SONY IER-Z1R
- Thread starter leylandi
- Start date
Redcarmoose
Headphoneus Supremus
Last edited:
Is AccessoryJack an official or trusted seller?
BananaOoyoo
1000+ Head-Fier
They're an official Hong Kong seller. It means that yes, their products are genuine, but you most likely will not be able to get warranty service in the US.
You'll instead have to ship the IEMs back to Hong Kong (keep all original packaging, receipts, etc.), where they will deal with the repairs locally and send them back to you.
No satisfaction based returns either. Hmmm, but saves you $250 which also makes it at the same price as reselling. They basically encourage you to do your "research" here. 
Woo Audio claims they'll get more units very soon, I wonder when this place will be stocked too.
Woo Audio claims they'll get more units very soon, I wonder when this place will be stocked too.
Used to be a big fan of Sony Triple Comfort Tips with the Z5, but the IER-Z1R simply gets a better air-tight-fit with the new Sony Silicone Tips. Somehow the fit results in a more cohesive and broad-spectrum response. At first I used old black two color Sony Hybrid Tips, though I came to realize the Hybrid models seemed to lessen the midrange and treble slighly. I still view the black rubber Sony Hybrids as the tips which make the IER-Z1R have more bass emphasis. Even though the Silicone Tips are called Hybrid Silicone, they are very different from the original black Sony Hybrid Tips.
I don't use Sony stock eartips. I am using eartip AET07 from Acoustune on my Z1R. It is pretty good
Redcarmoose
Headphoneus Supremus
It’s what ever works. As everyone has a different shape of ear.
Simon T
100+ Head-Fier
- Joined
- Oct 15, 2013
- Posts
- 193
- Likes
- 136
Source DAP pairing comparison with the Sone IER-Z1R
When I received the IER-Z1R I commented that I was impressed but yet to be really Amazed… Now, the more I am spending time with them, the more I have been curious to find out how much more I can discover. At such, lately I have been spending most of my listening time with them (coming back to the KSE1200 for quick reference check); and, would like share some subjective impressions, based on personal preference and experience, on how their pair with the DAP source equipment below.
Summary Conclusion:
The IER-Z1R scale well and perceivably sounding slightly different while maintaining its core sound characteristics with all DAPs analysed below, except for the Sony NW-ZX1, on the other hand the surprise of the exercise was the Acoustic Research AR-M2 pairing. Although, the tuning of the IER-Z1R is slightly U shaped and has a slightly warmer/natural tonality; depending on the DAP used to drive them, the perception of the soundstage dimension & imaging, tonality, detail retrieval, intimacy differences are noticeable (analytical listening only). At the end, it all comes down to preferences while I am not able to comment on DAPs I do not own nor have never listened to. The pairing of the IER-Z1R with the Cayin N8 or the Sony NW-WM1Z in my humble opinion are hard to beat (without taking EQ into consideration) in terms of distinct multiple sound presentations from a single DAP.
Let us commence the journey … should we?
First thing first below is the list of DAPs used for this comparison and the daunting task to volume match the equipment based on same “Pink Noise” track played from each DAP, through the IER-Z1R, to my mobile phone microphone using Sound Meter App to reach 60dB. Below are the results except for the AR-M2. List of DAPs by released year, in addition to volume matching findings:
- Astell & Kern AK100 – 2013 / 3.5mm – vol. 47.5
- Sony NW-ZX1 – 2014 / 3.5mm – vol. between “m” and “e” of “games” word in the volume slider
- Acoustic Research AR-M2 – 2015 / 3.5mm – tasks needs to be re-performed every time due weird volume wheel without any other visual indication
- Astell & Kern AK70 – 2016 / 3.5mm – vol. 83
- Sony NW-WM1Z – 2016 / 3.5mm and 4.4mm – vol. 73
- Onkyo Granbeat DP-CMX1 – 2017 / 3.5mm – vol. 32
- Cayin N8 – 2018 / 3.5mm – vol. 44 (on low gain) and 4.4mm – vol. 39 (on low gain)
I have used the following 3 tracks for this exercise, all in FLAC files (since not all of the above mentioned play native DSD), and the tracks (Album, Track / Artist) are:
- Hotel California, Hotel California / Eagles
- Time Out, Take Five / The Dave Brubeck Quartet
- Random Access Memories, Giorgio by Moroder / Daft Punk
Ranking from worst to best sounding DAP source pairing with the IER-Z1R:
7. Sony NW-ZX1 + IER-Z1R
I mentioned in one of my previous post in this thread that this pairing was the weirdest I have encountered, without the “ClearAudio+” setting switched on, the sound presented felt like a tunnel i.e. left and right channels non-existent and everything was weirdly presented in the center. Now, with the “ClearAudio+” switched on, it is better but not good enough.
On Hotel California, the soundstage through the IER-Z1R was pretty good in terms of width and height, but unfortunately, the imaging was awful; Don Henley voice was perceived at my forehead height and the bass notes were elevated into the mids. The worst thing was the bass sounded uncontrolled i.e bloated and boomy.
On Take Five, much better rendering since there is not much lows going on throughout the track, instruments sounded clear and well positioned on the left and right channels; the issue was again the perception of the saxophone sounding at my forehead height.
On Giorgio by Moroder, was probably the worst rendering, since the track gets demanding with all the electronic notes, it felt claustrophobic, all notes were jumbled up and smeared in the center. But at least, on this track Giorgio voice at the beginning of the track was positioned correctly i.e. center front.
6. Astell & Kern AK100 + IER-Z1R
The AK100 first hi-res DAP from Astell & Kern that made the Company become one of the market leaders in high-end DAP (time passes too fast), yet still sounding pretty decent though. The IER-Z1R sounds warm from the darker background, the width and depth of the soundstage is decent but lacks in height.
On Hotel California, due to the soundstage characteristics details and instruments separation on bass and mids are nicely presented but lacks the attack of the treble notes and instruments. Because of the warmer tonality of this pairing, Don Henley’s vocals were intimate and correctly placed.
On Take Five, good pairing and same analysis as above, details and instrument separation from drum, piano, double bass and saxophone felt right. Because of the warmer tonality this pairing does fine with Jazz genre.
On Giorgio by Moroder, this pairing is not satisfactory enough, when the track gets busy, it felt congested and the mid-bass bleeds into the mids making the experience less than optimal (less claustrophobic than the ZX1 though).
