The discovery thread!

[Dsnuts]

Something wicked to come this way.

Specification​

• Model: H50
• Driver: 4 Balanced Armature +1 Dynamic driver
• 4BA: 2BA for high frequency，2BA for middle frequency
• 1 Dynamic: 10mm composite diaphragm Dynamic driver for bass
• Impedance: 25ohm
• Sensitivity: 108dB
• Frequency response: 20-20kHz
• 3 channels 3-way crossover
• Connector: MMCX
• Plug: Gold-plated
• Cable length: 1.2M

You know it was only gonna be a matter of time before the follow up to the H40 would be released. The final tuning seems to be done. They have clearly toiled over this one and it has to be a level above their most sucessful earphones the ISN H40. Not to be confused with the EST50 the H50 will be out soon. Will let you all know how it is when they get the green light.

 

[holsen]

Something wicked to come this way.

Specification​

• Model: H50
• Driver: 4 Balanced Armature +1 Dynamic driver
• 4BA: 2BA for high frequency，2BA for middle frequency
• 1 Dynamic: 10mm composite diaphragm Dynamic driver for bass
• Impedance: 25ohm
• Sensitivity: 108dB
• Frequency response: 20-20kHz
• 3 channels 3-way crossover
• Connector: MMCX
• Plug: Gold-plated
• Cable length: 1.2M

You know it was only gonna be a matter of time before the follow up to the H40 would be released. The final tuning seems to be done. They have clearly toiled over this one and it has to be a level above their most sucessful earphones the ISN H40. Not to be confused with the EST50 the H50 will be out soon. Will let you all know how it is when they get the green light.

Any idea of proposed pricepoint or price range?

 

[Dsnuts]

I dont know if the RP has been finalized. I will let you guys know when I find out. I would imagine it being somewhere between the EST50 and the H40 which isn't saying much but will find out soon enough.

 

[TheVortex]

I had a loaner set for this model. To be blunt, the Ceres are one of the worst sets I've listened to this year.



Very weird L shaped tuning. Big bloated bass, recessed mids and dark treble, but a spike around the 10ish kHz region. Blunted dynamics, poor microdetails and instrument separation and clarity. Above average soundstage, imaging and layering are the only redeeming parts of the tuning. BA timbre tops everything off. The mid bass bleed eats into the other frequencies and the tuning is really incoherent.

I burned them in for almost 100 hours, and at first I thought that I had received a defective pair. But the channels match well, and I've seen a few other reviewers and consumers who bought this set have similar impressions.

They look very nice though. But for the asking price of $180 USD, they are really overpriced, and the technicalities are no better than a sub $30 - 50 USD set. Generally hybrids beat single DD in technicalities at the budget segment, but the Ceres also lose to some single DD at the $100 region in technical performance.


TLDR: They look much better than they sound; hard pass unless you are a very treble sensitive person who likes an analoguish sound.

I was sent a review unit as well and I feel the same and what a pity to be honest.

 

[FreeWheelinAudioLuv2]

I had a loaner set for this model. To be blunt, the Ceres are one of the worst sets I've listened to this year.



Very weird L shaped tuning. Big bloated bass, recessed mids and dark treble, but a spike around the 10ish kHz region. Blunted dynamics, poor microdetails and instrument separation and clarity. Above average soundstage, imaging and layering are the only redeeming parts of the tuning. BA timbre tops everything off. The mid bass bleed eats into the other frequencies and the tuning is really incoherent.

I burned them in for almost 100 hours, and at first I thought that I had received a defective pair. But the channels match well, and I've seen a few other reviewers and consumers who bought this set have similar impressions.

They look very nice though. But for the asking price of $180 USD, they are really overpriced, and the technicalities are no better than a sub $30 - 50 USD set. Generally hybrids beat single DD in technicalities at the budget segment, but the Ceres also lose to some single DD at the $100 region in technical performance.


TLDR: They look much better than they sound; hard pass unless you are a very treble sensitive person who likes an analoguish sound.

Shozy and their dark treble. totally sounds like their house sound.

 

[baskingshark]

Shozy and their dark treble. totally sounds like their house sound.

Dark treble is one thing. It is not a totally dark treble though. One sudden spike at the 10ish kHz region suddenly sprouts out of nowhere.

Other than the dark treble, my beef with this set is that the technicalities are not up to the mark for the $180 USD price. Also, the midbass bleed just engulfs all the other frequencies. Shozy is probably gonna blacklist me, but really, in 2021 I'd expect much much more from a $50 USD set, not to mention a $180 set like this.

