Precog's IEM Reviews & Impressions

Mar 18, 2021 at 12:31 AM Post #436 of 3,716
Thieaudio Voyager 14 "Impressions"

For an IEM touted so heavily as being a VX or U12T killer, you sure don’t hear much about the V14 nowadays. Just like most all supposed “insert flagship IEM here” killers, right? But I digress. This is actually my second encounter with the V14; the first run-in consisted of a brief, 5-minute stint with which I decided I’d rather hear some other IEMs. Of course, that was roughly a year ago and my ears were - and I’d argue still are, in many regards - woefully inexperienced. This particular V14 is pretty cool in that it’s SN#001 and has gone through a handful of reviewers including many of the SG boys (Tork, Crin, Leneo, etc.), Antdroid, and now myself.

The V14 has two switches to mess around with the tuning. Let’s just get this out of the way: 10 is massively bloated and 00 is about equally telephonic (sucked-out midrange). I suspect I heard it on the latter the first time. The 01 and 11 settings are much better; 01 leans more reference-y whereas 11 stacks on some more bass. I still prefer 01.

thieaudiov14.jpg

The bass on the V14 is surprisingly not bad. In fact, by BA standards, it can play ball with a lot of the better stuff. It’s certainly not as textureless as most BA setups due to a longer decay. Perhaps just a tad too much mid-bass. Moving into the midrange, this texture becomes even more pronounced. There is a distinctive graininess to the upper-midrange registers in tandem with the strong lift; while this is largely a subjective preference, I don’t like it. It’s one of the reasons why I’ll likely be selling my Hidition Viento-B soon; why I’ll mostly tolerate the Empire Ear Odin’s aggressive upper-midrange. Treble-wise, the V14 is pretty alright. It’s got the QDC recession to the lower-treble. Kills some impact; however, it prevents sibilance. Extension is solid and it’s relatively smooth. Overall, the 01 tuning is decent with some minor nitpicks that keep it from greatness.

Technicalities, again, seem to be a case of “it’s pretty alright”. Imaging certainly isn’t three-blob, although it’s decidedly compressed vertically and a good way off holographic. Soundstage width seems to be the V14's jam similar to the Monarch. Detail is good enough to trade blows with most of the kilobuck players; a step ahead of the venerable Moondrop B2. I would largely point out a lack of dynamic range; the V14 sounds overly flat and dry as is characteristic of most BA IEMs.

Ultimately, there is nothing outright wrong about the V14. It stands that the V14 is a good IEM even if I think the hype that surrounded it was somewhat unwarranted. Still, I would point to a lack of character, individuality, that seems to plague most all Thieaudio's IEMs. They’re all very well-tuned, fairly technical, and yet they just don’t speak to my sensibilities very closely.

Score: 5/10
 
Last edited:
Mar 21, 2021 at 1:11 PM Post #438 of 3,716
Campfire Andromeda 2019 Impressions

Andro2019v2020.jpg

It's bothered me for some time that in my Andromeda 2020 review, an IEM I have massive appreciation for, I wasn't able to directly compare it to its predecessor. Plus, you know, I've really wanted to hear an earlier version just for the sake of hearing it. This is one of the most famed IEMs of the last five years we're talking about, after all. So what to do but snatch one up? As usual, these are first impressions. I spent a couple hours listening to them in the car yesterday, followed by some supplementary A/B listening against my Andro 2020.

Ironically, it is often said that the Andromeda is Campfire's greatest mistake. And it's not hard to see why: The Andro 2019 is an IEM that graphs horribly on paper; it would make any die-hard measurabator want to commit seppuku. But of course, I'm baiting you, and this is the good kind of mistake. Somehow, for whatever reason, the Andro 2019's tuning just works.

