INTRODUCTION
Earlier in the year I had the opportunity to test and review AME's Argent IEM. It was a 6 driver Inner Ear Monitor featuring a combination of 4 BA drivers and 2 Electret (micro electrostatic) drivers. I loved the Argent, and if anything my only critique would have been that the bass was just a little “polite”. So Earl Chon of AME Custom Earphones in Korea contacted me again – this time about testing their 6 driver DD/BA/ET combo Radioso. Again (naturally) I jumped at the chance. How would the Radioso stack up, and could it match (or exceed) the Argent?

ABOUT AME CUSTOM EARPHONES
AME is located in Seoul South Korea, and was originally started to give support to musicians for customer earphone builds. Their popularity grew, leading to the current two releases (Argent and Radioso), and looking to expand to a wider audience.

Here is a quote from their website, which really does give an insight into what drives the company:

“For everyone who loves musicians and music, I am introducing an indigenous custom earphone brand”

Well we definitely love music and musicians. AME Custom’s website and Facebook page are each linked here (website) and here (Facebook).

DISCLAIMER
The AME Radioso that I’m reviewing today was provided to me as a review loaner. It will need to be returned. The retail price at time of review is ~ USD 1450.

PREAMBLE
If you haven't read any of my reviews, I suggest starting here, as it will give you an insight into my known preferences and bias (https://www.headphone-earphone.reviews/2018/02/07/about-brooko/)

For the purposes of this review - I used the AME Radioso straight from the headphone-out socket of many of my portables, but predominantly the X5iii, M9, M11, and R2R2000. I have also experimented with a variety of amplifiers including the FiiO Q1ii, E17K, Q5, and xDuoo XP-2. IMO they do not benefit greatly from additional amplification, although they are slightly more difficult to drive than the Argent (less sensitive, and slightly higher impedance). In the time I have spent with the Radioso, I have noticed no change to the overall sonic presentation (break-in).

This is a purely subjective review - my gear, my ears, and my experience. Please take it all with a grain of salt - especially if it does not match your own experience.

THE PACKAGE
The AME Radioso arrived as a demo version – simply the IEMs, and a custom cable (I'll explain why later in the build section). As I didn't get the full package, I have copied both the contents and photos from my Argent review – as the packaging is essentially the same.

The Radioso consists of a 138 x 217 x 500 box and lid. Inside will be the Radioso IEMs nestled in a foam insert, an aluminium alloy carry case and a box containing the tips and other accessories.
The full accessory package includes:

• 1 pair AME Radioso Trybrid IEMs
• 1 x 2 pin stereo cable
• 1 x aluminium alloy 2 piece case (80mm diameter x 35mm height)
• 3 pairs of Spinfit silicone ear tips (1 x L/M/S)
• 3 pair of Comply foam tips T400 (M)
• 1 3.5mm to 6.3 mm adaptor
• A cleaning brush
• A leather cable tidy
• A card with serial number etc.

This is a good overall accessory package, and in-line with the asking price. I've seen some people gripe about the cable, but I have no problems with the stock cable's quality.

THE TECHNICAL SPECIFICATIONS


MEASUREMENTS
The graphs I use are generated using the Vibro Veritas coupler and ARTA software. Ken Ball (ALO/Campfire) graciously provided me with measurement data which I have used to recalibrate my Veritas so that it mimics an IEC 711 measurement standard (Ken uses two separate BK ear simulators, we measured the same set of IEMs, and I built my calibration curve from shared data). I do not claim that this data is 100% accurate, but it is very consistent, and is as close as I can get to the IEC 711 standard on my budget.

I do not claim that the measurements are in any way more accurate than anyone else's, but they have been proven to be consistent and I think they should be enough to give a reasonable idea of response - especially if you've followed any of my other reviews. When measuring I usually always use crystal foam tips (medium bore opening) - and the reason I use them is for very consistent seal and placement depth in the coupler. I use the same amp (E11K) for all my measurements - and output is under 1 ohm. Measurements above 9-10kHz are generally problematic with any hobbyist set-up, and should be disregarded, but generally my measurements from 20Hz to 9-10kHz have proven to be relatively close to many of the measurements of the manufacturers who support me.


The graphs are provided merely as a point of discussion, and later in the review I've included comparisons to other IEMs for similar reference. Channel matching is good over the entire frequency range, but not as tightly aligned as with the Argent. I noticed no miss-match when music was being played.

BUILD
External
The AME Radioso has the type of shape you normally associate with higher end customs, and is a peanut/jelly-bean shape design. It is designed to ergonomically fit snugly inside your outer ear cavity, securely held inside the Concha with the skinny end inside your Inter-tragical notch. Just like true customs, it has a small rise of resin at the rear of the IEM shell to comfortably accommodate placement over the Crux helix and sit intact on the Cymba.

The outer shell material is a highly transparent resin, and the clarity of the resin is amazing – amongst the best I have seen. It is literally like looking into a window (to view the IEM inner components) The outer face is a face-plate, and this pair is decorated with a sparkly steam-punk design.
The internal face is very smooth. It has a port for venting the dynamic driver next to the cable out on top of the Radioso shell. The housing has an and end to end length of 23mm, height of 16mm and depth of 14mm (excluding the nozzle). The nozzle is angled nicely forward and up, and is 7mm in length. The nozzle diameter is 6mm, has a generous lip, and has 3 separate sound channels in the tube.

