[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!!!

 

[1clearhead]

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).

Impressive review! Thanks for taking some time out to offer such interesting results. So, I'll definitely look forward to getting one of my own in the near future.
Cheers!

-Clear

 

[jagujetas72]

Late to the party yet again but these sounded pretty fantastic so I had to do them justice with a review! Check it out and like if you like it

SeeAudio Yume: A Midrange Dream

​

At a Glance:

Overall Rating: S- (S+ to C-)

Category: B (100-300 USD), MSRP: 169 USD, Acquired at: 80 USD (Secondhand Unit)



Pros:

• Best-in-Class Midrange Performance
• Gorgeous, Comfortable Build
• Nice Packaging and Inclusions
• Incredibly easy to listen to

Cons:

• Lacking Bass Quality
• Middling Technicalities

https://www.head-fi.org/showcase/see-audio-yume-anou.24866/review/26946/

 

[Zerstorer_GOhren]

Checkout the new reviews on ADV. M5 12D.

https://www.head-fi.org/showcase/adv-m5-12d.25411/reviews#review-26947

 

[FreeWheelinAudioLuv2]

..

 

[Dsnuts]

https://www.head-fi.org/showcase/fiio-fd7.25470/reviews#review-26949

So the FD7 has taught me a few things. First thing first. These might be the new benchmark for $599 level earphones. Mid fi is just a term in the price but these are flagship level in sound quality. Some might say it is too expensive. Nope not at all. They are aggressively priced actually. These are competing with the best dynamics in the industry forget about their price point.

These are what made me realize cheaper so called Beryllium earphones like the NiceHCK Loftys are not a true Beryllium earphone. Those don't hold a candle to how these perform. Pure Beryllium has a ambient spacious organic tone to them that is unmistakable. These are by far Fiios best sounding earphones that I have heard and for folks that want an actual pure Beryllium dynamic earphone. Can't recommend a better earphone for the bucks right now. These and the Penon Legends are the two absolute best earphones I have heard in their class of earphones this year.

 

[FreeWheelinAudioLuv2]

https://www.head-fi.org/showcase/fiio-fd7.25470/reviews#review-26949

So the FD7 has taught me a few things. First thing first. These might be the new benchmark for $599 level earphones. Mid fi is just a term in the price but these are flagship level in sound quality. Some might say it is too expensive. Nope not at all. They are aggressively priced actually. These are completing with the best dynamics in the industry forget about their price point.

These are what made me realize cheaper so called Beryllium earphones like the NiceHCK Loftys are not a true Beryllium earphone. Those don't hold a candle to how these perform. Pure Beryllium has a ambient spacious organic tone to them that is unmistakable. These are by far Fiios best sounding earphones that I have heard and for folks that want an actual pure Beryllium dynamic earphone. Can't recommend a better earphone for the bucks right now. These and the Penon Legends are the two absolute best earphones I have heard in their class of earphones this year.

Go Fiio, it's yer birfday!

 

[r31ya]

Late to the party yet again but these sounded pretty fantastic so I had to do them justice with a review! Check it out and like if you like it

SeeAudio Yume: A Midrange Dream

​

At a Glance:

Overall Rating: S- (S+ to C-)

Category: B (100-300 USD), MSRP: 169 USD, Acquired at: 80 USD (Secondhand Unit)



Pros:

• Best-in-Class Midrange Performance
• Gorgeous, Comfortable Build
• Nice Packaging and Inclusions
• Incredibly easy to listen to

Cons:

• Lacking Bass Quality
• Middling Technicalities

https://www.head-fi.org/showcase/see-audio-yume-anou.24866/review/26946/

This reviews echo Crins review, S- grade tonality, C+ grade technicality.
When i looking for new IEMs to replace my TFZ King Pro, i said to local store that i want one with good vocal.
The first one they recommend is SeeAudio Yume.

 

[baskingshark]

This reviews echo Crins review, S- grade tonality, C+ grade technicality.
When i looking for new IEMs to replace my TFZ King Pro, i said to local store that i want one with good vocal.
The first one they recommend is SeeAudio Yume.

I would argue though, that at this price point, IEMs should at least have good to above average tonality and technicalities. Like at least a grade A/B/S for both areas for this price bracket.

If it were a cheap set like BLON BL-03, sub $30 USD, which has good timbre and tonality, but sub par technicalities, people can close one eye. But for a more expensive set, it is not really enough to be a one trick pony and ace tonality but have weak technicalities, or vice versa. I mean people's expectations are higher at this price range, there's huge competition against other big boys, and there are a lot of other similarly price competitors that can ace both technicalities and tonality at this price range.

 

[mndless]

I would argue though, that at this price point, IEMs should at least have good to above average tonality and technicalities. Like at least a grade A/B/S for both areas for this price bracket.

If it were a cheap set like BLON BL-03, sub $30 USD, which has good timbre and tonality, but sub par technicalities, people can close one eye. But for a more expensive set, it is not really enough to be a one trick pony and ace tonality but have weak technicalities, or vice versa. I mean people's expectations are higher at this price range, there's huge competition against other big boys, and there are a lot of other similarly price competitors that can ace both technicalities and tonality at this price range.

For $170, having an S- in any category is already an achievement, but it would be nice to see it also get a B ranking in technicalities as well. Crin has plenty of very expensive sets that he's reviewed and they couldn't even muster an S- in either.

 

[jagujetas72]

Some fantastic opinions I agree with wholeheartedly here.

@baskingshark, I definitely agree that low technical performance is unacceptable in the mid-range price bracket. Most reviewers are quite critical of the Yume's technical performance, and very rightly so.

I have to note however that the Yume's technical performance is not bad at all, a cramped stage and mushy transient impact perhaps and generally just not as much clarity as something like my Audiosense DT300 at the same price but not bad, especially with it's decently holographic imaging, and a presentation actually strays from the usual pill-shape stage.

Another thing that I have to say is that I slightly modded my Yume as soon as I got it, because my experience with the nozzle filter told me that it would cramp the stage. (see BQEYZ Summer, and nymphomaniac/Erik Ikomori/NBBA on that iirc). I didin't bother to compare it to stock but I believe that combined with non-stock wide bore tips helped my technical impressions of it. (do note my rating scale is relative to price as well, though somewhat arbitrarily).

I think that this was maybe something glossed over by reviewers because most of the Yume's reviewers got to do so via a reviewer tour, and of course modding wouldn't be permissible, though that is assuming my mod made a difference.

I would love to see SeeAudio release a retuned version of the Yume with improved bass performance (not quantity, IMHO) and better technicalities. A crinacle ~B technical score Yume would be something I'd be willing to pay more for, for sure.

Either way, like I noted in my review, I think the midrange tuning quality, and the relatively inoffensive performance everywhere else gives this its own niche, even if I would recommend another IEM above it. (Again, see Audiosense DT300/600 )

 

[Zerstorer_GOhren]

A new IEM from a new company,TKZK (another random consonant letters audio brand.)

 

[Dobrescu George]

I always wondered if you guys like to start the week full force, or if you like to take it easy at the start and get into it as it goes ~

Today we review a strong competitor, the Pro Planar headphones from Avantone Pro , a headphone that can actually match the best planars out there, but has a red, brilliant design. There are options in Black for those who want to have a more elegant look as well~

This headphone has good comfort, and a thicker, lush, smooth sound, yet with tons of detail and resolution. More info and comparisons in the full written review ~

https://www.audiophile-heaven.com/2021/10/avantone-planar-pro-headphones-red-team-is-winning.html