[HiFiHawaii808]

I don’t know what to think. I have Monarch Mk2 which is a pretty good kilo-buck all-rounder but not terribly exciting re any genre (imho). I have EE LX for good bass (with the right DAC/amp/tips/cable) and U12T for good treble/technicalities. Not sure if there is a truly good ‘all rounder’ that would satisfy me across all genres.

I think Traillii is the closest thing I own that plays well across all genre.

 

[Precogvision]

Greetings again Precog! If you may, could you provide some comparisons between the Helios and the Elysian Diva? Would also appreciate some insight regarding the shell/nozzle size of the universal Diva, if you can recall. Thanks in advance.

Edit: Just stumbled across some news about Elysian's latest IEM release (Gaea?) Maybe you can look into that eventually

Just sharing something to accompany Precog on his Diva wait

Well i just dont see that being viable. So there will have to be some adaptations in manufacturing capacities.

But yeh. Diva was actually few months wait. And its not getting better any time soon.

Edit: i was told what price range theyre aiming for. And i think it will affect its success. Or rather influence..

Yeah, I'm really hesitant to give comparisons between the Helios and Diva at this point since it's been so long since I've heard the Diva. Miji actually got his ear impressions at the same time as me, and we're going on four months now waiting for the CIEM. I asked Lee if he could just send me a universal at this point, but he seems adamant he can get the CIEM done this week (I imagine he already has money sunk into assembling), so I'm stuck waiting. I genuinely wouldn't mind if there was an accurate timeline to completion, but it's vexing given that the initial quote was 2 months.

 

[Skullar]

Yeah, I'm really hesitant to give comparisons between the Helios and Diva at this point since it's been so long since I've heard the Diva. Miji actually got his ear impressions at the same time as me, and we're going on four months now waiting for the CIEM. I asked Lee if he could just send me a universal at this point, but he seems adamant he can get the CIEM done this week (I imagine he already has money sunk into assembling), so I'm stuck waiting. I genuinely wouldn't mind if there was an accurate timeline to completion, but it's vexing given that the initial quote was 2 months.

Well i am not going to throw mud at Lee. As im sure hes doing his best and there are plenty of external factors like lockdowns in China etc.
My mest for instance is stuck in Macau for repair for 7 weeks already and it was not even picked up for repairs due to lockdown. So Lee could be affected by that too.

Anyways, you would not have had much luck with universal unit either. my mate had to wait for his uni for few months too. Its not just Ciems that are backlogged,

So i think he should limit the order number he takes up, to be able to meet promised deadlines.

Hope you dont need to wait much longer though. Its a decent iem.

 

[aaf evo]

Well i am not going to throw mud at Lee. As im sure hes doing his best and there are plenty of external factors like lockdowns in China etc.
My mest for instance is stuck in Macau for repair for 7 weeks already and it was not even picked up for repairs due to lockdown. So Lee could be affected by that too.

Anyways, you would not have had much luck with universal unit either. my mate had to wait for his uni for few months too. Its not just Ciems that are backlogged,

So i think he should limit the order number he takes up, to be able to meet promised deadlines.

Hope you dont need to wait much longer though. Its a decent iem.

It’s not really order numbers though. I bought a CIEM Annihilator in October of 2021 and was quoted 2-3 weeks to get it made. He had my STL files before I paid. It took 6 weeks alone just to receive the dummy moulds of my STLs. I ended up having to get fresh impressions and sending them to Malaysia. So that delayed it a smidge. Long story short, I got my Annihilator 4 months later. This was before the Diva was even a thing to the public.

 

[Precogvision]

Westone Mach 30 and Mach 40 Impressions

Price: $499 & $599 respectively
Configuration: 3BA & 4BA respectively
Units kindly provided for review as part of a tour organized by Zachik and Westone Audio.