Normally the Radioso comes with a standard 2 pin cable and socket connection. This is from my Argent review:
At the top rear of the Argent shell is an almost flush fitting standard 2 pin socket (protrudes by about 0.5mm). The 2 pin plugs are colour coded (blue or red) for right and left. The socket is very firm with the supplied cable and feels very sturdy. The Argent comes with a single ended cable. AME have used a high purity (6N OCC) silver plated copper wire encased in a very flexible transparent TPU sheath. From the 2 pin connectors to the Y-split is a single twisted pair on each side, and then from y-split to jack appears to be a twisted triple. The Argent cable has flexible form-able ear-loops. I find these loops really comfortable and work well. Both the Y-split and Jack are metal, and there is a cinch above the Y-split which works well for snugging the cable tight. The cable has extremely low micro-phonics – essentially non-existent when using the cinch.
This is what you'll normally get with the Radioso.

Earl send me a custom build consisting of an MMCX standard socket (flush mount), with a custom built copper cable. The cable is beautifully made (although a little on the bulky side) I'll let the photos speak for themselves.

Internal
Internally the AME Radioso uses a “trybrid” 6 driver system which is quite different from the Argent. There is a single dynamic driver for the sub and mid-bass, a single BA driver for the mid-range, and quad Electrostatic drivers for the high and super high frequencies. This is managed by a three way cross over network. This is the second time I’ve heard an electrostatic tweeter in an IEM (the first being the Argent), and I continue to be impressed with these drivers. Effortless detail and extension without any signs of abrasiveness or grain.

FIT / COMFORT / ISOLATION
Internal and external isolation is good, but not quite as isolating as the Argent. This will be the effect of the dynamic driver port. With music playing though, you don't really notice any background noise. It does ultimately depend on tip choice and seal. I would rate passive isolation as average and it would be usable on public transport. Although it does not completely block out aircraft drone, by the time you add music, you shouldn't hear much in the way of cabin sounds. Unfortunately with Covid restrictions, I won't be flying for a while, so difficult to test.

Fit and comfort thoughts are very subjective, and will vary from person to person. My experience has been positive. The AME Radioso has been designed for an ergonomic fit (much like a custom monitor). For me they are a perfect, sit relatively flush with my outer ear, and basically disappear within a few seconds of wearing (I could forget they are in). I have slept with them intact, and woken hours later with them still there and no discomfort. The AME Radioso is designed to only be used cable over ear. It should be noted that the shells are slightly larger than the Argent, and some with smaller ears may consider them to be slightly on the larger side of what is comfortable.

The Radioso has a good lip on the nozzle. I've tried my usual Spiral Dots, Spin-fits, Ostry tuning tips and Sony Isolation tips – all fit easily and are secure. They are a relatively shallow fitting IEM, but the nozzles are long enough for most tips to seal effectively. Saying that, foam still gives me the best combination of seal and comfort, and my preference is for either Comply or stretched Shure tips.

SOUND QUALITY
Most of the testing at this point was done with the FiiO M11, no EQ, and Shure foam tips. I used the M11 simply because paired they gave me a very transparent window to the music with low impedance, and more than enough power.

For the record – on most tracks, the volume level on the M11 was around 65/120 on low gain (depending on the track) which was giving me an average SPL around 65-75 dB. Tracks used were across a variety of genres – and can be viewed in this list https://www.head-fi.org/f/articles/brookos-test-tracks.17556/

While testing I constantly switched with my reference pair (Alclair Curve + E17K with +4 bass) to give me a good reference base-line. The additional bass is to bring the Curve sub-bass closer to reference.

Relativities

• Sub-bass – In perfect balance with the other frequencies. Perhaps slightly elevated but sounds nicely balanced to me. Extension is good with slight roll-off in the lowest registers but still able to convey sub-bass rumble (Lorde's “Royals). There is no noticeable bleed into other frequencies. The bass has very good texture and sufficient impact to be enjoyable.
• Mid-bass – slightly elevated compared to sub-bass and lower mids with decent impact. The bass timbre and definition is clean, and not as dry or quick as the mid-bass on the Argent. The bass quality and quantity is very consistent from track to track and for those looking for a balanced signature throughout the signature, the Radioso delivers well, whilst at the time adding that little extra impact to EDM.
• Lower mid-range – recessed compared to bass and upper mid-range, and the U shaped overall signature is a little more apparent – especially with male vocals. Both male and female vocal fundamentals are still pretty good though, although male vocals can come across ever so slightly on the leaner side (depending on the artist). I'm still really enjoying the likes of Pearl Jam and Seether (perhaps more because of the mid-bass transition to lower-mids). The slight recession also adds to a sense of overall space and separation.
• Upper mid-range – There is a slow and shallow rise from the lower mid-range to an extended shelf at 2-6 kHz, which is then maintained and extended through to the lower treble. The transition from lower to upper-mids is cohesive, and there is enough presence to provide both detail and presence. There is euphony with female vocals.
• Lower treble has extremely good extension. It is also quite linear with a small peak at 7 kHz, and a stronger peak at 9-10 kHz (similar to the Argent). This does provide a lot of air, but no resulting brittleness or sharpness. And this (like the Argent's signature) is the what separates the Radioso from anything else I’ve heard. The extension and range of the treble brings detail and clarity – yet without the harshness or brittleness a BA would deliver with the same peaks.
• Upper treble extends quite well with some decent “air”, but is difficult to capture properly on my measurement rig, and with my “aged” hearing I no longer notice much over 12 kHz anyway.
• Overall this is a very well balanced monitor with a “U” shape which has more to do with the slight recession in mid-range (intended) than any obvious emphasis at either end of the spectrum.