5. Astell & Kern AK70 + IER-Z1R
Good DAP in a small package, I use it mainly with the KSE1200 for portability reasons. Nonetheless, the IER-Z1R sounded a tiny bit less warmer compared to the AK100, the soundstage width is similar to the AK100 but the height and depth is noticeably increased.
On Hotel California, because of the tonality and soundstage characteristics, treble attack is noticeably more prominent, bass is meatier, and the vocals are slightly more recessed.
On Take Five, better experience compared to the AK100 thanks to the improved instrument separation, while saxophone sounded slightly more recessed thanks to the increased depth in the stage.
On Giorgio by Moroder, this pairing is definitely better than on the AK100, when the track gets busy from the 5:50 towards the end of the track, the AK70 handled it nicely and electronic notes imaging sounding 3D”ish”.
4. Onkyo Granbeat DP-CMX1 + IER-Z1R
The DP-CMX1 is a DAP first and smartphone second. I do not use it to make calls, but it is the main source equipment used to audition albums through Tidal. The IER-Z1R sounds more neutral with this pairing, the sound stage is slightly smaller from width perspective compared to the AK70, but it makes up in slightly increased height.
On Hotel California, because of the neutral tonality, sound is perceived to be more airy, there is no emphasis on either bass nor treble, although Don Henley’s voice was as tiny bit recessed like in the AK70.
On Take Five, the decreased soundstage width meant that the drum, double bass and piano on the left and right channels made the track more intimate, and the saxophone sounded effortless and filled with more air.
On Giorgio by Moroder, the experience was decent, when the track gets busy, it felt slightly more congested compared to the AK70, but bearable.
3. Acoustic Research AR-M2
The AR-M2 to me is one of the most underrated DAPs, I remember auditioning few years ago against AK380, I was sold because it was a “value for money” DAP, it sounded more full bodied, it was probably the most powerful DAP that could drive high-impedance headphones and could download Tidal offline content. However, later realized that listening to Tidal, music did not go through the Burr-Brown PCM1794 DAC chip. It has actually few imminent flaws, such as, unlockable volume knob, it is noisy with sensitive IEMs and etc.; however, the sound it produces out weights all the flaws I can think of.
Back to the IER Z1R, this pairing was the one that shocked me the most in a good way/non-expected way, the sound is full bodied and lush in a more neutral tonality with expanded height and depth for the sound stage. Great resolution on treble and bass notes, and vocals sounded more intimate and placed correctly.
On Hotel California, nothing really stands out, it just sounds great. Great instruments placing and realistic timbre, emotional vocals. There are 3 “hidden sounds” on this track for me to measure detail retrieval throughout the track (hidden sound meaning that they are masked behind more prominent sounds in the track). First, the guitar that start-off the track, slowly fades away when Don Henley starts his singing and drums playing, with the repeating tune for most of the track but still noticeable. This pairing enabled me to easily identify the distinct tune, which is not always as clear with other DAPs. Second, bassist repeating tune again in lower center throughout the track, with the IER-Z1R those notes go deep giving a nice extension. The third, it is after the track is taken over by the instruments, from 5:39 to 6:03 the bassist plays a tune and the notes are hidden in between the electric guitar, with the AR-M2 this tune sounds reverberant and gives you the seismic feeling.
On Take Five, again nothing stands out, just sounds right for a more neutral tonality coming from the IER-Z1R. Realistic timbre of instruments notes, airy presentation where the cymbals notes extends effortlessly and could feel the saxophonist breathing.
On Giorgio by Moroder, finally we get a deserved 3D imaging for the IER-Z1R, this pairing does well with the busy track, everything can be heard without feeling claustrophobic. Although a lot of things are going on in the mids from 5:50 of the track, the treble and bass notes do not bleed into the mids and left and right channels notes are separated from the center.
Before we move onto the Stars of this exercise. Taking the opportunity to thank you for reading so far.
This section is going to be a direct IER-Z1R pairing sound comparison between the Sony NW-WM1Z (firmware 3.1) and Cayin N8 (firmware 2.2), 4.4mm balanced solid state output vs 3.5 single ended solid state output vs 3.5 Korg Nutube; and it is not indicative of how they sound with all earphones and headphones.
Here we have 2 DAPs with noticeably multiple sound signature and presentation, personally I think the WM1Z has 2 while the N8 has 2.5, the 0.5 given to the Korg Nutube tuning because it is just a minimal tweak of the 3.5 single ended solid state output which in itself sounds already amazing (more to that shortly). I was expecting a more “tubey”/sweeter/warmer presentation on the Korg Nutube, but the direction Cayin took was to maintain the same level of accuracy, analyticality, balance and spaciousness by adding a minimal sprinkle of warmth, and I respect that decision.
General stage dimensions, tonality and sound signature pairing comparison with the IER-Z1R:
WM1Z (4.4) – Height of sound stage fall slightly short to all other variations below except for N8 (tube), width come short to the N8 (3.5 and tube) only, and depth on this track is about the same with the N8 (3.5), which is deeper than the WM1Z (3.5) and N8 (4.4 and tube). Tonality is warm-laidback, mids are slightly recessed, treble is gentle and bass is tight.
N8 (4.4) – Width of the soundstage falls short to the WM1Z (4.4) and N8 (3.5 and tube), height is perceived to be tallest with WM1Z (3.5), depth fall slightly short to the WM1Z (4.4) and N8 (3.5 and tube). Tonality is neutral-transparent, mids are dynamic, treble is airy and bass is weighty.
WM1Z (3.5) – Height of sound stage is the tallest to all other variations with the N8 (4.4), width come slightly short to all other variations, and depth on this track seems about the same with the N8 (4.4), however, falling short against the N8 (3.5 and tube). Tonality is neutral-natural, mids are intimate, treble is smooth and bass is tight.
N8 (3.5) – Width is the longest with the N8 (tube), height fall short to all variations except for N8 (tube), and depth is about the same as WM1Z (4.4) and a tiny but deeper than the N8 (tube). Tonality and sound signature are similar to the N8 (4.4), however, because the sound stage characteristic the music is presented slightly more distant (concert hall).
N8 (Tube) – The only differences to the N8 (3.5) are perceived tiny bit shorter in sound stage height, as a result of minimal sprinkle of warmth added in the sound signature. Making the bass sounding tiny bit more reverberant, treble is smooth but instead of extending upward it extends sideways (pretty sweet J and “tubey” like), and the mids are dynamic but sounding tiny bit more forward compared to the N8 (3.5).
