silicone tips (3 sizes), Comply T400 foam tips (1 set), and soft synthetic carrying pouch
Build Quality
(3/5) – The curved shells are made out of a matte plastic with a glossy finish over the TDK logo. Both the nozzles and rear vents of the earphones are protected by metal grilles. The cable exit points on the underside of the shells feature short rubber strain reliefs and the cable is sheathed in black-and-white striped nylon. The cord is extremely light and terminates in a straight 3.5mm plug with a hard rubber strain relief. Mild driver flex is present
Isolation
(2.5/5) – Average for a dynamic-driver in-ear
Microphonics
(3/5) – Cable noise is bothersome when worn cable-down and the weight of the cable is not sufficient to keep it planted behind the ear during physical activity. Not recommended for jogging or exercise
Comfort
(4/5) – The light weight of the earphones, combined with the tapered housing shape, makes the EB900 completely unobtrusive. Unfortunately, despite the short strain reliefs, wearing the EB900 over-the-ear is not as easy as I would like due to the weightless cord
Sound
(4.9/10) – The sound signature of the EB900 is decidedly bass-heavy, with enough low-end grunt to rattle loose teeth and a small dip in the upper midrange that results in a loss of the artificial clarity usually brought about by bright treble. The response curve of the EB900 sounds ‘enhanced’ by a wholesome 12-15 decibels in the 50-100Hz range, resulting in a large mid-bass hump and minimal roll-off all the way down to 25Hz. The low-end resolution of the EB900 is negatively affected by the gargantuan bass and the lower midrange is heavily veiled. When the bass is dropped by 10-12 dB on the equalizer, the veil lifts and midrange clarity quite reasonable for a $70 dynamic earphone shines through. As it stands, the bass, imparts a fairly dark character on the sound. Luckily, the midrange isn’t particularly recessed and generally sounds full and pleasant, if a bit dry. The pleasantness extends in to the upper midrange, which exhibits a small dip in response, likely meant to reduce harshness and/or sibilance, which gives the EB900 a very smooth sound all the way up. Compared to the voluminous bass, the treble of the EB900 is notably deemphasized but boasts decent, though not class-leading, extension and detail.
Despite the lack of treble emphasis and narrow soundstage, the earphones sound rather airy, possibly due in part to the massive rear vents. The fullness of the midrange and heavy bass notes give the earphones a sense of dimensionality that is often lacking in low-end products. They don’t position sonic cues with particular precision but have a certain evenness and consistency to the imaging. There are earphones out there that have a wide soundstage but never seem to take advantage of it. The TDK EB900 has a relatively narrow stage but manages to fill in every nook and cranny with sound, making them quite enveloping and well-suited for music that benefits from the intimate but dimensional presentation.
Value
(6/10) – The EB900 sounds as if TDK started with a fairly balanced and natural-sounding mid-range earphone and cranked up the bass. It remains a nice option for lovers of deep and impactful bass but is more difficult to recommend as an all-rounder. The sound is dark and a bit dry but quite full and conveys a nice, if slightly undersized, sonic image. From a usability standpoint, too, the EB900 are competent but not outstanding. Isolation, build quality, and microphonics are all average, with extra comfort points earned for the light weight of the earpieces and included Comply eartips. For those in search of a light and comfortable in-ear with lots of bass, the TDK EB900 is a solid option. Otherwise, the market is chock-full of better options.
Pros: Light and comfortable, ships with Comply foam eartips, very bass-heavy but generally competent sound
Cons: Loses out in balance, clarity, and detail to much of the competition, carries a good amount of cable noise, mild driver flex
(3A38) Sony MDR-XB40EX
Reviewed Dec 2010
Details: Mid-range in-ear from Sony’s Extra Bass line
Current Price: N/A (discontinued) (MSRP: $59.99)
Specs: Driver:
Dynamic | Imp: 16Ω | Sens:
105 dB | Freq:
4-24k Hz | Cable:
4’ L-plug
Nozzle Size:
4mm | Preferred tips:
Sony Hybrids
Wear Style:
Straight down
Accessories
(3.5/5) – Single-flange (3 sizes) Sony Hybrid silicone tips and hard clamshell carrying case
Build Quality
(3.5/5) – The housings are made of plastic with metal Sony badges running along the spine of the earphones. The flat cable has average strain relief at the stems and no cable cinch but is terminated with a flexible 3.5mm L-plug. Cable quality is quite good – soft, sturdy, and with no memory character
Isolation
(2.5/5) – Average for a dynamic-driver canalphone
Microphonics
(4/5) – Very low in the flat, tangle-free cable but it can be tricky to route over-the-ear to eliminate cord noise completely
Comfort
(2.5/5) – The XB40EX has vertically-mounted drivers and is not meant to be inserted very deeply. However, the earphones are a bit too large and heavy for shallow-insertion canalphones and often stay in only by virtue of the eartip seal while still putting pressure on the outer ear. In addition, the extra-large metal Sony badge running along the height of the earphones can get in the way of wearing them over-the-ear
Sound
(4.8/10) – Being part of Sony’s Extra Bass (XB) series, the XB40EX was bound to be a bass-heavy earphone; the question was – how bass-heavy? Answer: very. I’ve owned one of the full-size headphones from the XB line – the MDR-XB500 – until very recently and thought they were surprisingly decent with the exception of the frequency balance, which put bass up front and recessed the mids and treble quite severely. However, if the balance of the XB500 is (+2 bass, -1 mids, -1 treble), the XB40EX is more like (+3,-2,-2). It really is very biased in favor of the low end. The result is that the XB40EX warrants lower listening levels as equating the output levels of the midrange and treble of the XB40 with those of a more balanced earphone makes the bass nauseating. Unfortunately, the 13.5mm drivers really aren’t resolving enough to maintain reasonable levels of detail and texturing at lower volumes. Balance aside, the drivers put on a good show for an earphone tuned the way the XB40EX is. Bass impact is enormous in quantity but still slightly more controlled than something like the Sennheiser CX300. Most of the bass comes in fairly high but sub-bass is not missing altogether, though it can be hard to distinguish from the ever-present blanket of mid/upper-bass.
Expectedly, some of the bass bloat affects the midrange, which is generally warm and smooth. Truth be told, there’s simply not much to be said about the midrange until the bass hump is equalized away since it is recessed to the point of being irrelevant. Even with the bass dropped to what I consider near-flat level with a parametric EQ, the mids are nothing special – the clarity doesn’t quite match the Meelec M9 detail trails (distantly) the ViSang R01 and the Brainwavz models. Still, I’ve definitely heard worse – at least the XB40EX is not as tiring to listen to as the metallic-sounding Skullcandy Titans or as muddy as the Earsquake FISH at reasonable volumes.
The treble is competent but far from outstanding. It reminds me of the high end of the Sennheiser CX250, which I rather like. Trouble is – the CX250 doesn’t have bass that crowds out everything else and costs about 2x less than the Sonys. There is a bit of hard-edginess to the treble and a spot of vocal sibilance is present on some tracks but such nuances are usually swallowed up by the bass and therefore don’t detract from the overall experience. The presentation, too, is quite decent – especially compared to the similarly-priced and similarly consumer-friendly Skullcandy FMJ – but not quite competitive with earphones such as the Brainwavz M1 and Meelectronics M6. The soundstage has good depth and ok width but for the most part stays concentrated in the center. The omnipresent bass can once again detract greatly from the realism of the experience, especially with live recordings.
Value
(5.5/10) – Head-Fi is quite clearly not the target audience of the Sony XB40EX – to say that these earphones are bass-heavy is a major understatement. In terms of overall frequency balance, the only earphones that even come close to offering the sort of bass dominance exemplified by the XB40EX are the TDK ‘Extra Bass’ EB900s. The EB900s are admittedly grainier and edgier but at the same time they are more manageable with a bit of equalization and have a more easy-going fit. Those interested in spending $40 on nothing but bass should concentrate on these two. For everyone else, better choices abound, though of course certain genre preferences may make the XB40EX a more appealing option. Personally I’d rather be listening to the MDR-EX082 (aka EX85), which comes as a stock earphone with many Sony players.
Pros: User-friendly cable, generally smooth sound, decent sense of space
Cons: Large; will be uncomfortable for some; bass dominates mids & treble
(3A39) Skullcandy FMJ
Reviewed Dec 2010
Details: One of Skullcandy’s pricier – and more popular - models
Current Price:
$36 from amazon.com (MSRP: $69.95)
Specs: Driver:
Dynamic | Imp:
16Ω | Sens: N/A | Freq:
16-20k Hz | Cable:
3.3’ L-plug
Nozzle Size:
4.5mm | Preferred tips:
Stock single-flanges, Sony Hybrids
Wear Style:
Straight down or over-the-ear
Accessories
(2.5/5) – Single-flange (3 sizes) silicone tips, Comply foam tips, and soft carrying pouch (note: 2010 version ships with clamshell case instead)
Build Quality
(2.5/5) – The shells are metal but feel very light and a little cheap. Strain relief is nonexistent on housing entry and at the y-split. The clear cable resembles Meelec cables externally but is thinner and has a tendency to kink. In addition, the 3.3’ cable length is far too short for the average adult
Isolation
(2.5/5) – Low since the earphones are ported and the driver bulges prevent deep insertion. The included Comply tips help a bit
Microphonics
(4/5) – Very low
Comfort
(2.5/5) – Though the FMJs are straight-barrel earphones, the big metal bulge housing the drivers can get in the way of wearing them comfortably for more than an hour or two. Wearing them over-the-ear is more comfortable but made needlessly difficult by the short cable
Sound
(3.6/10) – The FMJ is my third experience with Skullcandy earphones, following the entry-level Ink’d buds and the mid-range TiTans, which had somewhat similar sound signatures – powerful and forward bass, thin and dry mids, and prominent but harsh treble. The FMJ surprised me, not only by being so **** dreadful that I considered giving up on this review but also by taking on a different sound signature than the other Skullcandy IEMs. The FMJs are generally mid-forward but the bass certainly makes its presence known. Unlike the TiTans, which have fairly good, if overdone, low end extension, the FMJs carry a massive amount of mid- and upper- bass and little sub-bass. The extremely forward midrange makes the FMJ sound more balanced than the other Skullcandy earphones but at higher volumes the bass still reveals itself to be fat and muddy – certainly not as accurate or controlled as on the JVC Marshmallows or Sony MDR-EX082. In addition, drum crackle can be unpleasantly sharp, sometimes startlingly so – an issue of tuning rather than technical capability as the higher-end Grado iGi exhibits this as well.
One upside of the forward midrange is that the bass fails to overpower it at reasonable listening volumes. There is also an illusion of clarity brought about by the peculiar balance of the midrange – vocals come across powerfully and intelligibly. The natural clarity of the FMJs, however, is at best on par with the much-cheaper Earsquake SHA or Meelec M2. Detail is similarly underwhelming, though again the forward mids act to force what little detail there is on the listener. Those who have never before owned good earphones will be tricked into thinking that the FMJs are reproducing parts of the music stock earphones do not while in reality they are simply terrible at differentiating between a track’s background and foreground (more on this later).
The treble is admittedly better than the slightly harsh highs of the Ink’d buds and the metallic high end of the TiTans. The FMJs are slightly smoother and roll off later than the Ink’d buds. They are also warmer in tone and more natural-sounding than the TiTans. That’s where the good new ends, however – the presentation of the FMJs is one of the most congested I have ever heard from a >$20 pair of earphones. The biggest problem is that they have no soundstage – zip, zilch, nada. I’ve heard some narrow-sounding earphones before but the FMJ has the sonic space of a Porta Potty. Expectedly, most tracks sound at least slightly congested (just imagine cramming a four-piece band into said Porta Potty). Instrumental separation, imaging, and positioning are all quite poor – everything just sounds in-your-face forward. There are certainly listeners who like a more forward presentation but I can’t help but think that the FMJs are better suited for audiobooks and voice calls than music or movies.
Value
(4/10) – Let’s face it - Skullcandy products are not very well-regarded around Head-Fi for reasons beyond simple audiophile snobbishness. Still, the entry-level Ink’d buds prove that even Skullcandy products can be good value for money when priced low enough. The FMJ, however, is undoubtedly one of the least enjoyable listening experiences I’ve had in the history of this thread. It is not the lowest-scoring earphone in this review because frankly, it isn’t that bad from a technical standpoint, but even those in search of an extremely forward sound heavy on both the lows and mids can do better for the money. Unless, of course, a nonexistent soundstage and mediocre fit, build quality, and isolation are the other requirements.
Pros: Not bass monsters, come with Comply tips, low cable noise
Cons: Short cable; will be uncomfortable for some; poor clarity, no soundstage
(3A40) Hippo Boom
Reviewed Jan 2011
Details: Budget basshead-oriented earphone from Jaben’s in-house brand
Current Price: N/A (discontinued) (MSRP: $43)
Specs: Driver:
Dynamic | Imp:
32Ω | Sens:
102 dB | Freq:
20-22k Hz | Cable:
4’ L-plug
Nozzle Size:
5mm | Preferred tips:
Stock triple-flanges
Wear Style:
Straight down or over-the-ear
Accessories
(3.5/5) – Single-flange silicone tips (4 sizes), bi-flange silicone tips, shirt clip, and soft carrying pouch
Build Quality
(4/5) – Like the other Hippo earphones, the Boom feels rather sturdy with its metal shells, rubbery cables, and low profile 3.5mm L-plug. Mild driver flex is present but not problematic
Isolation
(3/5) – Fairly typical of sealed-back straight-barrel dynamics
Microphonics
(3/5) – Can be quite annoying when worn cable-down; fine otherwise
Comfort
(3.5/5) – The Boom is a little tubby in shape but is tapered in the front and quite comfortable to insert. The weighty housings may be an issue for some and the non-removable shirt clip is very annoying but the fit is good overall
Sound
(4.8/10) – The sound signature of the Hippo Boom is a far cry from the treble-heavy Hippo Shroom and subbass-heavy VB, both pricier models in the company’s lineup. There is no mistaking the Boom for a high-end earphone but for a budget set it does quite a few things properly. True to the name, the Boom is an impactful earphone with a full-bodied low end. Unlike the VB, the Boom has its bass come in mostly above 40Hz but extension is still good for a budget set. The bass is a bit boomy and slightly muddy but a step tighter than that of the cheaper Meelec M9. There is a bit of resonance within the housings and the tone is quite dark overall but for lovers of bass the low end of the Boom will fall in that happy range beween ‘added kick’ and ‘bass monster’.
The midrange of the Boom is clear and detailed but a bit dry and slightly recessed in comparison to the low end. There is very little warmth carried over from the bass and the liquidity of the smoother Hippo Pearl just isn’t there. The treble is not recessed but not quite as prominent as the low end and can be a bit harsh and overbearing at times. It’s a little grainy and somewhat sharp/edgy, not unlike that of the Hippo VB. Extension is good – the smoother Pearl seems to roll off a bit earlier than the Boom. The presentation is decent but the Boom is neither open-sounding nor very spacious. The bass and treble are both fairly aggressive and the sonic space never quite feels three-dimensional or out-of-the-head – just the usual three-blob (left, right, center) soundstage. Layering is decent, however, and things never really sound congested but the similarly-priced Pearl sounds both larger and more enveloping.
Value
(7/10) – The Hippo Boom is a well-built and comfortable budget earphone designed to provide ample bass for all but the most die-hard bassheads without sacrificing midrange clarity or treble energy. To an extent it is successful, exhibiting plentiful bass impact, a clear - if somewhat recessed – midrange, and edgy treble. At the same time, the balance and refinement of the higher-end Hippo VB just isn’t there and the Boom lacks the spaciousness and musicality of the similarly-priced Hippo Pearl as well as the Brainwavz M1 and ProAlpha. Unless the Boom’s signature is exactly what is sought, it isn’t difficult to do better for the money on the whole.
Pros: Solid construction, impactful bass, good clarity
Cons: Shirt clip not removable, edgy treble
(3A41) Hippo Pearl
Reviewed Jan 2011
Details: Hippo Boom alternative from Jaben’s in-house brand
Current Price:
$43 from unclewilsons.com (MSRP: $43)
Specs: Driver:
Dynamic | Imp:
16Ω | Sens:
106 dB | Freq:
10-20k Hz | Cable:
4’ L-plug
Nozzle Size:
5mm | Preferred tips:
Stock triple-flanges
Wear Style:
Straight down or over-the-ear
Accessories
(3/5) – Single-flange silicone tips (3 sizes), shirt clip, and soft carrying pouch
Build Quality
(4/5) – Like the other Hippo earphones, the Pearl feels rather sturdy with its metal shells, rubbery cables, and well-relieved 3.5mm L-plug. Driver flex is a bit worse than with the Boom but not too bad
Isolation
(3/5) – Fairly typical of sealed-back straight-barrel dynamics
Microphonics
(3/5) – Can be quite annoying when worn cable-down; fine otherwise
Comfort
(4.5/5) – The Pearl is smaller than the Boom and can be inserted more deeply without discomfort. The housings are lighter and rounded at the rear – very unobtrusive on the whole
Sound
(6.4/10) – If the hippo Boom is the budget-oriented equivalent of the higher-end Hippo VB, the Pearl is the budget version of the Brainwavz M3. Its bass is softer and rounder than that of the Boom but equally impactful. It’s not the deepest or tightest but very pleasant on the whole – warm, full, rumbly, and engaging. The low end of the Pearl can creep up a bit on the midrange but generally isn’t as forward as that of the Boom. The overall balance is better with the Pearl and as a result and the midrange, despite being no more forward than that of the Boom, carries more emphasis. The mids are a bit thicker and not as clear as those of the Boom but sound more full-bodied as a result. The Pearl is unquestionably the warmer and smoother of the two earphones but it’s so much more than that – compared to dry and dark Boom, the Pearl sounds natural and organic – a sidestep from the signatures of the Boom, Shroom, and VB.
The high end retains the smoothness of the midrange, giving up the edginess of the Boom for a softer, more easy-going sound. The treble is still fairly lively but not nearly as harsh or aggressive. Detailing is surprisingly good and the timbre is quite natural for a budget earphone. The presentation, too, steps away from the confined feel of the Boom in favor of a more spacious sound. The Pearl has good presence across a larger sonic area and a fairly spherical presentation. Being slightly less dark than the Boom, it also seems to have more air, which does wonders for the overall experience. Interestingly, it is also quite a bit less efficient than Boom, requiring a half-dozen more volume notches from my Cowon J3, and doesn’t perform at its best at low output volumes.
Value
(8.5/10) – Despite its modest price and austere appearance, the Hippo Pearl packs quite a sonic punch, beating out its siblings – the Boom and Shroom – in balance and musicality. The Pearl isn’t the most proficient earphone from a technical standpoint but it is surprisingly balanced, musical, and easy-going. As with the other Hippo earphones, microphonics can be a problem with cable-down wear but in all other aspects the Pearl is an extremely competent product, picking up a few extra points along the way for the diminutive size and comfortable fit. As a practical and pleasant all-rounder, the Pearl is a very impressive entry in its price category.
Pros: Solid build quality, comfortable fit, musical & well-balanced sound
Cons: Mild driver flex
(3A42) MEElectronics CX21
Reviewed Jan 2011
Details: Entry-level model from Meelec’s new ‘clarity’ series of IEMs
Current Price: N/A (discontinued) (MSRP: $39.99; $44.99 for CX21P with mic)
Specs: Driver:
Dynamic | Imp:
16Ω | Sens:
101 dB | Freq:
15-20k Hz | Cable:
4.4’ 45°-plug
Nozzle Size:
5mm | Preferred tips:
Stock single-flanges, Stock bi-flanges
Wear Style:
Straight down or over-the-ear
Accessories
(4/5) – Single-flange (3 sizes), bi-flange, and triple-flange silicone tips, shirt clip, and zippered carrying case
Build Quality
(3.5/5) – The housings of the CX21 are made completely out of plastic and feel a bit cheap next to the older M-series models. The cable is quite nice and completely identical to the one used on the higher-end CW31, down to the low-profile 45°-plug
Isolation
(3/5) – Isolation is good with an over-the-ear fit and longer tips
Microphonics
(4.5/5) – Nearly absent with over-the-ear wear, low otherwise
Comfort
(4/5) – The angled housings of the CX21 resemble old Shure models (of the E3/E4 generation) and fit similarly. With an over-the-ear fit and longer tips the housings actually clear my ears completely and remain comfortable for hours
Sound
(6.6/10) – While the consumer-oriented ‘M’-series of Meelec’s lineup is moving closer and closer to basshead heaven with the latest releases, the CX21 represents a move in a different direction. As a part of the new clarity series, the CX21 pursues a brighter, more balanced sound, competing with the likes of the Maximo iM-590 and Brainwavz M1. The CX21 has less bass than any of Meelec’s other dynamics but still narrowly beats the armature-based A151 in impact and depth and delivers more punch than the similarly-priced Brainwavz M1. When it comes to texture and detail the Brainwavz, unburdened by the need to deliver sizeable impact, still win out but the CX21 doesn’t lag far behind.
Expectedly, there is no midrange bleed, which allows the CX21 to stay true to its name and provide impressive clarity across the range. The mids are in good balance with the bass - neither as forward as those of the Brainwavz M1 nor as recessed as those of the Meelec M9 or M6 – and can be characterized as crisp and detailed. The CX21 does sound thinner in the mids than the Brainwavz M1, sacrificing the lush smoothness of the Brainwavz mids for a dryer sound with slightly more upper midrange emphasis. Despite this, the treble of the CX21 is neither harsh nor sibilant unless the track calls for it. It lacks the sparkle of the Maximo iM-590 and the softness of the Brainwavz M1, appearing a bit hard-edged and, at times, lacking fine detail. Top-end extension is good for the asking price – about on-par with the Brainwavz M1 and lagging just a tad behind the iM-590.
In terms of presentation, the CX21 is merely competent – the average-sized soundstage has plenty of air and good separation and positioning, partly due to the excellent clarity, but it doesn’t portray distance as well as the higher-end A151. The timbre is a touch less natural than that of the higher-end CW31 and the Brainwavz M1/M2 and the dynamic range is also a bit poorer than that of the Brainwavz earphones. Tonally, the CX21 is quite neutral, sounding more like the RE-ZERO or Etymotic MC5 than the brighter Maximo iM-590 or darker Meelec A151. Such neutrality is rare among budget IEMs, which makes the CX21 arguably more unique in sound signature than the higher-end CW31 and puts it in good company with sets such as the Apple Dual-Driver in-ears and ECCI PR200.
Value
(8/10) – The CX21 is Meelec’s first attempt at a neutral sound signature and, for the money, it hits the nail square on the head. With a slight bit of added bass kick and good presence throughout, the CX21 accompanies the pricier CW31 in filling out the middle third of Meelec’s model range and competes well with the other entry-level all-rounders. The angled housings make the CX21 comfortable for over-the-ear use and microphonics are impressively low, making up for the plasticky construction of the earphones. Those looking for warmth or powerful bass will vastly favor the CW31 (or one of the M-series models) but I quite like the slightly analytical tilt of the lower-end earphone.
Pros: Low microphonics, comfortable, balanced and neutral sound
Cons: Least impressive build quality of all Meelec products
(3A43) MEElectronics CW31
Reviewed Jan 2011
Details: Wooden ergonomically-shaped earphone from Meelec
Current Price:
$50 from meelec.com (MSRP: $49.99); $55 for CW31P with microphone
Specs: Driver:
Dynamic | Imp:
16Ω | Sens:
99 dB | Freq:
20-20k Hz | Cable:
4.4’ 45°-plug
Nozzle Size:
7mm oval | Preferred tips:
Stock bi-flanges, Sony Hybrids
Wear Style:
Straight down
Accessories
(4/5) – Single-flange (3 sizes), bi-flange, and triple-flange silicone tips, shirt clip, and zippered carrying case
Build Quality
(4/5) – The housings of the CW31 are lightweight and quite small, made partly out of a light-colored wood and partly out of plastic. The nozzles are oval in shape (which I’ve only seen once before on the ATH-CK6) and protected by a fine mesh filter. The cable is well-relieved, smooth, flexible and terminated with a new lower-profile 45°-plug
Isolation
(2.5/5) – The design of the CW31 allows only the nozzle to be inserted into the ear canal but the included bi-flange tips provide reasonable isolation
Microphonics
(4/5) – Typically low but the CW31 cannot be worn over-the-ear so cable noise is difficult to eliminate completely
Comfort
(4.5/5) – The fit of the CW31 is fairly similar to the other half in-ear earphones but it is smaller and lighter than most. In addition, the tapered housings prevent the CW31 from putting pressure on the outer ear, making it very easy to wear for prolonged periods
Sound
(6.7/10) – As the middle earphone in Meelectronics’ clarity series, the CW31 really doesn’t differ a whole lot from the lower-end CX21. In a nutshell, the CW31 adds extra bass and a noticeable bit of warmth to the balance of the lower-end model. The bass is still quite controlled but the CW31 has better depth and power at the low end. The bass is more full-bodied and the notes are given a pleasant warmth and roundness compared to the cooler-sounding CX21. In terms of impact, the CW31 still lags behind Meelec’s M-series models but falls closer to the Brainwavz M2 than it does to the M1. As with the CX21, there is a bit of bass detail and texture missing compared to the higher-end A151 and CC51 models but for the price the bass performance is quite competitive.
The small increase in bass quantity over the CX21 results in some warm overtones being added to the midrange of the CW31. Clarity is still very good, however, and the midrange is no more recessed than that of the CX21. Detail and texture are similar as well – just a tad below what the Maximo iM-590 and Brainwavz M1 are capable of but a bit better than with the Meelec M6 or Dr Dre Beats Tour. On the whole, the warmer CW31 sounds a little thicker and more fluid than the CX21 but the difference likely won’t be noticeable unless the two are compared head-to-head. The treble of the CW31 is neither harsh nor sibilant unless the track calls for it and appears to be just a tad softer than that of the CX21. Fine detail is still missing at times but top-end extension is quite good.
In terms of presentation, the CW31 is slightly more well-rounded compared to the lower-end model. While the CX21 has better separation and a bit more width, the CW31 seems a touch more spherical and enveloping. Neither earphone has the positioning accuracy of the A151 but the CW31 does seem to have a little more depth to it, partly as a result of the fuller, more powerful low end. The timbre and tone of the CW31 seem a little more natural as well though the earphones really aren’t radically different on that count.
Value
(8.5/10) – The CW31 is yet another solid entrant in the sub-$60 market segment, offering a minimalistic design, comfortable form factor, decent build quality, and a microphone option all for not very much money. For those who don’t mind sacrificing some isolation and like a bit of warmth and bass boost to their sound, the CW31 is likely worth the price premium over the lower-end CX21 but both earphones deliver clear, accurate sound and the kind of real-world usability we’ve come to expect from Meelectronics products.
Pros: Small & comfortable, low microphonics, all-around solid sound quality
Cons: Mediocre isolation
(3A44) MEElectronics M21
Reviewed Feb 2011
Details: Entry-level earphone from Meelec’s M-series available in a variety of colors
Current Price: N/A (discontinued) (MSRP: $34.99); $40 for M21P with microphone
Specs: Driver:
Dynamic | Imp:
16Ω | Sens:
92 dB | Freq:
20-20k Hz | Cable:
4.3’ L-plug
Nozzle Size:
5mm | Preferred tips:
Stock single flanges
Wear Style:
Straight down or over-the-ear
Accessories
(4/5) – Single-flange (3 sizes) and bi-flange silicone tips, shirt clip, and clamshell carrying case
Build Quality
(4.5/5) – The build is similar to the older M11/M11+ models although the M21 is a bit larger. The housings are all-metal, the cabling is sturdy and well-relieved, and paper filters protect the nozzles. The low-profile L-plug is a welcome change from the 45-degree plug of the M11
Isolation
(3/5) – Fairly average due to large rear-facing vent
Microphonics
(4.5/5) – Very low when worn cord-down; nonexistent otherwise
Comfort
(4/5) – The M21 is a bit larger than the older M11+ and the fit kit isn’t as extensive but it’s still a very comfortable straight-barrel earphone. With deep-sealing tips I even managed to sleep in them, which I can’t say for the larger M31 model
Sound
(5.9/10) – The sound of the M21 carries a slight emphasis on bass consistent with the other models in Meelec’s M-series but the overall balance of the earphones wouldn’t put them out of place in the clarity series, either. In terms of quantity, the bass of the M21 falls closer to the balance-oriented CX21 and CW31 models and lags noticeably behind the significant amounts of bass boost offered by the M6, M11+, and M31. There is some sub-bass roll-off and most of the emphasis is on the mid- and upper bass regions. The bass is rumbly and a bit soft in character – much like that of the M31 but not nearly as voluminous and less ‘boomy’ as a result. The M6 and M11+ sound quite a bit more aggressive in comparison. Overall, I would say that bass control is decent-to-good and mid-range bleed is not significant enough to be distracting.
There is no significant drop in emphasis when moving from the bass to the midrange, which gives the M21 a leg up in balance on the bass-monster M11+ and the v-shaped M6. If the M6 is recessed in the mids, the M21 is recessed (or, to put it in more positive terms, laid-back) across the range. The mids are similar in quality to the M11+ - a bit dry and thick in character and not as clear or detailed as those of the CX21 but still quite adequate in the context of the sound signature. To be fair, the CX21 does emphasize its midrange more than the M21 does and needs the extra bit of detail and clarity to avoid appearing muffled.
As is the case with the M11+, the treble of the M21 is not notably harsh or sibilant but doesn’t ooze smoothness, either, especially at high volumes. On some tracks the earphones appear a bit edgy but much of the time the treble is a bit laid-back, which provides a nice contrast to the more aggressive treble of the M6 and M11+. Compared to the M6 there’s a drop in sparkle and airiness as a result of the slightly more relaxed treble presentation but extension is still decent. The overall presentation falls somewhere between the M6 and M11+ - the M21 can be quite wide and airy-sounding but still doesn’t quite keep up with the large headstage and immersive 3D feel of my M6. On a couple of tracks the M21’s ability to portray distance threw me off guard but in general its presentation is best described as ‘well-rounded’. In fact, I think ‘well-rounded’ describes the whole earphone rather well. It should be noted that as with all of the M-series earphones I have heard, the M21 sounds best at lower volumes. It’s also, as far as I can tell, less sensitive than any of the other M-series earphones.
Value
(8.5/10) – The Meelectronics M21 took me by surprise as a bit of a sidestep from the generally more bass-heavy M6, M11+, and M31 models. While the bass is definitely above baseline on the M21, the earphone still possesses decent balance and really doesn’t do a whole lot wrong for a set aimed at the mainstream market. Though it doesn’t have the wide headstage of the M6 or the midrange clarity and detail of the M11+, the more well-rounded M21 may just be my favourite M-series model regardless.
Pros: Well-built and easy-to-use; sound signature is solid all around
Cons: Yields to other Meelec models in specific sonic traits
(3A45) MEElectronics M31
Reviewed Feb 2011
Details: Bass-heavy earphone from Meelec’s M-series available in a variety of colors
Current Price:
$45 from meelec.com (MSRP: $44.99); $50 for M21P with microphone
Specs: Driver:
Dynamic | Imp:
16Ω | Sens:
96 dB | Freq:
20-20k Hz | Cable:
4.3’ L-plug
Nozzle Size:
5mm | Preferred tips:
Stock single flanges
Wear Style:
Straight down or over-the-ear
Accessories
(4/5) – Single-flange (3 sizes) and bi-flange silicone tips, shirt clip, and clamshell carrying case
Build Quality
(4.5/5) – The build is similar to the older M11/M11+ models although the M31 is quite large in comparison. The housings are all-metal, the cabling is sturdy and well-relieved, and paper filters protect the nozzles. The low-profile L-plug is a welcome change from the 45-degree plug of the M11
Isolation
(3/5) – Fairly average due to large rear-facing vent
Microphonics
(4.5/5) – Very low when worn cord-down; nonexistent otherwise
Comfort
(3.5/5) – The M31 is a large earphone and is best worn with a shallower seal despite being tapered at the front for deeper insertion. It’s fairly light and the fit is quite inoffensive but doesn’t quite disappear the way the smaller M11 and M21 models do
Sound
(5.7/10) – If the M21 is the most balanced M-series earphone I’ve heard so far, the M31 is the bassiest. It delivers gobs of head-pounding impact at the slightest indication of bass on a track. As one might guess, the bass boost does bring with it great sub-bass extension. However, that’s a bit of a hollow victory as the drivers don’t do a great job of texturing sub-bass response. More often than not, the bass is felt rather than heard. As with the M21, the low end of the M31 tends towards ‘boomy’. Expectedly, there’s a fair bit of midrange bleed and the mids of the M31 are slightly warmer than those of the M21 as a result. Aside from the differences brought about by the bass balance, however, the two earphones are fairly similar – the midrange of the M31 is not as clear or detailed as that of the CX21 and not as recessed as that of the M6. The heavy bass does make the mids sound a bit less emphasized than with the M21 but those seeking perfect balance probably won’t be looking a the M31 in the first place.