Resolution / Detail / Clarity
Clarity overall is (in a single word) “crystalline”, but without any harshness. Its especially noticeable with jazz, or any rock with a lot of cymbals. It reminds me of my HD800S in that every brush of the cymbals is audible, but with shimmering decay rather than being jagged or brash. I use Nils Lofgren's guitar from his live album to track finger movements on the fret board and interaction with the crowd, and it is a pure delight. Detail and tonality hand in hand. I really like this combo of DD with ET drivers.

Sound-stage, Imaging
Directional queues are very clean and concise. Presentation of stage is outside the periphery of my head space with binaural tracks, so relatively expansive for an IEM, and possibly slightly more so than with the Argent. I continue to use Amber Rubarth’s “Tundra” (binaural album), and its really a great track for both stage and imaging as I also have a video for the recording. One of the other tracks I use (again I have the video as well as high-re recording) is Netrebko and Garanca's live recording of Lakme's Flower Duet. It has a wonderful transition of position from front to rear of stage, and its easy to track with the Radioso (and very realistic). The applause section is also a good test for width and depth (the sound of the audience flowing around me). Width of stage might be slightly wider than overall depth, but there's not a lot in it, and the realism is definitely there.

“Let it Rain” (Amanda Marshall) gives its usual nice three dimensional feel (the way the track is miked) with good guitar and vocal presence. There is sibilance with Amanda's vocals – and it should be easily noticeable because its in the recording. But the nice thing about the Radioso is that while the sibilance is there – its not over-emphasised or further enhanced. And if anything its slightly better than it was on the Argent. Nice.

Strengths

• Texture and impact of both sub and mid-bass.
• Reasonably expansive sense of stage
• Good for both female and male vocals.
• Euphonic upper mid-range
• Extremely detailed and clear treble with no brittleness

Weaknesses

• For my tastes, I struggling to notice any deficiency. Perhaps a slight roll off in sub-bass, but nothing which leaves me underwhelmed.

AMPLIFICATION REQUIREMENTS
The Radioso doesn’t really need extra amplification for overall volume (as long as you have a decent source). Because its impedance is a relatively low 19 ohms, a source with an output impedance of around 0-2 ohms (to meet damping requirements) should make the best match.

With the M11 around 65/120 low gain volume covers my normal 65-75 dB listening level. With the X5iii this is similar (60-65/120) and the M9 rounds out the FiiOs also with 60-65/120. So the Radioso is slightly more difficult to drive than the Argent, but even the diminutive M6 can manage it and have no issues with overall sound quality.

Next up was amplification, which meant testing with the Q1ii, E17K, Q5, and XP-2. In each case while I sometimes noted a slightly different tonality, there were no stand-out differences in dynamics on any of the additionally amped sources (none I'd be likely to tell in a volume matched blind test anyway). The XP-2 (via Bluetooth) added some extra warmth which wasn't really needed.

RESPONSE TO EQ?
Personally I find the Radioso pretty much spot on with regard to signature balance, and even more so than the Argent. So what about tweaking the sub-bass (experimental more than desired). I did this with Neutron's parametric EQ on the M11 and whilst I could easily increase the raw thump of the Radioso it didn't really add to my experience sonically. It responded well though – so I guess the option is there if you wanted a little more.

COMPARISON WITH OTHER IEMS
These comparisons were all done with the M11, (no EQ) – and volume matched using a calibrated SPL meter and fixed 1kHz test tone first. For this series of tests I’ve tried to look at both value (comparison to higher value IEMs) and quality. Unfortunately I don’t have a lot in this price bracket – but comparisons to AME's Argent, HiFiMan's RE2000, 64 Ears U10, LZ Big Dipper, Fidue's A91 Sirius and Dunu DK-4001 should be both relevant. For comparison with a bang for buck IEM, I’ve used FiiO’s new FH7.

This is pretty subjective, but the graphs do show relativity against the other IEMs for reference.

AME Radioso ($1450) vs AME Argent ($1450)
Build fit and comfort
Both are in very similar shaped resin shells with a completely ergonomic design. The Argent is slightly smaller than the Radioso, so if you have smaller outer ears, you may find the Argent is a little more comfortable. I have large ears, and the fit is great on both. On build quality – you're getting same attention to detail, and same durable materials. The Argent isolates slightly better (if that's important to you). All in all though – this is a tie. Same design, just different internal components / driver configuration.