Verdict on Hotel California:
In terms of detail retrieval based on the 3 hidden sounds (mentioned in AR-M2 write up above), the WM1Z (3.5) will probably be my choice, even if it does not sound as transparent as the N8 (4.4), because the layering of the Y axis (Height), instruments placement are better separated. Hence, the 1st and 2nd hidden sounds are more identifiable; as for the 3rd hidden sound due to slightly better mids dynamics on the N8 (4.4) becomes more audible on the N8. However, in terms of listening experience point of view, I prefer the N8 (3.5), because of the better instrument separation through the X axis (width) and perceived deeper Z axis due to slightly recessed mids making it a “concert hall” like experience.
Verdict on Take Five:
Since it is a simple track (4 instruments playing a slow Jazz tune), sound stage dimensions does not play much of a role compared to the tonality and instrument positioning. After all, Jazz is about sultry, relaxing and romantic tune.
In most rendition of this track, due to its frequency response the saxophone sound does not come from center point of the sound stage (usually slightly higher than center point), and here comes the magic trick from the N8 (tube), as suddenly we have all instruments perceivably to be more aligned. The drums from the left, the saxophone in the center and the piano to the right, hence in listening experience term N8 (tube) is enlightening. On the other hand, the WM1Z (4.4) slightly warmer and analog like tonality characteristic marries Jazz music even better, also, the cymbal sounds really sweet and nicely extended on the NW1Z. Last but not least, both the N8 (tube) takes my breath away, “literally” when I am listening analytically to the saxophonist breathing through the instrument, subconsciously the timing of my breathing tries to match the saxophonist breathing.
Verdict on Giorgio by Moroder:
There is a lot going on in the track from 5:50, therefore, dynamics and soundstage dimension place the biggest role in making the music alive and perceiving that 3D imaging sense, more so than the tonality.
Verdict: Frankly speaking, all the variations have more than sufficient dynamics and stage dimension to perceive the 3D imaging sense without sounding congested. Nonetheless, the two ends of the spectrum will be the NW1Z (4.4) and N8 (3.5), on the former although the stage width and height might fall slightly short compared to the N8 (3.5) the warm and laidback tonality makes it a more relaxing experience. On the latter, the slightly perceived shorter stage height is more than compensated from the stage width and due to a more neutral tonality the it sounds a little bit snappier.
Final thoughts:
This journey is coming to an end, it was a fun journey indeed… discovered what and how the IER-Z1R can deliver from source pairing, in fact, I am pretty amazed by how well the IER-Z1R scales up.
Overall, the IER-Z1R sounds good with most of the source equipment tested, except for the Sony NW-ZX1, it sounds great on DAPs which can showcase the IER-Z1R soundstage spaciousness capabilities, and it sounds even better when it is able to convey the DAP technical capabilities such as high resolution, details retrieval and dynamics.
At such, I was pleasantly surprised on how well the AR-M2 was driving the IER Z1R (please refer analysis above); considering that, in general, personal audio equipment cycle of introducing something new and better to the market might be unrivalled among other consumer industries for the past few years.
As for whether the IER-Z1R pairs better with the NW1Z or N8 from the comparison exercise performed. From sound fidelity point of view, without taking in consideration all other aspects that define DAPs, in my humble opinion it comes down to preference only, both brings different interpretation of sound presentation.
My personal opinion is that, the NW1Z might be better value for money in terms of having bigger margin of sound signature difference between 4.4 and 3.5 outputs. On the other hand, the N8 offers a bigger margin of stage dimension difference between the 3.5 and 4.4 outputs, while adding that sprinkle of warmth with the 3.5 (tube).
In the end, the IER-Z1R was able to handle this exercise admirably thanks to its technical prowess, making me rediscover one of the fun part in this hobby, which pushed me to perform the task and share these subjective findings to the community.
Cheers
Simon T.
When I received the IER-Z1R I commented that I was impressed but yet to be really Amazed… Now, the more I am spending time with them, the more I have been curious to find out how much more I can discover. At such, lately I have been spending most of my listening time with them (coming back to the KSE1200 for quick reference check); and, would like share some subjective impressions, based on personal preference and experience, on how their pair with the DAP source equipment below.
Summary Conclusion:
The IER-Z1R scale well and perceivably sounding slightly different while maintaining its core sound characteristics with all DAPs analysed below, except for the Sony NW-ZX1, on the other hand the surprise of the exercise was the Acoustic Research AR-M2 pairing. Although, the tuning of the IER-Z1R is slightly U shaped and has a slightly warmer/natural tonality; depending on the DAP used to drive them, the perception of the soundstage dimension & imaging, tonality, detail retrieval, intimacy differences are noticeable (analytical listening only). At the end, it all comes down to preferences while I am not able to comment on DAPs I do not own nor have never listened to. The pairing of the IER-Z1R with the Cayin N8 or the Sony NW-WM1Z in my humble opinion are hard to beat (without taking EQ into consideration) in terms of distinct multiple sound presentations from a single DAP.
Let us commence the journey … should we?
First thing first below is the list of DAPs used for this comparison and the daunting task to volume match the equipment based on same “Pink Noise” track played from each DAP, through the IER-Z1R, to my mobile phone microphone using Sound Meter App to reach 60dB. Below are the results except for the AR-M2. List of DAPs by released year, in addition to volume matching findings:
- Astell & Kern AK100 – 2013 / 3.5mm – vol. 47.5
- Sony NW-ZX1 – 2014 / 3.5mm – vol. between “m” and “e” of “games” word in the volume slider
- Acoustic Research AR-M2 – 2015 / 3.5mm – tasks needs to be re-performed every time due weird volume wheel without any other visual indication
- Astell & Kern AK70 – 2016 / 3.5mm – vol. 83
- Sony NW-WM1Z – 2016 / 3.5mm and 4.4mm – vol. 73
- Onkyo Granbeat DP-CMX1 – 2017 / 3.5mm – vol. 32
- Cayin N8 – 2018 / 3.5mm – vol. 44 (on low gain) and 4.4mm – vol. 39 (on low gain)
I have used the following 3 tracks for this exercise, all in FLAC files (since not all of the above mentioned play native DSD), and the tracks (Album, Track / Artist) are:
- Hotel California, Hotel California / Eagles
- Time Out, Take Five / The Dave Brubeck Quartet
- Random Access Memories, Giorgio by Moroder / Daft Punk
Ranking from worst to best sounding DAP source pairing with the IER-Z1R:
7. Sony NW-ZX1 + IER-Z1R
I mentioned in one of my previous post in this thread that this pairing was the weirdest I have encountered, without the “ClearAudio+” setting switched on, the sound presented felt like a tunnel i.e. left and right channels non-existent and everything was weirdly presented in the center. Now, with the “ClearAudio+” switched on, it is better but not good enough.