The treble transition seems a touch smoother with the M31, mostly because the bass is far more dominant, but the clarity, detail, and extension are all fairly similar to the M21. One major difference is in the presentation – while the M21 sounds spacious, well-rounded, and sometimes downright open, the boomier nature and more bass-heavy balance of the M31 reduces the airiness of the earphones. The presentation of the M31 is by no means offensive but it’s definitely closer in size to the M11+ than the M21 or M6. The peculiar balance of the earphones also gives them a darker overall tonality compared to the (fairly neutral) M21. Though none of these differences are particularly noticeable individually, they do add up to a different sort of sound en masse. It should be noted that at lower volumes the bass of the M31 isn’t as intrusive and they sound more balanced and natural. However, I still think that those who are not bass-obsessed need not apply as the M31 really isn’t better than the M21 from a technical standpoint – just bassier.
Value
(7.5/10) – Yet another well-built and user-friendly design from Meelectronics, the M31 is an earphone with many strengths. At the same time, it is an unrelentingly bass-heavy take on the M-series sound signature and will not appeal to those looking for balance or accuracy. Its mainstream sound signature is competition for the likes of the Sony XB40EX and TDK EB900, and that’s how it should be viewed. For those looking for the most bass to be had under $50 with minimal sacrifices elsewhere, the M31 is a good option. For overall sound quality, I just don’t see myself picking it over the M21.
Pros: Huge bass response; solid build quality
Cons: Huge bass response; physically larger than M21 and M11+
(3A46) Xears TD-III v2
Reviewed Mar 2011 / updated Aug 2011
Details: Latest revision of one of Xears’ flagship in-ears
Current Price: N/A (discontinued) (MSRP: 42€)
Specs: Driver:
Dynamic | Imp: N/A | Sens:
124 dB | Freq:
6-28k Hz | Cable:
4’ I-plug
Nozzle Size:
5.5mm | Preferred tips:
Stock bi-flanges, stock foamies, generic single-flanges
Wear Style:
Straight down or over-the-ear
Accessories
(3/5) – Single-flange (3 sizes) and bi-flange silicone tips, foamhybrid tips, and padded carrying pouch
Build Quality
(3.5/5) – The TD-III is a wooden take on the Xears’ Turbine-inspired TD100/TD100-II design. As with the other Xears models the nozzles are made of metal and the black finish on the wooden part has a hand-painted feel to it. The strain relief is a bit too hard for my liking but should do the job. The current TD-III revision (v2) comes with a nylon-sheathed j-cord, much like the pricier N3i model. It feels sturdier and carries less noise than the old plastic cord but tends to tangle more. One thing that bothers me about the TD-III is the driver flex, which is similar or perhaps a bit greater than that of the old TD100 (The discontinued TD-III v1 came with a smooth, memory-free plastic-sheathed cable in a standard y-cord configuration)
Isolation
(3.5/5) – Quite good, especially with the included bi-flange tips
Microphonics
(4/5) – Surprisingly low for a cloth cable and helped further by the j-cord configuration
Comfort
(4/5) – The fit is similar to that of the Monster Turbine earphones with straight-barrel housings rounded at the front for comfort. The TD-III shells have a weight advantage while Turbines come with nicer eartips. The j-cord may be annoying for some users and tends to make over-the-ear wear a bit of a hassle
Sound
(7.6/10) – From memory, the new TD-III sounds quite similar to the Xears TD100 – the now-discontinued metal model I fell in love with back in August of 2010. Like the TD100, the TD-III has deep, full-bodied, and very impactful bass. The overall bass quantity of the TD-III is just a touch ahead of the Thinksound TS02 and Skullcandy Holua. Texture and detail are on-par with the (noticeably dryer-sounding) TS02 – an impressive feat for an earphone that sounds as smooth as the TD-III does. The attack and decay times are on-par with the Thinksounds as well - enjoyable even on fast-paced electronic tracks but still conducive to a slight thickness of note and faintly ‘lingering’ bass. Like the TD100, the TD-III will be a bit too bass-heavy for some but, as with the Monster Turbine, I really don’t find the quality of its bass offensive in the least.
There is a touch of bass bleed but nothing too bad – the Skullcandy Holua fares far worse and even the significantly leaner-sounding Woodees Blues don’t exactly shame the TD-III when it comes to resolution and control. The mids are warm, slightly forward, and extremely lush and sweet. Detail is good but the thickness does reduce the clarity ever so slightly compared to more analytical sets such as the RE0. The treble is, for the most part, very smooth and easily competes with the Woodees Blues in clarity and detail. Compared to the Woodees, the TD-III is a tiny bit less sparkly but still has very good treble presence. Like the midrange, the treble is a bit thick and lacks the air of some of the more analytical earphones. It is far from dull, however, and manages to keep my attention quite easily when necessary.
When it comes to presentation, the TD-III, like the TD100, manages to impress yet again. Soundstage width and depth are very good – easily the best among all of the reasonably-priced woodies I’ve heard - and instrumental separation is quite decent for a mid-range dynamic. The earphone is capable of delivering an excellent sense of distance but leans slightly towards intimacy. As a result, the musical experience provided by the TD-III is spacious but cohesive. The characteristic note thickness of the TD-III makes it more musical and satisfying but reduces air slightly. Imaging is still good, however, and the overall tone of the earphone is not made darker because of it. All in all, for an earphone with the bass power of the TD-III, the overall sound is surprisingly well-balanced and enjoyable. It is colored and exciting and I quite like it despite all of my analytical biases.
Value
(9/10) – Right out of the box the TD-III annoys with moderate driver flex and perhaps offers up more bass power than I would like. Its accessory pack and general build quality don’t shame the competition, either, but it has one ace up its sleeve – the sound. A year or so ago, the sound quality of the TD-III would have been so completely out of place in its price bracket that the competition would be rendered irrelevant. Even today, the TD-III sets itself apart from the competing Woodees and Thinksound models by offering better top-to-bottom extension, a more spacious soundstage, and seductively liquid mids. For those who prioritize sound quality by a large margin as I do, the TD-III is easily the reasonably-priced wooden IEM to buy.
Pros: Very capable all-rounder with a bass-happy sound sig
Cons: J-cord may be an issue for some; moderate driver flex, not gift-able for lack of packaging
For a longer review of the Xears TD-III, complete with comparisons to the Thinksound TS02, Woodees Blues, Skullcandy Holua, and Fischer Audio Daleth, see
here
(3A47) PADACS Aksent
Reviewed Mar 2011
Details: Unique-looking metal earphone from iPad accessory manufacturer PADACS
Current Price:
$50 from padacs.com (MSRP: $49.95)
Specs: Driver:
Dynamic | Imp:
16Ω | Sens:
98 dB | Freq:
20-20k Hz | Cable:
4’ I-plug
Nozzle Size:
5.5mm | Preferred tips:
Stock foamhybrids, generic single-flanges
Wear Style:
Straight down or over-the-ear
Accessories
(2.5/5) – Foamhybrid tips (3 sizes), shirt clip, and drawstring carrying pouch
Build Quality
(4/5) – The gigantic metal housings are finished in glossy gunmetal paint and feel very sturdy. Paper filters protect the nozzles from earwax. At the other end, a rear vent provides increased airflow to the large dynamic driver and beefy strain reliefs protect the rubbery cable. The cable is of average thickness and terminates in a 3.5mm I-plug. A large unit holding the integrated microphone, 1-button remote, and sliding analogue volume control is positioned at the y-split
Isolation
(3/5) – The foam tips provide a good seal and isolate well but the earphones are still vented dynamics and isolate accordingly
Microphonics
(3.5/5) – Noise made by the rubberized cable is slightly below average and the included shirt clip helps lower it further. In addition, because the mic is integrated into the y-split, the Aksent can be worn over-the-ear much more easily than headsets with cable-mounted microphones
Comfort
(3/5) – Though the housings are quite large, they weigh no more than those of the average metal-shelled earphone. The oversize foam tips are soft and compress quite easily, expanding to provide a stable seal even with shallower fitment. I do wish that the spacing between the tip set sizes were smaller, with maybe a fourth pair included to bridge the gap between the current ‘Medium’ and ‘Large’
Sound
(6.6/10) – The Aksent is a decidedly bass-heavy earphone, with the powerful sound signature befitting the enormous housings of the earphones. The bass is about as impactful but slightly more rumble-prone than that of the Fischer Audio Eterna. Low-end extension is very good – again on-par with the Eterna – and the balance of the Aksent very nearly matches its bass quantity to the true bass-monster earphones in the <$50 range – sets such as the TDK EB900, Sony XB40EX, and MEElectronics M31. The bass is full-bodied and has a bit more impact than texture. In a way, the character and quantity of the bass actually work for the Aksent since its foam tips require a bit more fiddling to form an airtight seal than the silicone tips commonly used by most other manufacturers. Even with a poor seal, the Aksent is highly unlikely to elicit any complaints of insufficient bass. With a good seal, on the other hand, the Aksent may elicit complaints of excessive bass from those who prefer a more analytical sound. However, unlike the bass-heavy sets from Sony and TDK, the bass quality of the Aksent doesn’t suffer much in favor of quantity, though it isn’t quite as textured, controlled, or detailed as that of the pricier Eterna.
Expectedly, the huge bass boost of the Aksent does bleed slightly into the midrange, warming it up and coloring the sound signature. However, the midrange is not nearly as recessed as that of the Eterna, making the Aksent sound more balanced and allowing the volume to be kept lower without sacrificing midrange articulation. Generally, the mids are smooth, rich, and a little thick. Clarity and detail are decent for a bass-heavy earphone but the leaner-sounding midrange and treble of the Eterna are more technically proficient. Still, the Aksent performs very well considering its price and bass-heavy inclinations. The treble transition is extremely smooth and emphasis doesn’t drop off until well into the treble region, providing solid presence across the range. Top-end extension is decent as well, especially considering that the Aksent’s closest competitors in the headset realm are the MEElec M31P and Nuforce NE-700M, neither of which has a significant advantage in balance.
The presentation, similarly, is well-rounded and competent. The soundstage is average in size but layering is good. The huge bass has a tendency to be omnipresent in the sonic stage but that’s true of most reasonably-priced bassy earphones. The slight thickness of note also detracts slightly from instrumental separation though it is still easily as good as with Meelec’s similarly-priced M31 and M11+ models. On the whole, the Aksent doesn’t so much wow with anything in particular but impresses more with how little of a hit it takes in overall sound quality despite producing a copious amount of bass.
Value
(8/10) – The Padacs Aksent in-ear earphones offer a unique blend of style, sound, and functionality at their (very popular) price point. The Aksent is the only reasonably-priced set I can think of to provide a smartphone mic and remote as well as a built-in analogue volume control. The large gunmetal housings are similarly unique and, while probably not ideal for those with small ears, remain quite comfortable with the provided foamhybrid eartips. The sound signature of the Aksent puts it closest to truly bass-heavy mid-level IEMs without sacrificing a whole lot in the mids and highs. While not at all revolutionary, the sound is sure to appeal to the mainstream consumer and, combined with the generally good build quality and isolation, makes for a solid mid-range headset.
Pros: Well-built and attractive; integrated microphone and analogue volume control; bass-heavy but still competent sound
Cons: Only foam tips included; large spacing between stock tip sizes; very large housings
For a full review of the PADACS Aksent please see
here.
(3A48) Denon AH-C360
Reviewed Apr 2011
Details: Entry-level angled-nozzle earphone from Denon
Current Price:
$49 from amazon.com (MSRP: $49.99)
Specs: Driver:
Dynamic | Imp:
16Ω | Sens:
99 dB | Freq:
5-24k Hz | Cable:
2’ I-plug + 2.5’ L-plug extension
Nozzle Size:
5mm | Preferred tips:
Stock single-flanges
Wear Style:
Straight down
Accessories
(4/5) – Single-flange silicone tips (4 sizes), 2.5’ extension cable, shirt clip, and zippered clamshell carrying case
Build Quality
(3.5/5) – The housings are plastic and the thin cable does not inspire a whole lot of confidence but the nozzles use mesh filters and the integrated strain reliefs work well
Isolation
(2.5/5) – The housings are vented but the angled nozzles still allow for decent isolation
Microphonics
(3.5/5) – Not too high in the smooth, plastic-sheathed cable but some may have difficulty wearing the C360 over-the-ear to eliminate cable noise completely
Comfort
(4.5/5) – The angled-nozzle housings are extremely light and fit beautifully. The off-center cable exit point and rubbery housings further illustrate Denon’s attention to detail when it comes to ergonomics and convenience
Sound
(4.7/10) – While the tuning of the AH-C360 is very indicative of their consumer-oriented nature, the somewhat v-shaped overall balance does stay true to the signature of the flagship AH-C710. The bass of the AH-C360 is big and somewhat bloated, though not quite as offensive as that of the Sennheiser CX300. Bass impact is fairly good and the low end is quite tactile and well-extended. Speed, texture, and detail, however, are all somewhat lacking, as one might expect from a budget-level earphone with this much bass. ‘Tight’ simply isn’t a word I would use to describe the low end of the C360.
The midrange is slightly warm and tends to be overshadowed by the bass. The upper midrange, while clear of bass bleed, is noticeably recessed. The resulting sound is slightly dull and lacks the fullness of sets such as the Meelec M21 and Brainwavz M1. Detail and clarity are, on the whole, decent but don’t break any barriers in the price tier. The similarly-priced Klipsch S3, despite similarly enhanced bass, has noticeably cleaner and crisper sound. Even the cheaper H2O Audio Flex walks all over the C360 when it comes to clarity and articulation.
The treble of the AH-C360 is hyped up in an attempt to balance out the sound signature. It does not, however, as the earphones still sound slightly dark on the whole. The top end of the AH-C360, instead of being laid-back and smooth as it is with most other budget bass monsters, is quite prominent at times and definitely runs the risk of listening fatigue for those sensitive to it. Surprisingly, the treble emphasis of the C360 manages to add edginess to the top end without any sparkle or air. Indeed, the entire sound is slightly stuffy despite the average-sized soundstage and decent imaging. If not for the strained and bloated bass, the AH-C360 could be a very good entry-level earphone, but it simply doesn’t offer enough refinement over other mainstream offerings to stand out from the crowd.
Value
(6/10) – The Denon AH-C360 is one of the many bass-heavy entry-level earphones offered by mainstream manufacturers. While it is less bloated than the ever-popular Sennheiser CX300 and Skullcandy TiTans, the overall sound quality of the C360 is really nothing to write home about. Neither are the isolation or build quality – both are merely adequate – and, while the angled-nozzle housings are extremely comfortable, the modular cable and low y-split may annoy some users. Further price cuts may bring the AH-C360 down into ‘must buy’ territory but as it stands, Denon’s budget model really doesn’t have a leg up on the competition.
Pros: Superb comfort
Cons: Modular cable can be frustrating; sub-par frequency balance
(3A49) H2O Audio Surge Pro Mini
Reviewed Apr 2011
Details: BA-based waterproof earphone from H2O Audio
Current Price:
$51 from jr.com (MSRP: $99.99)
Specs: Driver:
BA | Imp:
56Ω | Sens: N/A | Freq:
18-20k Hz | Cable:
3.9’ I-plug
Nozzle Size:
6mm | Preferred tips:
Stock single flanges
Wear Style:
Over-the-ear
Accessories
(2/5) – Single-flange conical silicone tips (5 sizes) & foamhybrid tips (2 sizes)
Build Quality
(3.5/5) – The housings are made out of a tough plastic and feel solid. The cable is medium in thickness and sheathed in blue plastic. Small rubber sleeves take the place of strain reliefs on cord entry and a 2” long strain relief, designed to work with waterproof mp3 player cases, protects the 3.5mm plug. And yes, they will survive prolonged exposure to sweat and/or water
Isolation
(3/5) – Quite good, especially with longer tips
Microphonics
(3.5/5) – Bothersome when worn cord-down; tolerable with over-the-ear wear
Comfort
(4/5) – The Surge comes with five sizes of unusually thick elastomer tips, which require some getting used to for those of us accustomed to silicone. Getting a good seal with them takes careful selection of the right size but once sealed the earphones will stay in surprisingly well even during intense physical activity. The housings are also very small and light – on par with the entry-level Flex model. Several days may be required for the cables to break in for over-the-ear wear
Sound
(6.2/10) – H2O Audio’s dynamic-driver Surge and Flex models both managed to impress me with the competency of their sound despite the waterproof coating applied to the drivers. The single balanced armature transducer used by the Pro Mini is a bit less fortunate, losing speed, clarity, and articulation compared to all but the cheapest armature-based competitors, but still performs very well next to the other waterproof earphones I’ve had the pleasure of hearing. At the bottom end the Pro Mini lacks a bit of extension – those looking for sub-bass rumble and slam will probably want to stay away. On the whole, however, the bass is quite tight and punchy. Impact is decent for a single BA, falling just a hair behind the pricier Meelec A151 and Westone 1. Don’t expect Ety-like control out of these but they fare about as well as a consumer-oriented sub-$100 BA should.
Expectedly, the midrange is completely free of bass bleed. Detail and texture are decent but the clarity seems to drop a notch compared to my armature-based Apple Dual-Drivers and Meelec A151s as well as some of the more analytical dynamics in the price range. As a result, the mids of the Surge Pro Mini sound just a tad muffled. Balance-wise I would call the earphones slightly mid-centric in that no part of the frequency spectrum takes attention away from the midrange and the treble and bass both roll off gently at the very top/bottom. Both the midrange and treble are quite smooth even next to the darker-sounding Meelec A151. There is just a bit of sparkle at the top end but nothing that would make them harsh or sibilant except at the highest of volumes (which itself are impractical for reasons outlined below). Top-end extension isn’t the greatest either but quite reasonable for a single-armature design.
The presentation of the earphones is competent but far from outstanding. The soundstage is slightly below-average in width and depth. Arguably, soundstage size benefits from a shallower seal although using the earphones in their waterproof capacity rules out shallow fitment. Separation is generally good but the drivers seem to run out of steam on very fast and busy tracks. They are still quicker and more resolving than the dynamic drivers used in the Surge and Flex models but the spread in favor of the Pro Mini is smaller than I expected. Tonally, the earphones are fairly neutral – more so than the dark-ish A151s or the brighter Apple Dual-Drivers. There is one more thing worth mentioning – the Surge Pro Mini exhibits some sort of driver flex when inserted. Since it is an armature-based earphone, the effect cannot be driver flex in the traditional sense but the sound put out by the earphones does change dramatically if a lot of pressure is applied on them while maintaining an airtight seal. In their normal, non-pressurized configuration, the Minis are also extremely difficult to drive to high volumes. While they don’t benefit from a dedicated amp from an SQ perspective, they really are very quiet at my normal listening volumes. With the Cowon J3 – a relatively powerful device as far as portable players go – I often found myself cranking the volume to 25/40 or higher just to get reasonable volume out of these.
Value
(8/10) – The H2O Audio Surge Pro Mini is a purpose-built underwater listening device that, like H2O’s lower-end models, sacrifices surprisingly little in the way of functionality and sound quality for the sake of shrugging off moisture. The single balanced armature produces balanced and neutral sound and performs remarkably well on all but the busiest tracks. The earphones do require a lot of power to get up to listening volume and the accessory pack is more modest than that of the cheaper Surge model but other than that I have no real complaints about the Pro Mini. For those in search of earphones that can withstand a large amount of moisture and still maintain a focus on accuracy and realism over thumping bass and tonal coloration, these are the ones to get.
Pros: Waterproof, reasonably well-built, secure fit, balanced and competent sound
Cons: 2” strain relief may not work well with tiny players, elastomer tips can take some getting used to, likes power
Big thanks to
Marcus_C for loaning me the Surge Pro Mini
(3A50) Xears Resonance Black
Reviewed May 2011
Details: Angled-nozzle earphone from Xears slotting in below the TD-III in the product line
Current Price:
est $45 (30€) from xears.com with coupon code KLANGFUZZIS (MSRP: 35€)
Specs: Driver:
Dynamic | Imp: N/A | Sens: N/A | Freq:
6-28k Hz | Cable:
4’ I-plug
Nozzle Size:
4mm | Preferred tips:
Sony Hybrid
Wear Style:
Straight down
Accessories
(2.5/5) – Single-flange silicone tips (3 sizes) and padded carrying pouch
Build Quality
(3.5/5) – The Resonance features tubby angled-nozzle housings with an aluminum rear chamber and plastic at the front. The slightly stiff rubbery cable is shared with TD-III and other Xears models and lacks a sliding cinch
Isolation
(3/5) – The design of the resonance prohibits deep insertion but the isolation is still quite good with well-sealing tips
Microphonics
(3.5/5) – Tolerable but the Resonance is difficult to wear cable-up so the cable noise cannot be eliminated completely
Comfort
(4.5/5) – The angled-nozzle housings of the resonance are wider at the front than the rear, preventing deep insertion. The form factor is reminiscent of the Denon C710 - over-the-ear fitment can be difficult and larger-than-usual tips may be required for a good seal
Sound
(7.2/10) – The sound signature of the Resonance falls fairly close to that of the now-defunct Xears TD100 and the higher-end Xears TD-III – emphasized mid-bass, smooth mids, and competent treble with some sparkle. The bass of the Resonance is powerful but controlled and sounds cleaner and crisper than that of the TD-III on sparse tracks. However, the TD-III is generally quicker and maintains composure better as things get busy. The bass of the TD-III also carries slightly more emphasis overall compared to the Resonance, though low-end extension is similarly impressive on both.
Not surprisingly, the Resonance is not quite as warm, full-bodied, or forward in the midrange as the TD-III. Its midrange is leaner and a bit crisper, with similar clarity and slightly more aggressive detailing. The upper midrange and treble are less laid-back with the Resonance, making it a touch less forgiving of sibilant recordings. On the whole it is still a very smooth and non-fatiguing earphone. Treble sparkle is low-to-moderate in quantity and top-end extension is decent – similar to the Brainwavz M2 with its gently rolled-off treble. The balance of the Resonance is undoubtedly better, however, with the slightly recessed midrange being far less distracting compared to the powerful, forward mids of the M2.
The presentation of the Resonance is solid as well – the soundstage is smaller than that of the TD-III but the feel of the earphone is, in general, less intimate, putting a greater amount of space between listener and music. Sonic cues are laid out in a convincing manner and the superior treble presence of the Resonance adds a bit of air as well. Separation lags slightly behind the higher-end model but isn’t too bad on the whole. An interesting note – the Resonance is generally a touch less sensitive than the TD-III, achieving lower volumes at the same output level, but still works far better with ‘clean’ sources such as portable amps and players.
Value
(8/10) – Giving up a couple of points here and there to the higher-end TD-III model, the Xears Resonance nevertheless holds up quite well in its price range. Though the TD-III stays cleaner when things get busy and provides more of a ‘wow’ factor in casual listening, I actually prefer the slightly less bottom-heavy signature of the Resonance and its more distancing presentation. In terms of usability, the angled-nozzle housings give up a bit of isolation for a comfortable, shallow-insertion form factor and allow the Resonance to exhibit less driver flex than any of the other Xears models. In conjunction with the lower price tag, that makes it worth a look in my book.
Pros: Solid sound quality with a popular signature; ergonomic form factor
Cons: Difficult to wear over-the-ear
(3A51) Xears Power Systems PS120PRO
Reviewed May 2011
Details: Bass-oriented IEM from Xears
Current Price: N/A (discontinued) (MSRP: 38€)
Specs: Driver:
Dynamic | Imp: N/A | Sens: N/A | Freq: N/A | Cable:
4’ I-plug
Nozzle Size:
5.5mm | Preferred tips:
Stock single-flanges
Wear Style:
Straight down or over-the-ear
Accessories
(2.5/5) – Single-flange silicone tips (3 sizes) and padded carrying pouch
Build Quality
(3.5/5) – The PS120PRO features black-and-blue metal housings with a filtered rear vent. Metal mesh screens protect the nozzles and an inch-long piece of flexible tubing acts as a strain relief. The cord is rubbery and a bit stiff. Mild driver flex is present
Isolation
(3/5) – Slightly below that of the TD-III but quite passable overall
Microphonics
(3.5/5) – Not too bad but the PS120PRO is difficult to wear cable-up due to the long rubber strain relief
Comfort
(4/5) – The housing shape of the PS120PRO is not all that different from that of the TD-III and the fit is quite similar overall. One major difference is the clear tubing that acts as a strain relief on the PS120PRO, which is actually detrimental to over-the-ear fitment, causing the cable to pop out from behind the ear on occasion. The lack of a cable cinch does not help
Sound
(6.7/10) – The PS120PRO is yet another Xears earphone following the heavy-bass, laid-back treble approach to audio. The balance of the PS120 combines the powerful low end of the higher-end TD-III with the slightly recessed midrange of the similarly-priced Resonance to create an even more bottom-heavy sound than the other two earphones. Bass depth and impact are impressive, keeping up with the TD-III, but the bass hump of the PS120 actually reaches higher up the frequency spectrum. Both the Resonance and TD-III are quicker, cleaner, and more detailed when it comes to bass presentation, though the difference is not night-and-day. The PS120 carries slower attack and decay times, resulting in the illusion of even greater bass quantity.
Expectedly, the PS120PRO is warmer and fuller-sounding than the Resonance. The midrange lacks a little bit of focus as a result of the bass dominance and can sound a touch muddy on tracks with lots of bass. The note presentation of the PS120 is soft and slightly thick, leaning away from the more crisp-sounding Resonance towards a fuller, weightier sound. The midrange of the PS120 is very smooth, as is the treble. Overall treble emphasis is similar to the TD-III – laid-back but not really lacking. That said, the TD-III has a bit more sparkle and extension. Presentation-wise, the PS120 leans towards intimacy, like the TD-III, but is a bit less airy and not as spacious. Indeed, soundstage size is about average for an earphone in the price range although layering is still good. On the point of general usability, the sensitivity of the PS120 is similar to that of the TD-III and the earphone is not particularly tolerant of poorly matched sources.
Value
(7.5/10) – The Xears PS120PRO offers a competent, fairly inoffensive take on the warm and bass-heavy sound so popular with the mainstream consumer. It can be thought of as a natural all-around upgrade to something like the Sennheiser CX300 – a commendable earphone with few flaws and an overall ‘likable’ sound signature. However, those looking for a quicker earphone with above-average detail and resolution will probably want to shell out the extra 12€ for the TD-III.
Pros: Competent take on a bass-heavy sound signature; user-friendly overall
Cons: A bit difficult to wear over-the-ear; mild driver flex
(3A52) Xears XR120PRO II
Reviewed June 2011
Details: Deep-insertion dynamic-driver IEM from Xears
Current Price:
est $45 (30€) from xears.com with coupon code KLANGFUZZIS (MSRP: 40€)
Specs: Driver:
Dynamic | Imp:
32Ω | Sens:
N/A | Freq:
10-25k Hz | Cable:
4’ I-plug J-cord
Nozzle Size:
5.5mm | Preferred tips:
Stock single-flanges, sony hybrids
Wear Style:
Straight down or over-the-ear
Accessories
(2.5/5) – Single-flange (3 sizes) silicone tips, bi-flange silicone tips, and soft carrying pouch
Build Quality
(3.5/5) – The XR120PRO II features black-and-silver metal housings with metal mesh nozzle screens and adequate strain relief on housing entry. The j-cord is rubbery and a bit stiff. Moderate driver flex is present
Isolation
(3.5/5) – Slightly above that of the TD-III and quite good overall
Microphonics
(4/5) – Not bad due to the j-cord setup
Comfort
(3.5/5) – The XR120 is a straight-barrel earphone with elongated nozzles and tapered housings. It likes smaller tips and deep insertion but is generally quite comfortable. The j-cord may be annoying for some
Sound
(7.7/10) – The XR120 is the first Xears earphone I’ve heard that places no emphasis on the lower half of the frequency spectrum. Instead, its bass is tight, quick, and controlled. There is no mid-bass hump and the low end rolls off gently below 50Hz - those in search of bass depth and rumble will definitely be better off with one of the other Xears earphones. Mediocre extension aside, the accuracy and detail of the XR120’s low end are very difficult to fault. The note presentation is leaner than with the other Xears earphones but on the whole the bass is still more visceral than that of higher-end analytical earphones such as the RE-ZERO or Etymotic MC5. There really is a bit of a two-faced nature to the XR120’s bass – it is able to alternate between powerful and subdued depending on the track, balancing fun and accuracy in a single earphone.
The midrange is crisp and clear, beating out the similarly-priced Maximo iM-590 and all of the other Xears models I’ve tried. The mids are balanced well with the rest of the spectrum and exhibit rather neutral tonality – the XR120 is warmer than the new Sunrise Xcited but cooler than the HiFiMan RE-ZERO. Microdetail and resolution lag very slightly behind models like the RE-ZERO, Xcited, and CC51 but for a cheaper earphone the XR120 is extremely competitive on both counts. One thing it does well is discriminate between background and foreground detail – many of the cheaper analytical earphones can push detail on the listener indiscriminately but only a few have the ability to create nuanced and convincing sound approaching the level of higher-end sets like the RE0 and Brainwavz M3.
The treble of the XR120 is clear and sparkly. While not as effortless or extended as the RE0, the XR120 lacks neither treble quantity nor quality and is clearly more extended at the top than the other Xears models. Again breaking from the mold set by its siblings, the XR120 is quite unforgiving of harshness and sibilance on tracks but stops short of being overly edgy. Transparency and refinement are not top-tier but they are impressive considering the price and contribute to the XR120’s lively yet accurate sound. The presentation, similarly, is well-rounded and convincing. While there is definitely more width than height or depth to the presentation of the XR120, the tubular nature of the soundstage is not nearly as pronounced as it is with the Sunrise Xcited. Instrument separation is quite good but the XR120 doesn’t keep up with the layering and imaging of something like the RE-ZERO. Clearly the more three-dimensional earphone, the RE-ZERO has the upper hand when it comes to soundstaging but the XR120 still fares better in width and airiness.
Value
(8.5/10) – Great sound at the expense of packaging, accessories, and sometimes build quality is what I’ve come to expect from Xears earphones. With the XR120PRO II, however, the disparity between performance and presentation is greater than ever. The host of potential caveats this time around is fairly long – the earphones are j-corded, prone to driver flex, and require a deep seal – but the sonic performance is on par with the very best I’ve heard at the price point. I wouldn’t gift the XR120 to a non-audiophile but those who are willing to live with the minor quirks may just be very, very pleasantly surprised with the sound quality.
Pros: Clear, detailed, and enjoyable sound; balanced without sounding dull
Cons: J-cord may be bothersome; moderate driver flex; deep bass roll-off; likes deep insertion
(3A53) Skullcandy Holua
Reviewed Jun 2011
Details: Wooden in-ear from Skullcandy
Current Price:
$46 from amazon.com (MSRP: $99.95); $49 for mic-and-remote version
Specs: Driver:
Dynamic | Imp:
16Ω | Sens:
N/A | Freq:
18-20k Hz | Cable:
4’ I-plug
Nozzle Size:
5mm | Preferred tips:
Stock single-flanges
Wear Style:
Straight down or over-the-ear
Accessories
(3.5/5) – Single-flange silicone tips (3 sizes), Comply foam tips, and hemp clamshell carrying case with mesh lid
Build Quality
(2.5/5) – Skullcandy clearly took the wood theme close to heart with the Holua – not only is the driver chamber made of wood, but so are the nozzles and stems. The housings feel reasonably solid but the nylon-sheathed cable tends to kink. In addition, the hideous plastic mic/remote unit looks like it came out of a cereal box and there are no strain reliefs anywhere on the earphone. Left/right markings are missing as well and moderate driver flex is present
Isolation
(3/5) – The rounded housings contribute to fairly decent isolation and the included Comply tips are always a plus for isolation
Microphonics
(3/5) – Bothersome when worn cable-down; fine otherwise
Comfort
(4/5) – The housings of the Holua are very lightweight and rounded at the front for comfortable fitment. Stock tips are of good quality and a set of Comply foamies is included. One slight issue with over-the-ear wear is the nylon cable popping out from behind the ear due to a lack of shirt clip and cable cinch/p>
Sound
(4.5/10) – The Holua feels right at home competing against bass-heavy wooden earphones from Thinksound and Xears. Quantitatively, the Holua has a bit less bass than the Xears TD-III but its low end is slower and more boomy in character. Next to the competition the Holua suffers from a relative lack of bass control, which causes it to sound slightly muddy and lacking in resolution. Expectedly, the bass does bleed into the midrange, which otherwise has good presence and decent clarity. The Holua is a warm earphone but usually manages to keep up with the cheaper Fischer Audio Daleth in clarity, if only just. In terms of balance, the mids are a touch forward but still manage to be somewhat veiled at all times. On the upside, the midrange and treble are very smooth – more so than with the metallic-sounding Skullcandy TiTans or the entry-level Ink’d buds. The lower treble is balanced well with the mids, mostly by virtue of several flattened peaks, but upper treble is slightly recessed. Treble extension and resolution are average.