Sound & Value
Both have some similarity in their signatures, with both being a little U shaped (the Radioso is more pronounced). Where they differ is in the bass and upper mid-range. The Radioso has more pronounced bass with more natural texture (typical of a DD) whilst the Argent has more speed and is lighter in impact. Both have great clarity in the upper mid-range and lower treble, but the Radioso's upper end is more balanced/polite than pronounced/presented. I like both of these (a lot), but I do find the Radioso is slightly warmer and a more all round listening experience.

AME Radioso ($1450) vs HifiMan RE2000 Gold ($1500)
Build fit and comfort
The RE2000 is a single DD vs the AME Radioso 6 driver trybrid. Both have an ergonomic shape, but the RE2000 has some hard edges, and I’ve always had comfort issues with it. Both are made of durable materials and have well made replaceable cables – with the stock Radioso cable being more pliable and less prone to tangling (the custom copper one included with this demo is also far nicer). In this comparison, Radioso takes the points for cable, comfort, and ergonomics.

Sound & Value
There is a lot of similarity in these signatures, with both being a little U/V shaped (the RE2000 is more V with more upper mid/lower treble energy). Radioso has more sub-bass extension which is a bit more pronounced and noticeable especially when taking the RE2000's more pronounced upper end into account. They both have pretty good overall balance, but could be called a little on the coloured side *the Radioso a little more balanced overall). For me in overall value, the Radioso simply delivers a better overall sonic signature and much better comfort.

AME Radioso ($1450) vs 64 Audio U10 ($1300)
Build, fit and comfort
The U10 is a 10 BA driver (per side) vs the Radioso’s 6 driver trybrid. Both IEMs have ergonomic shells and are very comfortable for long term listening. Both also have replaceable 2 pin cables (Radioso's normal stock cable is better quality). The body on the Radioso feels better built, and does fit me better (better ergonomics). The U10 has the M20 Apex module which can be swapped out for an Adel module to effectively change the sound. Overall the Radioso wins on comfort, ergonomics and overall build quality.

Sound & Value
These are quite different sounding IEMs despite their similar looking graphs. For starters the Radioso requires quite a bit more power (that sensitivity really is a factor here). Both show really good overall balance, and both have good bottom end warmth. The Radioso has more impact and thump, and also a little more upper end clarity and vitality. The U10 is less coloured, but also a little flat comparatively. Both are exceptional IEMs, but I find myself “pulled into the music” more with the Radioso. It is simply more engaging, and the effortless presentation of the lower and upper treble is brilliant. As much as I love the U10, the Radioso is in a higher league IMHO.

AME Radioso ($1450) vs Dunu DK-4001 ($900)
Build fit and comfort
The DK-4001 is a 5 driver traditional hybrid vs the 6 driver DD/BA/Electrostatic Trybrid Argent. Both are extremely well made with ergonomic shells and replaceable cables. The DK4001 is a multi-jack modular cable which is extremely well designed, but I still prefer the overall ergonomics of the Radioso stock cable. The custom cable with the Radioso is similar quality, but the DK-4001 cable would win with it's modularity. The Radioso, despite being larger, is still a little more comfortable due to its better ergonomics.

Sound & Value
This is a really interesting match up because they both have very similar mid-range and upper treble characteristics. In fact if I EQ the bass lower on the Radioso, I can get closer to the overall DK-4001 signature. Both IEM's have great balance, but where the DK-4001 is quite linear in lower mid-range, mid-bass and sub-bass, the Radioso has a more traditional mid-bass hump. Because of this the Radioso appears the warmer of the two. The second major difference is the DK-4001's lower treble vs the Radioso. Radioso simply has more extension and less overall grain (and both have great overall resolution). Of course DK-4001 is considerably cheaper and delivers a very good overall package. But for total performance including the slightly better fit, I still consider the Radioso worth the premium.

AME Radioso ($1450) vs FiiO FH7 ($450)
Build, fit and comfort
This pits another 5 driver DD/BA Hybrid vs the 6 driver Trybrid Radioso. Both IEMs have very ergonomic shells and are comfortable for long term listening. Both also have replaceable cables. Comfort and build quality here is shared, although I still find my personal fit is better with the Radioso (but it should be considering the price difference!).

Sound & Value
Why am I comparing these two IEMs – simply because the FH7 is one of the best in its price range and it seemed like a good chance to compare two very different price ranges. Both have a similar upper mid-range tonality, with the FH7 being a little more forward in presentation (the Radioso sounds a little distant in close comparison, but I prefer the sense of width and space). The Radioso has more low end warmth and impact, and while both have a sense of euphony, the Radioso sounds end to end more lively, yet still more balanced (you wouldn't think so from the graphs). Again the Radioso's bottom end and top end are the big differences providing both more presence and resolution. Is there a thousand dollar difference in performance between these IEMs? Definitely not IMO which shows just how good the FH7 are. But if your budget can get there, I would rather have the Radioso and an adequate DAP vs the FH7 and a TOTL DAP.