On Hotel California, the soundstage through the IER-Z1R was pretty good in terms of width and height, but unfortunately, the imaging was awful; Don Henley voice was perceived at my forehead height and the bass notes were elevated into the mids. The worst thing was the bass sounded uncontrolled i.e bloated and boomy.
On Take Five, much better rendering since there is not much lows going on throughout the track, instruments sounded clear and well positioned on the left and right channels; the issue was again the perception of the saxophone sounding at my forehead height.
On Giorgio by Moroder, was probably the worst rendering, since the track gets demanding with all the electronic notes, it felt claustrophobic, all notes were jumbled up and smeared in the center. But at least, on this track Giorgio voice at the beginning of the track was positioned correctly i.e. center front.
6. Astell & Kern AK100 + IER-Z1R
The AK100 first hi-res DAP from Astell & Kern that made the Company become one of the market leaders in high-end DAP (time passes too fast), yet still sounding pretty decent though. The IER-Z1R sounds warm from the darker background, the width and depth of the soundstage is decent but lacks in height.
On Hotel California, due to the soundstage characteristics details and instruments separation on bass and mids are nicely presented but lacks the attack of the treble notes and instruments. Because of the warmer tonality of this pairing, Don Henley’s vocals were intimate and correctly placed.
On Take Five, good pairing and same analysis as above, details and instrument separation from drum, piano, double bass and saxophone felt right. Because of the warmer tonality this pairing does fine with Jazz genre.
On Giorgio by Moroder, this pairing is not satisfactory enough, when the track gets busy, it felt congested and the mid-bass bleeds into the mids making the experience less than optimal (less claustrophobic than the ZX1 though).
5. Astell & Kern AK70 + IER-Z1R
Good DAP in a small package, I use it mainly with the KSE1200 for portability reasons. Nonetheless, the IER-Z1R sounded a tiny bit less warmer compared to the AK100, the soundstage width is similar to the AK100 but the height and depth is noticeably increased.
On Hotel California, because of the tonality and soundstage characteristics, treble attack is noticeably more prominent, bass is meatier, and the vocals are slightly more recessed.
On Take Five, better experience compared to the AK100 thanks to the improved instrument separation, while saxophone sounded slightly more recessed thanks to the increased depth in the stage.
On Giorgio by Moroder, this pairing is definitely better than on the AK100, when the track gets busy from the 5:50 towards the end of the track, the AK70 handled it nicely and electronic notes imaging sounding 3D”ish”.
4. Onkyo Granbeat DP-CMX1 + IER-Z1R
The DP-CMX1 is a DAP first and smartphone second. I do not use it to make calls, but it is the main source equipment used to audition albums through Tidal. The IER-Z1R sounds more neutral with this pairing, the sound stage is slightly smaller from width perspective compared to the AK70, but it makes up in slightly increased height.
On Hotel California, because of the neutral tonality, sound is perceived to be more airy, there is no emphasis on either bass nor treble, although Don Henley’s voice was as tiny bit recessed like in the AK70.
On Take Five, the decreased soundstage width meant that the drum, double bass and piano on the left and right channels made the track more intimate, and the saxophone sounded effortless and filled with more air.
On Giorgio by Moroder, the experience was decent, when the track gets busy, it felt slightly more congested compared to the AK70, but bearable.
3. Acoustic Research AR-M2
The AR-M2 to me is one of the most underrated DAPs, I remember auditioning few years ago against AK380, I was sold because it was a “value for money” DAP, it sounded more full bodied, it was probably the most powerful DAP that could drive high-impedance headphones and could download Tidal offline content. However, later realized that listening to Tidal, music did not go through the Burr-Brown PCM1794 DAC chip. It has actually few imminent flaws, such as, unlockable volume knob, it is noisy with sensitive IEMs and etc.; however, the sound it produces out weights all the flaws I can think of.
Back to the IER Z1R, this pairing was the one that shocked me the most in a good way/non-expected way, the sound is full bodied and lush in a more neutral tonality with expanded height and depth for the sound stage. Great resolution on treble and bass notes, and vocals sounded more intimate and placed correctly.
On Hotel California, nothing really stands out, it just sounds great. Great instruments placing and realistic timbre, emotional vocals. There are 3 “hidden sounds” on this track for me to measure detail retrieval throughout the track (hidden sound meaning that they are masked behind more prominent sounds in the track). First, the guitar that start-off the track, slowly fades away when Don Henley starts his singing and drums playing, with the repeating tune for most of the track but still noticeable. This pairing enabled me to easily identify the distinct tune, which is not always as clear with other DAPs. Second, bassist repeating tune again in lower center throughout the track, with the IER-Z1R those notes go deep giving a nice extension. The third, it is after the track is taken over by the instruments, from 5:39 to 6:03 the bassist plays a tune and the notes are hidden in between the electric guitar, with the AR-M2 this tune sounds reverberant and gives you the seismic feeling.
On Take Five, again nothing stands out, just sounds right for a more neutral tonality coming from the IER-Z1R. Realistic timbre of instruments notes, airy presentation where the cymbals notes extends effortlessly and could feel the saxophonist breathing.
On Giorgio by Moroder, finally we get a deserved 3D imaging for the IER-Z1R, this pairing does well with the busy track, everything can be heard without feeling claustrophobic. Although a lot of things are going on in the mids from 5:50 of the track, the treble and bass notes do not bleed into the mids and left and right channels notes are separated from the center.
Before we move onto the Stars of this exercise. Taking the opportunity to thank you for reading so far.
This section is going to be a direct IER-Z1R pairing sound comparison between the Sony NW-WM1Z (firmware 3.1) and Cayin N8 (firmware 2.2), 4.4mm balanced solid state output vs 3.5 single ended solid state output vs 3.5 Korg Nutube; and it is not indicative of how they sound with all earphones and headphones.