The presentation of the Holua is good for a Skullcandy product but really doesn’t keep up with the other earphones in its price bracket. The soundstage is below average in width and depth and fails to escape the mild congestion that plagues most mainstream entry-level earphones. Instrumental separation is mediocre as well, especially when a track is muddied up by the bass though, to be fair, the cheaper FMJ model fares far worse. The Holua is still the best Skullcandy earphone I’ve heard and puts up a decent, if uninspired, performance. It is not quite the shift towards sound quality that I was hoping for from one of Skullcandy’s priciest in-ears but, at the very least, I can easily listen to the Holua for any length of time without losing the will to live (which can’t be said for the FMJ).
Value
(5.5/10) – The Skullcandy Holua is not a bad product per se – the accessory pack, fit, isolation, and even build quality (with Skullcandy’s lifetime warranty factored in) are on-par with the most of the big-brand IEMs in its price range. However, similar sound quality can easily be had for less money and even those looking specifically for a wooden in-ear with mic should be able to pick up a Woodees IESW100B for less. What it comes down to, then, is the looks and the warranty – the only two factors making the Holua stand in a very busy market segment.
Pros: Lightweight and comfortable; Comply tips included; lifetime warranty
Cons: Moderate driver flex; frustrating nylon cable; sub-par sound quality
A longer review with comparisons against the Fischer Audio Daleth, Thinksound TS02, Woodees Blues, and Xears TD-III can be found
here
(3A54) Soundmagic E30
Reviewed Jul 2011
Details: Soundmagic’s follow-up to one of Head-Fi’s favourite budget IEMs
Current Price:
$40 from miccastore.com.com (MSRP: $40)
Specs: Driver:
Dynamic | Imp:
12Ω | Sens:
94 dB | Freq:
15-22k Hz | Cable:
4’ I-plug
Nozzle Size:
5mm | Preferred tips:
Stock bi-flanges
Wear Style:
Over-the-ear
Accessories
(3.5/5) – Single-flange (3 sizes) and bi-flange silicone tips, cable guides, shirt clip, and soft carrying pouch
Build Quality
(3.5/5) – My old PL30 is still going strong after 2.5 years of near-constant use so I expected nothing less from the E30. However, the construction of the E30 is more similar to the PL50 with its glossy finish and short plastic strain reliefs. The cable seems identical to the old PL30 cord, being rubbery and a little thin, but Soundmagic have added a strain relief to the y-split and a metal shell to the 3.5mm I-plug. The bass switch, which was of no real use on the PL30, is gone
Isolation
(2/5) – better nozzle angle means slightly more isolation than with the PL30
Microphonics
(4.5/5) – Pretty much non-existent, especially with cable guides or shirt clip in place
Comfort
(5/5) – The E30 is slimmer and smaller than the PL30 and boasts a more ergonomic nozzle angle. I do miss the foam tips that came with the PL30 but otherwise the E30 is about as comfortable as any in-ear
Sound
(7.1/10) – The old Soundmagic PL30 was one of my favourite budget earphones due to a uniquely spacious and balanced sound with a slight mid-range emphasis – not a signature commonly found in the lower price brackets. With the new E30, the dynamic-driver monitor has been bumped to a higher price category. Fortunately, the sound quality seems to have kept up with the price increase, and then some.
The low end of the E30 has been emboldened, receiving a more prominent role in the overall soundscape compared to the old PL30. Next to the midrange, the bass is emphasized only mildly but compared to the laid-back bottom end of the PL30, the difference is quite large. Extension has been improved and the low end now sounds fuller and more impactful. Bass notes have more realistic weight and more drawn-out attack and decay times. Though I don’t mind the balance of the PL30 in the least, I’ll be the first to admit that the low end of the E30 sounds more natural in comparison. Still, the new earphone is by no means a bass monster and those who were previously in the PL30 camp will enjoy it much more than adherents of bass-heavy budget sets such as the MEElec M9.
The midrange of the E30 is just a touch less forward than that of the PL30 but seems more laid-back due to the greater bass emphasis of the new earphone. Despite its balance, the E30 actually manages to sound a little cooler in tone, and closer to what I would consider neutral. As with the PL30, the clarity will be enviable for the vast majority of similarly-priced IEMs, but the E30 also makes gains in detail and texture compared to its predecessor, sounding smooth and refined without major sacrifices in resolution.
The treble of the E30 is balanced well with the midrange, taking at most a half-step back in emphasis. It sounds clean and clear but not overly crisp as with the similarly-priced MEElec CX21. Top-end extension is sufficient – on par with the CX21 and Brainwavz M1. Music, as presented by the E30, generally sounds airy and open, helped along by better dynamics compared to the PL30 and a similarly large soundstage. Though it may not sound quite as wide as the PL30 in absolute terms, imaging and positioning are slightly improved and the whole presentation is more convincing and refined. Lastly, Soundmagic has managed to drop the sensitivity of the earphone a bit, which makes it far less likely to hiss heavily with a poorly matched source.
Value
(8.5/10) – As well-liked as the old PL30 was in its price bracket, it is no competition for the modern sub-$50 heavyweights from the likes of MEElec and Brianwavz. The new E30, however, is a different matter. Making far fewer sacrifices to obtain the clarity and spaciousness many found so impressive about its predecessor, the E30 sounds more natural and refined. I see very few people preferring the old model to the new one in signature and even fewer arguing that they are similar in technical performance. I do have a couple of reservations worth voicing – the accessory pack, for one, has taken a dip into mediocrity with the new soft pouch and exclusion of foam tips, and the glossy plastic housings look slightly cheap next to the rubberized finish of my PL30. Barring these small complaints, the E30 is clearly one of the better overall performers at its price point.
Pros: Lightweight and extremely comfortable, spacious sound with slight bass emphasis
Cons: Mediocre isolation
(3A55) Blue Ever Blue 886B
Reviewed Jul 2011
Details: HDSS earphone from Blue Ever Blue, the new earphone division of the BioLinks brand
Current Price:
$40 from amazon.com (MSRP: $40)
Specs: Driver:
Dynamic | Imp:
16Ω | Sens:
92 dB | Freq:
22-20k Hz | Cable:
4’ I-plug
Nozzle Size:
5mm | Preferred tips:
Sony hybrids, stock single flanges
Wear Style:
Straight down or over-the-ear
Accessories
(2/5) – Single-flange silicone tips (3 sizes) and soft carrying pouch
Build Quality
(3/5) – The machined aluminum housings are lightweight, sturdy, and not bad to look at. The nozzles are protected by metal mesh filters and the housings generally feel well-made. Sadly, things go downhill from there as the generic, rubbery cable and minimal strain reliefs inspire little confidence
Isolation
(2.5/5) – About average for vented, straight-barrel earphone
Microphonics
(3/5) – Slightly worse than average and not helped by the lack of a cable cinch and shirt clip; tolerable with over-the-ear wear
Comfort
(4.5/5) – The tapered housings of the 886B are lightweight and comfortable. The earphone does not require a deep seal to sound good and the cables are soft and flexible. The stock tips are quite decent as well
Sound
(6.1/10) – The 886B, like all Blue Ever Blue earphones, utilizes ETL technology to absorb the energy of reflected waves in the driver chamber, preventing resonance and distortion. Or at least, that’s what theory dictates. The technology was originally used in speaker cabinets and its application to portable audio is fairly new. It is difficult to say, therefore, what the exact effect of ETL implementation is on the Blue Ever Blue earphones – much as with manufacturer claims of resonance being affected by choice of housing materials, the effect of ETL would need to be tested against a proper control to verify the manufacturer’s lofty claims.
Regardless of the technology’s mode of action and end goals, there is little doubt that for an entry-level product, the 866B sounds quite good. I don’t know about the claims of “smooth, layered sound” and “pure tone”, but the earphone is fairly neutral and quite enjoyable, if not technically flawless. The bass is probably its weakest point for me – it’s got good depth and impact but lacks a bit of definition and can overpower the rest of the range. The ability of the bass to step forward and crowd out the (prominent) midrange of the earphones despite the 866B not being a bass monster can be slightly off-putting at first but the balance works most of the time. It really is only in direct comparisons with some of the better earphones in the price range that the 866B starts losing ground in low-end clarity and control.
The 866B performs more consistently in the midrange, which is prominent and slightly full. There is a mild thickness of note and the clarity and detail still lag behind competing sets such as the Soundmagic E30 but one the whole the mids are quite realistic for the price. The tone of the earphones is very slightly on the dark side of neutral and doesn’t seem to suffer from the bass boost. The treble is, for the most part, inoffensive, with a very slight bit of roughness and a small amount of presence missing at the very top. It’s not as crisp as that of the MEElec CX21, but it’s not wooly or overly soft, either.
The presentation is a bit less impressive than the midrange and treble performance but still quite good. The slight thickness of the 866B causes it sound a little congested and the earphone lacks the wide-open feel of the Soundmagic E30. Layering is good but the size of the stage is average, with the presentation leaning towards intimacy. The dynamics of the earphone lagging behind the competition from Soundmagic and Brainwavz don’t help matters much. With a leaner-sounding earphone, the presentation of the 866B would likely work much better. As is, it just comes across sounding slightly ‘concentrated’ and lacking a bit of refinement compared to the real heavy-hitters in the price range.
Value
(7/10) – The Blue Ever Blue 866B performs well enough for the asking price and offers a very user-friendly, if basic, design. Several years ago the 866B would have scored very highly as an overall package but lovers of budget IEMs have been spoiled not just by the ridiculous performance offered by some of today’s earphones, but also by the build quality and overall attention to detail, which are being taken further still by the likes of Dunu. The entire earphone seems to be as much a proof of concept as a finished product and while I do appreciate the claims made by the HDSS standard, for the purposes of this review the technology is only worth as much as the end result. The sound of the earphone is cohesive and enjoyable for an entry-level product but there are options that sound just as good without the generic construction and barebones accessory pack.
Pros: Lightweight and comfortable; nice midrange and treble
Cons: Mediocre cabling; could be tighter at the low end
(3A56) Soundmagic E10
Reviewed Jul 2011
Details: Straight-barrel Soundmagic IEM slotted just below the E30 in the lineup
Current Price:
$35 from miccastore.com (MSRP: $34.99)
Specs: Driver:
Dynamic | Imp:
16Ω | Sens:
100 dB | Freq:
15-22k Hz | Cable:
3.9’ I-plug
Nozzle Size:
5mm | Preferred tips:
Generic bi-flanges
Wear Style:
Straight down or over-the-ear
Accessories
(3.5/5) – Single-flange (3 sizes) and bi-flange silicone tips, shirt clip, and soft carrying bag
Build Quality
(3.5/5) – The E10 is available in a variety of color options and features two-tone metal shells with metal nozzle filters and Soundmagic’s usual color-coded strain reliefs. The materials of the strain reliefs and cable look a bit cheap but do the job. The rubbery cabling and well-relieved y-split and I-plug are similar to those on the E30 model
Isolation
(2.5/5) – Being a more conventional straight-barrel design, the E10 isolates slightly more than the E30 does
Microphonics
(4/5) – Surprisingly low when worn cable-down considering how rubbery the cord is. Nearly nonexistent when worn cord-up
Comfort
(3.5/5) – The E10 uses a conventional straight-barrel design. The housings are a bit wide at the front and have short nozzles, preventing deep insertion. The stock tips aren’t particularly great, either, but switching to softer single-flanges allowed for good long-term wearing comfort
Sound
(7/10) – If Soundmagic’s new E30 is the long-awaited upgrade to the balanced and neutral PL30 model, the E10 is a spiritual successor to Soundmagic’s bass-heavy entry-level sets of old. More forward and aggressive than the E30 on the whole, the E10 offers up gobs of bass power and impact on cue. The low end of the E10 is well-extended, reaching deep and hitting hard. It stops just short of the impact offered up by the MEElec M9 but boasts greater clarity, control, and resolution. The nature of the bass is slightly soft and the punch is diminished by the rounded note presentation but, as with the E30, the notes have good weight. The low end of the pricier E30 is a bit leaner and bleeds a touch less but on the whole the E10 does a good job of preserving the quality despite much greater bass quantity.
The midrange of the E10 is slightly less prominent than the low end but it is still more forward than that of the E30. The bassier nature of the E10 brings on a slightly warmer tonality but on the whole the two earphones share more similarities than differences in the mids and treble. Despite the bass emphasis, midrange clarity of the E10 is good and resolution nearly matches that of the E30. Treble extension is again highly reminiscent of the higher-end model, as is the nature of the treble – clean and clear but not hard or edgy. The top end is not entirely smooth but nothing offends which, with rare exceptions, seems to be the norm for the better earphones in the price range.
The E10 is a fairly forward earphone but that doesn’t stop it from possessing a surprisingly spacious soundstage. Compared to the E30, it sounds a touch narrower and less airy but still manages to impress. Though leaning towards a more intimate presentation on the whole, the E10 retains the ability to throw sonic cues a good distance and sounds more convincingly layered than almost all of my other reasonably-priced bass-heavy IEMs. The Blue Ever Blue 866B, for example, seems very small and congested compared to the E10. Lastly, it is worth noting that the E10 is more sensitive than the higher-end E30 and will reach louder output volumes. At extreme listening levels the bass does begin to distort very slightly, but one would have to either be deaf or highly interested in becoming deaf to turn them up that loud. Background hiss is slightly more noticeable than with the E30 but still nowhere near as much of an issue as it was with the old PL30.
Value
(8.5/10) – Soundmagic has been in the business long enough to know what works and what doesn’t. It is no surprise, then, that the E10 complements the pricier E30 model perfectly, pairing a more consumer-friendly form factor with a more consumer-friendly sound signature. The bass grunt of the E10 is impressive and yet has little negative effect on the overall performance. Likewise the aggressive presentation does not completely sacrifice the spaciousness that has made certain Soundmagic IEMs so popular in the past. There are earphones that offer a bit more for your money in the way of accessories, build quality, and isolation but few can compete with the E10 when it comes to providing impactful and enjoyable sound at a very reasonable price.
Pros: Low cable noise; pleasant, bass-heavy sound
Cons: Tubby housings may be difficult to fit for some; stock eartips could be better
(3A57) Xears Nature N3i
Reviewed Aug 2011
Details: In-ear headset from Xears
Current Price:
est $45 (30€) from xears.com with coupon code KLANGFUZZIS (MSRP: 89,90€)
Specs: Driver:
Dynamic | Imp:
N/A | Sens:
N/A | Freq:
6-28k Hz | Cable:
4’ I-plug j-cord
Nozzle Size:
5mm | Preferred tips:
generic single-flange; stock foam
Wear Style:
Straight down or over-the-ear
Accessories
(3/5) –Single-flange (3 sizes), bi-flange, and tri-flange silicone tips, foamhybrid tips, and padded carrying pouch
Build Quality
(3.5/5) – Like the other high-end Xears models, the N3i uses painted wood and metal housings and metal nozzle filters. The sturdy nylon-sheathed cord does not kink the way some of the thinner ones do but can tangle a bit compared to the old Xears cables. Some driver flex is present
Isolation
(2.5/5) – Moderate with silicone tips and a bit better with the foamies. The large housings prevent deep insertion
Microphonics
(4/5) – Surprisingly low for a cloth cable and helped further by the j-cord configuration
Comfort
(3/5) – The housings are lightweight but quite large in diameter and clearly designed for a shallow fit. Unfortunately, the combination of j-cord and inline mic integrated into the y-split makes the N3i impractical to wear over-the-ear and the stock silicone tips leave a bit to be desired
Sound
(7.8/10) – The sound of the Xears Nature N3i bears a resemblance to that of Xears’ previous higher-end woody, the TD-III Blackwood, with the major differences being a slightly larger soundstage and less mid-forward balance. The bass of the N3i is the most powerful and prominent of Xears in-ears I’ve heard, narrowly beating out the PS120 and TD-III. The sub-bass is more powerful than with the XE200 and the entire low end is boomier and more full-bodied. Part of the reason is longer note sustainment – the N3i tends to have longer decay times than the other Xears in-ears. Impact is very sizeable and will probably be excessive for some but the N3i still manages to sound clean and resolving compared to the majority of bass-heavy mid-range earphones.
The mids are very smooth, as with the TD-III, but the N3i is slightly less forward in the midrange, which is partly responsible for the greater prominence of its bass. The midrange is by no means recessed but bass bleed is slightly more noticeable and the whole sound signature is richer, warmer, and thicker compared to the TD-III. Texture lags slightly behind the XE200PRO and is about on par with the TD-III, as are detail and clarity. For an earphone with a sound signature that places so much emphasis on the low end, the overall cleanliness of the N3i is enviable but unfortunately the clarity can be difficult to appreciate with all of that bass drawing attention to itself. In direct comparisons to other bass-heavy sets, however the clarity of the N3i shines and even the far more balanced Spider Realvoice could not beat the clarity or detail of the Xears on tracks where the bass did not overwhelm.
The treble of the N3i is low on sparkle but has good clarity and detail. It is not the sort of crisp, clinical treble found on some of my favourite analytical earphones but it works well to compliment the bass and midrange. It extends well enough upward and easily matches the other Xears models in overall proficiency. Presentation, on the other hand, is what most certainly sets the N3i apart from the already-spacious TD-III and lesser Xears models. The TD-III is already well above average in terms of the space it produces but the N3i sounds bigger still. The soundstage extends farther in all directions and whereas the TD-III leans very slightly towards intimacy, the N3i images more evenly across the sonic space. It can be fairly intimate when necessary but is also capable producing very good ambience. Instrumental separation is moderate, as with the TD-III, and airiness lags slightly behind the XE200 and XR120 models. On the whole it is a very solid presentation with a headphone-like feel and even well-tuned competitors like the Spider Realvoice sound a bit small next to the N3i.
Value
(9/10) – The suggested retail price for the N3i is quite high but the current sale price drops it right in the midst of the overpopulated mid-range bracket. For that price the build quality of the N3i is quite good and the day-to-day usability passable for those who can live with the j-cord and gargantuan housings. Signature-wise, the N3i is the most impactful of the three high-end wooden Xears models but still retains impressive technical ability and a large, engrossing presentation. It gives a sense of limitless power and makes no compromises and no attempts at civility with its signature. Quite simply, if you really like bass and can live with the form factor, the current price makes the N3i one of the best deals in portable audio.
Pros: Great overall sound quality; low cable noise
Cons: Large housings; moderate driver flex; not giftable for lack of packaging; j-cord may be an issue for some; bass can be too prominent
(3A58) Xears XE200PRO
Reviewed Aug 2011
Details: Flagship in-ear from Germany-based Xears
Current Price:
est $45 (30€) from xears.com with coupon code KLANGFUZZIS (MSRP: 89,90€)
Specs: Driver:
Dynamic | Imp: N/A | Sens: N/A | Freq:
6-28k Hz | Cable:
4’ I-plug
Nozzle Size:
5.5mm | Preferred tips:
generic single-flange; stock foam
Wear Style:
Straight down or over-the-ear
Accessories
(3/5) – Single-flange (3 sizes), bi-flange, and tri-flange silicone tips, foamhybrid tips, and padded carrying pouch
Build Quality
(3.5/5) – Like the other high-end Xears models, the XE200PRO uses painted wood and metal housings and metal nozzle filters. The sturdy nylon-sheathed cord does not kink the way some of the thinner ones do but can tangle a bit compared to the old Xears cords. The strain reliefs are ample and driver flex is low compared to the other Xears earphones
Isolation
(2.5/5) – Moderate with silicone tips and a bit better with the foamies. The large housings prevent deep insertion
Microphonics
(4/5) – Surprisingly low for a cloth cord and even better with over-the-ear wear
Comfort
(3.5/5) – The housings are lightweight but quite large in diameter and clearly designed for a shallow fit. The stock silicone tips still leave a bit to be desired
Sound
(7.8/10) – Whereas the similarly-priced N3i model pulls out all the stops in the pursuit of visceral bass and head-turning ambience, the XE200PRO is a slightly more level-headed take on the consumer-friendly sound common to the Xears earphones. Its bass is lower in impact and flatter than that of the N3i, with a punchier, crisper sound and slightly quicker note presentation. Sub-bass power and rumble are also reduced and the bass doesn’t bleed into the midrange as much as with the N3i or TD-III. In typical Xears fashion the low end is still anything but lacking but on tracks with plenty of bass the XE200PRO edges ahead of the N3i in resolution and clarity.
The midrange is smooth and detailed. It is similar in both emphasis and technical proficiency to the N3i model but there is not as much bass to get in the way with the XE200PRO. As a result, while the XE200 is not as warm and rich as the N3i, it textures notes slightly better and sounds more level overall. The overall clarity competes with the far more analytical XR120PRO and the timbre is quite good, as with the other higher-end Xears models.
The top end appears to be slightly more prominent than with the N3i and TD-III but still is not a focus of the sound signature. It sounds a tiny bit edgy next to the softer and slower N3i but doesn’t have any major adverse effects on the sound. Top-end extension is decent as with the other Xears models. Soundstage size is similar to the N3i but, while the N3i has the ambience of a large but enclosed space, the XE200PRO sounds a bit more open. It is not the most well-separated presentation but the layering is good and the positioning yields no surprises. It’s a well-rounded presentation to match a well-rounded sound signature.
Value
(9/10) – Completing the triumvirate of higher-end Xears wooden IEMs, the XE200PRO provides a slightly more balanced alternative with all of the technical capability of the N3i. Above all else, the XE200PRO is a well-rounded, relaxing listen that sacrifices a bit less fidelity compared to the N3i and TD-III models. It is much the same story with usability – the fit is less fidgety than with the N3i and the driver flex is less noticeable. The housings are still very large at the front but for this level of performance at the current asking price, I’m willing to live with far greater discomfort than that.
Pros: Great sound quality with a consumer-friendly signature
Cons: Large housings; not giftable for lack of packaging
(3A59) Dunu DN-12 Trident
Reviewed Aug 2011
Details: Entry-level dynamic-driver model from DUNU
Current Price:
$35 from lendmeurears.com (MSRP: $40)
Specs: Driver:
Dynamic | Imp:
16Ω | Sens:
95 dB | Freq:
10-20k Hz | Cable:
4’ I-plug
Nozzle Size:
5mm | Preferred tips:
stock single-flange
Wear Style:
Straight down or over-the-ear
Accessories
(3/5) – Single-flange narrow-channel (3 sizes) and wide-channel (2 sizes) silicone tips, bi-flange silicone tips, soft carrying pouch, and integrated cable wrap
Build Quality
(4.5/5) – Like the sturdy metal shells of the Hephaes, the flared housings of the DN-12 feel like they’ve been machined from a solid piece of metal. Attention to detail throughout the construction is superb as usual although Dunu did attempt to give the pricier models a leg up by using plastic and rubber hardware in place of aluminum on the cheaper DN-12. While this makes the DN-12 less fancy in appearance, the overall build quality is no worse for it. As before, the cable is the only part that could stand some improvement as it’s a bit stiff and rubbery
Isolation
(3.5/5) – Surprisingly good, as with the other Dunu earphones
Microphonics
(3.5/5) – Bothersome when worn cable-down; not an issue otherwise
Comfort
(3.5/5) – The flared housings of the DN-12 are skinny at the front so insertion is not an issue. However, the large diameter at the rear can be a problem for those with smaller outer ears as the outside edge can become uncomfortable after resting on the ear for a while. The earphones being a bit on the heavy side doesn’t help matters
Sound
(6.7/10) – The dynamic-driver Trident conforms to the mold set by Dunu’s armature-based Ares and Crius models, offering up a bass- and midrange-heavy sound that impresses with its smoothness and power. The bass of the Trident certainly is punchier and deeper than that of the armature models but it’s not a bass monster in the way the MEElec M31 and Sony XB-series earphones are. There is still plenty of impact but it doesn’t overwhelm. The note presentation is a touch on the soft side but the bass generally comes off rather well-controlled and pleasant.
The midrange is warm and rich. Bass bleed is minimal and the notes are very slightly on the thick side. Detail retrieval is good but the Trident lacks a bit of clarity next to the similarly-priced Soundmagic E10 and E30. As with the pricier Ares and Crius, the clarity of the Trident oscillates between reasonably good and somewhat disappointing, depending on track. At its worst it is still a bit better than with the Blue Ever Blue 886B and UE 350 but not by as a large a margin as one would hope. Aside from clarity, the midrange is good – smooth, level, and slightly ahead of the treble for a fatigue-free sound. Even next to the consumer-oriented Sony EX300 the treble of the Trident sound relaxed and forgiving. Top-end extension is good despite the lack of treble emphasis.
The Trident’s soundstage is average in size but the presentation leans towards intimacy despite the slightly laid-back nature of the sound. The relaxed top end results in a mild lack of air compared to sets like the Soundmagic E10 and the overall sense of space is not nearly as impressive. The Trident also sounds just a touch dark compared to my other favourite sets in the price range. The layering, however, is surprisingly good and the DN-12 generally sounds less congested than the Blue Ever Blue 866B and similarly-priced brand-name sets like the Klipsch S3 and UE 350. Intimate or not, you certainly won’t get performance this good grabbing a similarly-priced product off the shelf in a retail store.
Value
(9/10) – More so than the pricier Ares and Crius models, the Dunu DN-12 Trident aims straight for the segment leaders in its price bracket and - in most ways – scores a direct hit. It is well-packaged, well-designed, and well-built, showcasing great attention to detail, functionality, and performance on the part of Dunu’s development team. Priced below $40, the Trident offers more sound quality per dollar than the other Dunu models I’ve heard and one-ups just about all of its competition when it comes to build quality. It is both a great earphone and a great product – not a so-called ‘giant killer’, but well worth the money in my book.
Pros: Very well-built, great attention to detail, great sound quality for the asking price
Cons: Cable can be noisy when worn straight down; flared housings may be uncomfortable for some
(3A60) Xears Communicate CP100iP
Reviewed Aug 2011
Details: Entry-level single-button headset from Xears
Current Price: est
$35 (24€) from ebay.de (MSRP: 39,95€)
Specs: Driver:
Dynamic | Imp: N/A | Sens: N/A | Freq: N/A | Cable:
4’ I-plug
Nozzle Size:
5mm | Preferred tips:
Stock foamies, stock single-flanges
Wear Style:
Straight down or over-the-ear
Accessories
(3/5) – Single-flange (3 sizes) and bi-flange silicone tips, foamhybrid tips, and padded carrying pouch
Build Quality
(3/5) – The build quality of the aluminum CP100iP is similar to the older XR120 model with its long strain reliefs and somewhat stiff rubbery cable but the housings seem to come apart more readily and the appearance is let down by the somewhat cheap-looking paper filters. Driver flex is mild
Isolation
(3/5) – Good with silicone tips and a bit better with the foamies
Microphonics
(3.5/5) – Tolerable when worn cable-down, good when worn over-the-ear
Comfort
(4/5) – The CP100iP is very lightweight and has longer nozzles and a smaller housing diameter than most of the other Xears earphones, resulting in good long-term comfort
Sound
(7.1/10) – The sound of the CP100iP follows the usual Xears mold – plentiful bass, smooth mids, and competent treble. The low end is powerful but not quite as deep and hard-hitting as that of the similarly-priced Dunu Trident. There is a larger mid-bass hump than with the Trident and more bass body but the CP100iP is still not as much of a bass beast as Xears’ boomier-sounding PS120, TD-III, or N3i models, reminding me more of the Xears Resonance. The low-end detail retrieval lags slightly behind the Dunu sets but the CP100iP is quicker and cleaner overall.
The midrange of the CP100iP is crisp and fairly open-sounding. It’s a bit less warm and full-bodied compared to the pricier N3i and XE200 models and also lacks some of the detail but still has good presence, beating out the Resonance in emphasis. The treble, as usual, is smooth and a bit laid-back. Top-end extension is decent and overall sparkle quantity is low-to-moderate.
The soundstage is above average in size - not as large as that of the XE200PRO or Resonance but still quite spacious for an entry-level in-ear. The XE200 also images more consistently across its stage whereas the CP100iP seems to have more of a left-right-center presentation. Instrumental separation is good, however, and the overall sound is airy and open without sacrificing cohesiveness. A point worth noting – the sensitivity of the CP100iP is relatively high and may hiss or buzz a bit with poorly-matched sources.
Value
(8/10) – The CP100iP entry-level headset model delivers more of the Xears goodness in a reasonably-priced, smartphone-compatible package. As usual, the audio quality is well above average, the build quality is mediocre, and the nonexistent packaging leaves much to be desired. That said, the smooth and bass-heavy sound signature is not too different from that of the pricier Resonance model and those looking specifically for a stereo headset will be hard-pressed to find anything that sounds better for the money.
Pros: Lightweight and comfortable; solid sound quality with a popular signature
Cons: Mediocre build quality
(3A61) Ultimate Ears 350 / 350vi
Reviewed Oct 2011
Details: consumer-oriented dynamic-driver IEM from UE
Current Price:
$40 from bhphotovideo.com (MSRP: $49.99); $59.99 for 350vi with microphone
Specs: Driver:
Dynamic | Imp:
16Ω | Sens:
105 dB | Freq:
20-20k Hz | Cable:
3.8’ L-plug
Nozzle Size:
4mm | Preferred tips:
Stock single-flanges
Wear Style:
Straight down or over-the-ear
Accessories
(3.5/5) – Single-flange silicone tips (5 sizes), shirt clip, and plastic clamshell carrying case
Build Quality
(3.5/5) – The lightweight housings are made of black and chromed plastic, as with most of UE’s other recent releases. The cable is soft and flexible and the housing entry strain reliefs are impressive. The strain relief on the plastic-shelled 3.5mm L-plug, however, isn’t
Isolation
(3/5) – Good for an entry-level dynamic-driver earphone
Microphonics
(4/5) – Quite low in the soft and flexible cable. Can be eliminated completely with over-the-ear wear
Comfort
(4/5) – The housings are small and lightweight, tapering slightly at the front. The long strain reliefs do not pose a problem for over-the-ear wear and an impressive five sizes of eartips are included
Sound
(5.9/10) – Priced below the $50 mark, the UE350 is a consumer-oriented dynamic-driver model with a bass-heavy sound signature. By UE’s own admission, the 350 was tuned to provide a club feel, which shows through in the depth and power of the bass. Though not a bass monster in the same way a Sony XB40EX or MEElec M31 may be, the UE350 is unlikely to leave anyone wanting for rumble or power. The Dunu Trident, which has a similar frequency balance, is slightly more controlled at the low end and tends to sound tighter and punchier but the overall bass quantity is comparable between the two. That said, the note presentation of the UE350 is even softer than that of the Trident, causing the bass to sound a touch flabby and muddy, though not offensively so as was the case with many older dynamics of this sort.
The midrange is warm and full, with occasional bass bleed and average detail resolution. Clarity can be slightly disappointing and vocals occasionally sound a touch muffled next to the similarly-priced Dunu Trident and Klipsch Image S3. Smoothness is very impressive, however, making the UE350 much easier to listen to in the long run than the S3 and much more forgiving. The top end is slightly laid-back to avoid listening fatigue and performs similarly to the midrange in clarity and detail resolution. Top-end extension is good but the overall tone is still a touch dark - those looking for more neutral sound with crisp, sparkly treble should invest in the pricier UE500.
The presentation of the UE350 is surprisingly competent – soundstage width is above average and the earphones - while not as well-layered or resolving as the Dunu Trident or pricier UE500 - give a good sense of space for an entry-level product. Klipsch’s similarly-priced Image S3 sounds significantly smaller and more constrained despite boasting better detail and clarity. The note thickness is a little too great for the UE350 to sound as clean and airy as the UE500 does but on the whole the presentation is quite competent.
Value
(7.5/10) – Back in the pre-Logitech days, UE released a couple of entry-level dynamic-driver earphones under the MetroFi badge which - while not bad to listen to - were simply priced too ambitiously to be very good value. With the UE350, Ultimate Ears has retained the consumer-friendly sound signature of the old MetroFi earphones while improving the overall usability and lowering the asking price. There are still minor issues such as the new clamshell carrying case - which is small and frustrating to use compared to the old one - but on the whole the UE350 is a solid entry-level product with a clear target audience; audiophiles are clearly expected to save up for the UE500.