Or kind of at least. The bass is still not great. The Andro never had good bass, and in fact, I want to say the 2019's is worse than the 2020's. It leans warmer, less dry, but seems to smear more. Contrasted to the lack of appropriate ear compensation and the generally non-existent upper-midrange, vocal presentation is even more muted than on the 2020 version. I will say that a lack of appropriate ear compensation has a tendency to benefit center image distinction. Here, it works to an extent, although there is a sense of depth being "walled" not unlike the Ara. Whereas the Ara leaned more distant to the way it imaged vocals, the 2019 seems to be more upfront. I would say staging is about the same between the two Andros otherwise. I think I prefer the Andro 2019 with male vocals. It leans whole-heartedly into that warm, gooey quality even if it's bloated. Andro 2020 with female vocals for sure.

The treble is the foundation and anchor of the Andro 2019's tuning. It serves to balance the massive sub-1kHz bloat. It is to note that my particular unit seems to have more energy at 4.5kHz than some other measured samples. Still, the energy is unmistakably dedicated to 8-9kHz, the mid-treble, for that famed sparkle. The 2020 doesn't rise as quickly at 8kHz, and the amplitude is just slightly under the 2019 at 9kHz, although still mid-treble leaning to my ears. Some might find the 2019's treble unnatural, but admittedly, I do like it. Within the context of the Andro 2019's sound as a whole, it is not fatiguing and the balance that has been struck here is remarkable.

Intangibles is where things get interesting. The Andro 2019 rides dynamic swings a rung or two lower than the Andro 2020 with a sort of smothered quality. It was quite noticeable on first listen, although I stopped minding after some time. Equally noticeable is the layering advantage that the Andro 2020 has. The pseudo-air the Andro 2019 has between layers - yeah, it's there, but it's somewhat mucky, for lack of better word, not unlike the Solaris 2020. There is a general sense of everything being too closed-in that borders on congestion. But I don't think transient attack or decay has changed very much; like so, I would argue that these perceived differences are most attributable to tonality. Imaging between the two is similar otherwise as I alluded to above, and I'd say detail follows suit.

New blood has slowly deprecated the Andro 2019; the Andro 2020 would be my uncontested pick between the two. The Andro 2020 is a more mature, balanced take on the Andro sound and remains a highly competitive kilobuck IEM. However, for better or worse, I do think the 2019 iteration has some life left yet. It's not hard to see why it garnered the following it did; the tuning strikes a stunning balance with such a unique type of coloration.

Score: 6/10
 
Mar 21, 2021 at 1:26 PM Post #439 of 3,716
Campfire Andromeda 2019 Impressions

Andro2019v2020.jpg

It's bothered me for some time that in my Andromeda 2020 review, an IEM I have massive appreciation for, I wasn't able to directly compare it to its predecessor. Plus, you know, I've really wanted to hear an earlier version just for the sake of hearing it. This is one of the most famed IEMs of the last five years we're talking about, after all. So what to do but snatch one up? As usual, these are first impressions. I spent a couple hours listening to them in the car yesterday, followed by some supplementary A/B listening against my Andro 2020.

Ironically, it is often said that the Andromeda is Campfire's greatest mistake. And it's not hard to see why: The Andro 2019 is an IEM that graphs horribly on paper; it would make any die-hard measurabator want to commit seppuku. But of course, I'm baiting you, and this is the good kind of mistake. Somehow, for whatever reason, the Andro 2019's tuning just works.

Or kind of at least. The bass is still not great. The Andro never had good bass, and in fact, I want to say the 2019's is worse than the 2020's. It leans warmer, less dry, but seems to smear more. Contrasted to the lack of appropriate ear compensation and the generally non-existent upper-midrange, vocal presentation is even more muted than on the 2020 version. I will say that a lack of appropriate ear compensation has a tendency to benefit center image distinction. Here, it works to an extent, although there is a sense of depth being "walled" not unlike the Ara. Whereas the Ara leaned more distant to the way it imaged vocals, the 2019 seems to be more upfront. I would say staging is about the same between the two Andros otherwise. I think I prefer the Andro 2019 with male vocals. It leans whole-heartedly into that warm, gooey quality even if it's bloated. Andro 2020 with female vocals for sure.