Here we have 2 DAPs with noticeably multiple sound signature and presentation, personally I think the WM1Z has 2 while the N8 has 2.5, the 0.5 given to the Korg Nutube tuning because it is just a minimal tweak of the 3.5 single ended solid state output which in itself sounds already amazing (more to that shortly). I was expecting a more “tubey”/sweeter/warmer presentation on the Korg Nutube, but the direction Cayin took was to maintain the same level of accuracy, analyticality, balance and spaciousness by adding a minimal sprinkle of warmth, and I respect that decision.
General stage dimensions, tonality and sound signature pairing comparison with the IER-Z1R:
WM1Z (4.4) – Height of sound stage fall slightly short to all other variations below except for N8 (tube), width come short to the N8 (3.5 and tube) only, and depth on this track is about the same with the N8 (3.5), which is deeper than the WM1Z (3.5) and N8 (4.4 and tube). Tonality is warm-laidback, mids are slightly recessed, treble is gentle and bass is tight.
N8 (4.4) – Width of the soundstage falls short to the WM1Z (4.4) and N8 (3.5 and tube), height is perceived to be tallest with WM1Z (3.5), depth fall slightly short to the WM1Z (4.4) and N8 (3.5 and tube). Tonality is neutral-transparent, mids are dynamic, treble is airy and bass is weighty.
WM1Z (3.5) – Height of sound stage is the tallest to all other variations with the N8 (4.4), width come slightly short to all other variations, and depth on this track seems about the same with the N8 (4.4), however, falling short against the N8 (3.5 and tube). Tonality is neutral-natural, mids are intimate, treble is smooth and bass is tight.
N8 (3.5) – Width is the longest with the N8 (tube), height fall short to all variations except for N8 (tube), and depth is about the same as WM1Z (4.4) and a tiny but deeper than the N8 (tube). Tonality and sound signature are similar to the N8 (4.4), however, because the sound stage characteristic the music is presented slightly more distant (concert hall).
N8 (Tube) – The only differences to the N8 (3.5) are perceived tiny bit shorter in sound stage height, as a result of minimal sprinkle of warmth added in the sound signature. Making the bass sounding tiny bit more reverberant, treble is smooth but instead of extending upward it extends sideways (pretty sweet J and “tubey” like), and the mids are dynamic but sounding tiny bit more forward compared to the N8 (3.5).
Verdict on Hotel California:
In terms of detail retrieval based on the 3 hidden sounds (mentioned in AR-M2 write up above), the WM1Z (3.5) will probably be my choice, even if it does not sound as transparent as the N8 (4.4), because the layering of the Y axis (Height), instruments placement are better separated. Hence, the 1st and 2nd hidden sounds are more identifiable; as for the 3rd hidden sound due to slightly better mids dynamics on the N8 (4.4) becomes more audible on the N8. However, in terms of listening experience point of view, I prefer the N8 (3.5), because of the better instrument separation through the X axis (width) and perceived deeper Z axis due to slightly recessed mids making it a “concert hall” like experience.
Verdict on Take Five:
Since it is a simple track (4 instruments playing a slow Jazz tune), sound stage dimensions does not play much of a role compared to the tonality and instrument positioning. After all, Jazz is about sultry, relaxing and romantic tune.
In most rendition of this track, due to its frequency response the saxophone sound does not come from center point of the sound stage (usually slightly higher than center point), and here comes the magic trick from the N8 (tube), as suddenly we have all instruments perceivably to be more aligned. The drums from the left, the saxophone in the center and the piano to the right, hence in listening experience term N8 (tube) is enlightening. On the other hand, the WM1Z (4.4) slightly warmer and analog like tonality characteristic marries Jazz music even better, also, the cymbal sounds really sweet and nicely extended on the NW1Z. Last but not least, both the N8 (tube) takes my breath away, “literally” when I am listening analytically to the saxophonist breathing through the instrument, subconsciously the timing of my breathing tries to match the saxophonist breathing.
Verdict on Giorgio by Moroder:
There is a lot going on in the track from 5:50, therefore, dynamics and soundstage dimension place the biggest role in making the music alive and perceiving that 3D imaging sense, more so than the tonality.
Verdict: Frankly speaking, all the variations have more than sufficient dynamics and stage dimension to perceive the 3D imaging sense without sounding congested. Nonetheless, the two ends of the spectrum will be the NW1Z (4.4) and N8 (3.5), on the former although the stage width and height might fall slightly short compared to the N8 (3.5) the warm and laidback tonality makes it a more relaxing experience. On the latter, the slightly perceived shorter stage height is more than compensated from the stage width and due to a more neutral tonality the it sounds a little bit snappier.
Final thoughts:
This journey is coming to an end, it was a fun journey indeed… discovered what and how the IER-Z1R can deliver from source pairing, in fact, I am pretty amazed by how well the IER-Z1R scales up.
Overall, the IER-Z1R sounds good with most of the source equipment tested, except for the Sony NW-ZX1, it sounds great on DAPs which can showcase the IER-Z1R soundstage spaciousness capabilities, and it sounds even better when it is able to convey the DAP technical capabilities such as high resolution, details retrieval and dynamics.
At such, I was pleasantly surprised on how well the AR-M2 was driving the IER Z1R (please refer analysis above); considering that, in general, personal audio equipment cycle of introducing something new and better to the market might be unrivalled among other consumer industries for the past few years.
As for whether the IER-Z1R pairs better with the NW1Z or N8 from the comparison exercise performed. From sound fidelity point of view, without taking in consideration all other aspects that define DAPs, in my humble opinion it comes down to preference only, both brings different interpretation of sound presentation.
My personal opinion is that, the NW1Z might be better value for money in terms of having bigger margin of sound signature difference between 4.4 and 3.5 outputs. On the other hand, the N8 offers a bigger margin of stage dimension difference between the 3.5 and 4.4 outputs, while adding that sprinkle of warmth with the 3.5 (tube).
In the end, the IER-Z1R was able to handle this exercise admirably thanks to its technical prowess, making me rediscover one of the fun part in this hobby, which pushed me to perform the task and share these subjective findings to the community.
Cheers
Simon T.
