[Precogvision]

Dunu Zen Pro Impressions

I can talk about this now. The DUNU Zen was released roughly six months ago. It was a project that I had excitedly been following for months; the graph looked good, and there was the undeniable allure of a single DD, endgame IEM. Alas, when I got around to hearing my review unit, I was...disappointed. The Zen sounded dark, congested, and generally harsh. I hesitated to drop my review, even prolonging it for months before eventually releasing it.

It’s worth noting that there were people who loved the Zen. But DUNU, highly receptive of feedback as they are, have since opted to release a direct replacement to the Zen called the Zen Pro. It will be released in due time with the IEM hitting international markets first. For now, myself and a number of other reviewers - MRS, Resolve, and Antdroid - were asked if we’d like to participate in testing of the IEM with an experimental twist. We would do blind listening without knowledge of the graph or running sine sweeps, write down our thoughts, check the graphs, and then re-evaluate. The Zen Pro was an ideal candidate for this because it was a brand-new IEM that no one had seen before; therefore, there were no existing impressions to confound our own. It was definitely an exciting prospect, as the opportunities for this stuff are limited.

Spoiler: Photos

Almost everything is exactly the same as the Zen physically. The only difference is a new titanium finish which I think looks even better than the original.

Zen Pro Notes (without knowledge of the graph, and with a couple hours of listening):

Generally, the overall tonal balance of the Zen Pro hits closer to neutral, whereas the Zen follows more of a dark V-shape (that, honestly, I find somewhat all over the place).

• Bass notes are slightly cleaner on the Zen Pro due to less mid-bass. Clearly not as warm as the Zen on Dreamcatcher’s “Can’t Get You Out of My Mind”.
• Pinna compensation has been dialed back slightly for a cleaner midrange. The perception of a cleaner midrange might also be because some of the bulk in the lower-midrange seems to have been cut. Zen has more texture and body with male vocals on Joe Nichols’ “Sunny and 75”. The Zen Pro’s transition between upper-midrange and lower treble, so say 3-5kHz, appears to follow more of a gentle slope than the Zen did. The opening of Loona’s “Eclipse” has less of a jut to the “s” consonances on the word “sparks”. It’s still not as smooth in this transition as, say, the Moondrop Variations though, as a slightly “glassy” quality pervades which probably isn’t aided by the quicker decay.
• The Zen Pro is not as dark after 10kHz, but is still not particularly airy. Cymbals on Sawano’s “Cage” still lack extension, and the shakers are missing shimmer. The main difference would be that the 9kHz peak on the Zen has been attenuated for a smoother treble response. Percussive hits in the front-left channel of “Into the New World” sound more tonally correct (as does everything else about the treble in general).

The Zen Pro sounds less downwards-compressed than the Zen; however, most of the Zen’s issues in that regard stemmed from the treble response. I wouldn’t say the Zen Pro’s staging sounds like a particular improvement. It’s more so the layering department - distinction between individual instrument lines, vocals, and positioning - that has seen a considerable jump thanks to the tuning. I would say that timbre still has that slightly weird metallic tinge to it at times, perhaps due to a quicker decay like what the JVC FDX1 exhibits. The Zen Pro is still not as timbrally pleasing as the Moondrop KXXS, even if it does have better resolution.

Spoiler: FR Graphs

Post-Knowledge of the Graph Thoughts:

Overall, I’d say my thoughts line up with the graph pretty darn closely. I nailed the pinna compensation and the 3-5kHz region, and mostly got the lower-midrange and bass regions correct relative to how the measurements depict the differences.

The treble, however, isn’t as smooth as I initially thought. Running a sine sweep, the peak at 8kHz is still fairly present - just the amplitude has been lowered relative to the Zen. So I was sort of correct about that. But there’s also an additional peak at 11kHz. I’m guessing it’s harder to notice the 11kHz peak on cursory listening because it’s been positioned higher up, near the air frequencies. This also likely contributes to the Zen Pro’s slightly metallic timbre, not unlike the Focal Clear (although not to that same degree). I do find myself noticing this now after having seen the graph.

Further listening does seem to indicate that the Zen Pro’s ability to articulate the “weight” and intensity of dynamic swings is weaker than the original Zen’s, It’s also flatter for range as whole; however, this is a small price to pay for the improved tonal balance in my opinion.

Final Thoughts

I like the Zen Pro. I hear a lot more of the Luna’s excellent technical performance and, even better, the Zen Pro is considerably more balanced in terms of tonality. To my ears, it presents a decided improvement over the Zen. You might be surprised to know that isn’t something I find with many “Pro” and “MK.II” versions of IEMs.