AME Radioso ($1450) vs Fidue A91 Sirius ($900)
Build, fit and comfort
The Sirius is another 5 driver DD/BA hybrid vs the 6 driver Radioso Trybrid. Both IEMs have ergonomic shells and are made from quality materials. The Sirius does have some sharpish edges and for those with large ears, this can cause issues (they are painful for me to wear sometimes). The Sirius has a really nice replaceable modular cable. Build and cable quality are similar, but ergonomics and overall comfort are better on the Radioso.

Sound & Value
First up – ignore the graphs. They're measured with the internal DD relief port open (it sits on the internal face of the earphone). If I measure it fully closed/blocked the bass jumps. The reality (for me) is when worn, the bass is similar to a normal DD mid-bass hump, although in my case, less impact than the likes of the Radioso. The Sirius also has a very forward and very pronounced upper mid-range which provides a great sense of euphony, but which is also very coloured. The Radioso provides more bass impact, better mid-range balance and more treble clarity (without being etched). In this case, as nice as the Sirius sounds, it simply can't keep up with the Radioso which is on another level.

AME Radioso ($1450) vs LZ Dipper 3 switches ($860)
Build, fit and comfort
Its funny because the first time I saw Radioso's signature graphed, I immediately thought of the 7 BA Dipper. Both are in very similar shaped resin shells with a completely ergonomic design. The Dipper might be marginally smaller than the Radioso but its essentially a tie. Both have good cables, great comfort and nice overall design. The Dipper allows you to manipulate Bass, mid-range and treble (although the mid-range choice is not fantastic).

Sound & Value
Both have similarity in their signatures, with both being a U shaped (the Dipper is more pronounced). Dippers BA based bass has a little less impact but more speed. Both have a coloured mid-range and reasonable treble clarity. The Dippers weakness is that the mid-range is a little too sucked out, but I still really enjoy them. The difference is the bass warmth and impact of the Radioso which adds to the lower mid-range, where the Dipper is lacking. The Dipper provides upper resolution via lower bass impact and similar amplitude of treble. The Radioso provides it simply by the technology in the ET tweeters. Overall, I prefer the Radioso – it simply sounds better. But it should be noted here that simply Eqing out the mid-range dip a little in the Dipper produces surprisingly good results.

VALUE
The Radioso is not a cheap IEM. But if you look at the overall package, and especially the sonic performance of the combination of dynamic, armature and electrostatic drivers, then it becomes a question of where diminishing value sits for you personally. The main question I use to evaluate value is “would I buy them”, and knowing I have to give these back eventually, I would say a definite yes. I originally thought the Argent was getting towards end game for me, and then AME shows up with the Radioso, and I'm considering now how I convince my wife that I need a pair of these. I'll have to sell several of my own audio items. That will hurt – but these really have captured me. What really worries me is that Earl has suggested I review the rest of their range, and they have a 12 driver flagship there which my wife might not understand. If anything, AME has shown me that in their case, the higher value is justified, and I definitely don't consider the Radioso over-valued.

AME CUSTOM AUDIO RADIOSO – SUMMARY
When you get to review an audio item over the $1000 mark, its easy to be wowed by the price tag and expectation bias. The Radioso wasn't an immediate sell for me. I liked it, but didn't “love it”. That came with time, and I've had a few months now to really form an opinion. This is currently my favourite IEM and I'll be devastated to return them.

The Radioso is a 6 driver trybrid – 1 DD, 1 BA and 4 electrostatic tweeters. The tuning is wonderful (if a touch coloured), and what I've really liked is the vividness of the sound, and they way bass and treble combine to give fantastic balance but also a sense of vitality and presence. They are definitely U shaped, but its a really good “U” for my personal tastes.

Add the ergonomics, build quality and comfort, and its a complete package. Once again my sincere thanks to Earl and the team at AME for allowing me to review the Radioso. This company really knows how to tune an IEM!

INTRODUCTION
My first real quality IEM was the Shure SE420 (many years ago) and as such I’ve always had a bit of a soft-spot for multi-BA based ear-phones. The SE420 led me to Shures SE315,425, 535, and later to multi-BAs like the Alclair Curve, 64 Audio U6 and U10, Earsonics ES series, and the Fearless S8 (just to name a few). I like their speed, their mid-range tonality, and generally their fit / comfort. Because I travel a lot, isolation is also important to me – and the Shures were master of that. Fast forward to present day and Australian company Audiofly have sent me their AF1120 Mk2 for review. Lets see how it stacks up against others I’ve tried.

ABOUT AUDIOFLY
Audiofly is an Australian audio company, founded in 2012 with the primary aim to design pro audio products for both musicians and also music lovers. Although their first products mainly centred around Inner Ear Monitors (for stage and personal use), they now have a comprehensive range of products including IEMs, wireless earphones, a full sized headphone and a range of replacement cables. Perhaps their website best explains their philosophy in their own words.

“BUILT FOR MUSIC
Audiofly is about our love of music and the relationship we have with music through gear.”

Audiofly’s website and Facebook page are each linked for those wanting more information

DISCLAIMER
The Audiofly AF1120 Mk2 that I’m reviewing today was provided to me as a review loaner. It will be returned following the review. The retail price at time of review is ~ USD 699.