Pros: Lightweight and comfortable; deep and powerful bass; easy-going sound signature
Cons: Frustrating carrying case, no strain relief on L-plug, slightly underwhelming clarity & detail
(3A62) Fischer Audio Ceramique
Reviewed Dec 2011
Details: Oversize ceramic in-ear
Current Price:
$57 from gd-audiobase.com (MSRP: $57)
Specs: Driver:
Dynamic | Imp:
16Ω | Sens:
99 dB | Freq:
20-20k Hz | Cable:
4.1' I-plug
Nozzle Size:
8mm | Preferred tips:
MEElec CC51 single-flanges
Wear Style:
Straight down
Accessories
(2/5) - Single-flange silicone tips (2 sets), cord wrap, and small leatherette carrying pouch
Build Quality
(3/5) - The hefty ceramic shells and metal driver enclosures are solid but for an earphone that weighs as much as the Ceramique the cable thickness is disappointing. The cord is reminiscent of stock Apple earbuds, just more rubbery. The lack of strain reliefs on the cord is cause for concern
Isolation
(3.5/5) - Above average with well-sealing tips (not included)
Microphonics
(3.5/5) - Fairly average in the thin, rubbery cable; over-the-ear wear is difficult
Comfort
(2/5) - Large, heavy housings are problematic, as are the wide nozzle and single size of hard rubber eartips. Getting a seal proved impossible with stock tips and some may not be able to fit the Ceramique at all. Physical activity is out of the question - the earphones are easily dislodged by their own weight
Sound
(7.9/10) - Despite its significant ergonomic shortfalls, the sound of the Ceramique is impressive, provided a seal can be maintained. Since stock Ceramique tips won't seal for me, this review was done using tips from MEElec's ceramic earphone, the CC51, which will fit the Ceramique without too much trouble. As expected, a poorly-sealed Ceramique sounds bright and lacking in bass. A properly sealed one is much more balanced, with well-measured bass response and prominent treble. The bass is soft and mellow - compared to the more v-shaped CC51, the Ceramique is less forward and less punchy at the bottom end but still manages slightly better bass depth. It also avoids the mildly mid-recessed profile of the CC51 but yields to the MEElecs in control and dynamics.
Mids are a definite strength of the Ceramique - balanced well with the low end they are slightly warm and very smooth. While the midrange is not recessed, the Ceramique is a laid-back earphone overall and those who prefer an intimate vocal presentation or in-your-face guitar aggression will want to give it a pass. The mids are clean, liquid, and well-detailed, reminding me more of the Spider Realvoice than the CC51. The treble transition is smooth but, in contrast to the pricier Tandem, the Ceramique loses no emphasis at the top. Treble extension is good but the top end is not too high on sparkle - the CC51 again shows off its comparatively v-shaped nature with more sparkly treble that is also crisper and edgier. For its livelier sound, the CC51 is slightly more fatiguing than the Ceramique.
The presentation of the Ceramique suits the balanced signature nicely - the soundstage is spacious, with decent width and depth, and good clarity and detail levels work towards a clean, nicely separated sound. The earphone tends to be quite laid-back on the whole and doesn't deliver great imaging, especially when a track calls for intimacy, partly due to the mediocre dynamics. Compared to the CC51, the Ceramique sounds distant at times but also easily wins in terms of sheer soundstage size.
Value
(6.5/10) - The Ceramique is a textbook lesson in form over function. While it combines balanced sound and a spacious presentation with smooth, polished looks, it makes too many usability sacrifices to be a viable alternative to the established segment leaders. The biggest issue is that the large, heavy housings are tricky to fit and even more difficult to keep in place. Add sub-par eartips in only one size and thin cables with no strain reliefs and it becomes clear that some of the sound quality and aesthetics probably should have been sacrificed for better usability.
Pros: Solid sonic characteristics
Cons: One size does not fit all; large and heavy; thin cable lacks strain relief
(3A63) Fischer Audio FA-977 Jazz
Reviewed Jan 2012
Details: Wooden IEM from Fischer Audio
Current Price:
$55 from gd-audiobase.com (MSRP: $55)
Specs: Driver:
Dynamic | Imp:
18Ω | Sens:
106 dB | Freq:
5-20k Hz | Cable:
4.1' I-plug
Nozzle Size:
5mm | Preferred tips:
Generic bi-flanges, stock single-flanges
Wear Style:
Straight down or over-the-ear
Accessories
(2/5) - Single-flange silicone tips (3 sizes) and soft carrying pouch
Build Quality
(3.5/5) – The large wooden housings of the FA-977 are trimmed in gold, as are the y-split and I-plug. The brown cable is plasticky and of average thickness, with no cable cinch and hard plastic strain reliefs. Mild driver flex is present
Isolation
(3/5) – Large housings prevent deep insertion but isolation is easily above average
Microphonics
(3.5/5) – Can be bothersome when worn cord-down but lower than with Fischer’s cloth cord. Low when worn cord-up
Comfort
(3/5) – Straight-barrel housings are lightweight but surprisingly large. Sizeable diameter prevents deep insertion and may make them uncomfortable for those with smaller outer ears.
Sound
(6.4/10) – Quite possibly the most unique of Fischer’s mid-tier models, the Jazz provides a forward yet spacious sound that works surprisingly well when taken as a total package. The bass has decent depth and good impact, lagging only a little behind the Sunrise i100 on both counts. It is punchy but not particularly tight or crisp – mediocre resolution leaves the low end somewhat muddy and ill-defined. Other than the mediocre control, the bass is pleasant – punchy, full, and smooth. Bass depth is average – the pricier Consonance model offers significantly more sub-bass in addition to better detail and texture.
The mids of the Jazz are smooth and prominent. Vocals are forward, balancing well with the impactful low end, and the tone is warm overall. Clarity and detail again suffer due to the mediocre resolution - all of the higher-end Fischer models I’ve tried are superior to the Jazz in this regard. The Ceramique especially sounds much cleaner and more refined, though it lacks some of the fullness of the Jazz. The similarly-priced Brainwavz M2 also offers up better clarity while the cheaper Sunrise i100 falls behind only a little.
The treble transition is smooth and the top end is laid back in comparison to the midrange. The Jazz does a good job of cutting out sibilance but sounds just a hair dark compared to the Ceramique. It also lacks energy with cymbals compared to the Consonance or even the Paradigm v.3. The presentation is wide and spacious despite the forward midrange. The earphones sound airy and open – more so than a Brainwavz M2, for example – but suffer from mediocre dynamics and average separation. The similarly-priced Paradigm v.3 has a smaller soundstage but easily surpasses the separation of the Jazz.
Value
(7/10) – With dozens of wooden earphones on the market, Fischer Audio’s FA-977 Jazz stands out mostly with its sound signature, combining a fairly large soundstage with intimate, forward mids and hard-hitting but not overbearing bass response. Competitors with this type of sound signature are few and far between, making the Jazz a good buy for some, but those who are not looking for this particular signature may want to pay a bit more for a Paradigm v.3 or Consonance instead.
Pros: Unique mid-forward sound with good bass punch
Cons: Large housings; Clarity and detail not as impressive as with other Fischer IEMs
(3A64) Fischer Audio Paradigm v.3
Reviewed Jan 2012
Details: angled-nozzle earphone from FA
Current Price:
$58 from gd-audiobase.com (MSRP: $58)
Specs: Driver:
Dynamic | Imp:
18Ω | Sens:
106 dB | Freq:
6-25k Hz | Cable:
4.1' 45º-plug
Nozzle Size:
4.5mm | Preferred tips:
Stock single-flanges
Wear Style:
Straight down
Accessories
(2/5) - Single-flange (2 sizes) and bi-flange silicone tips; soft carrying pouch
Build Quality
(4/5) – The construction of the Paradigm v.3 is similar to that of the similarly-priced Consonance. The housings are plastic but seem to be put together well. The nozzle filters are metal and the strain reliefs are sturdy yet flexible all around. The nylon-sheathed cables are somewhat tangle-prone
Isolation
(2.5/5) – Large, vented housings prevent deep insertion but isolation is still decent
Microphonics
(2.5/5) – Quite bothersome when worn cord-down and cable-up wear is made difficult by the driver bulge and angled-nozzle housings
Comfort
(4/5) – The housings are lightweight but large and fit more like the half-in-ear FA-788 model than slimmer angled-nozzle sets such as the JVC FX500 and Denon C710. Sizeable housing diameter also prevents deep insertion and may make them slightly uncomfortable for those with smaller outer ears
Sound
(7.2/10) – The Fischer Audio Paradigm v.3 takes on a fairly well-balanced sound signature, contrasting sharply with the more v-shaped Consonance and the more mid-forward Jazz. The bass has decent depth and good punch – the Paradigm is not constantly bass-heavy as the Consonance tends to be but is more than capable of belting out low notes when necessary. Impact is generally similar to the Jazz and while the Paradigm does have similarly average detail levels, its superior dynamics and bass control result in a more realistic low end.
The midrange of the Paradigm v.3 is clearer and less forward than that of the Jazz but is by no means recessed or distant. The mids are crisp and well-defined, with the Paradigm being quicker and more resolving. With its lesser bass depth, slightly thinner note presentation, and minimal bloat, the Paradigm also lacks the warmth of the Jazz, sounding more neutral and closer to the similarly-priced Ceramique.
The treble is fairly detailed and has some sparkle. It is not as smooth as that of the Ceramique, instead boasting some unevenness reminiscent of the Consonance and Soundmagic’s E10. Top-end extension is average and the Paradigm sounds a touch dark next to the Ceramique. The presentation is fairly average as well – the soundstage is not as large as that of the Jazz even though the Paradigm tends to sound more laid-back on the whole and instrument separation is quite good. Layering, however, isn’t particularly impressive and the Paradigm can’t quite match the more versatile 3-D imaging of the Consonance.
Value (7.5/10) – The Paradigm v.3 is yet another impressive mid-range earphone from Fischer, combining a balanced sound signature with a comfortable form factor and well thought-out build. Those who require high isolation or tend to be active while wearing earphones may want to look for a deeper-fitting earphone that can be worn cable-up more easily but on the whole the Paradigm is a worthy all-rounder.
Pros: Comfortable and well-built; balanced and capable sound
Cons: Tough to wear over-the-ear; microphonics can be annoying
(3A65) Sony MDR-EX300LP
Reviewed Feb 2012
Details: One of Sony's original vertical in-ear monitors
Current Price: N/A (discontinued) (MSRP: $89.95)
Specs: Driver:
Dynamic | Imp:
16Ω | Sens:
105 dB | Freq:
4-28k Hz | Cable:
3.9' L-plug j-cord
Nozzle Size:
4mm | Preferred tips:
Sony Hybrids (stock)
Wear Style:
Straight down
Accessories
(3.5/5) - Single-flange Sony Hybrid silicone tips (3 sizes), cable winder, and hard-shell carrying case
Build Quality
(3/5) - The plastic housings of the EX300 seem well-constructed but the cabling is a major letdown - while soft and well-relieved, the thin j-cord is tangle-prone and inspires little confidence
Isolation
(2/5) - Mediocre at best due to shallow-insertion form factor
Microphonics
(4.5/5) - The soft, flexible j-cord and shallow seal keep cable noise to a minimum
Comfort
(3.5/5) - The EX300 is a vertical-driver earphone with a straight nozzle. The housings fit partly into the outer ear and tend to protrude less than those of the pricier EX600 model but are also less secure due to the lack of a memory wire section on the cable. Those with smaller outer ears may find the driver bulge to interfere with the fit
Sound
(6.8/10) - The sound of the MDR-EX300 is a compromise between Sony's popular consumer and audiophile signatures but falls closer to the higher-end EX600 and EX1000 than entry-level sets such as the EX85 and the XB series. The bass of the EX300 is enhanced but not overblown. It is punchy but not quite as powerful s that of the Soundmagic E10. Extension is decent enough but the mid-bass hump causes the entire low end to sound bloated and boomy compared to the pricier EX600. The Sonys sound fuller than some of the more analytical sets such as the HiFiMan RE0 and Etymotic MC5 but it's not as thick-sounding as a Dunu Trident or Beyerdynamic DTX 101 iE.
The midrange of the EX300 is warm but clear. Detail is decent enough and the mids sound open and airy. Naturally, the pricier EX600 is much more neutral, clear, and detailed, making the EX300 sound boomy and unrefined, but for a midrange earphone the clarity of the EX300 is more than reasonable. The Soundmagic E10 is a bit clearer and more crisp, giving guitars a bit more bite and making vocals sound a touch more intelligible, but lacks the balance and liquidity of the EX300 and doesn't quite have as big a soundstage.
Towards the top of the midrange, the EX300 picks up some emphasis and with it a bit of sibilance on tracks prone to it. The E10 is a little more forgiving but both earphones have moderate treble sparkle, slightly laid-back upper treble, and mediocre extension at the top. The presentation of the EX300 is wide and well-layered. Though the MDR-EX600 is significantly more spacious still, the EX300 is one of the more open-sounding entry-level earphones. Soundstage depth could be better and the imaging and dynamics lag far behind the EX600 but both are more than reasonable for the asking price. Clearly the EX300 was one of the better earphones in its price category upon release back in 2008.
Value
(7.5/10) - The Sony MDR-EX300 impresses with its punchy bass, warm and liquid mids, and spacious presentation, especially considering the age of the earphones. What betrays them is the overall usability, mediocre isolation, and hit-or-miss form factor. The biggest gripe, however, is the thin and frustrating j-cord used by the earphones. For pure sound quality, the EX300 is an easy set to recommend but much of the modern competition simply offers a better value proposition on the whole.
Pros: Punchy, clear, and open sound; almost no cable noise
Cons: J-corded; very thin & tangle-prone cable
(3A66) id America Spark
Reviewed Feb 2012
Details: Metal-shelled headset styled after a spark plug
Current Price:
$60 from idamericany.com (MSRP: $59.95)
Specs: Driver:
Dynamic | Imp:
16Ω | Sens:
96 dB | Freq:
20-20k Hz | Cable:
3.9' I-plug
Nozzle Size:
5mm | Preferred tips:
Stock single-flanges, Sony Hybrids
Wear Style:
Straight down or over-the-ear
Accessories
(3.5/5) - Single-flange silicone tips (3 sizes) and tubular carrying case
Build Quality
(4/5) – The two-piece housings are aluminum and feel very well-made. Cabling is of average thickness but resistant to tangling and protected by soft rubber strain reliefs at the y-split and I-plug, as well as on housing entry. A single-button mic/remote unit is located on the left side
Isolation
(3/5) – Good for a vented dynamic-driver earphone
Microphonics
(3.5/5) – Present when worn cable-down; very low with over-the-ear wear
Comfort
(3.5/5) – The sparkplug-inspired housings are lightweight and can be inserted comfortably due to the long nozzles but sharp rear edges make them less suitable for those with smaller outer ears. Stock tips are of surprisingly good quality
Sound
(7.4/10) – The Spark is a bass-heavy earphone with surprisingly solid sonic characteristics. The Bass is deep and powerful, with plenty of punch and good texture throughout. Both the subbass depth and overall bass quantity are slightly greater compared to the Soundmagic E10 and Beyerdynamic DTX 101 and on par with the Fischer Audio Consonance. Bass control is good – the Spark is neither the quickest nor the most resolving earphone out there but for a set bassy enough to please the mainstream listener, it performs very well.
There is a bit of bass bleed but the mids are still strong and clear. The Spark manages to be mildly v-shaped in response without placing the midrange too far back, partly as a result of its overall presentation being fairly aggressive. In this way it is reminiscent of the pricier PureSound ClarityOne, albeit thinner and more dry-sounding. In comparison, the similarly-priced Fischer Audio Consonance is more mid-recessed, but thicker and smoother. The mids of the Spark are still not nearly as forward as those of the Beyerdynamic DTX 101 or Brainwavz M2 but compared to most other bass-heavy sets its balance is rather good.
Moving upward, the Spark boasts some emphasis and mild unevenness in the lower treble, giving it a little sparkle without risking significant sibilance. There is a bit of edginess to the treble but the only real complaint I have is its mediocre extension, which results in a darker tonal slant and slight lack of air in the upper registers. Aside from the last bit of top end extension, the Spark satisfies with good treble energy, detail, and crispness.
The presentation of the Spark is pretty standard for a mid-range dynamic earphone. It is slightly aggressive and doesn’t have the largest soundstage but is well-rounded, with decent depth and good layering. The Soundmagic E10, with its sparkly, well-extended treble, has a larger, more open presentation but the Beyerdynamic DTX 101 and Dunu Trident lack layering and sound less three-dimensional in comparison to the Spark. Instrument separation and dynamics are on similarly even footing with competing sets from Head-Fi’s favorite brands. A final point to note – the Spark is surprisingly efficient and, despite the conservative stated figures, reaches listening volume more quickly than any of the sets I put it up against.
Value (8.5/10) – The id America Spark is a solid choice for those seeking a bass-heavy headset at a reasonable price. True to its name, the Spark is energetic, with excellent bass impact, good clarity, and a well-rounded presentation making it an easy choice over popular mainstream sets such as the Beats by Dre Tour and Klipsch Image S4. Add native headset functionality, a striking design, and good build quality and the Spark should strike up interest not only in the car buffs, but all music lovers.
Pros: Solid build quality; bass-heavy sound with good clarity and layering
Co/strongns: Sharp rear edges maybe be uncomfortable for some
A full review of the Spark with more images can be found
here
(3A67) Altec Lansing UHP336 / Ultimate Ears Super.Fi 3
Reviewed Mar 2012
Details: Altec Lansing re-badge of UE's discontinued SuperFi 3
Current Price: N/A (discontinued) (MSRP: $129.95)
Specs: Driver:
BA | Imp:
13Ω | Sens:
115 dB | Freq:
20-15k Hz | Cable:
3.8' I-plug
Nozzle Size:
5.5mm | Preferred tips: Sony Hybrid
Wear Style:
Over-the-ear
Accessories
(3.5/5) - Single-flange silicone tips (3 sizes), Comply foam tips, cleaning tool, and soft zippered carrying case
Build Quality
(4/5) - Quite similar to the higher-end UE models - thick plastics, detachable cables with two inches of memory wire, and standard I-plug
Isolation
(3.5/5) - Quite good with well-fitting tips
Microphonics
(4.5/5) - Low due to over-the-ear fit but not absent completely
Comfort
(3.5/5) - The shells are similar in shape to those of the TF10 and SF5Pro but slimmer towards the front and lend themselves to insertion much easier. Maintaining a seal can be difficult with stock UE tips but Hybrids work fine. Comply foams seal well also but soak up some of the SF3's already-scarce treble intensity and make them even warmer
Sound
(6.9/10) - Introduced a number of years ago as Ultimate Ears' entry-level model, the single-armature SF3 was tuned as a do-it-all earphone to compete with Etymotic's ER6 and Shure's E2C. Like most single-armature earphones from that time period, the SF3 doesn't do a great job of covering the entire frequency spectrum. The bass rolls off significantly and lacks detail near the limit. Poor sub-bass presence aside, the bass is smooth and level, flowing without bleed into the midrange.
The mids are slightly forward - not to the same degree as with the newer SuperFi 5 but definitely more so than the low end and treble. Overall balance is still very good, however, and the note thickness is neither excessive nor lacking. Resolution and detail are not quite on-par with the Etymotics of the period, partly because the SF3 at times seems to gloss over fine detail and texture to maintain its silky-smooth response, but the earphone performs no poorer than most dynamic-driver sets in its bracket. The clarity, too, is quite good but not accentuated by brightness as it is on the Ety ER6i.
Treble sparkle is completely nonexistent, resulting in a smooth, non-fatiguing curve. The top end of the SF3 is a bit laid-back in terms of emphasis and lacks some energy and a bit of extension, much like the low end. The somewhat subdued treble response means that the SF3 is not airy or open-sounding but it does provide a very decent sense of space with good depth and width. An additional consideration - the SF3 can be quite hissy with many sources as a result of its high sensitivity. I would not recommend it at all unless it was to be used with a dedicated audio player.
Value
(8/10) - Introduced in 2006, the Ultimate Ears Super.Fi 3 is a single-armature earphone that still manages to impress at the sub-$60 price usually fetched by the Altec Lansing rebrand. The sound is smooth, clean, and balanced - if slightly mid-focused - and the relatively high isolation, low microphonics, and detachable cable only sweeten the deal. As an overall package, the Super.Fi 3 is very much on par with many modern designs and puts many of the entry-level models UE has produced since to shame.
Pros: High isolation; low microphonics; detachable cable; smooth and balanced sound
Cons: Extremely sensitive; not the best performer at the limits
(3A68) Astrotec AM-90
Reviewed May 2012
Details: One of the least expensive BA-based earphones on the market
Current Price:
$44 from lendmeurears.com (MSRP: est. $44)
Specs: Driver:
BA | Imp:
25Ω | Sens:
109dB | Freq:
N/A | Cable:
3.9' I-plug
Nozzle Size:
4mm | Preferred tips:
Sony Hybrid, Stock silicone, Stock foam
Wear Style:
Straight down or over-the-ear
Accessories
(3/5) - Single-flange (3 sizes) silicone tips, foam tips, and soft carrying pouch (original version also came with triple-flange eartips and clamshell carrying case)
Build Quality
(4.5/5) – Construction is solid, with all-metal housings and nozzle filters. Strain reliefs are flexible and the soft cable is above average in thickness and covered with a translucent sheath. It is one of the best cables I’ve seen in a while – quiet, flexible, and tangle-resistant
Isolation
(3.5/5) – The tapered housings and inclusion of triple-flange and foam tips allow the AM-90 to isolate quite well
Microphonics
(4/5) – Cable noise is low when worn cable-down and nearly nonexistent with over-the-ear wear
Comfort
(4.5/5) – The tapered housing design makes for one of the better straight-barrel form factors, with an elongated body that flares out gradually. The shells of the AM-90 are less likely to contact the outer ear than those of the Dunu Trident and narrower at the front than those of almost all other straight barrel earphones, allowing for a deeper seal. They might be a bit long for those with steeply-angled ear canals but for most they should be very comfortable
Sound
(7.4/10) – The AM-90 is a smooth-sounding BA-based earphone that falls on the warmer side of things in terms of tone. It uses a Knowles SR (Siren) armature and – not surprisingly – doesn’t sound all that different from the SR-based MEElec A151. Both are some of the better such setups I’ve heard and the sonic differences between them are no greater than what one would instead anticipate from two revisions of the same product.
The sound signature of the AM-90, while slightly warm, is not unbalanced. Bass depth is decent enough – no match for dynamic-driver sets such as the id America Spark or VSonic GR99 but good for a single armature. Mid-bass impact is a hair lower than that of the A151 but control and detail are similarly good. The low end can be classified as punchy, but also not lacking in body and fullness for a BA-based earphone – seemingly a hallmark of the SR armature.
The midrange of the AM-90 is on the warm side but seems to be a bit more level compared to that of the A151. The AM-90 is a touch less mid-forward (but still more so than a Brainwavz M1, for example) and sounds fuller and smoother than the A151. The MEElec set is a bit thinner-sounding and also more dry but maintains clarity better on busy passages. The differences are small, however, and the two earphones are still far more similar to each other than they are to competing sets. Neither earphone has the crispness of a higher-end BA-based earphone and both lack the perception of added clarity that comes with emphasized treble.
The top end of the AM-90 is a touch more extended than that of the A151 and also less grainy but neither earphone can be recommended to fans of sparkly, prominent highs. Rather, the earphones are laid-back at the top and very, very smooth, doing a great job of cutting out harshness and sibilance. The VSonic GR06, for example, manages significantly better extension and energy at top but is also more fatiguing than the AM-90. Soundstage size, similarly, is not too impressive – the space is average and there’s not a whole lot of air compared to sets such as the GR06. However, as with the A151, the presentation is well-rounded, with some depth and height in addition to the width, good separation, and versatility in portraying intimacy as well as distance.
Value
(10/10) – The sound signature of the AM-90 may be nothing new next to other entry-level, single-BA earphones but it is the most reasonably-priced – and one of the best-sounding - SR-based sets I’ve heard. In addition, Astrotec’s OEM expertise shows in the excellent design – the solid isolation, sturdy housings, outstanding cables, and comfortable form factor. For a value-oriented product the AM-90 is not stingy on accessories, either, with a very nice hard case and good-quality tips included to make them work even for first-time IEM users. They are remarkably easy to get a seal with compared even to the A151 and therefore make an excellent stepping-off point into BA-based monitors.
Pros: Well-balanced, slightly warm Knowles SR sound; good build quality; great cable; comfortable tapered design
Cons: N/A
(3A69) VSonic GR02 Bass Edition
Reviewed June 2012
Details: Bass-oriented VSonic earphone based on the aging R02ProII
Current Price:
$36 from lendmeurears.com (MSRP: est $36)
Specs: Driver:
Dynamic | Imp:
24Ω | Sens:
105 dB | Freq:
12-25k Hz | Cable:
4.3' 45º-plug
Nozzle Size:
5.5mm | Preferred tips:
stock bi-flanges; MEElec “balanced” bi-flanges
Wear Style:
Straight down or over-the-ear
Accessories
(4/5) - Single-flange (3 sizes), hybrid-style (7 sizes), foam-stuffed hybrid (3 sizes), and bi-flange silicone tips, shirt clip, and padded spring-clasp carrying pouch
Build Quality
(4.5/5) – The GR02 Bass Edition utilizes the same plastic-and-metal housings as the old R02ProII model and a number of other earphones. The construction is very good – the shells feel well put-together and the strain reliefs are strong and flexible. The cabling is similar to that of the R02ProII – thicker than that of the GR99, strong, and tangle-resistant
Isolation
(3/5) – Good, especially with the included thick bi-flange tips
Microphonics
(4/5) – Low when worn cable-down; very low with over-the-ear wear
Comfort
(4/5) – The familiar housings are small and fit well. Long strain reliefs may pose an issue for some with over-the-ear wear but a cable cinch is present to help out. Tip selection is very generous
Sound
(7.6/10) – Despite its ominous moniker, the GR02 Bass Edition doesn’t add a whole lot of low-end grunt to the sound of the older R02ProII model, which, admittedly, was hardly bass-shy to begin with. The low of the GR02 is punchy, but not inaccurate and the earphone is not quite a bass monster. There is a similar amount of deep bass compared to the cheaper GR99 but the mid-bass is dominant source of power with the GR02. Despite this, the Bass Edition also gains a bit of detail, control, and dynamics and can be more impactful than the GR99 when pressed.
The GR02 is also bassier than the higher-end GR06 and its low end can overshadow the midrange on occasion compared to the more mid-forward GR06, the more subbass-focused GR99, and more balanced-sounding sets such as the Monoprice 8320. The note presentation of the GR02 is thinner compared to the GR06 and the midrange clarity is a bit better. The mids are less liquid and intimate compared to the GR06 but warmer, cleaner, and a touch more forward compared to the GR99.
The top end of the GR02 bears some resemblance to the GR06 and GR07 models, with good presence and extension but a slight predisposition towards pointing out sibilance on tracks. For the price there are very few sets that do treble this well without sacrificing brightness as the lower-end GR99 does. Similarly, soundstaging prowess lags a little behind the higher-end models but is more than acceptable for the price. The soundstage is average in size and lacks the separation and layering of the GR06 but still provides a well-rounded sonic image for a satisfying experience.
Value
(10/10) – VSonic’s new lineup continues to impress with this re-tuned take on the aging R02ProII model. An impressive performer with a focus on mid-bass punch, the GR02 Bass Edition provides unexpected bang for not very much buck and - from the durable, time-tested housings to the tangle-resistant cable and 28-piece tipset - doesn’t feel one bit outdated.
Pros: Very well-built, great sound for the money, generous tip set
Cons: N/A
(3A70) Philips O'Neill Tread SHO2200
Added Sep 2012
Details: Sport-oriented earphones from Philips designed for maximum durability
Current Price:
$40 from amazon.com (MSRP: $39.99); $50 for SHO2205 with microphone
Specs: Driver:
Dynamic | Imp:
16Ω | Sens:
105 dB | Freq:
6-23.5k Hz | Cable:
3.9' L-plug
Nozzle Size:
4mm | Preferred tips:
MEElec M6 bi-flanges, Sony Hybrid
Wear Style:
Straight down or over-the-ear
Accessories
(1/5) - Single-flange silicone tips (3 sizes)
Build Quality
(5/5) – The Tread has clearly been designed with extreme durability in mind - the earpieces boast aluminum inner shells protected by a rubber sheath and are said to survive up to 300 lbs of impact. The nozzles are protected by metal filters and the cables - by long, flexible strain reliefs. The Kevlar-reinforced cord is thicker than average and surprisingly tangle-resistant. It is sheathed in cloth below the y-split and features an exceptionally beefy L-plug and rock-solid Y-split
Isolation
(3/5) - Isolation is good for a dynamic-driver earphone – more than reasonable for the typical daily commute
Microphonics
(4/5) – Low when worn cable-down; nearly nonexistent when worn cord-up
Comfort
(3/5) – Though it was designed with sports in mind, the Tread is conventional straight-barrel in-ear earphone. The housings are slightly on the heavy side and the stock eartips are a little stiff. Comfort is average but at least the earphones can be worn over-the-ear quite easily due to the flexible strain reliefs and soft cable
Sound
(6/10) - Philips has focused mostly on style and durability with the O’Neill line but the sound quality of the Tread is still respectable for the asking price. While the marketing materials promise good bass depth, in reality the Tread puts out mostly mid-bass and suffers from mild low-end roll-off. The low end is punchy, however - impact is about on-par with the similarly-priced Klipsch Image S3 and lags just behind Philips’ cheaper SHE3580 model. The SHE3580 also has better sub-bass presence and sounds fuller and warmer. The MEElectronics M9, on the other hand, also has greater bass quantity but lags behind the Tread in quality, sounding boomy and muddy in comparison.
The midrange of the Tread is clear and prominent. There is more emphasis on the bass but vocals don’t sound too recessed and there is no bass bleeding into the mids. The tone is on the cool side compared to most entry-level sets, which tend to be warm and bassy. Moving up into the treble, the Tread is a touch uneven but not excessively so - the Klipsch Image S3, for example, is harsher and far more sibilant. The Tread also derives some extra intelligibility with vocals from its prominent treble and has decent top-end extension compared to the MEElectronics M9 and Dunu Trident. The presentation is respectable as well – soundstage size is average but the instrument separation is good and the earphones don’t sound congested. The Tread still doest’t sound anywhere near as large and spacious as the Soundmagic E10 but keeps up with the popular mainstream sets in its price bracket.
Value
(8/10) – The Philips O’Neill Tread delivers exactly what it promises – a bulletproof construction that puts most earphones – no matter the price – to shame. Passive noise isolation is also good for an in-ear of its type and cable noise is respectably low. There are more comfortable earphones out there and certainly better-sounding ones - the clean, slightly cold sound of the Tread may not appeal to mainstream listeners and won’t win over many audiophiles – but on the whole the Tread is sure to be a success with those who are simply tired of replacing broken earphones.
Pros: Extremely solid construction; low cable noise; decent clarity
Cons: Slightly cold and thin-sounding; sound does not measure up to cheaper SHE3580 model
(3A71) Klipsch Image S3
Added Sep 2012
Details: Younger, less elegant sibling of the popular Image S4
Current Price:
$39 from amazon.com (MSRP: $49.99)
Specs: Driver:
Dynamic | Imp:
18Ω | Sens:
106 dB | Freq:
12-18k Hz | Cable:
4.2' I-plug
Nozzle Size:
4.5mm | Preferred tips:
Klipsch gels
Wear Style:
Straight down or over-the-ear
Accessories
(3.5/5) - Single-flange (2 sizes) and bi-flange silicone tips; compact zippered carrying case
Build Quality
(3.5/5) - Housings are plastic but sturdy and well-relieved on cable entry. No nozzle filter is present and the cable is thin and lacks a cinch
Isolation
(3/5) – Above average for a dynamic-driver earphone
Microphonics
(4/5) – Very low with over-the-ear wear; tolerable otherwise
Comfort
(3.5/5) – The angled-nozzle housings are lightweight and unobtrusive, though slightly larger than those of the S4. They also have sharper front edges, which can become uncomfortable for extended wear
Sound
(5.9/10) – The Image S3 is reminiscent of the pricier S4 not only cosmetically, but also sonically. Like the design, which is a simplified, cheaper-looking, and less ear-friendly take on the S4, the sound borrows both the positive and not-so-positive traits of the higher-end model.
The S3 is v-shaped in signature, with strong bass and treble. As with the S4, the low end is rarely boomy considering the enhanced bass quantity but lacks some rumble in the sub-bass region. Both the Soundmagic E10 and MEElectronics M9 extend better at the bottom. The cheaper M9 sounds a bit loose next to the S3 but those looking purely for bass ‘slam’ will still be better off with an M9 or Sony XB-series earphone. For quick and punchy bass, the S3 performs rather well.
Bass bleed is minimal but as with the S4 the midrange is somewhat recessed compared to the bass and treble. Clarity is quite above average for the price but note presentation is on the thin side – the Soundmagic E10 sounds significantly fuller and more realistic with its warmer, smoother sound signature. The S3 comes across cold and harsh, in large part due to the peaky treble. As with the S4, the top end can be downright unpleasant at times, with occasional bouts of sibilance and a tendency make drums and snares sound unnecessarily sharp and edgy.
Soundstaging is also average at best – the S3 has a typical in-the-head budget in-ear presentation and lacks depth. The Soundmagic E10 sounds much more spacious and ambient, portraying both width and depth better than the Image S3. Even next to the MEElectronics M9 the S3 sounds a bit compressed and congested, though it is helped along by better resolution and clarity as well as slightly better treble extension.