Now, whether it's competitive for the projected asking price (still TBD, I believe) is more difficult to say. Within the context of single-DDs, yes, there’s a strong possibility. I definitely like the Zen Pro more than the Moondrop Illumination, but I also didn't think the Illumination was nearly worth $800. Cayin's new Fantasy was also, well, nothing more than a fantasy for the price it was intended to command. After hearing the Sennheiser IE900, I don’t think the Zen Pro has that same special sauce, but it’s certainly better in terms of raw tuning. I guess time will tell on this front.

Score: 6/10

(for reference, I gave the Zen Pro an “A-“ on the survey which used a letter grade scale)

 

[Darkestred]

The Pokemon of IEMs.

*welp* this was a quote but somehow its not now.

 

[WAON303]

The treble on the Zen pro looks much better than the poor excuse of a treble the OG Zen had. Stellar bass response didn't make up for a poorly tuned treble that is almost completely void of air and has a nasty 9k spike to top it off. It's quite nice that Dunu is talking notes from it's consumer base instead of ignoring them. (Fiio should really start taking notes from their own fans instead of releasing aimless revisions like the FH5s which could have been a vast improvement to the OG FH5 if Fiio actually took time to figure out what were the most common criticisms people gave to the FH5's tuning.)

Might consider this one whenever I continue my IEM purchase crusade later this year. Also, I won't be surprised if an SA8 or a EST 112 pro is announced later down the road. Dunu really loves them revisions given their recent track record.

 

[Precogvision]

Quick update: Antdroid's Unique Melody MEST MK2 is in the house alongside the original MEST I heard from TylersEclectic for comparison.

 

[Precogvision]

Unique Melody MEST MK2 Impressions

Brilliant, late again to hearing the latest MEST release by about six months. But maybe it's not a big deal because I would say these two IEMs sound pretty similar. The MEST MK2 is just a slightly warmer, thicker interpretation of the original MEST’s sound.

Spoiler: FR Graph

I never liked the bass on the MEST, and the MEST MK2 doesn’t do much to fix that. It sounds warmer to be sure; however, it carries over all of the middling intangibles of the original MEST’s bass. Some might recall that in my review of the MEST, I said it was “lacking in transient density - that characteristic richness - which I would attribute to the best bass responses (...) these limitations are most evident on deep, heavy drops”. I stand by this and more following the agreement of trusted ears. The swing of the MEST MK2’s bass is not bad; it sounds fairly fluid for scaling gradations in bass volume. But it just doesn’t slam as hard as it should. I hear more intensity and depth on Everglow’s “Dun Dun” with the 64A U12t’s BA bass. I don't even have to bring the Violet into this. And that’s ignoring the tactility of the bass itself which, quite frankly, gives me the impression that I’m chewing cheap bubble gum. Give me a break.

The midrange of the MEST MK2 is thicker and more subdued than its predecessor; this comes with middling results. The oh-so-sharp transient attack that the MEST exhibits has been blunted some. The good part about this is that it matches the bass response more closely; coherency has seen an improvement here. I also feel that the MEST’s clean decay has been eschewed for more grit, which may lend to a more natural presentation for some listeners (the MEST’s midrange sounds fairly artificial if not quite resolving). But on the other hand, for obvious reasons, resolution is simply not as good on the MEST MK2. I’d say I’m pretty agnostic on this change overall, and it really just depends on what I'm listening to.

A similar trend follows in the treble region. The graph doesn't really reflect it, but the 6kHz peak of the MEST has been lowered and so percussive hits come across as less defined if not a tad thicker, heavier on the MEST MK2. This does fix some of the tinny, artificial timbre issues that the original had. Other than that, extension is about equidistant between the MESTs, and I find both to sound a tad compressed, but pretty alright. I think I like this change, and again, it presents the notion of a more coherent sound signature.

Technicalities on the MEST MK2 are good, but they do not match the original for that “wow” factor. This is especially apparent in the imaging department. On first listen, I found the MEST MK2 to have fairly good positioning of instruments; however, the sense of space between them - separation - sounded more congested than from my memory of the MEST. Further A/B-ing between the two IEMs quickly confirmed this; the MEST has a more diffused, holographic presentation. Again, to my ears at least, there’s a pretty clear difference between the two IEM’s ability to articulate the midrange and treble frequencies; the MEST comes away with the edge (metaphorically and sonically).

If it’s not already apparent, the MEST MK2 isn’t really an upgrade to my ears. It’s more closely a side-grade, and perhaps not for the better in some respects. Listeners who desire a smoother, more relaxed listen should go for this, while listeners who want more of that special sauce would be better suited with the original MEST. As far as my preferences go, though, the MEST MK2 puts me in the tricky spot of “I prefer the tonality of this more, but the technicalities clearly aren’t as good, so I don’t love this as much as I should”. It'll take the elusive 7/10 for now, but know that it's on thin ice like the original.

Score: 7/10

Note: The bone conduction driver in the MEST MK2 has been improved to token the entire frequency range, but I honestly can't say I hear it doing anything here either.