PREAMBLE
If you haven't read any of my reviews, I suggest starting here, as it will give you an insight into my known preferences and bias. This may be useful for interpreting my comments and applying them to your own preferences.

For the purposes of this review - I used the Audiofly AF1120 Mk2 straight from the headphone-out socket of many of my portables, but predominantly the M6, M9, M11, and R2R2000. I have also experimented with a variety of amplifiers including the FiiO Q1ii, E17K, Q5, and xDuoo XP-2. IMO they do not benefit greatly from additional amplification. In the time I have spent with the AF1120, I have noticed no change to the overall sonic presentation (break-in).

This is a purely subjective review - my gear, my ears, and my experience. Please take it all with a grain of salt - especially if it does not match your own experience.

THE PACKAGE

The Audiofly AF1120 Mk2 arrived in a 156 x 167 x 58mm box and lid. The lid has a photo of the AF1120 on the front, and lists the specifications and accessories on the rear. Opening the box and lid reveals a pelican case (105x140x50mm) which contains the accessory selection. The AF1120 Mk2 are snugly encased in a custom foam enclosure.
The full accessory package includes:

• AF1120 MK2 in-ear monitors
• Dome silicone tips: S, M, L
• Tri-flange silicone tips: S, M, L
• Comply® foam tips: S, M, L
• Pelican type case
• 3.5mm to 1/4” adaptor
• Airline adapter
• Cleaning tool
• Cable clip

This is a good accessory package, and in-line with the overall asking price.

THE TECHNICAL SPECIFICATIONS


MEASUREMENTS
The graphs I use are generated using the Vibro Veritas coupler and ARTA software. Ken Ball (ALO/Campfire) graciously provided me with measurement data which I have used to recalibrate my Veritas so that it mimics an IEC 711 measurement standard (Ken uses two separate BK ear simulators, we measured the same set of IEMs, and I built my calibration curve from shared data). I do not claim that this data is 100% accurate, but it is very consistent, and is as close as I can get to the IEC 711 standard on my budget.

I do not claim that the measurements are in any way more accurate than anyone else's, but they have been proven to be consistent and I think they should be enough to give a reasonable idea of response - especially if you've followed any of my other reviews. When measuring I usually always use crystal foam tips (medium bore opening) - and the reason I use them is for very consistent seal and placement depth in the coupler. I use the same amp (E11K) for all my measurements - and output is under 1 ohm. Measurements above 9-10kHz are generally problematic with any hobbyist set-up, and should be disregarded, but generally my measurements from 20Hz to 9-10kHz have proven to be relatively close to many of the measurements of the manufacturers who support me.


The graphs are provided merely as a point of discussion, and later in the review I've included comparisons to other IEMs for similar reference. Channel matching is very good and is consistent over the entire frequency range.

BUILD
External
The AF1120 Mk2 has a peanut/jelly-bean shape design. It is designed to ergonomically fit snugly inside your outer ear cavity, securely held inside the Concha with the front snugly fitting adjacent to your Intertragical notch.
The outer shell material is a 2 piece transparent composite polymer. The internals are easy to see (which I really like). The outer face is clear with the Audiofly logo on both earpieces. The internal face is very smooth, is printed with L and R markers and (not utilising a dynamic driver) has no external vent or port. The housing has an end to end length of 20mm, height of 14mm and depth of 10mm (excluding the nozzle). The nozzle is angled nicely forward and up, and is 9mm in length. The nozzle diameter is 3mm, has no lip, and is a natural fit for Shure Olive foam or Comply T100 tips. It has an in-built wax guard.
At the top rear of the AF1120 Mk2 is a forward pointing standard MMCX socket. The socket is very firm with the supplied cable and feels sturdy. The AF1120 comes with a single ended copper cable with an outer cloth like sheath reinforced with Cordura fibre for added strength. Between the earpiece and Y-split is a very thin twisted pair. Below the Y-Split (the the plug) is the sheathed cable. The cable has preformed ear-loops with a very small and quite hard to read L/R indicator on the plugs (Audiofly – something easier to read would help!). I find these loops quite comfortable and work well. The Y-split is hard plastic polymer with a clear tube neck cinch. The jack is 3.5mm, right angled, and gold plated. The cable is well built, and light and comfortable to wear (virtually no microphonics), but does tend to tangle easily (careful cable management required).
Internal
Internally the AF1120 Mk2 uses an all Balanced Armature driver system. It uses 3 sets of dual BA per earpiece for low, mid-range and upper frequencies and a 3 way passive crossover with Butterworth filter. Internally there is also a custom sound chamber to assist with both holding the BA drivers in place, and also for assisting the desired tuning.

FIT / COMFORT / ISOLATION
Internal and external isolation is extremely good as you’d expect for a non-ported IEM. It does ultimately depend on tip choice and seal. I would rate passive isolation as well above average and usable on public transport. Although it does not completely block out aircraft drone, by the time you add music, you aren’t hearing cabin sounds.