Value
(7/10) – The Klipsch Image S3 boasts good clarity and punchy bass but is let down by the hot treble and mediocre presentation. Like the S4, it is a decent earphone for those looking to stay with a name brand but far from the best-sounding set for the price. In the world outside of retail stores, this “S4 light” has some very stiff competition.
Pros: Good clarity and bass; very low cable noise with cable-up wear; 2-yr warranty
Cons: Treble quality lacking; can be uncomfortable due to sharp housing edges
(3A72) Rock-It Sounds R-20
Added Sep 2012
Details: One of the most reasonably-priced BA-based IEMs on the market
Current Price:
$40 from rockitsounds.com (MSRP: $39.99);
$49.99 for R-20M with mic and 1-button remote
Specs: Driver:
BA | Imp:
31Ω @ 500 Hz | Sens:
109 dB | Freq:
20-18k Hz | Cable:
4.2' I-plug
Nozzle Size:
3mm | Preferred tips:
Stock single-flanges; Shure gray flex
Wear Style:
Over-the-ear
Accessories
(3.5/5) - Single-flange silicone tips (3 sizes), airline adapter, and clamshell carrying case
Build Quality
(4/5) – The R-20 utilizes plastic housings with filterless nozzles. The strain reliefs are a bit too hard for my liking but the twisted cable is excellent, identical to those found on the R-11, R-30, and R-50, as well as the MEElectronics A151. The molded L/R markings can be hard to discern but luckily the earpieces are asymmetric and easy to tell apart
Isolation
(3.5/5) – Isolation is good even though only single-flange tips are included
Microphonics
(5/5) – Cable noise is nonexistent with the excellent twisted cable
Comfort
(4.5/5) – The R-20 is clearly designed for over-the-ear wear but the nozzles are angled opposite of the convention used by nearly all other earphone manufactures, which makes cable-down wear impractical. The only sets with the same design are old UEs such as the TF10. In addition, the cord of the R-20 is advertised as a regular cable with memory wire but actually uses a twisted cable with no memory wire. The cable is soft and flexible, however, and the lack of memory wire causes no issues
Sound
(7.4/10) – The sound of the R-20 is highly reminiscent of other IEMs utilizing the Knowles SR driver. The bass is tight and clean, a huge improvement over Rock-It’s lower-end dynamic models. There’s slightly less bass depth, impact, and fullness compared to the MEElec A151 but the R-20 is still on the warm and punchy side for an armature-based earphone. There is no bleed into the midrange, which is clean and a touch forward.
Looking at the market as a whole, the differences between the R-20 and A151 are small and the two earphones are far more similar than they are different. However, whereas the A151 has a darker, smoother sound with more laid-back upper mids resulting in a duller vocal presentation, the R-20 is thinner-sounding and emphasizes the upper midrange more. As a result it is brighter and more energetic. It is also a bit less forgiving of sibilance than the A151, but still more so than the higher-end R-30 model. The treble of the R-20 is laid-back on the whole and top-end extension isn’t great. Neither the R-20 nor the A151 has the crispness of higher-end BA earphones, and both lack the perception of added clarity that comes with emphasized treble.
Soundstage size is not too impressive either – the space is average and there’s not a whole lot of air compared to the higher-end R-30 and competing dynamic-driver sets such as the Soundmagic E30. However, as with the MEElec A151, the presentation is well-rounded, with some depth and height in addition to the width, good separation, and the ability to portray intimacy as well as distance.
Value
(10/10) – Although the R-20 is among the cheapest BA-based IEMs on the market, Rock-It Sounds has taken no shortcuts when it comes to design or construction. The cable is excellent and the over-the-ear fit is secure and comfortable over long listening sessions. The sound, too, is competitive with other entry-level single armature earphones and makes the R-20 a great introduction to the world of balanced armatures at a rock-bottom price.
Pros: Comfortable; excellent cable; no cable noise, good clarity and detail
Cons: Unusual nozzle angle forbids cable-down wear; strain reliefs could be more flexible
(3A73) Brainwavz M5
Added Oct 2012
Details: Brainwavz’ fifth M-series in-ear
Current Price:
$40 from amazon.com (MSRP: $49.50); $54.50 for M5 with microphone
Specs: Driver:
Dynamic | Imp:
16Ω | Sens:
103 dB | Freq:
16-18k Hz | Cable:
4.3' L-plug
Nozzle Size:
5.5mm | Preferred tips:
Stock (wide channel) single-flanges
Wear Style:
Straight down or over-the-ear
Accessories
(4.5/5) - Single-flange wide channel (3 sizes), single-flange narrow channel (3 sizes), and bi-flange silicone tips, Comply foam tips, shirt clip, and hard clamshell carrying case
Build Quality
(4/5) - The M5 features lightweight aluminum shells with metal nozzle filters. The rubbery cabling is a bit thin above the y-split but strain relief is excellent all around and the new L-plug seems very durable
Isolation
(2.5/5) – Isolation is about average for a dynamic-driver earphone and can be increase slightly with the included Comply tips
Microphonics
(3.5/5) – Cable noise is bothersome when worn cable-down. Cable-up wear is recommended
Comfort
(4/5) – The housings are lightweight and compact, tapering at the rear to provide a compliant, non-intrusive fit. Flexible strain reliefs and cable cinch allow for over-the-ear wear, though this may not be desirable when a mic/remote is present
Sound
(7.6/10) – The newest M-series earphone from Brainwavz, the M5 seems to combine some of the best aspects from the M1 and M2 into a competent and coherent audio package. At the core of the sound is ample bass—the low end of the M5 boasts good depth, plenty of impact, and a mild mid-bass focus. Compared to the older M1, M2, and M3, the bass of the M5 is deeper, more powerful, and more dynamic. It is noticeably more detailed and effortless, and even next to the VSonic GR02 Bass Edition the M5 more than holds its own, providing a deeper, more fleshed-out low end.
Despite the powerful bass, the M5 does a reasonable job of minimizing bass bleed and bloat. Part of the reason is the prominent lower midrange of the M5 – unlike many other bass-heavy earphones the M5 isn't notably mid-recessed. The lower mids are emphasized and the entire midrange is smooth, dropping gradually in forwardness towards the top. The treble takes a small step back and clarity is pretty much the only aspect of the M5 that doesn’t surpass other earphones in its price range. Still, despite its warmer tone, the M5 is about as clear as the older M1 model. Vocal clarity and intelligibility, especially with female vocals, take a hit compared to the M1 and M2 as well as competing sets like the pricier VSonic GR06. Detail levels are better than average, however, with the M5 sounding more refined and realistic than the M2. The top end doesn’t offer up a whole lot of sparkle but extension is good for a warmer earphone. Harshness and sibilance are nonexistent – in fact, the M5 cuts down on sibilance
The presentation is affected by the laid-back treble but offers a substantial improvement over the older Brainwavz models. The M5 isn’t very airy and can get slightly congested on busy tracks but has better layering and sounds much more enveloping than the M1 and M2. The M2 especially sounds exceedingly flat and two-dimensional next to the M5. The pricier VSonic GR06, on the other hand, despite its more forward midrange, is capable of portraying a wider and more open sonic space.
Value
(9/10) – The Brainwavz M5 is a well-built, well-accessorized, and comfortable earphone with sound that puts it at the top of its game. Its sonic signature won’t do for those looking to maximize clarity but it is sure to please fans of warmer, smoother sound. Better still, the M5 improves in many ways on the older M1, M2, and ProAlpha models without hiking up the price – an amazing accomplishment considering how far ahead of the competition the original Brainwavz earphones were upon release just a few short years ago.
Pros: Good build quality; deep bass and full, smooth sound
Cons: Average clarity
(3A74) ViSang VS-K1
Added Jan 2013
Details: Compact metal-shelled earphone from ViSang
Current Price:
$50 from ebay.com (MSRP: est. $49.99)
Specs: Driver:
Dynamic | Imp:
32Ω | Sens:
115 dB | Freq:
20-20k Hz | Cable:
4.3' L-plug
Nozzle Size: 5.5mm | Preferred tips: Stock single-flanges, generic single-flanged
Wear Style: Straight down or over-the-ear
Accessories
(4/5) - Single-flange hybrid-style silicone tips (3 sizes), foam tips, shirt clip, and clamshell carrying case
Build Quality
(4/5) – The VS-K1 features aluminum shells with metal nozzle filters. The cabling is identical to my older ViSang and Brainwavz models – internally braided and a little stiff. No cable cinch is present
Isolation
(2.5/5) - Isolation is about average for a shallow-fit dynamic-driver earphone
Microphonics
(4/5) – Present when worn cable-down; very low otherwise
Comfort
(4/5) - The housings are compact and taper at the rear to provide a compliant, non-intrusive fit. The K1 is happy with a relatively shallow seal and can be worn over-the-ear easily
Sound
(7.6/10) – The sound of ViSang’s latest and greatest harkens back to the R01, R02, and R03 models of old but provides a more mature and refined experience. The sound signature is reasonably balanced, with a slight mid-bass lift and mild treble roll-off. The bass has decent depth and good overall presence but the earphones are far from bass-heavy. They don’t have the bass boost of the old R03 model (perhaps better known by its Brainwavz M2 rebrand) but there is more body and fullness compared to the Brainwavz M1 and similarly-priced armature earphones such as the Astrotec AM-90. It’s not the tightest low end out there, but the control is respectable and the overall presentation will appeal to those who enjoy a softer, smoother sound.
The ViSang products of old--even the bass-heavy ones--have always had clean, articulate mids, and the VS-K1 is no exception. The midrange is prominent and the earphones could potentially be called mid-centric if not for the decent amount of bass. As is, the sound is rather well-balanced overall. There is no bass bleed; Brainwavz’ new M5 model is significantly bassier and more subdued in the midrange compared to the VS-K1. Clarity is good for the asking price – not quite up there with the armature-based Astrotec AM-90 or the thinner-sounding Brainwavz M1, but very close.
Starting with the upper midrange, the VS-K1 follows a smooth and forgiving approach reminiscent of the Brainwavz M5. The top end is laid-back but not enough so to make the earphones sound dark and lacking in balance. Sets such as the Astrotec AM-90 have more upper midrange presence and energy while the VS-K1 sounds more smooth and relaxed. This goes for the presentation as well – the VS-K1 is not as forward as the AM-90 or Brainwavz M1. It has very decent depth, which is noticeable next to the older ViSang R03/Brainwavz M2, but doesn’t sound as big and enveloping as the pricier VSonic GR06. Overall, the relaxed presentation fits the sound signature well.
Value
(9/10) – The ViSang VS-K1 is a budget earphone that offers strong performance across the board. Fans of the older ViSang models will be pleased with the more mature sound and the smooth yet reasonably balanced tuning should appeal to an even wider audience. The solid construction and comfortable, shallow-fit housings round the VS-K1 out as an easy recommendation.
Pros: Solid construction, smooth sound
Cons: No cable cinch
(3A75) RHA MA-350
Added Jan 2013
Details: First in-ear earphone from Scotland-based Reid & Heath Audio
Current Price:
$35 from amazon.com (MSRP: $39.95)
Specs: Driver: Dynamic | Imp:
16Ω | Sens:
103 dB | Freq:
16-22k Hz | Cable:
3.9' I-plug
Nozzle Size:
4.5mm | Preferred tips:
Stock single-flanges, Sony Hybrid
Wear Style:
Straight down or over-the-ear
Accessories
(2.5/5) - Single-flange silicone tips (3 sizes) and drawstring carrying pouch
Build Quality
(4.5/5) – The MA-350 boasts solid-feeling machined aluminum housings, metal nozzle filters, and fabric cables with flexible strain reliefs. The cable is a little tangle-prone but the overall feel is one of a higher-end product. The 3-year warranty is very impressive as well
Isolation
(3.5/5) – The housings are narrow at the front, allowing relatively deep insertion with good isolation
Microphonics
(3.5/5) – Moderate in the cloth-sheathed cable; can be greatly reduced with over-the-ear wear
Comfort
(4/5) – The earphone housings have a familiar flared shape a-la Dunu Trident but are compact and light. The small diameter at the front affords a comfortable, unobtrusive fit
Sound
(6.8/10) – The MA-350 pursues a consumer-friendly sound and delivers on its promise of “a deep, full bass response” in spades, pumping out plenty of powerful sub-bass. It delivers more low bass than either the Brainwavz M5 or Dunu Trident, two solid and bass-heavy sub-$50 in-ears. Though the sub-bass is not very informative, the low end of the MA-350 genuinely impresses with its depth and rumble. The response stays strong well into the mid-bass region, resulting in a warm—but not overly so—tone.
The powerful bass of the MA-350 makes the mids sound slightly overshadowed and at times a touch muddy. This is far from uncommon for bass-heavy entry-level earphones – there are a few that manage better overall clarity (e.g. VSonic GR02 BE) and many more that can’t compete with the MA-350. Note thickness is good and the overall sound is rich and full.
The treble is in balance with the midrange and generally smooth. At reasonable volumes the top end is very inoffensive. The MA-350 is smoother overall than the popular VSonic GR02 BE and doesn’t introduce sibilance to a track. A little grain can become apparent at higher volumes—the Dunu Trident behaves better here even though it is not as crisp and extended as the MA-350. Top-end roll-off is present, but gradual. No surprises for an entry-level set.
In terms of presentation, the MA-350 is again par for the course. It is not the most spacious earphone and, like most budget sets, generally has an intimate, in-the-head presentation. It can get a touch congested but is more than acceptable for the asking price—better, for example, than the more closed-in sounding Dunu Trident.
Value
(9/10) – RHA’s first in-ear earphone is a solid entry-level offering. There is quite a lot to like here but ultimately the MA-350 stands out in two ways – excellent build quality and deep, subwoofer-like bass. This is definitely the one earphone to show those claiming that in-ears can’t deliver adequate bass across the spectrum and, hopefully, is just the first of many in-ear products from RHA.
Pros: Solid build quality; 3 year warranty; powerful subbass
Cons: Cable noise can be bothersome unless worn cord-up
(3A76) Spider TinyEar
Added Feb 2013
Details: Spider’s light-and-comfortable entry-level earphone
Current Price:
$35 from amazon.com (MSRP: $39.99)
Specs: Driver:
Dynamic | Imp:
18Ω | Sens:
104 dB | Freq:
18-22k Hz | Cable: 3.9' I-plug
Nozzle Size:
4mm | Preferred tips:
Stock single-flanges; MEElec M6 single flanges
Wear Style:
Straight down or over-the-ear
Accessories
(2.5/5) - Single-flange (2 sizes) and bi-flange silicone tips; plastic carrying case with integrated cable winder
Build Quality
(3/5) – The TinyEar uses two-piece plastic housings with hard stems, no strain reliefs, and a rubberized cable of average thickness. The L/R markings stamped into the housings can be hard to see
Isolation
(3/5) – The slim housings allow for good isolation
Microphonics
(3/5) – Bothersome when worn cable-down; low otherwise
Comfort
(4.5/5) – The TinyEar is claimed to be the smallest in-ear headphone on market, and while that’s not exactly true, the housings are quite small and very lightweight. Stems are short and it’s easy to get a seal even though only 2 smaller sizes of single-flange tips are included
Sound
(6.6/10) – The sound of the TinyEar is well-balanced with an emphasis on treble. The bass is medium in quantity – punchy but not really enhanced and much flatter overall than the boosted bass of a JVC FX101 or Dunu Trident. Sub-bass drops off rather quickly - both low-end extension and impact are lacking compared to Spider’s pricier Realvoice model.
The midrange is mildly recessed but the balance is good overall – better, for example, than with comparably-priced JVC and Klipsch models. Clarity is decent, helped along by the treble emphasis. Note thickness is on the low side – the TinyEar is not nearly as thick as the warmer, weightier Realvoice. The tone overall is cooler and brighter compared to most sets in the price range. The treble is energetic but seems to be enhanced rather evenly, without any major spikes. The TinyEar is definitely brighter and more treble-heavy overall than the JVC FX101 but still remains smoother and easier to listen to than the harsher JVCs.
The soundstage of the TinyEar is average in size. Good treble extension provides decent air but soundstage width and depth are only moderate. The similarly-priced Soundmagic E10 provides a more open, out-of-the-head presentation and even the Dunu Trident has better depth and layering. Worth noting also is how inefficient the TinyEar is – despite the advertised 104dB sensitivity, it required more power to reach listening volume than any of the earphones I put it up against.
Value
(7.5/10) – While not as impressive as Spider’s higher-end Realvoice model, the TinyEar provides clean and balanced sound in an extremely compact form factor. Clearly designed for those with smaller ears, the TinyEar will fit pretty much anyone comfortably, which is good because many will enjoy its clarity and energetic – but surprisingly non-fatiguing – treble.
Pros: Small and lightweight; clean & clear sound
Cons: Microphonic when worn cable-down
Thanks to
mcnoiserdc for the TinyEar loan!
(3A77) VSonic VC02
Reviewed Feb 2013
Details: Dynamic microdriver earphone from VSonic
Current Price:
$40 from lendmeurears.com (MSRP: est. $40)
Specs: Driver:
Dynamic | Imp:
16Ω | Sens:
100 dB | Freq:
10-25k Hz | Cable:
4.3' L-plug
Nozzle Size:
4mm | Preferred tips:
Stock single-flanges
Wear Style:
Straight down or over-the-ear
Accessories
(3/5) - Single-flange (3 sizes), hybrid-style (7 sizes), and bi-flange silicone tips; shirt clip, drawstring carrying pouch
Build Quality
(3.5/5) – The VC02’s form factor is of the slim, straight-barrel variety. The construction is very similar to that of the pricier GR01, albeit with detachable cables and fixed nozzles. The cable is smooth but on the thin side and lacks a sliding cinch. It utilizes a conventional 2-pin socket, though it detaches a little more easily than I’d have liked. A bump on the inside of the right strain relief differentiates the left and right connectors.
Isolation
(3.5/5) – Similar to the pricier GR06 and GR07 models
Microphonics
(4/5) - Cable noise is bothersome when worn cable-down but becomes low with over-the-ear wear
Comfort
(4.5/5) - The housings are very slim and easy to insert deeply for a good seal. The sheer variety of included eartips should allow the fit to work for anyone, though earphones with slimmer nozzles provide more fitment options still. The cable exits at an angle so those with smaller ears may have trouble wearing the VC02 cable-up
Sound
(8.1/10) – The VC02 is undoubtedly the most balanced sub-$100 model I’ve heard from VSonic thus far. It pursues an accurate, uncolored sound that continuously impresses with its crispness and clarity. The low end of the VC02 is tight and punchy, though fans of enhanced bass will be disappointed by its linear nature. The impact is slightly greater compared to the HiFiMan RE0 but not at the level of VSonic’s GR06 model. Bass depth is good and bass detail and texture are excellent due to the lack of mid-bass bloat – easily among the best I’ve heard in the sub-$100 range.
The mids are clean and crisp. Midrange presence is excellent, with no recession but also less warmth and thickness compared to sets that would normally be considered “balanced” in the budget realm, such as the Brainwavz M1 and Monoprice 8320. The VC02 is clearer than these, and clearer also than the armature-based Rock-It Sounds R-30, falling just behind the far more expensive HiFiMan RE-ZERO and MEElec A161P. It is slightly thin-sounding and the tonality is on the cool side, which will still make the GR06 a better choice for some listeners.
The top end of the VC02 is extended and just as crisp as the rest of the signature, but still has some of the slightly hot character that all higher-end VSonic dynamics seem to share. It is a little less sibilant than my GR07 mkI but still doesn’t quite have the refinement of HiFiMan’s dynamic-driver earphones. The presentation is spacious but not particularly enveloping – the GR07 and GR06 both seem to present a more well-rounded sonic image. Soundstage width is good, however, and the balanced, clear sound leaves no room for any sort of congestion. In fact, the VC02 makes the armature-based Rock-It R-30 sound a little congested and vague when it comes to imaging. All in all, it has nothing to be ashamed of for the price. It may be worth noting the lower-than-average sensitivity of the VC02, which will leave those who gauge sound quality by volume level wanting.
Value
(10/10) – I wrote and scrapped this section several times trying to convey the scope of the VC02’s brilliance. While VSonic’s GR-series earphones have simply been at the top of their game, the VC02 seems to transcend competing altogether. There are a few nitpicks but there’s so much more to like. I like the detachable cables with the common 2-pin connector – something I haven’t seen on a budget earphone since Altec Lansing stopped selling UE models at huge discounts. I like the tiny 3mm dynamic driver, the slim form factor, and the resulting comfort and noise isolation. I like the fact that VSonic includes a ton of tips despite the small sizing gaps between them. And I especially like fact that the VC02 boasts what has to be the clearest, tightest, and most detailed sound this side of the HiFiMan RE0 – a model that was originally considered well-priced at $239 and remained a Head-Fi favorite for years. The VC02 does all that at an astonishingly low price point. Enough said.
Pros: Small, lightweight, and comfortable; very balanced and articulate sound
Cons: Lacks cable cinch; detachable cables can come off too easily
(3A78) VSonic R02 Silver
Reviewed May 2013
Details: Latest version of VSonic's popular R02 model
Current Price:
$49 from lendmeurears.com (MSRP: est $49)
Specs: Driver:
Dynamic | Imp:
24Ω | Sens:
105 dB | Freq:
8-28k Hz | Cable:
4.1' L-plug
Nozzle Size: 5.5mm | Preferred tips:
stock bi-flanges; MEElec “balanced” bi-flanges
Wear Style:
Straight down or over-the-ear
Accessories
(2.5/5) - Bi-flange silicone tips (3 pairs in 2 sizes), shirt clip, and soft carrying pouch
Build Quality
(4.5/5) – The R02 Silver is similar to VSonic’s other -02 models in appearance but actually has a smaller nozzle diameter and all-plastic housings. The earphones are still very robust, however, and the cable is strong and flexible
Isolation
(3.5/5) – Good, especially with the included thick bi-flange tips
Microphonics
(4/5) – Low when worn cable-down; very low with over-the-ear wear
Comfort
(4/5) – The familiar housings are small and fit well. Long strain reliefs may pose an issue for some with over-the-ear wear but a cable cinch is present to help out
Sound
(8/10) – The R02 Silver is the latest iteration of VSonic’s long-running R02 model. The last one I tested – the GR02 Bass Edition – had a rather v-shaped sound to it, complete with strong bass and prominent, occasionally sibilant treble. The R02 Silver pursues the opposite signature – smooth and almost mid-centric in nature. It reminds me of a Brainwavz M1 with punchier bass and all-around better clarity.
The most prominent feature of the R02 Silver is the midrange – it is far more forward than with the GR02 bass edition and a little more so than with the pricier GR06. The bass quantity, on the other hand, is diminished compared to the GR02 Bass Edition, appearing less impactful but also less prone to bleeding up into the midrange. Bass punch is similar to the pricier GR06, though the latter is a touch quicker. The mids sound clear and open – a little thicker and less nuanced than with the VSonic VC02 and many of the pricier armature-based earphones, but nonetheless very clean and natural.
The top end is smooth, but not recessed. There is less treble brilliance than with VSonic’s other dynamic-driver earphones, but also no sibilance. This is especially noticeable next it the Bass Edition of the GR02, which tends to be hotter and more harsh in the treble. The presentation of the R02 Silver is fitting, with a large, out-of-the-head sound. The imaging is not the most precise but still on-par with the better earphones in its price range.
Value
(10/10) – The aging VSonic R02 continues to impress with its latest tuning, eschewing the v-shaped signature of the GR02 Bass Edition for a more mid-centric sound with surprisingly good clarity and bass quality. The only downside here is the limited tip selection compared to the GR02 bass edition, but even having to pick up a few extra tips fails to diminish the value of what VSonic has here.
Pros: Well-built, great sound for the money
Cons: Lacks in tip selection compared to GR02 Bass Edition
(3A79) Dunu DN-22M Detonator
Added Jun 2013
Details: Entry-level headset model from Dunu
Current Price: N/A (MSRP: $45)
Specs: Driver:
Dynamic | Imp:
16Ω | Sens:
112 dB | Freq:
20-20k Hz | Cable:
3.9' L-plug
Nozzle Size:
4.5mm | Preferred tips:
Hybrid-style single-flanges
Wear Style:
Straight down or over-the-ear
Accessories
(5/5) – Single-flange regular (3 sizes), hybrid-style (3 sizes), bi-flange, and triple-flange silicone tips, shirt clip, soft carrying pouch, clamshell carrying case, and integrated cable wrap
Build Quality
(5/5) – Overall construction is excellent. The cable is similar to the one on the old Trident model – a little rubbery but mostly soft and flexible. The housings are metal and feel very solid, boasting also a very nice finish. A single-button mic and remote – the first I’ve seen from Dunu – is located on the left-side cable
Isolation
(3.5/5) – Very good for a dynamic-driver earphone
Microphonics
(3.5/5) – Quite tolerable when worn cable-down; over-the-ear wear may be restricted by mic position
Comfort
(3.5/5) – The housings are one the heavy side but rounded at the front for comfort. The fit is typical of a straight-barrel earphone
Sound
(6.7/10) – The sound of the Detonator is decidedly explosive, underpinned by the enhanced bass response. The low end has good extension but also quite a lot of mid-bass emphasis, which gives the earphone a slightly boomy and bloated sound. Overall, the bass is a little too enhanced for my tastes, with more impact compared to Dunu’s popular Trident model as well as the VSonic GR02 Bass Edition.
The mids are warm and smooth – not as recessed as with the GR02 Bass Edition or RHA MA-350, but still not too prominent due to the bass emphasis. Clarity is similar to the Dunu Trident and lags behind the pricier DN-23 Landmine model. The earphones remain very smooth up into the treble and roll off at the top, giving up the energy – but also the potential for harshness and sibilance – of sets such as the GR02 Bass Edition.
Although the pricier DN-23 manages to be almost as bassy with less bloat, the bass of the DN-22M intrudes on the midrange at times. This causes the earphone to sound more congested than and less natural than the DN-23. Other than that, the presentation is quite good – a little wider compared to the Trident but otherwise similarly competent.
Value
(8/10) – While the Detonator is not an upgrade to the popular DN-17 Trident, it does offer a slightly bassier sound with better accessories. Plus, it boasts an inline microphone and remote – the first I’ve seen from Dunu – and retains the fantastic build quality Dunu has become known for. For those in search of a bulletproof entry-level smartphone headset, it’s a tough one to beat. Purely for audio quality, the less expensive DN-17 Trident is still my recommendation.
Pros: Fantastic build quality; well-accessorized
Cons: Not as accurate as the DN-17 Trident
(3A80) Sony MH1C
Added Jun 2013
Details: Sony headset designed for the Xperia line of smartphones
Current Price:
$35 from ebay.com (bulk packaging) (MSRP: $79.99)
Specs: Driver:
Dynamic | Imp:
15 Ω | Sens:
115 dB/V | Freq:
1-20k Hz | Cable:
3.9' L-plug J-cord
Nozzle Size:
3mm | Preferred tips:
stock single-flanges
Wear Style:
Straight down
Accessories
(1.5/5) - Single-flange silicone tips (4 sizes) and shirt clip
Build Quality
(3.5/5) – The MH1C is rather well-made, with a metal housing, flexible strain reliefs, and a sturdy flat cable. However, it is this rubbery, j-style (asymmetric) cable that can also make the earphones very to use. The 4-button remote is designed for Sony Xperia phones but offers partial functionality with many other devices
Isolation
(3.5/5) – Isolation is quite good
Microphonics
(3/5) – J-corded IEMs typically manage to avoid microphonics but the rubbery flat cable in the MH1C still carries a lot of noise
Comfort
(4/5) – The skinny housings and flexible tips of the MH1C provide a comfortable fit but the j-cord makes it difficult to wear the earphones cable-up
Sound
(8.1/10) – Designed for smartphone users in search of great audio quality, the MH1C provides a warm, clear, and smooth sound only made more impressive by the reasonable price of the headset. The bass is deep and full, with an emphasis on sub-bass rather than mid-bass. Generally speaking, the MH1C has rather good bass quality with less mid-bass bloat than the Audio-Technica CKM500, for example. Considering the bass quantity, control is rather good although it’s still not as tight as the bass of the VSonic VC02 or the pricier Philips Fidelio S1.
The mids of the MH1C are not as prominent as the low end, but they are pleasantly warm and smooth. The treble, likewise, is very inoffensive without sacrificing overall refinement. I did sometimes wish for better overall balance as the bass emphasis of the MH1C results in occasional veiling, but the clarity is generally very good.
Better still is the high volume performance of the MH1C – the earphone remains very composed when played loud and its silky-smooth signature is conducive toward high-volume listening. Compared to the Brainwavz M5, for instance, the MH1C has less prominent mids and highs but is also smoother and more natural. Whereas the M5 can begin to distort slightly at high volumes, the MH1C produces no audible distortion.
The soundstage of the MH1C is a little narrower compared to the half in-ear ATH-CKM500 and the pricier Philips Fidelio S1 but the overall presentation is very good, providing a moderately airy and open sound despite the warm tone with good soundstage width and depth.
Select comparisons:
LG Quadbeat HSS-F420 ($32)
Not unlike the MH1C, the Quadbeat is a stock headset included with many LG smartphones. The sound signature of the Quadbeat is on the v-shaped side compared to the MH1C and its bass, especially subbass, is lower in quantity. The low end of the Quadbeat is a little tighter but the difference isn’t drastic. The LGs also sacrifice some of the warmth and fullness of the Sonys, giving up the excellent note thickness of the MH1C for a bit of added clarity, aided also by the extra treble energy of the Quadbeat. Next to the warm and smooth MH1C, the treble of the Quadbeat sounds brighter and harsher overall.
I ended up preferring the sound of the MH1C, which overall sounded more natural and convincing despite the extra bass. On a user-friendliness note, while I found the cable of the Quadbeat to be a lot more tolerable than that of the MH1C, its extra-soft stock eartips did not work for me and had to be replaced with a set of standard bi-flanges of the MEElectronics variety. The Quadbeat was also more sensitive, reaching loud volumes very easily.
VSonic VC02 ($49)
The VC02 is one of clearest and most balanced sub-$100 earphones I’ve ever heard, with a tiny 3mm dynamic driver providing a uniquely delicate, yet punchy sound. Unsurprisingly, the MH1C has a lot more bass and much warmer overall tone than the VC02. Its mids and treble are recessed in comparison to its bass whereas the VSonic set is rather well-balanced. The VC02 sounds brighter and thinner overall than the MH1C. It is clearer and more accurate, but the treble is harsher in comparison. The bass of the VC02 is surprisingly punchy considering its commitment to an accurate sound but remains tighter than that of the Sony.
In terms of overall usabilit, both sets can be a little frustrating – the VC02 sounds best with a rather deep fit and has detachable cables that are not connected to the housings as securely as I’d like. It really is an enthusiast’s IEM, requiring some care in use and storage. The MH1C is easier to fit and has a built-in remote and mic but also utilizes a cable that is rubbery and microphonic in comparison to the soft and flexible cord of the VC02.
VSonic VSD1 ($43)
The VSD1 was released as a budget version of VSonic’s popular GR07 model, providing a less analytical sound than the VC02 but retaining its technical performance. In comparison to the MH1C, the VSD1 is less bassy, boasting better overall balance and more neutral tone. Bass quality is similar between the two but the VSD1 is a touch clearer overall and boasts more treble presence. As with the pricier GR07, its treble does have a slight predisposition towards sibilance in comparison to the buttery-smooth MH1C. The soundstage is a touch wider with the VSD1 and again the VSonic is noticeably more sensitive than the Sony.
Value
(10/10) – Despite my issues with its j-style cable, microphonics, and proprietary remote, the MH1C offers fantastic sound quality for the asking price, and beyond. The bass is deep and full, and the overall sound is smooth and inviting. As long as its skew towards bass is not an issue, this is a fantastic mid-range earphone for beginners and veterans alike, and one that offers as much audio quality per dollar as anything else I’ve come across.
Pros: Great deep bass & outstanding overall sound quality; comfortable form factor; good noise isolation
Cons: Rubbery, flat, j-style cable can be aggravating
Big thanks to
scootsit for the MH1C unit!