 

[gazzington]

Unique Melody MEST MK2 Impressions

Brilliant, late again to hearing the latest MEST release by about six months. But maybe it's not a big deal because I would say these two IEMs sound pretty similar. The MEST MK2 is just a slightly warmer, thicker interpretation of the original MEST’s sound.

Spoiler: FR Graph

I never liked the bass on the MEST, and the MEST MK2 doesn’t do much to fix that. It sounds warmer to be sure; however, it carries over all of the middling intangibles of the original MEST’s bass. Some might recall that in my review of the MEST, I said it was “lacking in transient density - that characteristic richness - which I would attribute to the best bass responses (...) these limitations are most evident on deep, heavy drops”. I stand by this and more following the agreement of trusted ears. The swing of the MEST MK2’s bass is not bad; it sounds fairly fluid for scaling gradations in bass volume. But it just doesn’t slam as hard as it should. I hear more intensity and depth on Everglow’s “Dun Dun” with the 64A U12t’s BA bass. I don't even have to bring the Violet into this. And that’s ignoring the tactility of the bass itself which, quite frankly, gives me the impression that I’m chewing cheap bubble gum. Give me a break.

The midrange of the MEST MK2 is thicker and more subdued than its predecessor; this comes with middling results. The oh-so-sharp transient attack that the MEST exhibits has been blunted some. The good part about this is that it matches the bass response more closely; coherency has seen an improvement here. I also feel that the MEST’s clean decay has been eschewed for more grit, which may lend to a more natural presentation for some listeners (the MEST’s midrange sounds fairly artificial if not quite resolving). But on the other hand, for obvious reasons, resolution is simply not as good on the MEST MK2. I’d say I’m pretty agnostic on this change overall, and it really just depends on what I'm listening to.

A similar trend follows in the treble region. The graph doesn't really reflect it, but the 6kHz peak of the MEST has been lowered and so percussive hits come across as less defined if not a tad thicker, heavier on the MEST MK2. This does fix some of the tinny, artificial timbre issues that the original had. Other than that, extension is about equidistant between the MESTs, and I find both to sound a tad compressed, but pretty alright. I think I like this change, and again, it presents the notion of a more coherent sound signature.

Technicalities on the MEST MK2 are good, but they do not match the original for that “wow” factor. This is especially apparent in the imaging department. On first listen, I found the MEST MK2 to have fairly good positioning of instruments; however, the sense of space between them - separation - sounded more congested than from my memory of the MEST. Further A/B-ing between the two IEMs quickly confirmed this; the MEST has a more diffused, holographic presentation. Again, to my ears at least, there’s a pretty clear difference between the two IEM’s ability to articulate the midrange and treble frequencies; the MEST comes away with the edge (metaphorically and sonically).

If it’s not already apparent, the MEST MK2 isn’t really an upgrade to my ears. It’s more closely a side-grade, and perhaps not for the better in some respects. Listeners who desire a smoother, more relaxed listen should go for this, while listeners who want more of that special sauce would be better suited with the original MEST. As far as my preferences go, though, the MEST MK2 puts me in the tricky spot of “I prefer the tonality of this more, but the technicalities clearly aren’t as good, so I don’t love this as much as I should”. It'll take the elusive 7/10 for now, but know that it's on thin ice like the original.

Score: 7/10

Note: The bone conduction driver in the MEST MK2 has been improved to token the entire frequency range, but I honestly can't say I hear it doing anything here either.

Finally someone agrees with me that the mk2 is not better than the mk1. I own the mk1 but while I enjoy it I do believe it’s a bit over hyped.

 

[firesign]

Finally someone agrees with me that the mk2 is not better than the mk1. I own the mk1 but while I enjoy it I do believe it’s a bit over hyped.

There are more of us who think that Mest 2 is no better than Mest 1.

But in the rest I do not agree with you. For me the Mest is the best IEM I have tried, and I have tried many other good ones, such as the U12t, Z1R, Solaris, KSE 1200 ...

 

[phaeton70]

Speaking of 3DT, anyone know a place you can buy the obscure 2DT "Terminator" that also ships int'l? Crin has that set in B+ tier which is a super good tier spot for a sub $200 IEM.

if you are based in EU, you can try Audeos.pl

 

[gazzington]

There are more of us who think that Mest 2 is no better than Mest 1.

But in the rest I do not agree with you. For me the Mest is the best IEM I have tried, and I have tried many other good ones, such as the U12t, Z1R, Solaris, KSE 1200 ...

We all have different opinions

 

[HiFiHawaii808]

Finally someone agrees with me that the mk2 is not better than the mk1. I own the mk1 but while I enjoy it I do believe it’s a bit over hyped.

I agree with @precog, the bass on the MEST OG is very weak. I also don't like it's timbre. To me, the MEST is for sound stage and imaging. When I pair it with higher end sources like a Chord Hugo TT2, the timbre issue goes away.