I've talked in passing before about the divide in the IEM world between the pro audio scene and the audiophile scene. Westone is one of the "old guards" of the IEM world; a brand that has established itself in the pro-audio scene even if they seem to be glazed over by most audiophiles these days. I had the opportunity to demo some of Westone's IEMs last year at CanJam SoCal and found myself less than impressed. Of course, show conditions being what they are, I didn't really feel it was fair to comment too harshly on them. But the advent of a new year has beget not only the opportunity to hear the brand's latest models, but to also hear them from the comfort of my own home under ideal listening conditions. So how do they sound?

Well, it turns out they still aren't good. Above all else, the Mach 40 is a prime example of the stereotypes associated with the BA topology. I don't think I've heard BA bass this bad possibly since owning the CFA Andromeda. The Mach 40 has no slam, no texture, no decay, and definitely a lot of bass fart - basically the textbook for everything wrong with BA bass. Of course, I would hypothesize that these qualities (or lack thereof) are partially a product of the leakage tolerances that BAs typically exhibit compared to DDs. But even frequencies at ~30Hz on the Mach 40 barely present a tickle which is surprising in a bad way. This drop in SPL in the deepest frequencies also increases perception of the mid-bass frequencies where the Mach 40 is fairly bloated.

Moving forward, the midrange of the Mach 40 demonstrates a fundamental lack of understanding of pinna compensation. I say this in the sense that the Mach 40's pinna compensation is 1) pushing on non-existent, and 2) the parts that are there are everywhere. To the point of the latter, the upper-midrange doesn't even seem intentionally scooped, such as when one examines the Sennheiser IEMs, and there's also an odd recession from 1.5-3kHz. Vocals simply sound...uncanny. Wrong. Any similar adjective in the book, really. It's the same story with the timbre of any instruments in the midrange.

Of course, this uncanniness is exacerbated by the Mach 40's serious lack of treble extension. An IEM can actually get away with a lot of things provided it has good treble extension (again, the CFA Andromeda comes to mind, as do some of Vision Ear's IEMs). But the Mach 40 just doesn't have any; a lot of shimmer and zing that I'm used to hearing on my other sets just disappears because the Mach 40's upper-treble is so withdrawn. Is the Mach 40's treble fatigue free? Smooth? Possibly, but I'll be the first to tell you that you don't need to pay $500 for that. There are $30 sets with more extension, smoother treble than the Mach 40 exhibits.

Technicalities? Honestly, there's no point in talking about them. The decided lack of treble extension in tandem with the odd upper-midrange kills any sense of trailing minutia, much less surface-level detail. There's also little point in talking about the Mach 30. The only reason I'll comment on the Mach 30 is because I think it sounds slightly better than the Mach 40. It's a little less bloated in the bass and a little more energetic up top which makes it a more exciting (and fatiguing) listen. Outside of that, I'd be splitting hairs for which is worse. Both the Mach 30 and Mach 40 viscerally illustrate my qualms with many of the IEMs I've heard that are more oriented toward the pro audio scene. Generally, I get the impression that these IEMs are stuck five years in the past in terms of sound quality. And even if this was the type of sound one wanted for performing, again, one does not need to spend nearly this much to get this sound. In my opinion only, these IEMs need a major retune and are not commensurate with their asking price.

Scores: you can guess

All critical listening was done with the stock cables, stock silicone tips, and my iPhone 13 Mini and iBasso DX300.

 

[Damz87]

Scores: you can guess

 

[Beh0lder]

As a W30 owner and enjoyer, I can't help but relate to this meme during my time with the M40 & M60...

 

[o0genesis0o]

Westone Mach 30 and Mach 40 Impressions

Price: $499 & $599 respectively
Configuration: 3BA & 4BA respectively
Units kindly provided for review as part of a tour organized by Zachik and Westone Audio.



I've talked in passing before about the divide in the IEM world between the pro audio scene and the audiophile scene. Westone is one of the "old guards" of the IEM world; a brand that has established itself in the pro-audio scene even if they seem to be glazed over by most audiophiles these days. I had the opportunity to demo some of Westone's IEMs last year at CanJam SoCal and found myself less than impressed. Of course, show conditions being what they are, I didn't really feel it was fair to comment too harshly on them. But the advent of a new year has beget not only the opportunity to hear the brand's latest models, but to also hear them from the comfort of my own home under ideal listening conditions. So how do they sound?

