NymPHONOmaniac
Headphoneus Supremus
since my review take age to do (so so wordy)....i decide to share UM MEXT comparison against 3 other IEM.
I really adore the Mext, especially since i find right eartips and understand the fit need to be a bit deep so OBC driver work at its full potential....the sound presentation is so exotic and singular yet utterly cohesive....that this is why it take me weeks to complete the review...this happen with IEM i love the most...in the sens, i get so immerse and fullfill in extremely rich and detailed musicality of the Mext that i forget about everything else.
Stack used for this very comparisons=SMSL SU-9 ES9038pro DAC+SMSL SH-9 THX amplifier.
This is my personal end game IEM, and it isn't a normal dynamic driver IEM, the DD in this is just insane in technical performance and having heard other flagship IEM like the Andromeda, UM Mest MK2 and 64audio U12T, i can assure you they have nothing to envy from them both in tonality and technicalities....so how the 2 times cheaper Mext will compare with it's 6 drivers?
Well, firstly, the A8000 is more bright and agressive as well as more treble centric energic W shape. The Mext have more boosted sub bass, yet bass quality of the A8000 is notably better, both in attack speed and control, timbral balance and texture and clean fully extended lower extension, definition is better sculpted and have more mid bass punch and kick drum presence. A8000 offer best bass response I ever heard, and it's not a shame to not be able to win in this department, so it's time for the Mext revange with it's special midrange that is way more foward in presence, making the A8000 feel very recessed suddenly even if a bit more meaty for male vocal, everything else is more upfront with the Mext and not as boosted in upper mids, which can create rare instance of sibilance with female vocal with A8000. Mid range resolution is higher but timbre is a hint thinner, as well, vocal have more breathyness and are a hint more natural due to less magnify texture micro details. Note weight go to A8000, piano sounding fuller and heavier in mid section, yet not as crisply resolve and clean in definition.
The treble is an intense combat here since both excell in this department, the Mext have a more delicate and snappy treble, not as sparkly and full sounding as the A8000, which have more chunky crunch too. Again, the Mext deliver higher level of micro details, timbre texture is less abrasive and bright and overall presentation is more articulated in precise definition of each sound. Acoustic guitar have longer resonance with the A8000, as well as fuller harmonic, yet sens of immediacy is greater with the Mext.
When it come to soundstage, A8000 is wider but less tall and deep, the imaging of the Mext is crisper and more accurate and precise but a bit more condensed in sound info since it add more layers to spatial occupation.
All in all, mid and treble technical performance are superior with the Mext, but bass quality is better with A8000 as well as timbre more natural and dense, offering a less exotic yet more realistically cohesive musicality.
VS FIIO FH7 (1DD+4BAs-500$)
Again, FH7 is more W shape and agressive, brighter in timbre and more wonky in tonal balance, it feel shoutier and harsher than Mext which is very smooth near warm compared to FH7.
Bass of FH7 is more focus on mid low, with faster tighter punch, it feel more detached from the mids and treble, less warm and euphonic. Sub bass is more rolled off and timbre is dryer with FH7 too.
Mids are unbearable compared to the Mext, way brighter and more sibilant, more compressed and centered, so less wide and well define in presence, vocal are more upfront with the Mext yet smoother, more textured, more transparent and less shouty.
Treble is notably more spiky and agressive with FH7....man, after this comparison i'm not sure to be able to love my FH7 again and it's very sad, but this can be explain by my hearing evolution too which is now more sensible to spike and harshness....but let say details are scream at you, with fuzzy grainy sustain which can get messy with busy track while the Mext offer higher number of micro details, all well separated and free of loudness imbalance and fatigue.
Soundstage is notably wider, taller and deeper with the Mext, offering a more clean, accurate and precise imaging too, since transparency is not saturated like the FH7, only the bass instrument can be darker and harder to pin point, mostly bass hit like toms, kick drum.
All in all, it wasn't a fair fight due to the Mext being 2 times pricier, but one thing sure the sound benefit are on the high side with the Mext and justify an urgent upgrade for a similar W shape tonality but way more cohesive, smooth and musical tonality as well as from another league in term of technical performance.
VS KINERA URD (2DD+2EST+1BA-600$)
First difference that hit me is in soudstage presentation, which is drastically different in spatial cue as well as notably wider and taller, but with scooped middle presence that add sens of openess yet make it more stereo sounding and less immersive and holographic than Mext. Imaging is less precise and fully restitue with the Urd, mid range instruments are difficult to spot which is one of highlight of the Mext.
This surely can be explain by 2 factor, the use of OBC driver to extrack presence of mid range as well as a different tonal balance that is more W shape and lean with the Mext while more U shape and warm with the Urd.
Strangely, the bass is a bit similar here, warm sub bass focused slam, round and heavy in hit but not very fast or precise, here the Mext have a hint better define presence due to slightly more textured bass while URD is bassier and a bit more dynamic in impact, perhaps faster too since fast chuncky kick is better articulate.
Mids are notably more recessed with the Urd, warmer and darker, a bit denser in timbre but more liquid too and lacking in definition edge make it more blurry and muddy, resolution of Mext being miles ahead here and offering both male and female vocal with more fowarded presence as well as crisper more accurate imaging as stated above.
The treble is brighter with the Mext, yet deliver higher amount of detail in a more balanced way while the URD focus on upper treble snap and air, boosting micro details a bit and offering a more delicate and coloured treble, with darker lower treble, so it feel half cook compared to more analytical Mext.
Here, tonality is so different it's hard to choose a winner, URD is more laid back and bassier so it might be less distracting or fatiguing for long listening, technicaly it's inferior in all department and feel less full sounding due to lot of darkened part in treble and mids section. Guilty pleasure for the Urd here, while confident pleasure for the Mext.