 

[jmwant]

SMSL announced it's flagship desktop dac, the VMV D2.
https://hifigo.com/blogs/news/s-m-s-l-vmv-d2-latest-flagship-mqa-dac-with-ak4499-premium-dac-chip

 

[Strifeff7]

SMSL announced it's flagship desktop dac, the VMV D2.
https://hifigo.com/blogs/news/s-m-s-l-vmv-d2-latest-flagship-mqa-dac-with-ak4499-premium-dac-chip

I'm an R2R dac fanboy,
but this might be really interesting,

 

[mndless]

Dark treble is one thing. It is not a totally dark treble though. One sudden spike at the 10ish kHz region suddenly sprouts out of nowhere.

Other than the dark treble, my beef with this set is that the technicalities are not up to the mark for the $180 USD price. Also, the midbass bleed just engulfs all the other frequencies. Shozy is probably gonna blacklist me, but really, in 2021 I'd expect much much more from a $50 USD set, not to mention a $180 set like this.

It was a bit startling when watching Akros (@Tonytex on here) reviewing a bunch of sets in other videos and he's generally able to find redeeming qualities about them, then he gets to these and his disappointment in Shozy's tuning was palpable through the video.

If they sound like their graph indicates, though, I can understand the disappointment, especially out of a nearly $200 set.

based on the graph, I'm expecting rolled off subbass, bloated midbass, recessed mids, dark treble, and a stab in the ear at 10kHz. Especially sad since the Form 1.1 has a pretty attractive graph and people seem pretty fond of it.

 

[mndless]

I had a loaner set for this model. To be blunt, the Ceres are one of the worst sets I've listened to this year.



Very weird L shaped tuning. Big bloated bass, recessed mids and dark treble, but a spike around the 10ish kHz region. Blunted dynamics, poor microdetails and instrument separation and clarity. Above average soundstage, imaging and layering are the only redeeming parts of the tuning. BA timbre tops everything off. The mid bass bleed eats into the other frequencies and the tuning is really incoherent.

I burned them in for almost 100 hours, and at first I thought that I had received a defective pair. But the channels match well, and I've seen a few other reviewers and consumers who bought this set have similar impressions.

They look very nice though. But for the asking price of $180 USD, they are really overpriced, and the technicalities are no better than a sub $30 - 50 USD set. Generally hybrids beat single DD in technicalities at the budget segment, but the Ceres also lose to some single DD at the $100 region in technical performance.


TLDR: They look much better than they sound; hard pass unless you are a very treble sensitive person who likes an analoguish sound.

The sad part is that the graph for GS Audio's cheapest set looks more sensible than the one for the Ceres.

Same 1+1 driver configuration at less than half the price with a graph that has a reasonably attractive curve that makes sense. Oof, Shozy has some real work to do.

 

[Zerstorer_GOhren]

Checkout my review of Audiosense DT600 along with other reviewers.
Thank you fellow Head-fiers.

https://www.head-fi.org/showcase/audiosense-dt600.25428/reviews

 

[jagujetas72]

I know it's pretty old but I was kinda curious so I snapped up an old QDC Neptune 2nd hand.

Ended up reviewing it here

https://www.head-fi.org/showcase/qdc-neptune.22828/reviews#review-26941


Aaaand yeah, based on this and what my circle's said about the Uranus QDC has to up their lower level offerings to be competitive, especially considering Chi-fi today. Would love to try some of their higher-end stuff one day so I can really figure 'em out as a brand.

 

[1clearhead]

Out of curiosity, I need some input on two IEM's -The Moondrop Quarks and the Etymotic ER series. Now, before anyone chimes in, I will only consider those that actually own both the Quarks and any Etymotic ER series with their honest comparison or opinion.

So, my question is?... I own the Moondrop Quarks and I think they are incredibly neutral and awesome, but I was thinking if getting the Etymotic would be a side grade? So, does anyone own both and can give a quick comparison, and would it be still worth grabbing a set of Etymotic from their ER series?

Thanks in advance to anyone willing to give a comparison or opinion on both!

PS. You can reply here, or PM me. Either is okay with me!

-Clear

 

[kmmbd]

I own the Moondrop Quarks and I think they are incredibly neutral and awesome, but I was thinking if getting the Etymotic would be a side grade? So, does anyone own both and can give a quick comparison, and would it be still worth grabbing a set of Etymotic from their ER series?

I have the Moondrop Quarks and the Etymotic ER2XR, so I guess I can give you some idea about the differences (and a specific similarity) between both of them. Also both being dynamic driver IEMs, the comparison is quite interesting indeed. Without further ado:

Build: ER2XR>>Quarks.
This one oes to ER2XR, hands down. Detachable cable, metal shell, unlike the cheap plastic one on Quarks. Quarks does look more expensive than the price would make you believe but it feels cheap.

Comfort: Quarks>>ER2XR
This one will vary by individual. I abhor Etymotic's deep-fit (also known as unwanted intrusion) and the ER2XR makes my ears hurt. Quarks is like a late afternoon sun in comparison.