Redcarmoose
Headphoneus Supremus
Source DAP pairing comparison with the Sone IER-Z1R
When I received the IER-Z1R I commented that I was impressed but yet to be really Amazed… Now, the more I am spending time with them, the more I have been curious to find out how much more I can discover. At such, lately I have been spending most of my listening time with them (coming back to the KSE1200 for quick reference check); and, would like share some subjective impressions, based on personal preference and experience, on how their pair with the DAP source equipment below.
Summary Conclusion:
The IER-Z1R scale well and perceivably sounding slightly different while maintaining its core sound characteristics with all DAPs analysed below, except for the Sony NW-ZX1, on the other hand the surprise of the exercise was the Acoustic Research AR-M2 pairing. Although, the tuning of the IER-Z1R is slightly U shaped and has a slightly warmer/natural tonality; depending on the DAP used to drive them, the perception of the soundstage dimension & imaging, tonality, detail retrieval, intimacy differences are noticeable (analytical listening only). At the end, it all comes down to preferences while I am not able to comment on DAPs I do not own nor have never listened to. The pairing of the IER-Z1R with the Cayin N8 or the Sony NW-WM1Z in my humble opinion are hard to beat (without taking EQ into consideration) in terms of distinct multiple sound presentations from a single DAP.
Let us commence the journey … should we?
First thing first below is the list of DAPs used for this comparison and the daunting task to volume match the equipment based on same “Pink Noise” track played from each DAP, through the IER-Z1R, to my mobile phone microphone using Sound Meter App to reach 60dB. Below are the results except for the AR-M2. List of DAPs by released year, in addition to volume matching findings:
- Astell & Kern AK100 – 2013 / 3.5mm – vol. 47.5
- Sony NW-ZX1 – 2014 / 3.5mm – vol. between “m” and “e” of “games” word in the volume slider
- Acoustic Research AR-M2 – 2015 / 3.5mm – tasks needs to be re-performed every time due weird volume wheel without any other visual indication
- Astell & Kern AK70 – 2016 / 3.5mm – vol. 83
- Sony NW-WM1Z – 2016 / 3.5mm and 4.4mm – vol. 73
- Onkyo Granbeat DP-CMX1 – 2017 / 3.5mm – vol. 32
- Cayin N8 – 2018 / 3.5mm – vol. 44 (on low gain) and 4.4mm – vol. 39 (on low gain)
I have used the following 3 tracks for this exercise, all in FLAC files (since not all of the above mentioned play native DSD), and the tracks (Album, Track / Artist) are:
- Hotel California, Hotel California / Eagles
- Time Out, Take Five / The Dave Brubeck Quartet
- Random Access Memories, Giorgio by Moroder / Daft Punk
Ranking from worst to best sounding DAP source pairing with the IER-Z1R:
7. Sony NW-ZX1 + IER-Z1R
I mentioned in one of my previous post in this thread that this pairing was the weirdest I have encountered, without the “ClearAudio+” setting switched on, the sound presented felt like a tunnel i.e. left and right channels non-existent and everything was weirdly presented in the center. Now, with the “ClearAudio+” switched on, it is better but not good enough.
On Hotel California, the soundstage through the IER-Z1R was pretty good in terms of width and height, but unfortunately, the imaging was awful; Don Henley voice was perceived at my forehead height and the bass notes were elevated into the mids. The worst thing was the bass sounded uncontrolled i.e bloated and boomy.
On Take Five, much better rendering since there is not much lows going on throughout the track, instruments sounded clear and well positioned on the left and right channels; the issue was again the perception of the saxophone sounding at my forehead height.
On Giorgio by Moroder, was probably the worst rendering, since the track gets demanding with all the electronic notes, it felt claustrophobic, all notes were jumbled up and smeared in the center. But at least, on this track Giorgio voice at the beginning of the track was positioned correctly i.e. center front.
6. Astell & Kern AK100 + IER-Z1R
The AK100 first hi-res DAP from Astell & Kern that made the Company become one of the market leaders in high-end DAP (time passes too fast), yet still sounding pretty decent though. The IER-Z1R sounds warm from the darker background, the width and depth of the soundstage is decent but lacks in height.
On Hotel California, due to the soundstage characteristics details and instruments separation on bass and mids are nicely presented but lacks the attack of the treble notes and instruments. Because of the warmer tonality of this pairing, Don Henley’s vocals were intimate and correctly placed.
On Take Five, good pairing and same analysis as above, details and instrument separation from drum, piano, double bass and saxophone felt right. Because of the warmer tonality this pairing does fine with Jazz genre.
On Giorgio by Moroder, this pairing is not satisfactory enough, when the track gets busy, it felt congested and the mid-bass bleeds into the mids making the experience less than optimal (less claustrophobic than the ZX1 though).
5. Astell & Kern AK70 + IER-Z1R
Good DAP in a small package, I use it mainly with the KSE1200 for portability reasons. Nonetheless, the IER-Z1R sounded a tiny bit less warmer compared to the AK100, the soundstage width is similar to the AK100 but the height and depth is noticeably increased.
On Hotel California, because of the tonality and soundstage characteristics, treble attack is noticeably more prominent, bass is meatier, and the vocals are slightly more recessed.
On Take Five, better experience compared to the AK100 thanks to the improved instrument separation, while saxophone sounded slightly more recessed thanks to the increased depth in the stage.
On Giorgio by Moroder, this pairing is definitely better than on the AK100, when the track gets busy from the 5:50 towards the end of the track, the AK70 handled it nicely and electronic notes imaging sounding 3D”ish”.
4. Onkyo Granbeat DP-CMX1 + IER-Z1R
The DP-CMX1 is a DAP first and smartphone second. I do not use it to make calls, but it is the main source equipment used to audition albums through Tidal. The IER-Z1R sounds more neutral with this pairing, the sound stage is slightly smaller from width perspective compared to the AK70, but it makes up in slightly increased height.
On Hotel California, because of the neutral tonality, sound is perceived to be more airy, there is no emphasis on either bass nor treble, although Don Henley’s voice was as tiny bit recessed like in the AK70.
On Take Five, the decreased soundstage width meant that the drum, double bass and piano on the left and right channels made the track more intimate, and the saxophone sounded effortless and filled with more air.
On Giorgio by Moroder, the experience was decent, when the track gets busy, it felt slightly more congested compared to the AK70, but bearable.