Fit and comfort thoughts are very subjective, and will vary from person to person. My experience has been one of complete satisfaction – the AF1120 are so small and light-weight. It has been designed for an ergonomic fit (much like a custom monitor). For me they are a perfect, sit inside my outer ear, and basically disappear within a few seconds of wearing (I could forget they are in). I have slept with them intact, and woken hours later with them still there and no discomfort. The AF1120 is designed to only be used cable over ear.
The AF1120 has a no lip on the nozzle, but the nozzle itself is quite long. Usually no lip is one of my critiques, but for this sized nozzle – you’re going to be using the supplied tips, or something similar to Westone or Shure tips anyway. And the supplied tip fit really well, as do my preferred Shure Olive foam tips. None of my standard tips fit (too loose), but I didn’t expect them to. They are a relatively shallow fitting IEM, but the nozzles are long enough for most tips to seal effectively. Foam still gives me the best combination of seal and comfort and these also remained very secure on the nozzle.

SOUND QUALITY
Most of the testing at this point was done with my FiiO M11, no EQ, and Shire large Olive foam tips. I used the M11 simply because paired they gave me a very transparent window to the music with low impedance, and more than enough power.

For the record – on most tracks, the volume level on the M11 was around 40/120 on low gain (depending on the track) which was giving me an average SPL around 65-75 dB. Tracks used were across a variety of genres – and can be viewed in this list https://www.head-fi.org/f/articles/brookos-test-tracks.17556/

While testing I constantly switched with my Alclair Curve to give me a good reference base-line.

Relativities

• Sub-bass – In reasonable balance with mid-range but ultimately sitting below both mid-bass and upper mid-range. Extension is good and the sub-bass rumble is definitely audible (Lorde's “Royals), although a little subdued. The bass is typical of most BAs I’ve heard. It is quick with clean decay and good speed.
• Mid-bass – above sub-bass and about even with upper mids, and has medium impact. The bass timbre and definition is quite clean and clear, and this is bass quality and that most people should enjoy. Bass lovers may be missing some overall quantity, but I personally find it nicely balanced. With Eminem’s “Lose Yourself” there is sufficient impact whilst still maintaining clarity. Its not thumping – but its definitely there.
• Lower mid-range – very slightly recessed compared to bass and upper mid-range. Both male and female vocal fundamentals are excellent though. Male vocals still come across with good body, and I’ve really enjoyed the likes of Eddie Vedder (Pearl Jam), Shaun Morgan (Seether) and Joe Bonamassa.
• Upper mid-range – There is a slow and shallow rise from the lower mid-range to a peak at 3-4 kHz, then a drop through 5kHz and extended progression to the lower treble. The transition from lower to upper-mids is cohesive, and there is enough presence to provide both detail and presence. There is some euphony with female vocals, but it never over-done. The upper and lower mid-range on the AF1120 Mk2 is definitely it’s strength.
• Lower treble has a peak at 7-9 kHz, and then drops away a little through 10 kHz. The peak at 7 kHz gives detail and brilliance with cymbals, although the decay on the cymbals “splashes/crashes” just a little more than actually ‘shimmering’. Its still really well done – but after listening to AMEs Argent recently and its electret treble extension, nothing will ever be quite the same for me again.
• Upper treble appears to extends quite well but is below the rest of the signature. It is difficult to capture properly on my measurement rig, and with my “aged” hearing I no longer notice much over 12 kHz anyway.

Overall this is a reasonably well balanced monitor with a very slight lower treble emphasis. It sounds quite natural and very well balanced.

Resolution / Detail / Clarity

• Very good cohesion in the mid-range, and the slight progression through upper mid-range provides detail in the presence area with good clarity and texture especially around vocals and guitar.
• Good upper end detail (hi-hats/cymbals) with reasonable decay.
• Clean and clear signature with enough bass to compliment without losing any detail.

Sound-stage, Imaging

• Very clear directional cues, just at the periphery of my head space – so reasonably intimate feeling of width and depth.
• Imaging is clean and there is good separation of instruments without being clinical. No signs of smearing.
• Decent sense of immersion (applause section of “Dante's Prayer”) with an impression that the crowd is around you (you are sitting right in it). Nice sense of depth as well – although width seems slightly stronger.
• Live recording of Lakme's “Flower Duet” (Netrebko and Garanca) had good presentation of space – especially as the singers move from front to rear of stage. Not as good as the likes of 64Audios U10 – but still quite compelling.
• “Let It Rain” had fantastic sense of 3D (the way it is miked) and sibilance is present - I know it exists in the recording. Not enhanced or over-emphasised which is a good sign that the 7 kHz peak is not over emphasised.

Strengths

• Speed and texture of both sub and mid-bass.
• Spherical sense of stage (a little left/right – but not excessive), and intimate rather than overly spacious
• Excellent mid-range which suits both female and male vocals.
• Slight euphony with female vocals in the upper mid-range
• Detailed and clear with no brittleness

Weaknesses

• Sub-bass, while present, has very slight roll off
• Very slightly splashy in the cymbal presence area

AMPLIFICATION REQUIREMENTS
The Audiofly AF1120 Mk2 doesn’t need amplification for overall volume – and because its impedance is a relatively low 11 ohms, a source with an output impedance of around 0-1.5 ohms (to meet damping requirements) should make the best match. Most good sources should easily sit in the 0-1 ohm range. I did try the AF1120 with a higher impedance source (3 ohms) and there was a subtle shift in tonality (it became slightly brighter).
With the M11 around 40/120 low gain volume covers my normal 65-75 dB listening level. With M9 the range is 42-45/120 for the same listening volume. The AF1120 is pretty easy to drive, and even the diminutive M6 has no problems driving them and sounding extremely good to boot. Most decent sources (including smart-phones) should;d be able to power them well. The secret of course is to make sure the low impedance is managed.