(3A81) LG Quadbeat HSS-F420
Added Jun 2013
Details: Stock headset for several LG smartphones; also sold separately
Current Price:
$32 from ebay.com (MSRP: est $35)
Specs: Driver:
Dynamic | Imp:
24Ω | Sens:
98 dB | Freq:
20-20k Hz | Cable:
3.9' L-plug
Nozzle Size:
5.5mm | Preferred tips:
Generic bi-flanges
Wear Style:
Straight down or over-the-ear
Accessories
(1/5) - Single-flange (2 sizes) and bi-flange silicone tips
Build Quality
(3.5/5) – Much like the Sony MH1C, the Quadbeat utilizes aluminum housings and lightweight, tangle-resistant flat cables. There is a single-button mic and remote on the right-side cable
Isolation
(3/5) – Good when well-sealing eartips are used
Microphonics
(3.5/5) – Bothersome when worn cable-down but tolerable with over-the-ear wear
Comfort
(3.5/5) – The shells of the Quadbeat are on the large side and the nozzles are extremely short. The stock tips are longer than average, designed to offset the issue with the housing shape, but are very soft and don’t provide a great seal for me. Those with small outer ears may have an issue finding a comfortable fit due to the housing shape
Sound
(7.9/10) – The sound of the Quadbeat takes on a slightly v-shaped character with present but not overbearing bass and crisp, bright highs. Overall, it strongly reminds me of the Sunrise Audio Xcited. The low end has good extension and slight mid-bass boost for a punchy, yet clean sound. The Quadbeat lacks the depth and thickness of the Sony MH1C, so it won’t be a good match for those who prefer a fuller, weightier low end. However, its bass competes well with more neutral VSonic VC02, which has slightly less bass quantity.
The midrange of the Quadbeat is clear and detailed, cleaner of bass bleed than the mids of the Philips SHE3580 and Astrotec AM-800, for example. Note thickness is similar to the VSonic VC02 and again lacking some of the fullness of sets like the Sony MH1C and VSonic VSD1.
The treble is energetic, giving the overall tone a slightly bright tilt. Though the VSonic VC02 and VSD1 are slightly more predisposed towards sibilance, the Quadbeat has more overall energy in the upper midrange and lower parts of the treble, which gives it a brighter, slightly splashy sound. Next to the silky-smooth MH1C, it sounds a bit harsh but on its own the treble quality is decent enough. The presentation of the Quadbeat is wide and uncongested, as tends to be the case with other earphones with similar signatures. It is more out-of-the-head than that of the Sony MH1C and even the VSonic VSD1 and retains good separation and imaging.
Value
(10/10) – The LG Quadbeat provides a clean and detailed, yet minimally offensive sound with a slightly v-shaped signature. It’s also rather user-friendly, boasting flat cables that are less annoying than those on the Sony MH1C and a universal single-button remote. Not all is ideal - the wide, straight-barrel housings won’t work for all ear shapes and the stock tips may need replacing, but even with the cost of new tips factored in the Quadbeat offers great value for money. It also means that owners of certain LG phones will have to spend a good chunk of change to upgrade from their stock headsets. Whether this is a curse or a blessing, I’m not quite sure.
Pros: Great audio quality
Cons: Wide housings not ideal for small ears; flimsy stock tips
Big thanks to
Fernito for the LG Quadbeat loan!
(3A82) Signature Acoustics Elements C-12
Added Aug 2013
Details: Entry-level earphone from the first Indian IEM manufacturer
Current Price:
est. $50 from ebay.com (
MSRP: est. $60)
Specs: Driver:
Dynamic | Imp:
18Ω | Sens:
102 dB | Freq:
17-20k Hz | Cable:
3.9' L-plug
Nozzle Size:
5.5mm | Preferred tips:
Generic single-flanges
Wear Style:
Straight down or over-the-ear
Accessories
(3.5/5) - Single-flange silicone tips (3 sizes), replacement filters, shirt clip, and genuine leather zippered carrying pouch (limited first run also comes with heavy screw-top brass case)
Build Quality
(4/5) – The wooden housings of the C-12 are a little plain but well put-together. The earphones feature replaceable filters, which is a rarity these days. The textured cable is nice and sturdy, reminding me of the cords on the Brainwavz M1/M2/M3 earphones. No cable cinch is present
Isolation
(3/5) – Shallow fit results in average noise isolation
Microphonics
(4.5/5) – Good with cable-down wear; even better when worn over-the-ear
Comfort
(4/5) – The wooden housings are very lightweight and not overly large, allowing for a comfortable fit
Sound
(7.2/10) – The C-12 is an unabashedly bass-heavy earphone that focuses on presenting listeners with a big and impactful low end. The midbass region is hyped up, resulting in a slightly boomy sound and making the deep bass appear less prominent. Earphones such as the VSonic GR02 Bass Edition and Dunu Trident, which are by no means lacking in bass, both yield to the C-12 in overall impact, offering a more linear response better balanced between midbass and subbass. Suffice it to say that no one will find the bass of the C-12 deficient.
As a result of the bass boost, the mids of the C-12 are mildly veiled but at the same time maintain a warm and rich tone. Note thickness is rather good, though for my tastes the earphones could use more midrange presence and clarity. Clarity and detail levels are about on-par with the Brainwavz M2 and the older bass-heavy Xears models. The top end rolls off gently for a slightly dark overall tone and has a smoother character than, for example, VSonic earphones and the Astrotec AM-800. This makes it less fatiguing and more tolerable at high volumes. At the same time, the C-12 has a bit more sparkle than the aging Brainwavz M1 and M2 models, which is a plus.
The presentation of the C-12 is nice and spacious, making competitors such as the Dunu Trident sound closed-in and congested in comparison. It’s not quite at the level of the pricier Astrotec AM-800 but comes very close, which is all the more impressive considering the more bass-heavy balance and darker tone of the C-12. Combined with the powerful bass, the spacious presentation makes for a very enjoyable listening experience.
Value
(8/10) – The Signature Acoustics Elements C-12 is a very capable earphone from the first India-based IEM manufacturer. A solid all-rounder with even more solid bass response, the Elements C-12 boasts slightly rolled-off treble and a spacious, reverberant presentation. The wooden housings are lightweight and comfortable in the ear while the twisted cables are strong and non-microphonic, making for convenient listening while out and about. Minor details such as packaging are slightly rough around the edges but one thing is certain: the Elements C-12 doesn’t look – or sound – like a freshman effort.
Pros: Lightweight housings & strong cables; impactful bass; good sense of space
Cons: Somewhat veiled midrange
(3A83) SteelSeries Flux In-Ear
Added September 2013
Details: dynamic-driver headset from Denmark-based manufacturer of gaming peripherals SteelSeries
MSRP: $49.99 (manufacturer’s page)
Current Price: $49.99 from amazon.com
Specs: Driver: Dynamic | Imp: 19Ω | Sens: N/A | Freq: 20-20k Hz | Cable: 3.9′ I-plug w/ mic & 1-button remote
Nozzle Size: 4mm | Preferred tips: stock single-flanges
Wear Style: Straight down or over-the-ear
Accessories (3/5) – Single-flange silicone tips (3 sizes) and zippered carrying pouch
Build Quality (3/5) – The metal-and-plastic housings of the Flux remind me of the HiSoundAudio Crystal in both size and shape. The strain reliefs are not flexible enough for my liking but the narrow, rubbery flat cable works rather well. It holds a single-button inline remote and microphone.
Isolation (4/5) – Good, thanks to slim form factor and well-sealing stock tips
Microphonics (3/5) – Bothersome when worn cable-down; good otherwise
Comfort (4.5/5) – The housings are compact and lightweight, providing an unobtrusive fit that is comfortable for extended listening. The stock tips are of very good quality. The earphones can be worn cable-up as well as cable-down, though the microphone position suffers with over-the-ear wear
Sound (8.2/10) – The first dynamic-driver earphone from SteelSeries, the Flux In-Ear uses 6mm transducers and delivers a lively, well-rounded sound that impressed me from the very first listen. The bass has excellent extension and delivers good punch with no bloat. I would put the overall bass quantity on-par with the VSonic GR07 Bass Edition – like the VSonics, the Flux offers more impact than strictly neutral earphones such as the HiFiMan RE-400 but retains better accuracy than properly bass-heavy sets. The bass is not enhanced enough for the Flux to sound bloated – in fact, it is only a touch more boomy compared to the pricier and more neutral-sounding RE-400 and VSonic GR07.
The midrange of the Flux is among clearest I’ve heard in the price range and maintains a neutral-to-warm tone. The mids are a little recessed compared to sets such as the RE-400 and Dunu’s Tai Chi model, as well as the pricier Flux In-Ear Pro. This is not to say the Flux sounds severely v-shaped – rather, it is balanced-sounding with just a bit of a bass enhancement and crisp, prominent treble. The top end is extended, has good energy, and sounds mostly smooth, with just a bit of grain compared to higher-end sets such as the Flux In-Ear Pro, UE 600, and HiFiMan RE-400. It’s not nearly as prone to sibilance as many of the popular VSonic models and makes sets that are more laid-back at the top, such as the Dunu Tai Chi, sound dull and smoothed-over in comparison.
The presentation of the Flux fits in with the overall signature, being neither as forward and mid-centric as that of the HiFiMan RE-400, not as wide and out-of-the-head as that of the VSonic GR07. The good top-to-bottom extension, bass control, and overall balance of the Flux all help make sure that no elements of the sound are lost, in keeping with SteelSeries earphones being marketed for gaming as well as music.
Select Comparisons
Sony MH1C ($38)
Last year, Sony’s MH1C model took the audiophile scene by storm as one of the best bang-per-buck in-ears on the market, making it a great benchmark for the new SteelSeries earphones. The MH1C offers a little more bass impact and a warmer tone than the Flux at the expense of greater bass bloat. The Flux has tighter bass compared to the Sony, and less of it, but still maintains great extension and good impact. The Flux also has more treble presence whereas the MH1C is a little smoother up top and a touch more spacious. From a user-friendliness perspective, the appeal of the MH1C is limited slightly by the annoying j-cord setup and Sony Xperia remote whereas the Flux has a universal one-button remote and standard y-type cable.
HiSoundAudio Crystal ($99)
The Crystal may be significantly more expensive than the Flux, but the two earphones have quite a lot in common. They are similar in size and shape, similar in fit, and, as it turns out, similar in audio quality as well. I’ve always considered the Crystal to be a very solid earphone – a more balanced but similarly well-isolating alternative to the popular Shure SE215. Happily, the Flux offers all that at a fraction of the price. Compared to the Crystal, it has a warmer tone and more bass presence. The midrange of the Flux is a little less prominent, making it sound a touch more v-shaped, and its treble – slightly smoother. The Crystal, on the hand, is brighter and boasts more prominent mids. It has a slight advantage in midrange clarity but also sounds more harsh and prone to exposing sibilance.
SteelSeries Flux In-Ear Pro ($130)
SteelSeries’ two in-ear monitors are both impressive performers but the sound quality difference between them isn’t as great as the price suggests. The armature-based Flux In-Ear Pro is flatter and more accurate, with more prominent mids, less bass, and smoother treble compared to the dynamic-driver Flux. It is also more sensitive, requiring less power to reach listening volumes.
The cheaper Flux model, on the other hand, boasts more bass and appears to have better bass depth. In terms of clarity the two are very close, with the more prominent treble of the Flux sometimes giving it an edge in vocal intelligibility. That same treble can sound a little grainy compared to the Flux In-Ear Pro but overall the two aren’t far apart. The soundstages of both earphones are similarly well-rounded but the Flux can be a little more dynamic at times.
Value (10/10) – The SteelSeries Flux In-Ear headset is one of the very best mid-range earphones I’ve heard to date, delivering fantastic sound quality per dollar with punchy, extended bass, good treble energy, and excellent clarity. SteelSeries’ freshman effort beats many higher-priced products from brands that have had years to refine their in-ear offerings, making its performance all the more impressive. The only shortcoming is the cable, which could use better strain relief and tends to be noisy when the earphones are worn cord-down, but it’s a small caveat on what is undoubtedly one of the best-performing earphones in its class.
Pros: Excellent sound quality; small & comfortable design
Cons: Cable is noisy when worn straight down
(3A84) Fidue A63
Reviewed March 2014
Details: One of the first IEM releases from China-based Fidue
MSRP: est. $65 (manufacturer’s page)
Current Price: $60 from amazon.com; $59 from ebay.com
Specs: Driver: Dynamic | Imp: 16Ω | Sens: 101 dB | Freq: 18-21k Hz | Cable: 3.9′ I-plug
Nozzle Size: 5mm | Preferred tips: Stock bi-flanges, MEElec M6 single-flanges
Wear Style: Straight down or over-the-ear (preferred)
Accessories (3/5) – Single-flange (3 sizes) and bi-flange (2 sizes) silicone tips; soft carrying pouch
Build Quality (4/5) – The A63 features aluminum shells and cabling identical to my older ViSang and Brainwavz earphones – internally braided and covered in a smooth, glossy sheath. It’s a little stiff and lacks a cable cinch but in my experience these cables tend to be quite durable. I also like the soft strain reliefs where the cables enter the housings, as well as on the aluminum I-plug and y-split. A raised dot on the right strain relief makes the earpieces easy to tell apart in the dark
Isolation (3/5) – Isolation is about average for this type of earphone
Microphonics (4/5) – Present when worn cable-down; low otherwise
Comfort (3/5) – While the A63 is lightweight and not too large, I did have an issue with the housings – the metal ridges at the rear are quite tall and sharp. The corners hurt after a while unless I either switch to bi-flanges and position the housings farther in the ear, or simply wear them cable-up. Not a deal breaker, but I would have preferred smoother housings nonetheless
Sound (8.2/10) – If there was one sound signature I could single out as being unpopular with manufacturers of reasonably-priced in-ears, it would be mid-forward sound. There are a few good earphones with forward mids, but the vast majority of budget in-ears are either bass-focused or v-shaped. A solid mid-forward set is a rarity, which is why I was intrigued by the Fidue A63 from the start.
The A63 is a punchy earphone, but not downright bass-heavy, and presents a mild mid-bass “hump”. On the whole it has less bass, especially deep bass, compared to the popular Sony MH1C, but bass control is similar between them due to the more midbass-oriented nature of the A63. Next to the VSonic GR02 Bass Edition, however, the low end of the A63 is significantly tighter and cleaner. That’s not to say that the bass is in any way lacking in quantity – the similarly-priced Astrotec AM-800, another capable dynamic-driver earphone, is rather light on impact compared to the A63.
The Fidue A63 sounds quite clear and impressively detailed through the midrange. The prominent mids provide absolutely fantastic vocal clarity compared to most mid-range IEMs. The Sony MH1C, for example, sounds mid-recessed and has poorer vocal intelligibility next to the stronger midrange of the A63. The rather v-shaped GR02 Bass Edition, likewise, has very recessed mids and misses out on much of the clarity (the GR02 is, generally speaking, the inverse of the A63 in sound signature). Only the brighter-sounding Astrotec AM-800 manages to keep up with the A63 in midrange clarity at the expense of sounding more harsh and sibilance-prone.
At the top, the A63 is pretty smooth and inoffensive. It’s not quite as forgiving and refined as the Sony MH1C, but the Sony is more an exception than the rule. The A63 definitely has an upper hand in treble quality on brighter earphones such as the VSonic GR02 BE and Astrotec AM-800. Maybe it isn’t for fans of energetic, sparkly top ends but I much prefer this approach to treble that brutalizes bad recordings and sensitive ears. The soundstage is as one would expect – the A63 is a spacious earphone that presents a good soundtage without compression or congestion, but the forward mids pretty much guarantee that it won’t sound as out-of-the-head as, say, a VSonic GR07 or Fidue’s higher-end A81 model. That said, for the price there’s certainly nothing wrong with the presentation of the A63.
Select Comparisons
VSonic VSD1S ($45)
Like so many of the best-performing budget sets, the VSD1S emphasizes both its bass and treble for a lively, v-shaped sound. It has more bass impact than the A63 and presents a warmer tonal character and more full-bodied sound. The A63 has less bass and more prominent mids, which at times give vocals greater intelligibility compared to the VSonics. The VSD1S is brighter and more sibilant compared to the A63, which has smoother, less prominent treble. Both earphones impress on the soundstage front and are as spacious and well-layered as anything I’ve heard in the price bracket.
SteelSeries Flux ($50)
These two earphones lean only slightly on different sides of “balanced”, with the Flux coming out just a touch v-shaped and the A63 going the opposite way. They have similar bass quantity overall but the Flux boasts better extension and more subbass presence. Its mids, however, are a little recessed while those of the Fidue A63 are prominent. At times, this gives the A63 better vocal clarity and intelligibility. The A63 also places more emphasis on its upper midrange while the Flux is a touch smoother all the way through the treble. As a result, it tends to be a bit more forgiving when it comes to harshness and sibilance. There is also a large difference in efficiency between the two earphones, with the A63 being significantly more sensitive.
MOE-SS01 ($65)
The somewhat v-shaped MOE-SS01 makes for a strong contrast to the mid-forward Fidue A63. The SS01 impresses most with its bass depth, which is superior to the A63, and clarity, which is about on-par with the Fidue set. The A63 has similar bass punch to the SS01 but is more midbass-oriented and warmer in tone. Despite this, its strong mids manage to avoid veiling quite well and maintain good vocal clarity. The SS01 has more upper midrange and treble presence and sounds more harsh and splashy than the relatively smooth A63.
Dunu DN-23 Landmine ($69)
Dunu’s mid-range Landmine model is a warm, bass-heavy earphone that also has good presence in the midrange. Compared to the Fidue A63, the bass of the Landmine is noticeably more powerful, but also more bloated. The low end of the A63 is tighter and cleaner, though perhaps less well-suited for bass lovers. The mids of the Landmine are prominent, but still sound veiled thanks to the plentiful bass. The A63 sounds clearer and more balanced. The two earphones differ less in the treble region, with the DN-23 being only a touch smoother.
Value (8.5/10) – The Fidue A63 may be the company’s first mid-range in-ear monitor, but it ticks pretty much all the boxes for sound quality. Solid bass impact and strong midrange presence are complemented by an uncongested soundstage and treble that is neither harsh nor sibilant. I like the construction, as well. The only downside is that the sharp edges of the housings necessitate some fiddling to find a truly comfortable fit, especially for those with small outer ears – a small concession as there are precious few IEMs that can hope to keep up with the A63 in intelligibility, but it takes away slightly from what is otherwise an outstanding design.
Pros: Excellent sound quality and solid construction
Cons: Housings have sharp corners
(3A85) T-Peos Tank
Reviewed March 2014
Details: Entry-level headset from Korea-based T-Peos
MSRP: est. $40 (manufacturer’s page)
Current Price: $30 from mp4nation.net; $33 from HiFiNage.com (India only)
Specs: Driver: Dynamic | Imp: 32Ω | Sens: 102 dB | Freq: 20-18k Hz | Cable: 4.2′ L-plug with mic & 1-button remote
Nozzle Size: 4.5mm | Preferred tips: Stock single-flanges
Wear Style: Straight down or over-the-ear (preferred)
Accessories (2.5/5) – Single-flange silicone tips (3 sizes), foam tips (1 pair), shirt clip, and velvet drawstring carrying pouch
Build Quality (4/5) – True to its name, the Tank feels quite sturdy, with metal housings, narrow flat cables, and a well-relieved L-plug. It also boasts an inline mic with a 1-button remote, but no cable cinch
Isolation (3/5) – On par with other earphones of this type
Microphonics (3/5) – Bothersome with cable-down wear; good when worn over-the-ear
Comfort (4/5) – The 8mm driver of the Tank permits a slim and compact design. The earphones can be worn comfortably both cable-down and cable up, though the flat cable can be a bit resistant to over-the-ear wear and the lack of a cable cinch doesn’t help
Sound (7.7/10) – The T-Peos Tank is a dynamic-driver earphone with an enhanced-bass sound signature and warm tonal character. It has significantly more bass than the VSonic VSD1, for example, but a bit less than the Sony MH1C, especially in the sub-bass region. Bass quality is good – it is tighter compared to both the less bassy Soundmagic E10 and the more impactful Dunu Landmine.
Its mids manage to avoid veiling quite well, and don’t sound as recessed as those of the Sony MH1C. Clarity is very good, beating out the similarly-priced VSonic GR02 Bass Edition and Soundmagic E10, as well as the pricier but more veiled-sounding Dunu Landmine.
There is a bit of elevation in the treble region, which is shared by the other dynamic-driver T-Peos earphones I’ve tried recently. At times it results in mild harshness and can accentuate sibilance some, but overall the Tank is pretty composed. Tonally, it is darker and warmer than, for example, the Soundmagic E10.
The presentation is good, not great, with only average depth and a bit of congestion. It is less spacious than the Soundmagic E10, for example, and even the Dunu Landmine. The enhanced bass also hurts the imaging a touch compared to T-Peos’ similarly-priced but less bassy Popular model.
Select Comparisons
T-Peos Popular (~$40)
These sibling earphones from T-Peos are cut from the same cloth but have distinctive sound signatures. The Tank is warmer and bassier, while the Popular is brighter and sounds more v-shaped. The greater bass quantity of the Tank makes it a little boomy in comparison while the more neutral Popular model is clearer. The treble of the Tank is a little smoother while the Popular is more harsh and splashy, but also more crisp. The soundstage presentations of the two earphones are extremely similar. Lastly, the Tank also has a bit of driver flex while the Popular seems immune to the phenomenon.
VSonic GR02 Bass Edition ($35)
The GR02 Bass Edition is a v-shaped, enhanced-bass earphone. Overall bass impact is pretty similar between the GR02 and Tank but the latter boasts a slightly tighter low end. Its mids are also less recessed compared to the VSonics and sound warmer and more natural overall. At the top, the Tank is a little smoother while the more v-shaped GR02 has a greater tendency towards sibilance. The GR02 has a wider soundstage, however, and sounds a little more airy.
VSonic VSD1S ($50)
VSonic’s newer budget set, the VSD1S, is a more balanced earphone compared to the GR02 Bass Edition but still maintains a somewhat v-shaped sound signature. Compared to the Tank, its bass is less enhanced and the tone is not as warm. The VSD1S sounds clearer and has a brighter, more energetic top end that makes the Tank seem somewhat dark in comparison. The Tank also appears a bit congested next to the wide and airy soundstage of the VSD1S.
Sony MH1C ($60)
Sony’s MH1C is a warm and smooth-sounding earphone that’s tonally similar to the Tank. It has a bit more subbass presence and less mid-bass bloat than the Tank, but both earphones have plenty of bass. The MH1C sounds more recessed in the midrange but is smoother in the treble region, while the Tank is a little more peaky and energetic at the top. The presentation of the MH1C also has an upper hand.
Value (8.5/10) – There aren’t many sub-$50 sets that perform on the level of the new T-Peos Tank, and fewer still also offer headset functionality and a sturdy construction. The signature of the Tank is a bassy one, but it manages to maintain control over its bass and good clarity elsewhere, especially in the midrange. As it is a new release, international pricing hasn’t stabilized quite yet, but anything at or below ~$40 makes the Tank a solid buy.
Pros: Enhanced-bass sound signature with good clarity; compact and comfortable housings; solid construction
Cons: Treble could be smoother; cable can be noisy when worn cord-down
Thanks to abhijollyguy for the chance to try the T-Peos Tank!
(3A86) T-Peos Popular
Reviewed April 2014
Details: Budget IEM from Korea-based T-Peos similar to their Tank model
MSRP: est. $40 (manufacturer’s page)
Current Price: $30 from mp4nation.com; $28 from HiFiNage (India only)
Specs: Driver: Dynamic | Imp: 32Ω | Sens: 105 dB | Freq: 20-18k Hz | Cable: 4.2′ L-plug
Nozzle Size: 4.5mm | Preferred tips: Stock single-flanges, MEElec M6 single-flanges
Wear Style: Straight down or over-the-ear (preferred)
Accessories (1.5/5) – Single-flange silicone tips (3 sizes) and shirt clip
Build Quality (4/5) – The construction of the Popular is very similar to T-Peos’ similarly-priced Tank model. It uses metal housings akin to those of the higher-end D200 and H-100 models, narrow flat cables, and a well-relieved L-plug
Isolation (3/5) – Isolation is on par with other earphones of this type
Microphonics (3/5) – Average with cable-down wear; good when worn over-the-ear
Comfort (4/5) – The small dynamic driver permits a compact housing design. The earphones can be worn comfortably both cable-down and cable-up, though the flat cable with no cable cinch can be a bit resistant to over-the-ear wear
Sound (7.8/10) – The T-Peos Popular is similar to the Tank in price and construction, and also uses 8mm dynamic drivers, but delivers a more balanced and neutral sound compared to the warmer, bassier Tank. The less dominant low end actually benefits the Popular, allowing the bass quality to go from great to outstanding. The earphones are still not bass-light by any stretch – bass impact is only a hair below the VSonic VSD1S, for example, and greater than with the Astrotec AM-800 and the dual-driver MOE-SS01. Despite this, bass control is excellent, resulting one of the best bass quality/quantity ratios I’ve heard among budget earphones.
The Popular has a slightly v-shaped overall signature but its midrange doesn’t appear notably recessed – less so than with the VSD1S and especially the VSonic GR02 Bass Edition, for example. There’s no veiling of the midrange, which helps the Popular also achieve fantastic clarity, nearly on par with the MOE-SS01.
At the top, the Popular has a similar character to the Tank, with a treble peak or two resulting in a sound that is a touch harsher than I would like, especially at higher volumes. This is more noticeable with the Popular than the Tank thanks to its less bassy sound signature. It can accentuate sibilance some as well. In comparison, the MOE-SS01 has a slightly less edgy treble character whereas the VSonic GR02 Bass Edition fares similarly to the T-Peos unit.
The Popular is a little more spacious and images better than the bassier Tank, though it still offers only average soundstage depth and is less spacious than the VSonic VSD1S, for example, or the MOE-SS01.
Select Comparisons
T-Peos Tank (~$40)
These sibling earphones from T-Peos are cut from the same cloth but have distinctive sound signatures. The Tank is warmer and bassier, while the Popular is brighter and sounds more v-shaped. The greater bass quantity of the Tank makes it a little boomy in comparison while the more neutral Popular model is clearer. The treble of the Tank is a little smoother while the Popular is more harsh and splashy, but also more crisp. The soundstage presentations of the two earphones are extremely similar, though the Popular is less congested. Lastly, the Tank also has a bit of driver flex while the Popular seems immune to the phenomenon.
VSonic VSD1S ($50)
VSonic’s VSD1S holds its own against any earphone in the price range, but the T-Peos Popular is remarkably adept at highlighting the its few weaknesses. The VSD1S has a hair more mid-bass presence than the Popular, which give it a warmer tone but also makes its mids sound more recessed and even somewhat veiled. It has a more full-bodied sound while the Popular has an edge in overall clarity but also more presence in the upper midrange and lower treble, which makes it harsher compared to the VSonic unit. The VSD1S is a little more sibilant than the T-Peos and has a wider, more spaced-out presentation.
Astrotec AM-800 ($50)
The AM-800 is a bright, mildly v-shaped earphone that makes a pretty decent signature match for the Popular. It has less bass than the T-Peos unit and sounds a touch more v-shaped courtesy of its brighter treble. The Popular has both greater bass quantity and superior bass depth, with more slam and rumble. The top-end emphasis of the AM-800 seems to enhance its clarity, however, akin to a treble-boost equalizer setting. The Astrotec also has a wider soundstage, sounding more distant, while the Popular is less spacious, but more cohesive.
Fidue A63 ($60)
The A63 is a mid-forward earphone that makes for an interesting contrast to the Popular. Naturally, the mids of the somewhat v-shaped Popular are noticeably recessed in comparison, but the T-Peos also offers less mid-bass, sounding tighter and making the A63 appear somewhat bloated in comparison. The sound of the Popular is brighter, and though its treble is harsher and more splashy, it is a little clearer overall. However, the A63 is warmer more natural from a tonal standpoint, thanks in part to the smoother treble, and has a more spacious and uncongested presentation.
Value (8.5/10) – The Popular is my favorite of the three new dynamic-driver sets from T-Peos (the other two being the Tank and Spider models) thanks to its clearer, more neutral sound. The Popular is also a standout in bass quality, and though its treble can be somewhat harsh, overall performance is very impressive for the price. As with the other T-Peos earphones I’ve tried, it boasts a sturdy construction and is comfortable in the ear—there’s really not much more to ask of an IEM priced below $40.
Pros: Punchy, well-controlled bass and good clarity; compact and comfortable housings; solid construction
Cons: Treble could be smoother; cable can be noisy when worn cord-down
Thanks to abhijollyguy for the chance to try the T-Peos Popular!
(3A87) T-Peos D200R
Reviewed August 2014
Details: One of several sub-$50 headset models from Korea-based T-Peos
MSRP: est. $35
Current Price: $35 from mp4nation.net
Specs: Driver: Dynamic | Imp: 32Ω | Sens: 105 dB | Freq: 20-18k Hz | Cable: 4′ L-plug with mic & 1-button remote
Nozzle Size: 4.5mm | Preferred tips: Stock single-flanges, MEElec M6 single-flanges
Wear Style: Straight down or over-the-ear (preferred)
Accessories (2.5/5) – Single-flange silicone tips (3 sizes) and soft carrying pouch
Build Quality (4/5) – As with the other T-Peos earphones I’ve tried, the construction of the D200R is well above average, utilizing metal housings and a sturdy cable that’s nylon-sheathed below the y-split and terminated with an angled plug. The D200R boasts an inline mic with a 1-button remote, but no cable cinch
Isolation (3/5) – Good, on par with other earphones of this type
Microphonics (3.5/5) – Present with cable-down wear; very good when worn over-the-ear
Comfort (4/5) – The 8mm driver allows a slim and compact housing design and the earphones are not heavy despite the metal construction. Due to the soft and flexible cable, the D200R can be worn very comfortably both cable-down and cable up
Sound (7.9/10) – The T-Peos D200R is the latest in a long line of sub-$50 T-Peos earphones I’ve had the pleasure of listening to, the others being the Tank, Popular, Spider, and Rich200. While they all share a familial resemblance in sound signature, the D200R is the most balanced of the lot by a margin – it has the least bass enhancement, the smoothest treble, and the strongest midrange.
The bass of the D200R is still emphasized, however, and the tonal character is on the warm side of neutral. Its bass quantity is lower compared to the other T-Peos earphones but impact is still on par with sets like VSonic’s VSD1S. Bass quality is good – there is just a touch of “boom” compared to the T-Peos Popular and Rich200, both of which impressed me to no end with the quality of their bass, as well as the pricier SteelSeries Flux.
The midrange of the D200R is in good balance with its bass – not forward, like that of the Fidue A63, but not recessed. It is more prominent and full-bodied compared to the other T-Peos earphones I’ve tied, which tend to be more v-shaped. In the case of the D200R, the v-shape is so mild that calling the overall sound “balanced” is hardly a stretch. Clarity is very good, again lagging just behind the Popular, Rich200, and SteelSeries Flux.
There is a small amount of elevation in the treble region, but the D200R is smoother and less treble-heavy than the other T-Peos sets. It’s still not as smooth as the HiFiMan RE-400 or Fidue A63, for example, but its treble presence is excellent in my book – enough to convey the energy of cymbals, but not quite enough to be consistently harsh or sibilant. It teeters right on the edge of what I would call unforgiving, but more often than not stays on the right side of that line.
The presentation is good, with decent depth and better width. Thanks to more balanced sound, the D200R has better imaging and less congestion than the other entry-level T-Peos earphones I’ve tried so far.
Select Comparisons
T-Peos Rich200 ($33)
The T-Peos D200R and Rich200 boast similar audio performance but differ in sound signature, with the Rich200 offering up a slightly more v-shaped response. Its bass is a bit more impactful but impresses greatly with its quality – it is very tight and extended. The D200R, on the other hand, boasts more presence in the midrange and has a more full-bodied sound. The mids of the Rich200 are a touch more recessed, but also clearer. Part of the clarity comes from the stronger treble, which also causes it to be somewhat more harsh and sibilance-prone than the D200R.
The similarities in price, form factor, and even feature set make choosing between these two earphones more difficult than it should be, but what it comes down to is this: the Rich200 has better bass while mids are a toss-up – fuller and more forward on the D200R, more recessed but clearer on the Rich200. Treble is better with the D200R and its less v-shaped sound grants it a slightly more natural tone.
NarMoo R1M ($30) (silver ports)
NarMoo’s entry-level R1M model features interchangeable tuning ports which give it three different sound signatures. The R1M is at its best with the (least bassy) “silver” tuning ports. Even in this configuration, the D200R has slightly less bass quantity but still maintains excellent extension and is capable of very solid punch. The low end of the R1M appears stronger and at times more intrusive while the bass of the D200R is tighter and its midrange is more prominent and clear. However, the T-Peos also tends to sound harsher at times. The R1M is significantly less crisp, but boasts a wider soundstage and more open sound next to the more forward D200R.
Astrotec AM-90 ($44)
The Astrotec AM-90 is one of the most affordable Balanced Armature earphones on the market and a decent enough example of BA sound. Several years ago, a BA earphone would in this price range would have been a no-brainer, but dynamic-driver sets have come a long way, which the D200R illustrates perfectly. As expected, the T-Peos unit boasts significantly more bass than the AM-90 – its low end has greater depth and body, delivering more of both sub-bass rumble and mid-bass impact.