Well, it turns out they still aren't good. Above all else, the Mach 40 is a prime example of the stereotypes associated with the BA topology. I don't think I've heard BA bass this bad possibly since owning the CFA Andromeda. The Mach 40 has no slam, no texture, no decay, and definitely a lot of bass fart - basically the textbook for everything wrong with BA bass. Of course, I would hypothesize that these qualities (or lack thereof) are partially a product of the leakage tolerances that BAs typically exhibit compared to DDs. But even frequencies at ~30Hz on the Mach 40 barely present a tickle which is surprising in a bad way. This drop in SPL in the deepest frequencies also increases perception of the mid-bass frequencies where the Mach 40 is fairly bloated.

Moving forward, the midrange of the Mach 40 demonstrates a fundamental lack of understanding of pinna compensation. I say this in the sense that the Mach 40's pinna compensation is 1) pushing on non-existent, and 2) the parts that are there are everywhere. To the point of the latter, the upper-midrange doesn't even seem intentionally scooped, such as when one examines the Sennheiser IEMs, and there's also an odd recession from 1.5-3kHz. Vocals simply sound...uncanny. Wrong. Any similar adjective in the book, really. It's the same story with the timbre of any instruments in the midrange.

Of course, this uncanniness is exacerbated by the Mach 40's serious lack of treble extension. An IEM can actually get away with a lot of things provided it has good treble extension (again, the CFA Andromeda comes to mind, as do some of Vision Ear's IEMs). But the Mach 40 just doesn't have any; a lot of shimmer and zing that I'm used to hearing on my other sets just disappears because the Mach 40's upper-treble is so withdrawn. Is the Mach 40's treble fatigue free? Smooth? Possibly, but I'll be the first to tell you that you don't need to pay $500 for that. There are $30 sets with more extension, smoother treble than the Mach 40 exhibits.

Technicalities? Honestly, there's no point in talking about them. The decided lack of treble extension in tandem with the odd upper-midrange kills any sense of trailing minutia, much less surface-level detail. There's also little point in talking about the Mach 30. The only reason I'll comment on the Mach 30 is because I think it sounds slightly better than the Mach 40. It's a little less bloated in the bass and a little more energetic up top which makes it a more exciting (and fatiguing) listen. Outside of that, I'd be splitting hairs for which is worse. Both the Mach 30 and Mach 40 viscerally illustrate my qualms with many of the IEMs I've heard that are more oriented toward the pro audio scene. Generally, I get the impression that these IEMs are stuck five years in the past in terms of sound quality. And even if this was the type of sound one wanted for performing, again, one does not need to spend nearly this much to get this sound. In my opinion only, these IEMs need a major retune and are not commensurate with their asking price.

Scores: you can guess

All critical listening was done with the stock cables, stock silicone tips, and my iPhone 13 Mini and iBasso DX300.

Mate, you are fast . I think you are the 4th reviewer in the US tour and got the reviews out faster than me (3rd reviewer of the Aus tour).

I think something is seriously wrong with multi-BA configurations from westone, at least this new batch. The Mach 10 (1 Ba) is outstanding. Everything is correct and detailed (more resolving than Blessing 2 in direct A/B tests). I would say it is elegantly tuned with just a touch more warmth than ER4 series.

Mach 20 is just weird. Honky nasally, squashed stereo image, no improvement in bass, etc.

 

[Tiax]

Generally, I get the impression that these IEMs are stuck five years in the past in terms of sound quality.

Exactly, and it was already the case with their previous "new releases" (aka re tuning and re packaging of the old stuff).
It's a shame though, they have been innovative in the past, and i have always loved their iems for the form factor and comfort.

 

[twiceboss]

Westone Mach 30 and Mach 40 Impressions

Price: $499 & $599 respectively
Configuration: 3BA & 4BA respectively
Units kindly provided for review as part of a tour organized by Zachik and Westone Audio.