I really adore the Mext, especially since i find right eartips and understand the fit need to be a bit deep so OBC driver work at its full potential....the sound presentation is so exotic and singular yet utterly cohesive....that this is why it take me weeks to complete the review...this happen with IEM i love the most...in the sens, i get so immerse and fullfill in extremely rich and detailed musicality of the Mext that i forget about everything else.
Stack used for this very comparisons=SMSL SU-9 ES9038pro DAC+SMSL SH-9 THX amplifier.
UM MEXT COMPARISONS
VS FINAL A8000 (1xPure Beryllium DD-2000$)This is my personal end game IEM, and it isn't a normal dynamic driver IEM, the DD in this is just insane in technical performance and having heard other flagship IEM like the Andromeda, UM Mest MK2 and 64audio U12T, i can assure you they have nothing to envy from them both in tonality and technicalities....so how the 2 times cheaper Mext will compare with it's 6 drivers?
Well, firstly, the A8000 is more bright and agressive as well as more treble centric energic W shape. The Mext have more boosted sub bass, yet bass quality of the A8000 is notably better, both in attack speed and control, timbral balance and texture and clean fully extended lower extension, definition is better sculpted and have more mid bass punch and kick drum presence. A8000 offer best bass response I ever heard, and it's not a shame to not be able to win in this department, so it's time for the Mext revange with it's special midrange that is way more foward in presence, making the A8000 feel very recessed suddenly even if a bit more meaty for male vocal, everything else is more upfront with the Mext and not as boosted in upper mids, which can create rare instance of sibilance with female vocal with A8000. Mid range resolution is higher but timbre is a hint thinner, as well, vocal have more breathyness and are a hint more natural due to less magnify texture micro details. Note weight go to A8000, piano sounding fuller and heavier in mid section, yet not as crisply resolve and clean in definition.
The treble is an intense combat here since both excell in this department, the Mext have a more delicate and snappy treble, not as sparkly and full sounding as the A8000, which have more chunky crunch too. Again, the Mext deliver higher level of micro details, timbre texture is less abrasive and bright and overall presentation is more articulated in precise definition of each sound. Acoustic guitar have longer resonance with the A8000, as well as fuller harmonic, yet sens of immediacy is greater with the Mext.
When it come to soundstage, A8000 is wider but less tall and deep, the imaging of the Mext is crisper and more accurate and precise but a bit more condensed in sound info since it add more layers to spatial occupation.
All in all, mid and treble technical performance are superior with the Mext, but bass quality is better with A8000 as well as timbre more natural and dense, offering a less exotic yet more realistically cohesive musicality.
VS FIIO FH7 (1DD+4BAs-500$)
Again, FH7 is more W shape and agressive, brighter in timbre and more wonky in tonal balance, it feel shoutier and harsher than Mext which is very smooth near warm compared to FH7.
Bass of FH7 is more focus on mid low, with faster tighter punch, it feel more detached from the mids and treble, less warm and euphonic. Sub bass is more rolled off and timbre is dryer with FH7 too.
Mids are unbearable compared to the Mext, way brighter and more sibilant, more compressed and centered, so less wide and well define in presence, vocal are more upfront with the Mext yet smoother, more textured, more transparent and less shouty.
Treble is notably more spiky and agressive with FH7....man, after this comparison i'm not sure to be able to love my FH7 again and it's very sad, but this can be explain by my hearing evolution too which is now more sensible to spike and harshness....but let say details are scream at you, with fuzzy grainy sustain which can get messy with busy track while the Mext offer higher number of micro details, all well separated and free of loudness imbalance and fatigue.
Soundstage is notably wider, taller and deeper with the Mext, offering a more clean, accurate and precise imaging too, since transparency is not saturated like the FH7, only the bass instrument can be darker and harder to pin point, mostly bass hit like toms, kick drum.
All in all, it wasn't a fair fight due to the Mext being 2 times pricier, but one thing sure the sound benefit are on the high side with the Mext and justify an urgent upgrade for a similar W shape tonality but way more cohesive, smooth and musical tonality as well as from another league in term of technical performance.
VS KINERA URD (2DD+2EST+1BA-600$)
First difference that hit me is in soudstage presentation, which is drastically different in spatial cue as well as notably wider and taller, but with scooped middle presence that add sens of openess yet make it more stereo sounding and less immersive and holographic than Mext. Imaging is less precise and fully restitue with the Urd, mid range instruments are difficult to spot which is one of highlight of the Mext.
This surely can be explain by 2 factor, the use of OBC driver to extrack presence of mid range as well as a different tonal balance that is more W shape and lean with the Mext while more U shape and warm with the Urd.
Strangely, the bass is a bit similar here, warm sub bass focused slam, round and heavy in hit but not very fast or precise, here the Mext have a hint better define presence due to slightly more textured bass while URD is bassier and a bit more dynamic in impact, perhaps faster too since fast chuncky kick is better articulate.
Mids are notably more recessed with the Urd, warmer and darker, a bit denser in timbre but more liquid too and lacking in definition edge make it more blurry and muddy, resolution of Mext being miles ahead here and offering both male and female vocal with more fowarded presence as well as crisper more accurate imaging as stated above.
The treble is brighter with the Mext, yet deliver higher amount of detail in a more balanced way while the URD focus on upper treble snap and air, boosting micro details a bit and offering a more delicate and coloured treble, with darker lower treble, so it feel half cook compared to more analytical Mext.
Here, tonality is so different it's hard to choose a winner, URD is more laid back and bassier so it might be less distracting or fatiguing for long listening, technicaly it's inferior in all department and feel less full sounding due to lot of darkened part in treble and mids section. Guilty pleasure for the Urd here, while confident pleasure for the Mext.
Last edited:
i think i might demo the chord mojo 2 soon.