In the midrange, the AM-90 sounds thinner, but surprisingly not any clearer than the D200R. The D200R also boasts greater treble energy while the AM-90 is smoother and more forgiving. Personally, I find the D200R’s greater treble presence to be more realistic. It is also the more dynamic and engaging of the two earphones and images better, making the AM-90 sound a little too flat and forward in comparison.
VSonic VSD1S ($50)
VSonic’s VSD1S is more v-shaped in response than the T-Peos D200R. Its bass is similar in impact to the T-Peos but a bit tighter, and its midrange is more recessed and a little clearer, more like that of the T-Peos Rich200. The D200R has more midrange presence and sounds thicker and more full-bodied than the VSD1S. It is also smoother up top, though still far from forgiving. The VSD1S can be a touch more sibilant at times. Both earphones are quite capable on the presentation front, but the VSonic unit is a bit more spacious.
T-Peos H-100 ($120)
T-Peos’ higher-end H-100 model is a hybrid earphone – that is, it uses a combination of dynamic and balanced armature drivers, in this case one of each. Despite the H-100 having a dynamic driver dedicated to producing bass, the D200R is bassier. It offers up more impact, but its bass sounds boomy in comparison to the tight low end of the H-100. It seems that the woofer of the H-100 is tuned for quality over quantity.
Thanks to the boomier bass, the D200R also sounds muddier in the midrange. The mids of the H-100 are significantly clearer and more detailed, but also somewhat thin-sounding and a little withdrawn. The tone of the D200R is warmer, whereas the H-100 is fairly bright. The more crisp and energetic treble of the H-100 is also less tolerant of sibilance, though not as much so as one may expect from such a bright earphone. Thanks to its more recessed mids, the H-100 has a wider, somewhat more distant sound whereas the D200R is more forward.
Value (9.5/10) – As far as reasonably-priced earphones go, the T-Peos D200R has a lot going for it – sturdy build, headset functionality, and a sonic signature that makes all the right concessions. It might not have the tightest bass or clearest sound, but it avoids recessed mids and is smoother up top compared to its siblings. Its round cables make it easier to wear over-the-ear compared to the flat-cabled T-Peos sets, and it is less microphonic. For all these reasons, the D200R gets our “Recommended” badge.
Pros: Good bass and excellent all-around performance; compact and comfortable housings; solid construction
Cons: Bass quality not quite as impressive as with the T-Peos Rich200
Thanks to abhijollyguy for the chance to try the T-Peos D200R!
(3A88) NarMoo S1
Reviewed Sep 2014
Details: NarMoo’s second release and one of the most reasonably-priced dual-dynamic earphones on the market
MSRP: $89.99 (manufacturer’s page)
Current Price: $40 from amazon.com; $36 from NarMoo.com with coupon code “THL”
Specs: Driver: Dual Dynamic (10 + 6mm) | Imp: 10Ω | Sens: 102 dB | Freq: 5-23k Hz | Cable: 3.9′ L-plug
Nozzle Size: 5.5mm | Preferred tips: MEElec “balanced” bi-flanges, stock single-flanges
Wear Style: Straight down (preferred) or over-the-ear
Accessories (4/5) – Single-flange silicone tips (3 sizes), shirt clip, and oversize zippered carrying case
Build Quality (4/5) – The shells of the S1 are aluminum, with build quality as good as any in the price segment. The strain reliefs are soft and flexible, protecting a glossy, internally-braided cable. This type of cable can lose some of its flexibility with time and exposure to sweat, but otherwise tends to be very reliable. As with the lower-end R1M model, mild driver flex is present
Isolation (3/5) – Average
Microphonics (3.5/5) – Quite noticeable when worn cable-down; can be improved with over-the-ear wear
Comfort (3.5/5) – As with NarMoo’s R1M model, the housings of the S1 are on the large side, but light enough to still be comfortable. With its conventional cable and soft strain reliefs, the S1 is easier to wear over-the-ear than the R1M
Sound (7.7/10) – While NarMoo’s entry-level R1M model features three different sound tunings, the dual dynamic driver S1 only has one configuration – enhanced bass. The 10mm woofers produce large amounts of both mid-bass and subbass – enough to satisfy even die-hard bassheads. Even when compared to other bass-heavy earphones such as the Sony MH1C and Nuforce NE-700X, the S1 sounds bassier, though also more boomy. Bass extension is excellent, but the mid-bass steals the show most of the time (the double-flange eartips I ended up using help a little in keeping it under control). As a result, earphones with similar low end power but less mid-bass – the RHA MA750 and Sony MH1C, for example – appear to have more prominent sub-bass than the S1.
The powerful low end gives the S1 a warm and rich tonal character. The midrange, surprisingly, is not significantly recessed and not at all thin-sounding. In comparison, the Nuforce NE-700X is less warm in tone and more mid-recessed. The low end of the S1 can be intrusive and sometimes bleeds into the midrange, reducing clarity. NarMoo’s entry-level R1M model, for instance, has better clarity when used on its less bassy settings, as do the pricier Nuforce NE-700X and Sony MH1C. However, the S1 is clearer and more natural in both tone and note thickness than the similarly-priced RHA MA350.
Strictly speaking, the S1 is a v-shaped earphone with more bass and treble than midrange. However, its top end doesn’t sound bright and remains smooth, especially at low-to-moderate volumes. Some harshness can be coaxed out at high volumes, but the S1 is still best characterized as a smooth earphone. The presentation, likewise, is capable and uncongested, especially considering how much bass the S1 has. Overall, it performs very well, sounding more spacious and three-dimensional than the pricier Nuforce NE-700X.
Select Comparisons
NarMoo R1M (black ports) ($25)
NarMoo’s first earphone, the R1M features a sound adjustment system with three pairs of interchangeable tuning ports. These ports most strongly affect the bass quantity of the earphones. The R1M matches the bass of the S1 most closely with its bassiest tuning (black ports). In this configuration, the R1M has bass quality comparable to the S1, though bass depth still seems just a hair better with the dual-driver model. The mids of the S1 are not as recessed, sounding more natural and maintaining clarity much better when the bass attempts to intrude. The S1 is a little brighter than the R1M, which has less treble presence and crispness. In the more balanced gunmetal and silver configurations, the R1M has a more neutral sound than the S1, with much less bass and a thinner note presentation.
Tekfusion Twinwoofers ($50)
Tekfusion’s Twinwoofers are among the bassiest earphones I’ve tried this year, but arguably go a step too far in the direction of warm and smooth sound compared to the S1. The Twinwoofers have a darker tonal character and sound a bit less clear in the midrange. Their bass is comparable in quantity to that of the S1 but seems more powerful still thanks to the more laid-back treble. The Twinfoors have a smoother top end while the S1 is brighter and thinner, but in a good way, delivering more detail and better clarity.
Brainwavz S1 ($60)
The identically-titled Brainwavz model is, like the NarMoo S1, a bass-heavy earphone. What’s surprising is just how similar these earphones sound – through the bass and lower midrange, the S1 matches the S1 almost note for note. The NarMoo unit is a hair bassier and bleeds slightly more up into the midrange as a result, but the difference is small. The NarMoo S1 does sound warmer overall and has a thicker, more full-bodied sound. The Brainwavz S1 has a thinner midrange with a brighter tonal tilt. It sounds clearer and has more treble sparkle than the NarMoo S1. However, its treble tends to be more sharp and sibilant, especially at higher volumes compared to the smoother, more laid-back highs of the NarMoo.
RHA MA600 ($80)
Another enhanced-bass option, the MA600 from RHA was downright disappointing in this comparison. The significantly more expensive MA600 has slightly tighter mid-bass with similar depth. However, its bass still gets in the way of its mids, which are thinner and more recessed compared to those of the NarMoo S1. The S1 has more full-bodied, more prominent, less veiled mids. Its warmer tone doesn’t stop it from matching the clarity of the MA600, which has more upper midrange presence, brighter tone, and thinner sound. The treble of the MA600 is also grainier compared to the smoother S1, and the presentation is not as spacious.
Value (8.5/10) – The NarMoo S1 is a dual dynamic driver earphone with a powerful, smooth, likable sound signature. While bass control and clarity are limited by the bass quantity, both still impress in comparison to other sets with similar tuning. The housings are on the large side, but very solidly built and comfortable except in small ears. Combined with a sub-$50 price tag, this makes the S1 an easy recommendation among bass-heavy IEMs.
Pros: Bass-heavy sound with surprisingly robust midrange and smooth treble
Cons: Some bass bloat/boom; mild driver flex
(3A89) Brainwavz S1
Reviewed August 2014
Details: Flat-cable enhanced-bass earphone from Brainwavz
MSRP: $79.50 (manufacturer’s page)
Current Price: $60 from mp4nation.net; $60 from amazon.com
Specs: Driver: Dynamic | Imp: 16Ω | Sens: 93 dB | Freq: 20-20k Hz | Cable: 4.3′ L-plug
Nozzle Size: 5mm | Preferred tips: Stock gray single-flanges
Wear Style: Straight down (preferred) or over-the-ear
Accessories (4.5/5) – Black single-flange (3 sizes), double-flange, and triple-flange silicone tips, gray single-flange silicone tips (3 sizes), Comply S400 foam tips, airline adapter, and sturdy zippered carrying case
Build Quality (4/5) – The S1 is well-made, with metal housings and almost comically chunky strain reliefs protecting its flat cable. The cable is rather long at ~4.3ft but resists tangling very well. Mild driver flex is present
Isolation (3.5/5) – Good, especially with deeper-sealing tips
Microphonics (3.5/5) – Surprisingly decent for a flat-cable earphone; noticeable when worn cable-down but improved with over-the-ear wear
Comfort (4/5) – The S1 uses a fairly conventional angled-nozzle housing design, which keeps its large housings more flush in the ear when worn cable-up. What’s unconventional is the angled strain relief, which makes it easier to route the flat cable over-the-ear. It still works cable-down, too, and I actually managed a more secure fit that way
Sound (7.8/10) – Brainwavz has produced a lot of great earphones over the years, from the original M1 model, which remains one of my top recommendations in its class, to the reference-grade (yet very inexpensive) B2. The unifying factor is good performance for the price, and that’s the case with the S1 as well.
The S1 is a bass-heavy earphone with a v-shaped sound signature. The bass is powerful and extended, with a good balance of mid-bass impact and sub-bass depth. The low end is not the most controlled, but it is less muddy compared to most other in-ears that are similarly well-endowed when it comes to bass.
Despite its v-shaped balance, the midrange of the S1 doesn’t sound heavily recessed, partly due to the fullness of the sound and partly because of the prominent upper mids. Strong upper midrange presence also helps with the clarity, reducing the effect of the powerful low end occasionally intruding on the lower mids. Ultimately, this gives the S1 good vocal intelligibility and better clarity compared to other sets with similar bass quantity such as the NarMoo S1 and Tekfusion Twinwoofers.
The strong top end of the Brainwavz does come with some caveats – the earphone sounds a little peaky and has a tendency towards harshness and sibilance. Far from a deal breaker – in fact, the sibilance is in good company with the likes of the popular – and much more expensive – VSonic GR07 in the way it is presented. Also, while the S1 has plenty of treble energy, its tone is not particularly bright thanks to the heavy bass. Similarly, the energetic top end is a tolerable – even beneficial – as a way of counterbalancing the bass, especially at low-to-medium volumes.
On the point of volume, the S1 has above-average sensitivity despite the rather low stated figure. Its overall tonality is hard to characterize – the energetic treble prevents the earphones from sounding particularly warm, but they also don’t sound bright because of the strong bass. To provide some comparisons, the MOE-SS01, a similarly-priced dual-dynamic earphone, sounds colder (and harsher) next to the Brainwavz S1 thanks to its flatter, even more upper midrange-heavy sound. The T-Peos Rich200, on the other hand, is downright brighter – its signature is v-shaped, but biased less towards the low end than that of the S1. The SS01 is more spacious than the S1, whereas the Rich200 has a smaller, more in-the-head presentation.
Select Comparisons
NarMoo S1 ($40)
The identically-titled NarMoo model is, like the Brainwavz S1, a bass-heavy earphone. What’s surprising is just how similar these earphones sound – through the bass and lower midrange, the S1 matches the S1 almost note for note. The NarMoo unit is a hair bassier and bleeds more up into the midrange as a result, but the difference is small. The NarMoo S1 sounds warmer overall and has a thicker sound. The Brainwavz S1 has a thinner midrange with a brighter tonal tilt. It sounds clearer and has more treble sparkle than the NarMoo S1. However, its treble tends to be more sharp and sibilant, especially at higher volumes, compared to the more laid-back highs of the NarMoo.
VSonic VSD1S ($50)
The VSD1S follows the sound signature of VSonic’s higher-end models, delivering a mildly v-shaped sound with punchy bass. Brainwavz’ similarly-priced S1 model is more powerful at the low end, offering up more of both impact and depth. The bass of the S1 tends to be a little more intrusive. However, despite its tighter, less powerful bass, the VSD1S still sounds a little more distant and veiled in the midrange. The S1 has more presence in the upper midrange and lower treble, which makes its mids sound more clear, crisp, and intelligible.
The VSD1S has less upper midrange emphasis than the S1, sounding smoother overall up until the mid-upper treble, where a couple of narrow peaks make the VSD1S somewhat sibilant. The S1 is similarly unforgiving of sibilants and offers up even more treble energy overall. From a tonal standpoint, the VSD1S is more neutral and accurate. Worth noting is that the bassier, livelier S1 is more sensitive than the VSD1 and will definitely have more of a “wow” factor for casual listeners than the flatter VSonic unit.
Brainwavz R3 ($130)
The R3 is a dual-dynamic monitor with a balanced and refined sound, serving a very different purpose than the S1. The S1 provides an upgrade to popular mainstream sets such as the Klipsch S4 and Beats by Dre Tour while the R3 channels the signatures of higher-end earphones such as the $500 Shure SE535 and $250 Sony MDR-7550. It is flatter and more neutral than the S1, with tighter bass and more refinement all around. The S1 has heavier bass, but also sounds more bloated and a little dark in tone. The treble of the S1 is peaky in comparison, making it sound harsher and more metallic next to the smooth and natural R3. However, the clarity of the S1 is on-par with the pricier R3, likely due to the stronger treble. Indeed, the R3 can sound a little dull and smoothed-over up top at times. The S1 is also a touch more coherent, while the pricier R3 has a wider, more spaced-out presentation.
Value (8/10) – The Brainwavz S1 combines plentiful bass and strong treble to deliver a lively, engaging sound with a popular v-shaped sound signature. Its tuning is like an improved version of the best-selling Klipsch S4, for not much more money. Sure, it could stand to be smoother and the bass can get intrusive at times, but with a price tag well south of $100, good build quality, and a housing design that’s surprisingly comfortable when worn cable-down, the S1 is a good buy.
Pros: tangle-resistant cable, strong bass
Cons: over-ear wear not easy for those with small ears
(3A90) T-Peos Rich200
Reviewed Sep 2014
Details: Entry-level headset from Korea-based T-Peos
MSRP: est. $35 (manufacturer’s page)
Current Price: $33 from mp4nation.net
Specs: Driver: Dynamic | Imp: 32Ω | Sens: 105 dB | Freq: 20-18k Hz | Cable: 4.2′ L-plug with mic & 1-button remote
Nozzle Size: 4.5mm | Preferred tips: Stock single-flanges; MEElec M6 single-flanges
Wear Style: Straight down or over-the-ear (preferred)
Accessories (1.5/5) – Single-flange silicone tips (3 sizes) and shirt clip
Build Quality (4/5) – The Rich200 is built similarly to T-Peos’ other earphones, with metal housings, narrow flat cables, and a well-relieved low-profile L-plug. It also has an inline mic with a 1-button remote, but no cable cinch
Isolation (3/5) – On par with other earphones of this type
Microphonics (3/5) – Average with cable-down wear; good when worn over-the-ear
Comfort (4/5) – The 8mm driver permits a slim and compact design. The earphones can be worn comfortably both cable-down and cable up, though the flat cable can be a bit resistant to over-the-ear wear and the lack of a cable cinch doesn’t help
Sound (7.9/10) – The Rich200 is yet another budget set from T-Peos, sister earphone to the Tank, Popular, and D200R models that I’ve already reviewed. It is priced similarly to the others but – in some ways, at least – is the best of the bunch. It sounds tighter and clearer than the slightly bassier Tank, smoother than the Popular, and more controlled at the low end (but also more mid-recessed) than the D200R.
The most impressive thing about the Rich200 is the bass – the earphones have an outstanding balance of bass quality vs. quantity, perhaps the best I’ve ever encountered with a budget earphone. The low end is punchy and extended, but also very controlled.
The second most impressive characteristic of the Rich200 is its clarity. The overall sound signature is a touch v-shaped but the bass quality allows the midrange to avoid veiling. Clarity lags just a touch behind the more mid-recessed VSonic VSD1S and the colder, brighter-sounding MOE-SS01, both of which are pricier than the Rich200.
There is some treble elevation, similar to what I’ve encountered with the other T-Peos sets I have tried. At times it results in mild harshness and can accentuate sibilance some, but overall the Rich200 is rather composed. The MOE-SS01, for example, has more upper midrange/treble presence than the Rich200, and the VSonic VSD1S sounds more sibilant. Soundstaging is, as with other entry-level T-Peos earphones, nothing to write home about. The presentation has average depth and width. Imaging is pretty good thanks to the clarity but there’s just not much sonic space for the earphones to play with.
Select Comparisons
T-Peos D200R ($35)
The T-Peos D200R and Rich200 boast similar audio performance but differ in sound signature, with the Rich200 offering up a slightly more v-shaped response. Its bass is a bit more impactful but impresses greatly with its quality – it is very tight and extended. The D200R, on the other hand, boasts more presence in the midrange and has a more full-bodied sound. The mids of the Rich200 are a touch more recessed, but also clearer. Part of the clarity comes from the stronger treble, which also causes it to be somewhat more harsh and sibilance-prone than the D200R.
The similarities in price, form factor, and even feature set make choosing between these two earphones more difficult than it should be, but what it comes down to is this: the Rich200 has better bass while mids are a toss-up – fuller and more forward on the D200R, more recessed but clearer on the Rich200. Treble is better with the D200R and its less v-shaped sound grants it a slightly more natural tone.
Xiaomi Piston 2 ($25)
The Xiaomi Piston 2 is warm and bassy, but nonetheless a very capable earphone priced similarly to the Rich200, making for a worthwhile comparison. In short, the Rich200 has an advantage in bass quality (but not quantity) and clarity, but loses out in treble quality and soundstaging.
Compared to the Piston 2, the bass quality of the Rich200 is significantly better – it is less mid-bassy, resulting in an overall tighter and cleaner sound, but still has similarly good depth. The Rich200 is also clearer – but thinner-sounding – compared to the warmer and more full-bodied Piston 2. The Piston 2 is smoother and more forgiving up top, however, making the Rich200 sound harsh in comparison. It also has a wider, more spacious, more out-of-the-head presentation.
Astrotec AM-800 ($40)
Astrotec’s dynamic-driver AM-800 boasts a clear, slightly v-shaped sound, but deviates quite a bit from the listening experience provided by the T-Peos Rich200. The AM-800 is notable for its wide, open, and airy sound, and that’s where it differs most from the T-Peos unit – the AM-800 sounds like an open-back headphone, while the Rich200 sounds like a sealed one, both in presentation and bass impact. The bass of the Rich200 is more authoritative –deeper and punchier, whereas the AM-800 lacks depth and sounds lighter and less weighty.
Tonally, the Rich200 is warmer while the AM-800 is brighter, lending a more treble-heavy tilt to its v-shaped signature. This results in the Astrotec unit appearing a bit clearer, but the difference is minute. In addition, while the Rich200 has greater bass quantity, the quality of its low end doesn’t suffer – it is just as tight as the AM-800. The presentation of the T-Peos is smaller, more closed-in, and more in-the-head, however.
Brainwavz S1 ($60)
Brainwavz’ S1 model is yet another v-shaped in-ear earphone, this one with an unabashedly bass-heavy sound signature. It pumps out significantly more bass than the Rich200, but sounds boomier as well. Its bass tends to be more intrusive, resulting in more veiled mids in comparison to the tight and controlled T-Peos unit. The tone of the S1 is warmer and it sounds more full-bodied overall while the Rich200 sounds thinner, but also clearer. The Rich200 is brighter, thanks mostly to having much less bass than the S1, but still a touch smoother. One area where the S1 does win is presentation – while it doesn’t image much better than the Rich200, it sounds more spacious and unconstrained. It is also more efficient.
Value (9/10) – With its comfortable form factor, sturdy construction, and headset functionality, the T-Peos Rich200 offers excellent practicality and matching audio performance. Its sound is notable for clean, impactful, extended bass and good clarity, though those with different priorities may prefer its sister model, the D200R. For under $35, the Rich200 is an easy recommendation.
Pros: Great bass quality and clarity; compact and comfortable housings; solid construction
Cons: Cable can be noisy when worn cord-down
(3A91) Tekfusion Twinwoofers
Reviewed October 2014
Details: Enhanced-bass earphone from India-based Tekfusion
MSRP: $49.99 for Twinwoofers; $69.99 for Twinwoofers M with mic & 1-button remote
Current Price: $50 from amazon.com for Twinwoofers; $70 from amazon.com for Twinwoofers M
Specs: Driver: Dynamic | Imp: 16Ω | Sens: 113 dB | Freq: 19-21k Hz | Cable: 3.9′ I-plug
Nozzle Size: 4.5mm | Preferred tips: Stock single-flanges
Wear Style: Straight down or over-the-ear (preferred)
Accessories (3/5) – Single-flange (3 sizes) and triple-flange (2 sizes) silicone tips, shirt clip, and velvet spring-clasp carrying pouch
Build Quality (3.5/5) – The construction of the Twinwoofers is par for the course, with sturdy-feeling metal housings coupled to a pretty conventional cable. Mild driver flex is present
Isolation (3.5/5) – Above average for an earphone of this type
Microphonics (3.5/5) – Moderate when worn cable-down; very good otherwise
Comfort (3.5/5) – The Twinwoofers look bulkier than they really are. The housings are long, but relatively slim and not too heavy. They are just a touch bigger than similarly-priced T-Peos models such as the D200R and Popular, and I’ve always thought those very comfortable
Sound (7.2/10) – Tekfusion’s Twinwoofers are bass-heavy in-ears with a warm and rich tonal character. The deep bass is strong, but outpaced still by the mid-bass hump of the Twinwoofers, which results in well above-average impact. Compared, for example, to Nuforce’s bass-heavy NE-700X model, the Twinwoofers have more mid-bass presence and as a result sound “bassier” in the conventional sense. The side effect of the mid-bass boost is, of course, some bass bloat, with sets such as the NE-700X and the pricier Brainwavz S1 sounding less boomy in comparison.
Possibly the greatest asset of the Twinwoofers is the midrange, which is quite strong for an earphone with so much low end presence. IEMs with the bass power of the Twinwoofers, especially at this price point, tend to have more recessed mids. Here, however, the prominent midrange keeps the sound natural and cohesive. For instance, the mids are warmer and more natural compared to the Nuforce NE-700X and NE-600X, with the Twinwoofers sounding a little more balanced and less mid-recessed. Also, while the clarity of the more v-shaped Nuforce units is technically greater, vocal intelligibility was better with the more forward Twinwoofers, except on tracks with very prominent bass.
The Twinwoofers are quite smooth up through the treble, again benefitting from their sound being less v-shaped than much of the competition. The earphones do an excellent job of avoiding harshness and sibilance. There’s not a whole lot of energy here, but it’s doubtful purchasers of mid-range basshead earphones will mind. The presentation could be more open as well, but it is quite uncongested considering the bass power of the Twinwoofers, reminding me of NarMoo’s dual-driver S1 model.
Select Comparisons
Fidue A31s ($30)
Fidue’s tiny A31s headset is comfortable and inexpensive, but not very good-sounding. While definitely bass-heavy, it has nowhere near the same amount of depth and impact as the Tekfusion Twinwoofers. The bass of the Twinwoofers is a touch more boomy, but not proportionally so considering the greater bass quantity. The midrange of the Twinwoofers is more forward and a little clearer despite its greater bass quantity. The A31s is muddier, and while its treble is smoother, the lack of clarity is just too great to get past.
JVC HA-FR301 ($40)
The flagship of JVC’s enhanced-bass “Xtreme Xplosives” line has one of the most v-shaped sound profiles I’ve ever encountered, with greatly boosted bass and treble. It is actually bassier than the Twinwoofers but lacks the fullness and smoothness of the Tekfusion. The midrange of the FR301 is much more recessed, though also a bit clearer, and its top end is way harsher, making its sound less natural tonally. The Twinwoofers do sound a little muddy in comparison to the FR301, but on the whole I found them more natural.
NarMoo S1 ($40)
While the NarMoo S1 is no slouch, Tekfusion’s Twinwoofers are among the bassiest earphones I’ve tried this year, providing an even warmer and smoother sound. The Twinwoofers have a darker tonal character and sound a bit less clear. Their bass is comparable in quantity to that of the S1 but seems more powerful still thanks to the more laid-back treble. The Tekfusion unit also has a smoother top end, while the S1 is brighter and thinner, delivering a bit more detail and slightly better clarity as a result.
Signature Acoustics Elements C-12 ($50)
As the only product I have from the only other India-based IEM manufacturer I know, the Signature Acoustics Elements C-12 made for a logical comparison with the Twinwoofers. The two are actually quite close in performance, with similar bass impact but with the Twinwoofers boasting a slightly less mid-recessed, more balanced sound. The midrange of the Tekfusion sounds warmer and more natural, whereas the C-12 is a little more mid-recessed. The C-12 is more v-shaped as well, and while the extra top-end energy makes it sound slightly harsher, it also gives the C-12 a more neutral tone and at times permits it to sound clearer/less muddy in the midrange.
Value (7.5/10) – The Tekfusion Twinwoofers are competent bass-heavy earphones that suffer from a spot of bass bloat but still offer up good midrange presence and a smooth, inoffensive top end. The large-ish housings are more comfortable than they look, too, and deliver above-average noise isolation. In the US market, the Twinwoofers are faced with stiff competition, but much of the low pricing that we enjoy here simply isn’t available overseas, making the Twinwoofers an even stronger proposition.
Pros: Basshead sound with good mids; good noise isolation
Cons: Some bass bloat; mild driver flex
(3A92) JVC Xtreme Xplosives HA-FR301
Reviewed March 2014
Details: Flagship of JVC’s Xtreme Xplosives line of bass-heavy in-ear earphones
MSRP: $39.95
Current Price: $40 from amazon.com
Specs: Driver: Dynamic | Imp: 16Ω | Sens: 104 dB | Freq: 5-23k Hz | Cable: 3.9′ L-plug with mic & 1-button remote and CTIA/OMTP switch
Nozzle Size: 5mm | Preferred tips: Comply T400, Stock single-flanges; generic bi-flanges
Wear Style: Straight down (preferred) or over-the-ear
Accessories (3/5) – Single-flange silicone tips (3 sizes) and plastic carrying case
Build Quality (4/5) – The HA-FR301 is built like the other Xtreme Xplosives models and features plastic housings with rubber bumpers, paper nozzle filters, and the usual PVC cable. The cord lacks a sliding cinch and terminates with a well-relieved I-plug. A 1-button remote with mic is positioned at the y-split. On the back of the remote is a switch that toggles between the two common headset wiring configurations – CTIA and OMTP – which differ in where the microphone and ground leads are on the plug. A few other IEMs do this with adapter cables, but a switch is a much neater solution. There aren’t many OMTP phones in the US these days, but this feature does add flexibility for users of some older and/or imported devices
Isolation (3/5) – Good for an earphone of this type
Microphonics (5/5) – Pretty much nonexistent
Comfort (4/5) – The fit is similar to the other XX models – the tubby housings with their rubber bumpers may be a little large for over-the-ear fitment in smaller ears but cord-down wear is very comfortable thanks to the steeply angled nozzles
Sound (6.8/10) – JVC’s Xtreme Xplosives line has always been known for abundant bass, and the HA-FR301 model is no exception – it is the bassiest earphone I’ve heard all year and follows a very pronounced “v-shaped” sound signature with powerful lows and highs.
A prominent mid-bass hump gives the FR301 its enormous impact, which easily beat all of the sets I compared it to, from the VSonic GR02 Bass Edition to the Nuforce NE-700X, in quantity. Extension is great, too, though the sub-bass is not the focus here.
As is usually the case with earphones that have emphasized mid-bass, the low end of the FR301 sounds somewhat boomy. However, the midrange is not thick, which helps the earphones maintain excellent clarity. That’s not to say the mids aren’t noticeably recessed – they are – but thanks to a relatively lean note presentation and plenty of presence in the upper midrange and lower treble, clarity is pretty good, lagging just behind the more balanced VSonic GR02 BE and beating sets such as the Nuforce NE-700X and Fidue A31s. The bass does still bleed up, but not as much as can be expected give the sheer amount present.
The FR301 is a v-shaped earphone, and like many it can sound pretty harsh up top. This is especially noticeable on cymbal hits, which tend to be overly energetic and quite splashy. Sibilance, however, is not bad at all – better than with the VSonic GR02 BE, for instance. The presentation, likewise, can get a touch congested when the heavy bass steps in but is otherwise quite well-rounded. The v-shaped sound sig is an advantage here and keeps the soundstage size above average, whereas bass-heavy earphones with prominent mids and laid-back treble tend to sound more thick and congested.
Select Comparisons
Note: I could have included more head-to-head comparisons but they all came out pretty much the same – compared to the other sub-$50 bass-heavy earphones in my collection, which tend to be either full-bodied and smooth or v-shaped with a low end bias, the FR301 invariably sounds bassier, clearer but more recessed in the midrange, and harsher up top.
Tekfusion Twinwoofers ($50)
The Twinwoofers are bass-heavy but rather smooth-sounding earphones – a contrast to the significantly v-shaped JVC HA-FR301. In comparison to the Twinwoofers, the low end of the JVCs is more powerful, the mids are much more recessed and not as full-bodied, though also clearer, and the top end is harsher. The warm and smooth Twinwoofers are perhaps more natural tonally, but also quite muddy-sounding in comparison. Overall they are two very different takes on bass-heavy sound; which is better really depends on what the bigger dealbreaker is - lack of clarity or harsh highs.
Brainwavz S1 ($60)
Brainwavz’ S1 model is similar to the FR301 in the general sense of being v-shaped and bass-heavy, but the greater mid-bass power of the FR301 affects its overall sound quite a bit. The S1 is very capable of producing deep, powerful bass but still falls significantly short of the FR301 in sheer slam. The low end of the S1 is tighter, as expected considering the quantity difference. The mids are a little more detailed and nuanced with less bass to get in the way, and the top end is not as harsh as that of the FR301.
Beats by Dre Tour 2.0 ($150)
The latest version of the Beats by Dre Tour is not exactly a top performer in its price bracket, but the warm and smooth sound holds its own against other basshead earphones. Indeed, the Tour 2.0 was probably the closest to the JVC HA-FR301 in bass quantity out of everything I tried. The FR301 is still a touch more impactful, and overall more v-shaped with significantly brighter treble. It sounds harsher, but also quite a bit clearer than the somewhat muffled Beats.
I found that both sound best with music that relies on bass and is sparsely instrumental, such as Hip-Hop and EDM. This tends to mask the shortcomings with the clarity of the Beats, the harsh treble and recessed mids of the FR301, and the overpowering bass of both. With complex tracks the smoother sound of the Tour 2.0 pulls ahead slightly.
Value (8/10) – The JVC Xtreme Xplosives HA-FR301 is an earphone for bassheads, pure and simple. Its v-shaped sound signature keeps muddiness to a minimum and maintains impressive clarity for such a bassy earphone, though it is not without drawbacks. Still, considering the solid build quality, amazingly quiet cable, and remote with a universal smartphone switch, I expect I’ll be recommending these often to bass lovers all over the world.
Pros: Cable has no microphonics; comfortable fit; extremely heavy bass; dual-mode remote compatible with all smartphones
Cons: Extremely heavy bass; sharp highs
(3A93) Brainwavz S0
Reviewed May 2015
Brief: New entry-level IEM model in Brainwavz’ S series
MSRP: $49.50 (manufacturer’s page)
Current Price: $45 from amazon.com; $50 from mp4nation.net
Specs: Driver: Dynamic | Imp: 16Ω | Sens: 100 dB | Freq: 18-18k Hz | Cable: 4.2′ I-plug
Nozzle Size: 5mm | Preferred tips: Hybrid-style single-flanges
Wear Style: Straight down or over-the-ear (preferred)
Accessories (4.5/5) – Standard single-flange (3 pairs), hybrid-style single-flange (3 pairs), double-flange, and triple-flange silicone tips; Comply S400 foam tips; and sturdy zippered carrying case
Build Quality (4/5) – The S0 is well-made, with metal housings and sizable strain reliefs protecting its tangle-resistant flat cable. The y-split is less bulky than on the higher-end S1 and S5 models, but doesn’t seem any less protective
Isolation (3/5) – Average, but more than sufficient for day-to-day use
Microphonics (3/5) – Bothersome when worn cable-down; improved with over-the-ear wear
Comfort (4/5) – The S0 uses a conventional straight-nozzle design and has average-sized, lightweight housings. Despite the flat cable, it can still be worn cable-up comfortably
Sound (7.5/10) – Slotted below the S1 and S5 models in the company’s extensive IEM lineup, the Brainwavz S0 is a mid-range earphone with a mildly v-shaped sound signature. The bass is boosted, but by a more moderate amount compared to the Brainwavz S1 and S5, both of which pack greater bass impact and depth. The S0 has more reasonable bass quantity, which allows it to maintain pretty good quality. For instance, it is neither as bassy nor as boomy as the pricier UBSOUND Fighter or the Nuforce NE-600X (one of my top picks among entry-level bass-heavy IEMs).