I've talked in passing before about the divide in the IEM world between the pro audio scene and the audiophile scene. Westone is one of the "old guards" of the IEM world; a brand that has established itself in the pro-audio scene even if they seem to be glazed over by most audiophiles these days. I had the opportunity to demo some of Westone's IEMs last year at CanJam SoCal and found myself less than impressed. Of course, show conditions being what they are, I didn't really feel it was fair to comment too harshly on them. But the advent of a new year has beget not only the opportunity to hear the brand's latest models, but to also hear them from the comfort of my own home under ideal listening conditions. So how do they sound?

Well, it turns out they still aren't good. Above all else, the Mach 40 is a prime example of the stereotypes associated with the BA topology. I don't think I've heard BA bass this bad possibly since owning the CFA Andromeda. The Mach 40 has no slam, no texture, no decay, and definitely a lot of bass fart - basically the textbook for everything wrong with BA bass. Of course, I would hypothesize that these qualities (or lack thereof) are partially a product of the leakage tolerances that BAs typically exhibit compared to DDs. But even frequencies at ~30Hz on the Mach 40 barely present a tickle which is surprising in a bad way. This drop in SPL in the deepest frequencies also increases perception of the mid-bass frequencies where the Mach 40 is fairly bloated.

Moving forward, the midrange of the Mach 40 demonstrates a fundamental lack of understanding of pinna compensation. I say this in the sense that the Mach 40's pinna compensation is 1) pushing on non-existent, and 2) the parts that are there are everywhere. To the point of the latter, the upper-midrange doesn't even seem intentionally scooped, such as when one examines the Sennheiser IEMs, and there's also an odd recession from 1.5-3kHz. Vocals simply sound...uncanny. Wrong. Any similar adjective in the book, really. It's the same story with the timbre of any instruments in the midrange.

Of course, this uncanniness is exacerbated by the Mach 40's serious lack of treble extension. An IEM can actually get away with a lot of things provided it has good treble extension (again, the CFA Andromeda comes to mind, as do some of Vision Ear's IEMs). But the Mach 40 just doesn't have any; a lot of shimmer and zing that I'm used to hearing on my other sets just disappears because the Mach 40's upper-treble is so withdrawn. Is the Mach 40's treble fatigue free? Smooth? Possibly, but I'll be the first to tell you that you don't need to pay $500 for that. There are $30 sets with more extension, smoother treble than the Mach 40 exhibits.

Technicalities? Honestly, there's no point in talking about them. The decided lack of treble extension in tandem with the odd upper-midrange kills any sense of trailing minutia, much less surface-level detail. There's also little point in talking about the Mach 30. The only reason I'll comment on the Mach 30 is because I think it sounds slightly better than the Mach 40. It's a little less bloated in the bass and a little more energetic up top which makes it a more exciting (and fatiguing) listen. Outside of that, I'd be splitting hairs for which is worse. Both the Mach 30 and Mach 40 viscerally illustrate my qualms with many of the IEMs I've heard that are more oriented toward the pro audio scene. Generally, I get the impression that these IEMs are stuck five years in the past in terms of sound quality. And even if this was the type of sound one wanted for performing, again, one does not need to spend nearly this much to get this sound. In my opinion only, these IEMs need a major retune and are not commensurate with their asking price.

Scores: you can guess

All critical listening was done with the stock cables, stock silicone tips, and my iPhone 13 Mini and iBasso DX300.

some shallow fit in ears. Pinna gain is almost flat and does need shallow fit to compensate. Just guessing

 

[Fargeg]

Westone Mach 30 and Mach 40 Impressions

Price: $499 & $599 respectively
Configuration: 3BA & 4BA respectively
Units kindly provided for review as part of a tour organized by Zachik and Westone Audio.



I've talked in passing before about the divide in the IEM world between the pro audio scene and the audiophile scene. Westone is one of the "old guards" of the IEM world; a brand that has established itself in the pro-audio scene even if they seem to be glazed over by most audiophiles these days. I had the opportunity to demo some of Westone's IEMs last year at CanJam SoCal and found myself less than impressed. Of course, show conditions being what they are, I didn't really feel it was fair to comment too harshly on them. But the advent of a new year has beget not only the opportunity to hear the brand's latest models, but to also hear them from the comfort of my own home under ideal listening conditions. So how do they sound?