3. Acoustic Research AR-M2
The AR-M2 to me is one of the most underrated DAPs, I remember auditioning few years ago against AK380, I was sold because it was a “value for money” DAP, it sounded more full bodied, it was probably the most powerful DAP that could drive high-impedance headphones and could download Tidal offline content. However, later realized that listening to Tidal, music did not go through the Burr-Brown PCM1794 DAC chip. It has actually few imminent flaws, such as, unlockable volume knob, it is noisy with sensitive IEMs and etc.; however, the sound it produces out weights all the flaws I can think of.
Back to the IER Z1R, this pairing was the one that shocked me the most in a good way/non-expected way, the sound is full bodied and lush in a more neutral tonality with expanded height and depth for the sound stage. Great resolution on treble and bass notes, and vocals sounded more intimate and placed correctly.
On Hotel California, nothing really stands out, it just sounds great. Great instruments placing and realistic timbre, emotional vocals. There are 3 “hidden sounds” on this track for me to measure detail retrieval throughout the track (hidden sound meaning that they are masked behind more prominent sounds in the track). First, the guitar that start-off the track, slowly fades away when Don Henley starts his singing and drums playing, with the repeating tune for most of the track but still noticeable. This pairing enabled me to easily identify the distinct tune, which is not always as clear with other DAPs. Second, bassist repeating tune again in lower center throughout the track, with the IER-Z1R those notes go deep giving a nice extension. The third, it is after the track is taken over by the instruments, from 5:39 to 6:03 the bassist plays a tune and the notes are hidden in between the electric guitar, with the AR-M2 this tune sounds reverberant and gives you the seismic feeling.
On Take Five, again nothing stands out, just sounds right for a more neutral tonality coming from the IER-Z1R. Realistic timbre of instruments notes, airy presentation where the cymbals notes extends effortlessly and could feel the saxophonist breathing.
On Giorgio by Moroder, finally we get a deserved 3D imaging for the IER-Z1R, this pairing does well with the busy track, everything can be heard without feeling claustrophobic. Although a lot of things are going on in the mids from 5:50 of the track, the treble and bass notes do not bleed into the mids and left and right channels notes are separated from the center.
Before we move onto the Stars of this exercise. Taking the opportunity to thank you for reading so far.
This section is going to be a direct IER-Z1R pairing sound comparison between the Sony NW-WM1Z (firmware 3.1) and Cayin N8 (firmware 2.2), 4.4mm balanced solid state output vs 3.5 single ended solid state output vs 3.5 Korg Nutube; and it is not indicative of how they sound with all earphones and headphones.
Here we have 2 DAPs with noticeably multiple sound signature and presentation, personally I think the WM1Z has 2 while the N8 has 2.5, the 0.5 given to the Korg Nutube tuning because it is just a minimal tweak of the 3.5 single ended solid state output which in itself sounds already amazing (more to that shortly). I was expecting a more “tubey”/sweeter/warmer presentation on the Korg Nutube, but the direction Cayin took was to maintain the same level of accuracy, analyticality, balance and spaciousness by adding a minimal sprinkle of warmth, and I respect that decision.
General stage dimensions, tonality and sound signature pairing comparison with the IER-Z1R:
WM1Z (4.4) – Height of sound stage fall slightly short to all other variations below except for N8 (tube), width come short to the N8 (3.5 and tube) only, and depth on this track is about the same with the N8 (3.5), which is deeper than the WM1Z (3.5) and N8 (4.4 and tube). Tonality is warm-laidback, mids are slightly recessed, treble is gentle and bass is tight.
N8 (4.4) – Width of the soundstage falls short to the WM1Z (4.4) and N8 (3.5 and tube), height is perceived to be tallest with WM1Z (3.5), depth fall slightly short to the WM1Z (4.4) and N8 (3.5 and tube). Tonality is neutral-transparent, mids are dynamic, treble is airy and bass is weighty.
WM1Z (3.5) – Height of sound stage is the tallest to all other variations with the N8 (4.4), width come slightly short to all other variations, and depth on this track seems about the same with the N8 (4.4), however, falling short against the N8 (3.5 and tube). Tonality is neutral-natural, mids are intimate, treble is smooth and bass is tight.
N8 (3.5) – Width is the longest with the N8 (tube), height fall short to all variations except for N8 (tube), and depth is about the same as WM1Z (4.4) and a tiny but deeper than the N8 (tube). Tonality and sound signature are similar to the N8 (4.4), however, because the sound stage characteristic the music is presented slightly more distant (concert hall).
N8 (Tube) – The only differences to the N8 (3.5) are perceived tiny bit shorter in sound stage height, as a result of minimal sprinkle of warmth added in the sound signature. Making the bass sounding tiny bit more reverberant, treble is smooth but instead of extending upward it extends sideways (pretty sweet J and “tubey” like), and the mids are dynamic but sounding tiny bit more forward compared to the N8 (3.5).
Verdict on Hotel California:
In terms of detail retrieval based on the 3 hidden sounds (mentioned in AR-M2 write up above), the WM1Z (3.5) will probably be my choice, even if it does not sound as transparent as the N8 (4.4), because the layering of the Y axis (Height), instruments placement are better separated. Hence, the 1st and 2nd hidden sounds are more identifiable; as for the 3rd hidden sound due to slightly better mids dynamics on the N8 (4.4) becomes more audible on the N8. However, in terms of listening experience point of view, I prefer the N8 (3.5), because of the better instrument separation through the X axis (width) and perceived deeper Z axis due to slightly recessed mids making it a “concert hall” like experience.
Verdict on Take Five:
Since it is a simple track (4 instruments playing a slow Jazz tune), sound stage dimensions does not play much of a role compared to the tonality and instrument positioning. After all, Jazz is about sultry, relaxing and romantic tune.
In most rendition of this track, due to its frequency response the saxophone sound does not come from center point of the sound stage (usually slightly higher than center point), and here comes the magic trick from the N8 (tube), as suddenly we have all instruments perceivably to be more aligned. The drums from the left, the saxophone in the center and the piano to the right, hence in listening experience term N8 (tube) is enlightening. On the other hand, the WM1Z (4.4) slightly warmer and analog like tonality characteristic marries Jazz music even better, also, the cymbal sounds really sweet and nicely extended on the NW1Z. Last but not least, both the N8 (tube) takes my breath away, “literally” when I am listening analytically to the saxophonist breathing through the instrument, subconsciously the timing of my breathing tries to match the saxophonist breathing.
Verdict on Giorgio by Moroder:
There is a lot going on in the track from 5:50, therefore, dynamics and soundstage dimension place the biggest role in making the music alive and perceiving that 3D imaging sense, more so than the tonality.