Bass depth is good, too – much better than with the similarly-priced Brainwavz M1. There is a bit more mid- and upper bass than I would like, however, which doesn’t do the performance any favors – it doesn’t create a ton of impact, yet affects clarity in the midrange. The S0 is still not as warm and muffled as the UBSOUND Fighter and its midrange tends to be clearer and more detailed compared to both the Fighter and Nuforce NE-600X. However, the clarity difference is smaller than may be expected considering how much bassier the Nuforce unit is. Clarity ends up being similar to the older Brainwavz M1, a smoother, darker, more mid-centric earphone, and doesn’t quite keep up with the brighter, more v-shaped S1 and S5 models.
At the top, the balance of the S0 again falls between the more v-shaped S1 and S5, and the smoother M1. The S1 and S5 are both brighter and slightly less forgiving, but the highs of the S0 are still a little sharp and metallic despite not being overly bright. On the whole, treble quality is similar to the Nuforce NE-600X – both have some treble edginess, and just which earphone is smoother varies from track to track.
The presentation of the S0 is quite capable – a good-sized soundstage that’s well-rounded in terms of width and depth. Separation is good as far as the clarity allows – the M1 model, for example, lacks the soundstaging prowess of the S0 thanks to its more mid-forward tuning, which makes its presentation seem a little compressed in comparison. The Brainwavz S5, on the other hand, is significantly more dynamic, with its deeper bass and more extended treble, and has superior depth and imaging as a result.
Select comparisons
T-Peos Popular ($30)
The strengths of the Popular – as well as T-Peos’ numerous other entry-level earphones – are clarity and bass control. On both counts it is ahead of the Brainwavz S0, which is tuned for a warmer and more bass-heavy sound. The Popular is more balanced on the whole, largely thanks to its tighter, less emphasized low end. The Popular lacks the mid-bass boost of the S0, which in turn makes its deep bass seem a little more prominent. Its sound is thinner overall, however, and the brighter treble is more prone to harshness and sibilance than that of the Brainwavz.
Brainwavz S1 ($55)
The S1 is the next model up from the S0 in Brainwavz’ lineup. In this case, the lower-end earphone sounds more balanced while the pricier S1 suffers from more recessed mids and stronger, harsher treble. The S1 has noticeably more bass depth and impact and a more v-shaped sound signature with sharper treble and more withdrawn, less full-bodied mids.
At first glance it seems that the S0 should be the more Hi-Fi earphone of the two – it has lower overall bass quantity, less midrange recession, and smoother highs. However, the S0 also has a more audible mid-bass hump, which negates all benefits of a less bass-heavy sound signature and results in slightly boomier bass and mids that are more veiled compared to the S1, making the higher-end model preferable, at least to me.
Rock Jaw Alfa Genus (balanced setting) ($70)
The Alfa Genus is a variable-sound earphone with three sets of interchangeable nozzle filters supplying the different sound tunings. I chose the more balanced-sounding “gold” filters for this comparison, as the bass-heavy black filters are similar in sound to the Brainwavz S1.
With the gold nozzles in place, the Alfa Genus sounds flatter and more balanced than the slightly v-shaped S0. The Brainwavz’ mid-bass boost is very noticeable, making it sound bassier and boomier in comparison. However, even without the extra bass, the Alfa Genus doesn’t sound thin or lacking in body in comparison. It is clearer and smoother, though, while the S0 is more veiled through the midrange and harsher up top.
Value (8/10) – The entry-level model in Brainwavz “S” series, the S0 is a more balanced-sounding alternative to the slightly pricier S1 model. Like the S1, it boasts metal housings and flat cables, but with a more conventional form factor that should be friendlier towards first-time IEM users. The dynamic drivers deliver a mildly v-shaped sound signature with ample bass, treble that’s neither too bright nor too dull, and a well-rounded presentation. With that said, for those who don’t mind a more v-shaped sound signature I’d recommend making the jump to the higher-end S1 model for only a couple more bucks.
Pros: Nice carrying case and eartip selection; solid construction
Cons: Some microphonics when worn cable-down; not quite as clear as the higher-end Brainwavz models
(3A94) Zipbuds PRO
Added August 2015
Brief: Tangle-resistant IEMs with a built-in “zipper” in place of a conventional cable cinch
MSRP: $39.99
Current Price: $35 from amazon.com
Specs: Driver: Dynamic | Imp: 16Ω | Sens: 99 dB | Freq: 20-20k Hz | Cable: 3.9′ I-plug w
Nozzle Size: 5.5mm | Preferred tips: Stock single-flanges
Wear Style: Straight down
Accessories (2/5) – Single-flange silicone tips (3 sizes) and built-in “zipper” cable cinch
Build Quality (4/5) – The housings of the Zipbuds PRO are plastic – well-made, but nothing out of the ordinary. The earphones have ample strain relief and a nylon sheath on the cable below the y-split. The mic is well-positioned, too. The distinguishing characteristic, of course, is the zipper, which starts at the y-split and goes right up to the microphone, replacing the cable cinch. The teeth of the zipper are plastic while the slider is metal. It works well and I never got myself or my clothes caught in it, though I am not convinced of its superiority to a good cable cinch. The cable is terminated with a metal-jacketed I-plug
Isolation (3/5) – Good for this type of earphone
Microphonics (2.5/5) – The cloth-covered cable and plastic zipper teeth don’t do the Zipbuds any favors when it comes to cable noise. The earphones are meant to be worn cable-down, and in this configuration cable noise can be bothersome. Adjusting the zipper while wearing them creates additional noise
Comfort (4/5) – The Zipbuds are rather well-designed when it comes to comfort, with an angled-nozzle housing that’s smooth and rounded at the front. The driver chamber is rather large, and on the whole the fit is similar to a “half in-ear” earphone – snug in the outer ear, but comfortable
Sound (7.9/10) – The sound signature of the Zipbuds PRO is pretty much perfect considering the relatively low price and consumer-oriented nature of the earphones, pushing the bass and treble slightly ahead of the midrange for a punchy, clear, and exciting sound – a “v-shaped” frequency response.
There’s plenty of bass with a mild mid-bass hump, but the Zipbuds are surprisingly free of bloat. The moderate bass enhancement never left me wanting for impact and extension is surprisingly good at both ends. At the same time, the tone is not very warm and avoids the clarity penalty overly warm earphones in this price range tend to have (see, for instance, the Fidue A31s or HiFiMan RE300h).
Clarity and detail are pretty impressive and midrange recession is minor for a v-shaped earphone. The upper mids and treble are accented, with both carrying plenty of energy. As expected, this gives the Zipbuds PRO a tendency towards harshness and sibilance, especially at high volumes, but it is very mild and the gain in clarity and overall energy is worth the tradeoff. Good treble extension also results in a decently wide presentation and a rather open, airy, and dynamic sound compared to other similarly-priced and similarly-tuned earphones.
Select Comparisons
Xiaomi Piston 2 ($25)
The Piston 2 from China-based Xiaomi took the audiophile world by storm with its warm, capable sound, becoming a popular budget choice very quickly. The Zipbuds PRO boasts comparable performance with a slightly more v-shaped sound signature.
While the Piston 2 is tonally warmer and has more of a deep bass focus, the Zipbuds have a touch more mid-bass instead. Bass control and overall clarity are generally similar between the two earphones, but the Zipbuds have a more v-shaped tuning with more presence in the upper midrange and treble. This makes for a brighter sound and also raises vocal intelligibility a bit compared to the Piston 2. On the whole, the Zipbuds are more sparkly and lively but have a greater tendency towards harshness and sibilance, especially at higher volumes. The Piston 2 sounds smoother and more refined in comparison, and also has a slightly more “open” presentation.
T-Peos Popular ($30)
The T-Peos Popular and Zipbuds PRO make for an interesting matchup, being two rather different takes on a v-shaped sound tuning – one bassier, and the other brighter. The brighter T-Peos model is more balanced and neutral, with a shallower “v-shape” to its sound. It has less mid-bass, which makes its low end tighter and allows for more deep bass emphasis. The Zipbuds, on the other hand, sound bassier and more boomy. Their tuning has a more pronounced v-shape with more midrange recession. Surprisingly, despite having a thinner and brighter sound, the Popular isn’t clearer than the bassier Zipbuds. It does, however, have a slightly wider soundstage. In the end, it’s very hard to say which is better – at times I preferred the more balanced Popular, and at times the bassier and more dynamic Zipbuds.
Brainwavz S0 ($45)
The entry-level model in Brainwavz’ popular S-series, the S0 is a relatively well-balanced earphone compared to the bassier, more mid-recessed Zipbuds. Despite their more powerful bass and slightly more recessed mids, however, the Zipbuds sound clearer. The upper midrange is more forward, resulting in more intelligible vocals, and the sound is more dynamic and lively on the whole. The S0, on the other hand, is a little less clear and makes vocals sound more distant. It also has weaker bass and lacks some dynamics in comparison to the Zipbuds.
Brainwavz S1 ($60)
The Brainwavz S1 makes for a better sound signature match for the Zipbuds than does the S0. While the S0 is flatter/more balanced than the Zipbuds, the tuning of the S1 is the opposite, increasing the bass and recessing the mids slightly for an even more “v-shaped” sound signature. This makes the v-shape more audible – and at times more bothersome – than the milder coloration of the Zipbuds.
The bass of the S1 is deeper and marginally tighter than that of the Zipbuds. However, the Zipbuds have less recessed mids and a more neutral tone compared to the darker S1. The brighter treble of the Zipbuds is a little more harsh, but it also makes them a touch clearer and more open-sounding – and preferable to the S1 for me.
Value (8.5/10) – Microphonics aside, the Zipbids PRO is my favorite kind of earphone – one with unexpectedly strong audio performance that took me entirely by surprise (the previous such set being the Flux In-Ear from PC accessories manufacturer SteelSeries).
While the zipper cable cinch is a bit of a gimmick, the Zipbuds cover the basics very well with excellent sound quality and a comfortable angled-nozzle design. With a v-shaped sound signature emphasizing bass and treble and satisfying clarity, dynamics, and even soundstaging, the Zipbuds PRO is a winner in sound – and easily recommendable overall.
Pros: Comfortable angled-nozzle design; does resist tangling; nice mic; very good sound quality
Cons: Cable noise (microphonics)
(3A95) HiFiMan RE300h
Reviewed August 2015
Brief: HiFiMan’s first sub-$50 IEM in several years
MSRP: $49
Current Price: $49 from amazon.com
Specs: Driver: Dynamic | Imp: 16Ω | Sens: 108 dB | Freq: 15-20k Hz | Cable: 3.9′ L-plug
Nozzle Size: 5.5mm | Preferred tips: Stock double flanges; generic double-flanges
Wear Style: Straight down
Accessories (2/5) – Long single-flange and short bi-flange silicone tips; replacement nozzle filters (5 pairs)
Build Quality (3.5/5) – The tiny housings of the RE300h are plastic and feature replaceable nozzle filters and decent strain relief. The cables are plastic and not nylon-sheathed below the y-split like the higher-end HiFiMan models. A nice L-plug terminates the cable
Isolation (3/5) – The RE300h is a shallow-fit earphone but the included tips isolate surprisingly well and aftermarket tips can increase isolation a bit further
Microphonics (4/5) – Decent even when worn cable-down thanks to the soft cable
Comfort (4.5/5) – The housings of the RE300h are designed for cable-down wear and unusually-shaped, but very small and lightweight. The small footprint in the ear and shallow fit makes them extremely comfortable, though I can see some users – especially those with larger ears – having to find alternatives to the two included eartips to get a proper seal
Sound (7.9/10) – The RE300h takes the HiFiMan house sound and makes it more consumer-friendly by skewing the usual near-neutral balance in a warmer, bassier direction. In 2009 – three generations back in HiFiMan terms – the RE1 model attempted something similar but it was pricier and suffered from relatively low efficiency, which made it less well-suited for the mainstream consumer. The RE300h has no such problems – it’s easy to drive and the bassy and forgiving sound signature feels right at home at $50.
The RE300h places more emphasis on bass compared not only to any other HiFiMan product I’ve heard in years, but also other high-performing ~$50 sets such as the SteelSeries Flux and Fidue A63, stopping just short of the Sennheiser Momentum In-Ear. It is not intended to please bassheads, but rather to deliver enough punch and body to avoid any accusations of sounding flat or lean, as often happens with higher-end HiFiMan models. Unfortunately bass control typically decreases as bass quantity goes up, and the bass of the RE300h is not as tight as that of higher-end HiFiMan IEMs and the aforementioned Fidue, SteelSeries, and Sennheiser sets.
The lower midrange of the RE300h is just as prominent as the bass. Indeed, the lack of midrange recession is what keeps the earphone grounded in the HiFiMan house sound. The RE300h ends up sounding warmer and not at all v-shaped compared to sets like the SteelSeries Flux, Xiaomi Piston 2, and Sennheiser Momentum.
However, together with the prominent bass, the warm and somewhat thick mids limit clarity. Other earphones mitigate this by providing bright, emphasized treble but the smooth and relaxed highs of the RE300h are no help here. As a result, clarity lags slightly behind the abovementioned earphones. Treble smoothness, on the other hand, is superb. The RE300h is less bright/energetic and more forgiving than the Flux, Piston 2, and especially the Momentum In-Ear. It kills harshness and sibilance on tracks like very few IEMs can, especially at lower listening volumes.
Like the higher-end RE-400, the presentation of the RE300h is not at all laid-back, in part due to the forward midrange. However, the soundstage still has pretty good width and ends up surprisingly well-rounded – certainly an enjoyable presentation well ahead of most others in this price range. It’s also worth noting the high sensitivity of the RE300h – the earphone is well above average in that regard, too.
Select Comparisons
HiFiMan RE-400 ($79)
The RE300h’s older sibling is well known for its balanced and accurate sound. Compared to the pricier RE-400, the lower-end model sounds warmer and more bass-heavy. It is also more sensitive. The changes towards “louder” and “bassier” make sense when moving downmarket and targeting consumers rather than audiophiles. Unfortunately, with the tuning change the RE300h also loses some of what has made the RE-400 one of the best audiophile earphones on the market for the past 2½ years.
The extra bass of the RE300h is intrusive compared to the RE-400’s tighter, more well-measured low end. It is boomy and makes the earphones sound muddier. The RE-400 has more of a midrange focus but still sounds more tonally correct and natural, especially with vocals. It is clearer, more accurate, and more refined. The highs are brighter and crisper. Detail comes through better as well.
The one thing the RE300h does have going for it besides greater bass impact and better sensitivity is a more dynamic presentation, which makes its soundstage appear a little less flat and intimate than that of the RE-400. Soundstaging has never been one of the RE-400’s strengths, and it really shows here.
VSonic VSD3S ($45 – $60)
The RE300h is reminiscent of other HiFiMan in-ears with its lack of midrange recession and forgiving treble. The VSD3S, likewise, follows the VSonic house sound through and through, and is tuned very differently from the RE300h. Its sound is slightly v-shaped, with more bass punch and brighter treble compared to the HiFiMan set. The VSD3S is clearer and slightly more resolving, but suffers from sharper, more sibilance-prone highs and mild midrange recession. Despite its lower bass quantity, the RE300h has more bass bloat. It is also warmer, smoother, and more full-bodied than the VSD3S, and has a slightly more well-rounded soundstage.
Sony MH1C ($25 -$80)
Sony’s warm and smooth-sounding MH1C follows a less balanced sound tuning than the RE300h, placing more emphasis on bass (especially deep bass) and less on the midrange. However, the less forward mids of the Sony unit are also a bit thinner, which helps the MH1C achieve better clarity compared to the RE300h despite its more powerful bass. The presentation of the MH1C is more laid-back and spacious, too, while the RE300h is more forward and intimate. Lastly, the HiFiMan unit is significantly more sensitive.
Value (8.5/10) – The HiFiMan RE300h is an earphone for those who above all else favor a warm and forgiving sound. It maintains forward mids and smooth treble for that quintessential HiFiMan flavor, but provides more bass than the higher-end models. The result is a sound profile dominated by the bass and lower midrange, and somewhat limited in clarity and bass control. These are not positive traits for critical listening, but there’s plenty to like here as well – the lack of midrange recession despite strong bass, the soundstage, and the smoothness, which kills off harshness and sibilance better than the vast majority of competing earphones. I also like the tiny low profile housings – HiFiMan’s been pretty good at giving us IEMs that fit well in smaller ears lately. All in all, while it is not going to dethrone HiFiMan’s higher-end RE-400 model in bang for your buck, the RE300h offers a unique sound tuning in a unique form factor, both of which make it a compelling offering.
Pros: Compact & comfortable housings; plentiful bass with prominent mids and very smooth treble
Cons: Clarity and bass control could be better
(3A96) JVC XX Elation HA-FR100X
Reviewed October 2015
Brief: latest entry in JVC’s enhanced-bass XX line
MSRP: $59.95
Current Price: $59 from amazon.com
Specs: Driver: Dynamic | Imp: 16Ω | Sens: 104 dB | Freq: 8-25xk Hz | Cable: 3.9′ L-plug with mic & 1-button remote
Nozzle Size: 5.5mm | Preferred tips: Narrow-channel single-flanges (DUNU, MEElec M6, etc)
Wear Style: Straight down
Accessories (2.5/5) – Single-flange silicone tips (3 sizes) and velvet carrying pouch
Build Quality (4/5) – The FR100X foregoes the rubber bumpers of JVC’s previous XX-series models for an all-plastic construction. The housings are large but lightweight and JVC’s usual low-noise PVC cable is now terminated with a very nice L-shaped plug. Unusually, the microphone element and remote button are built into the right earpiece. This works quite well, thanks in part to the size of the earpiece – I actually had an easier time locating the button quickly compared to cord-mounted remotes
Isolation (3/5) – Good for an earphone of this type
Microphonics (5/5) – Pretty much nonexistent
Comfort (3.5/5) – The XX Elation utilizes the usual angled-nozzle design of JVC’s previous XX-series earphones but the large housings with the somewhat unusual rhomboid cross-section just aren’t as comfortable in the ear as, for instance, the smaller HA-FX101
Sound (7.2/10) – The XX Elation line is the latest in JVC’s long-running Xtreme Xplosives series of bass-heavy (and sometimes extremely bass-heavy) headphones and earphones. The HA-FR100X is the in-ear XX Elation mode and has both wired and wireless on-ear counterparts.
The sound of the HA-FR100X is a clear improvement over the XX earphones of old such as the HA-FR301 I reviewed last year. That earphone was overwhelmingly boosted in the bass and treble regions, which made its sound very uniquely suited to a particular type of listener but also had many drawbacks.
The new HA-FR100X sacrifices a portion of that huge bass, as well as some of the treble brightness, for a more balanced and natural sound tuning. It still carries very good bass impact that will be plentiful for the majority of listeners. However, it is no longer true basshead earphone in my book – the bass is simply not thatoverwhelming.
The FR100X has a warm tone and v-shaped overall sound signature – just not as v-shaped as the preceding HA-FR301 model. The sound is heavy on mid-bass, which causes the sub-bass to appear more subdued compared to earphones with similar bass quantity but less mid-bass bias – earphones such as the Nuforce NE-600X, Popclik String, UBSOUND Fighter, and Brainwavz S1. The bass is also a little less tight and more boomy, compared especially to the String and S1, but more controlled than that of the similarly mid-bassy Tekfusion Twinwoofers.
The FR100X’s mid-bassy sound creates a midrange that is fairly full-bodied despite the v-shaped response of the earphones. Compared to leaner-sounding sets like the aforementioned Popclik String and Brainwavz S1, the HA-FR100X is more veiled, but also richer and less recessed in the midrange. It goes both ways, however, as the JVCs are also clearer compared to less v-shaped earphones such as the UBSOUND Fighter and Twinwoofers.
Moving on up, the FR100X is slightly prone to harshness, much like other v-shaped earphones in its price range including the Brainwavz S1. Treble energy is good – the FR100X is brighter and more natural in this regard than the somewhat dull-sounding Twinwoofers, though also not as smooth. The treble presence and overall v-shaped sound signature help the FR100X sound spacious and relatively airy – definitely more so than the Twinwoofers and the pricier UBSOUND Fighter.
Select Comparisons
Below are several head-to-head comparisons between the HA-FR100X and earphones that either perform on a similar level or have somewhat analogous sound tuning (or both). These comparisons may play a direct role in someone’s purchasing decision, but more importantly they help contextualize the earphone’s performance based on the other options currently on the market.
JVC XX HA-FR301 ($40)
Pitting the HA-FR100X against one of its predecessors highlights the improvements JVC has made to the overall fidelity and “sonic realism” of the XX line. The older HA-FR301 is a much, MUCH more v-shaped earphone, with both bass and treble boosted significantly compared to the HA-FR100X.
The newer XX Elation is undoubtedly the more balanced earphone. Its bass quantity may not be as well-suited for bassheads but is still plentiful for general listening and doesn’t come at the expense of severely recessed mids and unnatural, metallic-sounding treble. Thanks to its bright tone the HA-FR301 does sound mildly clearer, but the more natural treble level of the HA-FR100X makes for a better overall experience – the extra brightness and harshness of the older model just aren’t worth the clarity gain.
ADV.SOUND M4 ($40)
The HA-FR100X is smoother and more balanced compared to its predecessors but still has quite a bit of bass emphasis and sonic coloration. The ADV.SOUND M4, while still not flat/neutral, is an even more balanced take on v-shaped sound tuning. It lacks the sheer power and energy of the JVC unit, but the extra bass boost of the HA-FR100X makes it sound more muffled in comparison to the M4, especially in the midrange. The treble of the JVCs is also sharper and less natural than that of the M4 and their lows are more mid-bassy and not quite as well-controlled.
Beats Tour 2.0 ($149)
Perhaps the most well-known and least-appreciated of the bass-heavy in-ear earphones on the market, the Beats Tour 2.0 is actually a pretty solid performer. Its biggest issue is the price tag – most other bass-heavy, consumer-oriented headphones of this sort, JVC’s XX series included, come in under $100.
The Beats do have an advantage over the HA-FR100X in bass depth, as well as overall impact and power – their bass is simply more prominent. The midrange of the Beats, on the other hand, is more recessed, yet still a touch clearer compared to that of the JVCs despite the Tour 2.0’s warmer tone.
The HA-FR100X has a more prominent midrange but its sound still appears more v-shaped thanks to the brighter treble. The top end of the Beats Tours is extremely smooth and forgiving. The HA-FR100X’s is more sparkly, but also more prone to harshness. The JVC unit has a slight advantage in airiness, however, as well as a wider presentation.
Value (7.5/10) – JVC’s new XX Elation HA-FR100X earphones are much more balanced and natural-sounding than previous XX-series models. While still tuned for a bass-heavy, v-shaped sound and lacking a bit in the way of bass control, they provide a warmer, more rich-sounding midrange and more toned-down, realistic treble than the preceding model.
As a side effect of the more balanced tuning, the FR-100X does lose the extreme degree of bass emphasis that would qualify it as a basshead earphone – something JVC’s old XX-series models were well-known for. This makes the new earphone’s sound is more accurate and proficient, but less unique. It also means that the new model faces far more competition than previous Xtreme Xplosives sets. It should be just bassy enough to still do well in the mainstream market, and just well-rounded enough to be accepted by audio enthusiasts, but only time will tell with certainty.
Pros: More balanced and capable sound than previous models; extremely low cable noise; truly integrated mic/remote
Cons: Bulky housings; still not free of bass bleed and harshness
(3A97) Pump Audio Earphones
Reviewed November 2015
Brief: Kickstarter-backed enhanced-bass earphones from the UK
MSRP: £69.00 / approx. $105
Current Price:
$50 from amazon.com; £69 from Amazon UK
Specs: Driver:
Dynamic | Imp:
18Ω | Sens:
102 dB | Freq:
16-24k Hz | Cable:
3.9′ L-plug w/mic & 1-button remote
Nozzle Size:
5mm | Preferred tips:
Stock single-flanges
Wear Style:
Straight down or over-the-ear (preferred)
Accessories
(3.5/5) – Single-flange silicone tips (3 sizes) and zippered clamshell carrying case (Note: latest version also adds 3 pairs of foam eartips)
Build Quality
(3.5/5) – The construction of the Pump is pretty generic – lightweight metal housings and a wide, flat cable. The Pump has its microphone and single-button remote at the y-split. The few minor downsides are (very mild) driver flex, lack of a cable cinch, and straight plug cable termination. Pump Audio offers an impressive 5-year warranty on these, but weirdly it seems to apply only when purchasing them from the manufacturer’s own website
Isolation
(3/5) – Pretty standard for an earphone of this type
Microphonics (4/5) – Surprisingly low for a flat-cable earphone
Comfort
(4/5) – The Pump uses conventional straight-barrel earpieces, but they are very lightweight and I like the quality of the included silicone eartips, which are soft and seal quite well
Sound
(7.7/10) – The Pump is yet another Kickstarter-backed portable audio product but unlike the two last two I’ve covered (the LIFE Headphones and the ADV.SOUND M4), this project is based out of the UK rather than the US and the Kickstarter campaign has long since ended.
The Pump Audio Kickstarter predicated on the earphones sounding “world-class” based on the majority of listeners preferring them to a set of Beats in-ears – hardly a high standard to start with – in a listening test with a sample size of 50 participants. As I’ve stated before, however, I don’t put much weight on what manufacturers have to say about their own product. Ultimately, the only thing that matters is performance.
What the marketing materials can do is help provide some context for the design and tuning of a set of earphones. With the Pump IEMs, there are certainly gleams of reason in the marketing madness – for instance, it claims that they are “developed for lovers of dance music”. Can’t argue with that – the sort of bass-heavy, V-shaped sound delivered by the Pump is popular with EDM listeners.
The bass of the Pump Earphones is quite heavy, but I like the balance of mid-bass and sub-bass. Neither overshadows the other, which is more than I can say for many other basshead earphones – the NHT SuperBuds, for instance, are definitely skewed in favor of mid-bass, while the HiSoundAudio Wooduo2 has little mid-bass and tons of low bass.
The Pump IEMs are slightly boomy at the bottom end, which results in mild veiling of the midrange. Nothing surprising there – bass quantity and quality are almost always a trade-off, especially in lower price ranges. For instance the popular Xiaomi Piston 2 has slightly lower bass quantity and higher bass quality – i.e. the bass is not quite as impactful, but tighter and more controlled in comparison to the Pump. The Pump is a more stereotypical consumer-friendly enhanced-bass earphone and provides a more full-bodied sound and warmer tone.
This sort of theme carries through the treble – the overall balance, clarity, and detail are not as good as, for instance, the pricier RHA MA750. However, the Pump also offers much more bass impact than the RHA and pretty much any other in-ear on its performance level – the MA750 won’t satisfy bassheads, but the Pump will. The mildly v-shaped sound signature of the Pump and the resulting treble emphasis work in the earphones’ favor, adding some crispness and energy to what would otherwise be an overly warm sound. The treble extension also prevents the earphones from sounding overly intimate and “stuffy” – the Pump actually has a decently wide and spacious soundstage.
Select Comparisons
Below are several head-to-head comparisons between the Pump Audio Earphones and other sets that either perform on a similar level or have somewhat analogous sound tuning (or both). These comparisons may play a direct role in someone’s purchasing decision, but more importantly they help contextualize the earphone’s performance based on the other options currently on the market.
Pump Audio Earphones vs JVC XX Elation HA-FR100X ($60)
The HA-FR100X is the latest entry in JVC’s long-running XX enhanced-bass headphone line. JVC XX earphones tend to be v-shaped with a strong bass bias – the same way I would describe the Pump IEMs. The XX Elation is less bass-heavy than all the previous XX-series earphones I’ve tried, and ends up with lower bass quantity compared to the Pump. This is especially true for sub-bass – the Pump has lots more of it. Surprisingly, the Pump earphones also have better clarity, though their more powerful bass also tends to become more intrusive on tracks with lots of bass.
The bass of the JVCs is a little tighter, but the balance of the midrange and treble isn’t any better for it. JVC’s smoothest XX-series earphone and the Pump have similar treble quality and reach, and the Pump is more spacious overall. With both companies emphasizing performance with EDM music, it really seems that, for sound at least, the Pump Audio IEMs are what the XX Elation should have been.
Pump Audio Earphones vs UBSOUND Fighter ($70)
While the Pump hails from the UK and the Fighter – from Italy, these earphones have lots in common when it comes to design, construction, and even sound tuning. Both are lightweight metal earphones utilizing ribbon-like flat cables. Both are bass-heavy, and both make compelling, lower-priced alternatives to Beats in-ears.
The tuning of the Pump is more v-shaped, with greater mid-bass boost and a brighter, more energetic top making it sound a little clearer and providing more treble sparkle. The Fighter, on the other hand, has a warm and smooth sound. Its bass has a little less mid-bass impact and appears a bit less bloated and intrusive but still has plenty of depth. The Fighter is smoother-sounding, but the brighter Pump has a wider, more airy presentation.
Pump Audio Earphones vs NHT SuperBuds ($70)
Though both the Pump Audio Earphones and the SuperBuds are bass-heavy IEMs, the NHT unit is bassy to a different degree. Its low end is even more full-bodied and impactful, lacking any semblance of subtlety and making the overall sound very thick, rich, and warm.
The Pump is not as bass-heavy, and clearer overall. It has a more v-shaped sound tuning with mids that are more recessed and brighter, less forgiving treble. The SuperBuds are smoother, and remain so even at high volumes, allowing those so inclined to turn the volume up high enough to rattle teeth, but the brighter Pump is more balanced and boasts a wider soundstage and more airy presentation.
Pump Audio Earphones vs Sennheiser Momentum In-Ear ($100)
Both the Pump Audio IEMs and the Momentum have v-shaped sound signatures but differ in balance. The “v-shape” of the Pump is biased more towards the low end. It has warmer tone and more powerful bass, but is also more bloated, which results in a slightly muddier sound. The Momentum is thinner and its midrange is more recessed. However, its bass is tighter and, thanks to its better clarity, resolution, and bass control, the Momentum sounds more accurate despite the deeper v-shape of its tuning.
Pump Audio Earphones vs Beats Tour 2.0 ($150)
The original Beats Tour seems to be the earphone Pump Audio was benchmarking, and the new, more refined Beats Tour 2.0 makes for an interesting comparison. Beats has matured the sound of this earphone between the first and second generations, making it smoother and more balanced. The Pump Audio Earphones, in comparison, are more v-shaped, pushing the bass and treble forward and presenting mids that are slightly recessed – and a bit hollow-sounding – compared to the smoother, more full-bodied Beats Tour 2.0.
The bass of the Pump IEMs is more intrusive and a little boomier while the Beats carry more of a deep bass focus and less mid-bass boost. On some tracks the brighter Pump set can sound a little clearer, but whenever moderately powerful bass is present, the tighter low end of the Tour 2.0 turns the tables, maintaining its composure better and delivering cleaner sound. On balance, the Beats are more level thanks to a less recessed midrange, and their overall sound a little more natural. At the same time, the Pump is the better choice for fans of heavy bass and those looking for a more fun and energetic listening experience, with accuracy being a secondary concern.
Value
(8/10) – Whatever can be said for Pump Audio’s marketing approach, the earphones speak for themselves. The sound may lack finesse and nuance, but it has the exact sort of wow factor many listeners crave, with gobs of bass and just enough clarity and treble sparkle to stop it from sounding as bloated as the Fidue A31s or the pricier NHT SuperBuds. It’s not a unique tuning by any means, but the Pump gets the proportions of all the elements right for many listeners. This is what the first-gen Beats Tour in-ear wishes it could be, and what JVC’s XX series should have evolved into.
Not all is great – the construction of the earphones is pretty generic and the packaging of the original Pump felt cheap for the price of the earphones, but the recent release of an updated version with improved accessories has made it a more well-rounded package and an easy recommendation for fans of big bass.
Pros: Fun, bass-heavy sound; lightweight and comfortable for a conventional-fit IEM
Cons: Cheap packaging on the 1st version; very bass-heavy sound