 

[firesign]

We all have different opinions

Of course, that's what it's about.

I agree with @precog, the bass on the MEST OG is very weak. I also don't like it's timbre. To me, the MEST is for sound stage and imaging. When I pair it with higher end sources like a Chord Hugo TT2, the timbre issue goes away.

Here is another example. For me, the bass of the Mest is the best, in quality, that I have tried so far.

 

[Precogvision]

Legend X SE #14 is here courtesy of a generous reader. Probably won't get around to impressions today, but it's definitely an IEM that's worth talking about.

 

[Darkestred]

Unique Melody MEST MK2 Impressions

Brilliant, late again to hearing the latest MEST release by about six months. But maybe it's not a big deal because I would say these two IEMs sound pretty similar. The MEST MK2 is just a slightly warmer, thicker interpretation of the original MEST’s sound.

Spoiler: FR Graph

I never liked the bass on the MEST, and the MEST MK2 doesn’t do much to fix that. It sounds warmer to be sure; however, it carries over all of the middling intangibles of the original MEST’s bass. Some might recall that in my review of the MEST, I said it was “lacking in transient density - that characteristic richness - which I would attribute to the best bass responses (...) these limitations are most evident on deep, heavy drops”. I stand by this and more following the agreement of trusted ears. The swing of the MEST MK2’s bass is not bad; it sounds fairly fluid for scaling gradations in bass volume. But it just doesn’t slam as hard as it should. I hear more intensity and depth on Everglow’s “Dun Dun” with the 64A U12t’s BA bass. I don't even have to bring the Violet into this. And that’s ignoring the tactility of the bass itself which, quite frankly, gives me the impression that I’m chewing cheap bubble gum. Give me a break.

The midrange of the MEST MK2 is thicker and more subdued than its predecessor; this comes with middling results. The oh-so-sharp transient attack that the MEST exhibits has been blunted some. The good part about this is that it matches the bass response more closely; coherency has seen an improvement here. I also feel that the MEST’s clean decay has been eschewed for more grit, which may lend to a more natural presentation for some listeners (the MEST’s midrange sounds fairly artificial if not quite resolving). But on the other hand, for obvious reasons, resolution is simply not as good on the MEST MK2. I’d say I’m pretty agnostic on this change overall, and it really just depends on what I'm listening to.

A similar trend follows in the treble region. The graph doesn't really reflect it, but the 6kHz peak of the MEST has been lowered and so percussive hits come across as less defined if not a tad thicker, heavier on the MEST MK2. This does fix some of the tinny, artificial timbre issues that the original had. Other than that, extension is about equidistant between the MESTs, and I find both to sound a tad compressed, but pretty alright. I think I like this change, and again, it presents the notion of a more coherent sound signature.

Technicalities on the MEST MK2 are good, but they do not match the original for that “wow” factor. This is especially apparent in the imaging department. On first listen, I found the MEST MK2 to have fairly good positioning of instruments; however, the sense of space between them - separation - sounded more congested than from my memory of the MEST. Further A/B-ing between the two IEMs quickly confirmed this; the MEST has a more diffused, holographic presentation. Again, to my ears at least, there’s a pretty clear difference between the two IEM’s ability to articulate the midrange and treble frequencies; the MEST comes away with the edge (metaphorically and sonically).

If it’s not already apparent, the MEST MK2 isn’t really an upgrade to my ears. It’s more closely a side-grade, and perhaps not for the better in some respects. Listeners who desire a smoother, more relaxed listen should go for this, while listeners who want more of that special sauce would be better suited with the original MEST. As far as my preferences go, though, the MEST MK2 puts me in the tricky spot of “I prefer the tonality of this more, but the technicalities clearly aren’t as good, so I don’t love this as much as I should”. It'll take the elusive 7/10 for now, but know that it's on thin ice like the original.

Score: 7/10

Note: The bone conduction driver in the MEST MK2 has been improved to token the entire frequency range, but I honestly can't say I hear it doing anything here either.

Recently acquired OG MEST and I too noticed midrange sounded odd. Compressed is a good description.

Also agree on bass. It's there but that's about it.

With that being said I really enjoy them though.

 

[phaeton70]

Me too had mixed feelings about MEST MKII.... until I changed the cable. It is very odd to think that a 560$ cable specifically chosen by UM is not perfectly fitting the IEM, but it's what I'm hearing. I still have to decide which cable in my inventory is best for the MEST MKII, but now I'm hearing better bass and above all much better mids with a very cheap 50$ cable, even if unfortunately with less refined highs.

 

[firesign]

Legend X SE #14 is here courtesy of a generous reader. Probably won't get around to impressions today, but it's definitely an IEM that's worth talking about.

That beauty!
If they didn't cost as much as they cost ...