Verdict: Frankly speaking, all the variations have more than sufficient dynamics and stage dimension to perceive the 3D imaging sense without sounding congested. Nonetheless, the two ends of the spectrum will be the NW1Z (4.4) and N8 (3.5), on the former although the stage width and height might fall slightly short compared to the N8 (3.5) the warm and laidback tonality makes it a more relaxing experience. On the latter, the slightly perceived shorter stage height is more than compensated from the stage width and due to a more neutral tonality the it sounds a little bit snappier.
Final thoughts:
This journey is coming to an end, it was a fun journey indeed… discovered what and how the IER-Z1R can deliver from source pairing, in fact, I am pretty amazed by how well the IER-Z1R scales up.
Overall, the IER-Z1R sounds good with most of the source equipment tested, except for the Sony NW-ZX1, it sounds great on DAPs which can showcase the IER-Z1R soundstage spaciousness capabilities, and it sounds even better when it is able to convey the DAP technical capabilities such as high resolution, details retrieval and dynamics.
At such, I was pleasantly surprised on how well the AR-M2 was driving the IER Z1R (please refer analysis above); considering that, in general, personal audio equipment cycle of introducing something new and better to the market might be unrivalled among other consumer industries for the past few years.
As for whether the IER-Z1R pairs better with the NW1Z or N8 from the comparison exercise performed. From sound fidelity point of view, without taking in consideration all other aspects that define DAPs, in my humble opinion it comes down to preference only, both brings different interpretation of sound presentation.
My personal opinion is that, the NW1Z might be better value for money in terms of having bigger margin of sound signature difference between 4.4 and 3.5 outputs. On the other hand, the N8 offers a bigger margin of stage dimension difference between the 3.5 and 4.4 outputs, while adding that sprinkle of warmth with the 3.5 (tube).
In the end, the IER-Z1R was able to handle this exercise admirably thanks to its technical prowess, making me rediscover one of the fun part in this hobby, which pushed me to perform the task and share these subjective findings to the community.
Cheers
Simon T.
It would be interesting to get your opinion on the IER-Z1R and WM-1A combination. As noted the IER-Z1R can change soundstage with the source. Also I found different amps and DAPs to have a changing influence upon the IER-Z1R aside from what can be possible with just EQ. But like you noted, some results end up just being personal preference, which would decide which is the best combo. Still the 1A and IER is an interesting union, with others besides myself finding magic there.
I’m in no way saying the 1A is superior, though it’s funny how the 1Z and 1A can start to be polar opposite; yet both complementary? Complementary both to each other and the IER-Z1R at the same time?
Last edited:
Simon T
100+ Head-Fier
- Joined
- Oct 15, 2013
- Posts
- 193
- Likes
- 136
Hi Redcarmoose,
Unfortunately, it will be tough for me to get hold of a WM1A for such comparison, sadly, I live and work in a country where I do not know other audio enthusiast like ourselves.
Nonetheless, I agree with your statement that the 1Z and 1A are more different than similar (complementary to each other). From what I recall when auditioning both the WM1Z and the WM1A; I pulled the trigger on the 1Z because of the more unique warm yet musical sound signature; which complimented the AR-M2 at that time. Even though, the 1A was actually the better value for money DAP between the 2 Sony.
Most importantly, those who enjoy the IER-Z1R in the first place, might likely be in for some pleasant surprises with source equipment matching.
Cheers
.
- Joined
- Dec 18, 2007
- Posts
- 3,415
- Likes
- 868
Great job Simon and thanks for taking the time to do this exercise. I do want to comment on two things. I have the WM1Z also and I compared the 1Z to my Woo Audio WA8 and I find the WA8 can improve over the 1Z by 10-15 percent (meaning noticeable) . Second if 60 dB is your average listening volume then I listen at much higher level than you. On the 1Z my listening level is around 95 to 100 on 4.4 high gain. By the way you didn’t mention whether your setting is on high gain or not at 73 vol. You also didn’t state how many hours does your Z1R have. I noticed that the Z1R needs at least 100 hours to sound stable and optimal. The Z1R with two DDs will need some amp power to open up and sound its best. I do worry at 60 dB the Z1R may not be fully opened. That is why I don’t recommend to use the Z1R with smart phone. Thanks again, nice job.
I am also interested in hearing your comparison to the KSE 1200.
I am also interested in hearing your comparison to the KSE 1200.
Last edited:
Simon T
100+ Head-Fier
- Joined
- Oct 15, 2013
- Posts
- 193
- Likes
- 136
Thanks for for message Jalo,
Yes, the Z1R has been definitely used for more than 100 hours, with all the burn-in during the 1st week, and, the 1Z was set at low gain.
The 60 dB was just to volume match all the DAPs for the comparison exercise with a "pink noise" track; which depending on the music FLAC file played and nosiest part of the music track can reach up to 75 dB. Yes, that is usually my normal listening level except for, when I am listening before bed time (lower dB) or when I am in a noisier environment i.e. on a plane (higher dB). Having said so, when I am listening leisurely, I do not measure how many dBs I am listening to, depending on the music track i adjust the volume accordingly.
As for the KSE1200 comparison, not sure when i will have enough time to do it.
Cheers
CoryGillmore
Headphoneus Supremus
Yeah for me the Sony Hybrids are amazing. I went through a phase where I thought the JVC Spiral Dots were better but that was short lived. It took me over a month to figure out the best insertion technique/depth/angle with my IER-M9 but when I did it was magical. From what I understand the Z1R is also very dependent on insertion depth and technique.
Redcarmoose
Headphoneus Supremus
Also somehow tips and fit and what works changes. So wildly a person should never write-off a style of tip not working as they may work at a future date? So what does not work now could work later?
Misson07
100+ Head-Fier
- Joined
- Jul 17, 2016
- Posts
- 176
- Likes
- 254
Been using my Z1R for a few days and found that they sound really similiar to my un-cipher Audeze Sine (Not the in-ear one). The Z1R are more spacious sounding/more headroom and with better mid (The un-eq Sine have this really weird wonky mid) and better extension on both ends but otherwise they are really similar sounding. Not sure if I should praise the Z1R that are able to sound like somewhat improved version of an actual can or praise the Sine as it sound only a bit worse than something almost 4 times it price.
Last edited:
Users who are viewing this thread