Well, it turns out they still aren't good. Above all else, the Mach 40 is a prime example of the stereotypes associated with the BA topology. I don't think I've heard BA bass this bad possibly since owning the CFA Andromeda. The Mach 40 has no slam, no texture, no decay, and definitely a lot of bass fart - basically the textbook for everything wrong with BA bass. Of course, I would hypothesize that these qualities (or lack thereof) are partially a product of the leakage tolerances that BAs typically exhibit compared to DDs. But even frequencies at ~30Hz on the Mach 40 barely present a tickle which is surprising in a bad way. This drop in SPL in the deepest frequencies also increases perception of the mid-bass frequencies where the Mach 40 is fairly bloated.

Moving forward, the midrange of the Mach 40 demonstrates a fundamental lack of understanding of pinna compensation. I say this in the sense that the Mach 40's pinna compensation is 1) pushing on non-existent, and 2) the parts that are there are everywhere. To the point of the latter, the upper-midrange doesn't even seem intentionally scooped, such as when one examines the Sennheiser IEMs, and there's also an odd recession from 1.5-3kHz. Vocals simply sound...uncanny. Wrong. Any similar adjective in the book, really. It's the same story with the timbre of any instruments in the midrange.

Of course, this uncanniness is exacerbated by the Mach 40's serious lack of treble extension. An IEM can actually get away with a lot of things provided it has good treble extension (again, the CFA Andromeda comes to mind, as do some of Vision Ear's IEMs). But the Mach 40 just doesn't have any; a lot of shimmer and zing that I'm used to hearing on my other sets just disappears because the Mach 40's upper-treble is so withdrawn. Is the Mach 40's treble fatigue free? Smooth? Possibly, but I'll be the first to tell you that you don't need to pay $500 for that. There are $30 sets with more extension, smoother treble than the Mach 40 exhibits.

Technicalities? Honestly, there's no point in talking about them. The decided lack of treble extension in tandem with the odd upper-midrange kills any sense of trailing minutia, much less surface-level detail. There's also little point in talking about the Mach 30. The only reason I'll comment on the Mach 30 is because I think it sounds slightly better than the Mach 40. It's a little less bloated in the bass and a little more energetic up top which makes it a more exciting (and fatiguing) listen. Outside of that, I'd be splitting hairs for which is worse. Both the Mach 30 and Mach 40 viscerally illustrate my qualms with many of the IEMs I've heard that are more oriented toward the pro audio scene. Generally, I get the impression that these IEMs are stuck five years in the past in terms of sound quality. And even if this was the type of sound one wanted for performing, again, one does not need to spend nearly this much to get this sound. In my opinion only, these IEMs need a major retune and are not commensurate with their asking price.

Scores: you can guess

All critical listening was done with the stock cables, stock silicone tips, and my iPhone 13 Mini and iBasso DX300.

I'm almost impressed by how Westone somehow managed to create an IEM with not enough bass, not enough midrange, and not enough treble at the same time. Most manufacturers would only be brave enough to compromise on one or two of those.

 

[kmmbd]

Moving forward, the midrange of the Mach 40 demonstrates a fundamental lack of understanding of pinna compensation. I say this in the sense that the Mach 40's pinna compensation is 1) pushing on non-existent, and 2) the parts that are there are everywhere. To the point of the latter, the upper-midrange doesn't even seem intentionally scooped, such as when one examines the Sennheiser IEMs, and there's also an odd recession from 1.5-3kHz. Vocals simply sound...uncanny. Wrong. Any similar adjective in the book, really. It's the same story with the timbre of any instruments in the midrange.

I have more or less the same impressions of the Mach 40, which I find overly blunted at times.