The treble is the foundation and anchor of the Andro 2019's tuning. It serves to balance the massive sub-1kHz bloat. It is to note that my particular unit seems to have more energy at 4.5kHz than some other measured samples. Still, the energy is unmistakably dedicated to 8-9kHz, the mid-treble, for that famed sparkle. The 2020 doesn't rise as quickly at 8kHz, and the amplitude is just slightly under the 2019 at 9kHz, although still mid-treble leaning to my ears. Some might find the 2019's treble unnatural, but admittedly, I do like it. Within the context of the Andro 2019's sound as a whole, it is not fatiguing and the balance that has been struck here is remarkable.

Intangibles is where things get interesting. The Andro 2019 rides dynamic swings a rung or two lower than the Andro 2020 with a sort of smothered quality. It was quite noticeable on first listen, although I stopped minding after some time. Equally noticeable is the layering advantage that the Andro 2020 has. The pseudo-air the Andro 2019 has between layers - yeah, it's there, but it's somewhat mucky, for lack of better word, not unlike the Solaris 2020. There is a general sense of everything being too closed-in that borders on congestion. But I don't think transient attack or decay has changed very much; like so, I would argue that these perceived differences are most attributable to tonality. Imaging between the two is similar otherwise as I alluded to above, and I'd say detail follows suit.

New blood has slowly deprecated the Andro 2019; the Andro 2020 would be my uncontested pick between the two. The Andro 2020 is a more mature, balanced take on the Andro sound and remains a highly competitive kilobuck IEM. However, for better or worse, I do think the 2019 iteration has some life left yet. It's not hard to see why it garnered the following it did; the tuning strikes a stunning balance with such a unique type of coloration.

Score: 6/10
That's too bad. I was really hoping you would say that they sound the same. That's because I see them regular for resale at or below $500.
 
Mar 21, 2021 at 1:52 PM Post #440 of 3,716
Campfire Andromeda 2019 Impressions

Andro2019v2020.jpg

It's bothered me for some time that in my Andromeda 2020 review, an IEM I have massive appreciation for, I wasn't able to directly compare it to its predecessor. Plus, you know, I've really wanted to hear an earlier version just for the sake of hearing it. This is one of the most famed IEMs of the last five years we're talking about, after all. So what to do but snatch one up? As usual, these are first impressions. I spent a couple hours listening to them in the car yesterday, followed by some supplementary A/B listening against my Andro 2020.

Ironically, it is often said that the Andromeda is Campfire's greatest mistake. And it's not hard to see why: The Andro 2019 is an IEM that graphs horribly on paper; it would make any die-hard measurabator want to commit seppuku. But of course, I'm baiting you, and this is the good kind of mistake. Somehow, for whatever reason, the Andro 2019's tuning just works.

Or kind of at least. The bass is still not great. The Andro never had good bass, and in fact, I want to say the 2019's is worse than the 2020's. It leans warmer, less dry, but seems to smear more. Contrasted to the lack of appropriate ear compensation and the generally non-existent upper-midrange, vocal presentation is even more muted than on the 2020 version. I will say that a lack of appropriate ear compensation has a tendency to benefit center image distinction. Here, it works to an extent, although there is a sense of depth being "walled" not unlike the Ara. Whereas the Ara leaned more distant to the way it imaged vocals, the 2019 seems to be more upfront. I would say staging is about the same between the two Andros otherwise. I think I prefer the Andro 2019 with male vocals. It leans whole-heartedly into that warm, gooey quality even if it's bloated. Andro 2020 with female vocals for sure.

The treble is the foundation and anchor of the Andro 2019's tuning. It serves to balance the massive sub-1kHz bloat. It is to note that my particular unit seems to have more energy at 4.5kHz than some other measured samples. Still, the energy is unmistakably dedicated to 8-9kHz, the mid-treble, for that famed sparkle. The 2020 doesn't rise as quickly at 8kHz, and the amplitude is just slightly under the 2019 at 9kHz, although still mid-treble leaning to my ears. Some might find the 2019's treble unnatural, but admittedly, I do like it. Within the context of the Andro 2019's sound as a whole, it is not fatiguing and the balance that has been struck here is remarkable.