Isolation: ER2XR > Quarks.

Overall sound: ER2XR > Quarks
Finally, the important stuff. ER2XR is indeed a wholesale upgrade over the Quarks. Let's break it down. (I won't be posting graphs here as those are available all around for both models and don't really tell about many of the actual differences)

Source: Sony NW-A55, tips: Final E-type (Quarks), Ety triple flange (ER2XR)

The most noticeable difference between these two: sub-bass. Quarks have meek sub-bass that's devoid of texture and rumble. ER2XR provides both but doesn't get near "bass-head" levels due to the rather anemic mid-bass. Mid-bass is a contentious topic and I am not a fan of the abrupt rise from 200Hz/even lower to the sub-bass frequencies since it makes the transition from sub-bass to mid-bass very abrupt. Given the relatively flat sub-to-mid bass transition on the Quarks, I actually prefer the tuning here than on the ER2XR.

However, the driver on the Quarks just can't move a lot of air and as a result the entire bass region sounds dull and somewhat hollow compared to ER2XR. Mids are similar in tone and both have a dry tonality to my ears, but the ER2XR is definitely more resolving of the two. I didn't find either of these too shouty but the ER2XR is a safer bet if you are sensitive in the upper-mid region. Finally, the treble is no contest, ER2XR wins hands down. It's not an airy treble response but the somewhat splashy treble of the Quarks is nowhere to be found here. Timbre in general is better on the ER2XR as well, and it's far more resolving esp in terms of layering and instrument separation.

As for the rest: neither have good staging and both are below average. Imaging is also just left/right on both (and I like to call ER2XR's imaging as "negative imaging" since everything is pushed to the sides and flattened out like on a piece of paper). Quarks is not much easier to drive which is kinda surprising for a budget device.

In conclusion, I'd upgrade to the ER2XR if the deep fit isn't a deal-breaker. It's overall a superior IEM once you get used to the strange sub-bass response (or you can just get the ER2SE though that one can get shouty).

 

[baskingshark]

I have the Moondrop Quarks and the Etymotic ER2XR, so I guess I can give you some idea about the differences (and a specific similarity) between both of them. Also both being dynamic driver IEMs, the comparison is quite interesting indeed. Without further ado:

Build: ER2XR>>Quarks.
This one oes to ER2XR, hands down. Detachable cable, metal shell, unlike the cheap plastic one on Quarks. Quarks does look more expensive than the price would make you believe but it feels cheap.

Comfort: Quarks>>ER2XR
This one will vary by individual. I abhor Etymotic's deep-fit (also known as unwanted intrusion) and the ER2XR makes my ears hurt. Quarks is like a late afternoon sun in comparison.

Isolation: ER2XR > Quarks.

Overall sound: ER2XR > Quarks
Finally, the important stuff. ER2XR is indeed a wholesale upgrade over the Quarks. Let's break it down. (I won't be posting graphs here as those are available all around for both models and don't really tell about many of the actual differences)

Source: Sony NW-A55, tips: Final E-type (Quarks), Ety triple flange (ER2XR)

The most noticeable difference between these two: sub-bass. Quarks have meek sub-bass that's devoid of texture and rumble. ER2XR provides both but doesn't get near "bass-head" levels due to the rather anemic mid-bass. Mid-bass is a contentious topic and I am not a fan of the abrupt rise from 200Hz/even lower to the sub-bass frequencies since it makes the transition from sub-bass to mid-bass very abrupt. Given the relatively flat sub-to-mid bass transition on the Quarks, I actually prefer the tuning here than on the ER2XR.

However, the driver on the Quarks just can't move a lot of air and as a result the entire bass region sounds dull and somewhat hollow compared to ER2XR. Mids are similar in tone and both have a dry tonality to my ears, but the ER2XR is definitely more resolving of the two. I didn't find either of these too shouty but the ER2XR is a safer bet if you are sensitive in the upper-mid region. Finally, the treble is no contest, ER2XR wins hands down. It's not an airy treble response but the somewhat splashy treble of the Quarks is nowhere to be found here. Timbre in general is better on the ER2XR as well, and it's far more resolving esp in terms of layering and instrument separation.

As for the rest: neither have good staging and both are below average. Imaging is also just left/right on both (and I like to call ER2XR's imaging as "negative imaging" since everything is pushed to the sides and flattened out like on a piece of paper). Quarks is not much easier to drive which is kinda surprising for a budget device.

In conclusion, I'd upgrade to the ER2XR if the deep fit isn't a deal-breaker. It's overall a superior IEM once you get used to the strange sub-bass response (or you can just get the ER2SE though that one can get shouty).

Thanks for the impressions!!

You forgot the most important difference: The Moondrop Quarks comes with a hackneyed Waifu Anime Girl packaging. That is a dealbreaker for Otakus!!!