That being said, Westone does deal with the lack of pinna gain in the more expensive MACH 60, which actually sounds quite good. Graph for reference (please ignore the squiggly bass). Somewhat thickened lower-mids, but a far more balanced take than the MACH 40. Too bad that it is priced in the kilobuck range and this tuning could easily be employed in one of the lower priced models.

 

[o0genesis0o]

I have more or less the same impressions of the Mach 40, which I find overly blunted at times.

That being said, Westone does deal with the lack of pinna gain the more expensive MACH 60, which actually sounds quite good. Graph for reference (please ignore the squiggly bass). Somewhat thickened lower-mids, but a far more balanced take than the MACH 40. Too bad that it is priced in the kilobuck range and this tuning could easily be employed in one of the lower priced models.

I think the biggest problem with this series is that all of these tuning issues were already dealt with properly with MACH 10. If I have a chance, I would compare MACH 10 and MACH 60 to see what 5 (?) extra BA drivers can bring to the table, because from my tests, MACH 20 is such a shame comparing to MACH 10. MACH 30 and 40 do not seem to be any better from Precog’s impressions.

 

[o0genesis0o]

@Precogvision hey mate, could you share a bit of comparison between technical performance of Helios and U12t? I reached out to Symphonium but has not heard anything back for a while, so I figure I might just put money where my mouth is and blind-buy Helios. My ears have no problem with Sony Z1R, so hopefully fit is not a problem. My concern is whether the Helios can maintain the soundstage, imaging, and resolution of Andromeda whilst adding dynamic and bass texture. Most of the stuffs that I managed to audition, besides U12t and Trio, fail to do so.

 

[Precogvision]

@Precogvision hey mate, could you share a bit of comparison between technical performance of Helios and U12t? I reached out to Symphonium but has not heard anything back for a while, so I figure I might just put money where my mouth is and blind-buy Helios. My ears have no problem with Sony Z1R, so hopefully fit is not a problem. My concern is whether the Helios can maintain the soundstage, imaging, and resolution of Andromeda whilst adding dynamic and bass texture. Most of the stuffs that I managed to audition, besides U12t and Trio, fail to do so.

Sure, I guess I haven't strictly compared them before.

The Helios has a more conventional approach to imaging. It layers well due to its leaner tonality and, consequently, instruments generally being somewhat smaller on the stage albeit sharply placed. Center imaging is decent on the Helios, but is not as impactful as on the U12t and Andro 2020 which make use of tuning tricks. The Helios also doesn't have as much space between instruments as the U12t to me. I couldn't say versus the Andro 2020 because it's been so long since I've compared. The Helios does have some interesting imaging, though, because of its larger tubing and shells. Sometimes when I listen closely, the side channels sound very wide and instruments peek from the back; this is most noticeable with my DX300.

Helios has faster transients than the U12t in the sense that there's more emphasis on the leading edge of instruments. It's a crisp sounding IEM with very little grain to the way notes decay. Comparatively, to me, the U12t has a middling speed to its transients and puts more emphasis on the sense of weight behind them. It's a more impactful IEM where it feels like air is being pushed. The U12t's notes seem to linger slightly longer especially in the bass and treble. This can be attributed to the U12t's extra mid-bass and stronger emphasis on the upper-treble.

Some listeners have told me they feel the Helios is more detailed and I can see why. It has a fuller upper-midrange, a fuller mid-treble, and a generally leaner response. I've done a lot of A/B between the two IEMs, though, and I can't really decide. The U12t's frequency response in the treble uniquely accentuates a lot of things that wouldn't normally be present with a conventionally tuned IEM. It depends on how well someone hears the upper-treble, which tips are being used, and (of course) HRTF.

The overall difference between them for technicalities would be that the U12t just sounds more expensive, more unique. It doesn't sound like a normal BA set - in a good way - because of the Apex porting and the out-of-the-box tuning tricks. I can listen to it for everything, all day. On the other hand, the Helios sounds like a conventional BA set that's been supercharged. It's aggressive, crisp, and grabs your attention. I don't always feel like listening to it, especially in tandem with the large shells, but it's a good alternative when I want a change of pace.