Intangibles is where things get interesting. The Andro 2019 rides dynamic swings a rung or two lower than the Andro 2020 with a sort of smothered quality. It was quite noticeable on first listen, although I stopped minding after some time. Equally noticeable is the layering advantage that the Andro 2020 has. The pseudo-air the Andro 2019 has between layers - yeah, it's there, but it's somewhat mucky, for lack of better word, not unlike the Solaris 2020. There is a general sense of everything being too closed-in that borders on congestion. But I don't think transient attack or decay has changed very much; like so, I would argue that these perceived differences are most attributable to tonality. Imaging between the two is similar otherwise as I alluded to above, and I'd say detail follows suit.

New blood has slowly deprecated the Andro 2019; the Andro 2020 would be my uncontested pick between the two. The Andro 2020 is a more mature, balanced take on the Andro sound and remains a highly competitive kilobuck IEM. However, for better or worse, I do think the 2019 iteration has some life left yet. It's not hard to see why it garnered the following it did; the tuning strikes a stunning balance with such a unique type of coloration.

Score: 6/10
Now you're only missing the OG, S and the MW10!
 
Mar 21, 2021 at 1:56 PM Post #441 of 3,716
A bit OT, but I was wondering how the 64 Audio U12t compares to the A12t? Getting the CIEM A12t is enticing, but I worry that is will sound a bit dark in comparison. @KuroKitsu, I know you have listened to both, and somewhat recently acquired the A12t.
 
Mar 21, 2021 at 2:07 PM Post #442 of 3,716
A bit OT, but I was wondering how the 64 Audio U12t compares to the A12t? Getting the CIEM A12t is enticing, but I worry that is will sound a bit dark in comparison. @KuroKitsu, I know you have listened to both, and somewhat recently acquired the A12t.
I can confirm that the A12t is noticeably darker than the u12t. There's also a bit of difference in the overall signature as well.

Here's what I've heard so far:

Bass: A12t has a more sub-bass focus as opposed to the mid-bass focus on the u12t. I actually prefer this since I had to do a significant amount of cable rolling to get u12t exactly right in this regard, it involved a Cardas Clear....

Mids: A12t mids are also not as recessed as the u12t. A12t positions them a bit more forward in comparison. Similar to the tuning of the FiR M4 in this regard as well in the mids.

Treble: The treble is lot darker in comparison on the 12t, there's a bit of sparkle and energy, but a bit dialed back from the u12t. However the darker background allows for much better contrast for it be just as effective.

There's a lot of similarities to the FiR M4 to be honest, and I have the same cable (PW Monile) attached for both.
 
Mar 21, 2021 at 2:12 PM Post #443 of 3,716
I can confirm that the A12t is noticeably darker than the u12t. There's also a bit of difference in the overall signature as well.

Here's what I've heard so far:

Bass: A12t has a more sub-bass focus as opposed to the mid-bass focus on the u12t. I actually prefer this since I had to do a significant amount of cable rolling to get u12t exactly right in this regard, it involved a Cardas Clear....

Mids: A12t mids are also not as recessed as the u12t. A12t positions them a bit more forward in comparison. Similar to the tuning of the FiR M4 in this regard as well in the mids.

Treble: The treble is lot darker in comparison on the 12t, there's a bit of sparkle and energy, but a bit dialed back from the u12t. However the darker background allows for much better contrast for it be just as effective.

There's a lot of similarities to the FiR M4 to be honest, and I have the same cable (PW Monile) attached for both.
Thanks for the comparison! I know the fit of the U12t (x2) was the issue for you, thus prompting the A12t, but which do you prefer overall regarding sound? I’m just curious.
 
Mar 21, 2021 at 2:16 PM Post #444 of 3,716
Thieaudio Voyager 14 "Impressions"

For an IEM touted so heavily as being a VX or U12T killer, you sure don’t hear much about the V14 nowadays. Just like most all supposed “insert flagship IEM here” killers, right? But I digress. This is actually my second encounter with the V14; the first run-in consisted of a brief, 5-minute stint with which I decided I’d rather hear some other IEMs. Of course, that was roughly a year ago and my ears were - and I’d argue still are, in many regards - woefully inexperienced. This particular V14 is pretty cool in that it’s SN#001 and has gone through a handful of reviewers including many of the SG boys (Tork, Crin, Leneo, etc.), Antdroid, and now myself.

The V14 has two switches to mess around with the tuning. Let’s just get this out of the way: 10 is massively bloated and 00 is about equally telephonic (sucked-out midrange). I suspect I heard it on the latter the first time. The 01 and 11 settings are much better; 01 leans more reference-y whereas 11 stacks on some more bass. I still prefer 01.

thieaudiov14.jpg

The bass on the V14 is surprisingly not bad. In fact, by BA standards, it can play ball with a lot of the better stuff. It’s certainly not as textureless as most BA setups due to a longer decay. Perhaps just a tad too much mid-bass. Moving into the midrange, this texture becomes even more pronounced. There is a distinctive graininess to the upper-midrange registers in tandem with the strong lift; while this is largely a subjective preference, I don’t like it. It’s one of the reasons why I’ll likely be selling my Hidition Viento-B soon; why I’ll mostly tolerate the Empire Ear Odin’s aggressive upper-midrange. Treble-wise, the V14 is pretty alright. It’s got the QDC recession to the lower-treble. Kills some impact; however, it prevents sibilance. Extension is solid and it’s relatively smooth. Overall, the 01 tuning is decent with some minor nitpicks that keep it from greatness.

Technicalities, again, seem to be a case of “it’s pretty alright”. Imaging certainly isn’t three-blob, although it’s decidedly compressed vertically and a good way off holographic. Soundstage width seems to be the V14's jam similar to the Monarch. Detail is good enough to trade blows with most of the kilobuck players; a step ahead of the venerable Moondrop B2. I would largely point out a lack of dynamic range; the V14 sounds overly flat and dry as is characteristic of most BA IEMs.

Ultimately, there is nothing outright wrong about the V14. It stands that the V14 is a good IEM even if I think the hype that surrounded it was somewhat unwarranted. Still, I would point to a lack of character, individuality, that seems to plague most all Thieaudio's IEMs. They’re all very well-tuned, fairly technical, and yet they just don’t speak to my sensibilities very closely.

Score: 5/10
Agree, I purchased the V14 early and was hearing all of the great reviews.Received and spent a week and I was thinking am I listening the wrong way, not right tips,etc and then came to the realization that it was just plain vanilla, it was not tuned to be great at anything, but they tuned it to be safe. Since then I have been careful on listening to reviews and have decided to be more experimental. Buy, create my own experience and if it's great keep, if not sell.Rinse and repeat. I just found only a few reviewers that tend to speak their mind and they are people who purchased or use loaners and avoid becoming beholding to soft review's
 
Mar 21, 2021 at 4:03 PM Post #446 of 3,716
That's too bad. I was really hoping you would say that they sound the same. That's because I see them regular for resale at or below $500.
Hey now, pls don't sabotage my re-sale value thx. And yeah, they sound pretty different. The DNA is there intangibly, but the tuning makes a pretty big difference to ears.

Oof, I would take that off your hands so fast @Precogvision

A few people have expressed interest, so I'll probably just throw it up first come, first served on the forums sometime later this week. I can't accept returns like the retailer I work for, though :)

Now you're only missing the OG, S and the MW10!

I love the Andro, but thankfully not to that extent!
 
Mar 21, 2021 at 5:51 PM Post #449 of 3,716
What about Gold?!
I kinda forgot about, and that other Japan only 3 driver one as well.

I usually think of the shell and the 5 BA setup though when "Andromeda" comes up
 
Mar 21, 2021 at 5:53 PM Post #450 of 3,716
I kinda forgot about, and that other Japan only 3 driver one as well.

I usually think of the shell and the 5 BA setup though when "Andromeda" comes up

The Q4 2019 isn’t an andromeda.
 
Last edited:

Users who are viewing this thread

Back
Top