Next up was amplification, which meant testing with the Q1ii, E17K, Q5, and XP-2. In each case I noted a slightly different tonality (especially with the XP-2) but noticed no real differences in dynamics on any of the additionally amped sources. The XP-2 (via bluetooth) added some extra warmth which was actually quite nice, but IMO the AF1120 can do perfectly well without additional amping.

RESPONSE TO EQ?
Personally I find the AF1120 pretty much aligned to my personal tastes with regard to default signature. To test EQ ability though, I used the M11’s built in EQ to give a slight boost to sub-bass and a small cut at 8kHz. The lower treble cut reduced some of the splashiness of the treble with cymbals, and the sub-bass boost definitely increased the audible rumble. However whilst I’d probably keep the small 8kHz drop – the sub-bass increase does hit the clarity a little, and to be honest I like the bass the way it is. Its nice to see what the drivers can do though, and if you like tinkering, you’ll enjoy fine tuning this IEM to your preferences (it responds well).

COMPARISON WITH OTHER IEMS
These comparisons were all done with the M11, (no EQ) – and volume matched using a calibrated SPL meter and fixed 1kHz test tone first. For this series of tests I’ve tried to look at both value and quality – pitting the AF11230 Mk2 against other similar BA based IEMs (with a hybrid thrown in for good measure). For comparison I’ve used FiiO’s FA7, FH7, Alclair’s Curve, Earsonic’s ES3, Fearless Audio’s S8F and 64Audio’s U10. This is pretty subjective, but the graphs do show relativity against the other IEMs for reference.

Audiofly AF1120 Mk2 ($700) vs Alclair Curve ($250)
Build fit and comfort
The Curve is dual BA vs the AF1120’s six. Both have an extremely ergonomic shape and both fit perfectly. Both are well crafted from a plastic polymer and have well made replaceable cables – my preference would be for the two pin Curve (personal). In this comparison, its a tie on build quality comfort, and ergonomics.

Sound & Value
As you can see from the graphs, these are two very similar sounding monitors. The bass is practically identical, with the main difference in the upper mid-range and lower treble (and this is a different flavour rather than being a different sound). The Curve has slightly more euphony with female vocalists and a little less splash in the lower treble. The AF1120 has slightly better male/female vocal balance, but a little more emphasis in the lower treble. It also may have a slight edge in instrument separation and imaging – but its not a game breaker. Both are incredibly well balanced and a joy to listen to. For me personally, I’ll stick with the Curve but either are a good recommendation.

Audiofly AF1120 Mk2 ($700) vs FiiO FA7 ($300)
Build fit and comfort
The FA7 is quad BA vs the AF1120’s six. Both have an ergonomic shape and both fit perfectly. Both are well crafted (from resin or plastic polymer) and have well made replaceable cables – with the AF1120 Mk2 cable being lighter and more pliable. In this comparison again its a tie on build quality comfort, and ergonomics.

Sound & Value
These are chalk and cheese. FiiO tried to add some warmth to their signature, and elevated the bass – a lot compared to the mid-range. The mid-range (if you cut the bass) is almost perfect, but in its default signature, it is overly warm, lacks definition, and is highly bass emphasised. The added bass bleeds into the mid-range, and it sounds cloyingly dark. The AF1120 Mk2 in comparison has balance and clarity, whilst still keeping a tonality which works well across most genres. A good example of tuning both bad FA7 and good AF1120 Mk2. Here the AF1120 wins by quite a margin and is well worth the additional cost.

Audiofly AF1120 Mk2 ($700) vs FiiO FH7 ($450)
Build, fit and comfort
This pits a 5 driver DD/BA Hybrid vs the 6 driver all BA AF1120 Mk2. Both IEMs have ergonomic shells and are very comfortable for long term listening. Both also have replaceable cables. Comfort and build quality here is shared. Personally for me, fit is slightly better on the AF1120 Mk2 and it wins in terms of isolation. The FH7 has the better cable.

Sound & Value
There is some similarity with these two IEMs, but the differences shown in the frequency response don’t quite show the true story. The perceived bass of the FH7 DD is closer than the graphs show vs the AF1120 Mk2 BA delivery (the AF1120 Mk2 does have more overall mid-bass impact though, and is quicker). Mid-range is somewhat similar, but the main difference comes with the more forward mids of the FH7 vs the more classical slow rise of the AF1120 Mk2 (from lower mids to upper mids). Both are clean and clear though, and both very well balanced. The FH7 is a little leaner whilst the AF1120 Mk2 is a little fuller. My preference here is the AF1120 Mk2.

Audiofly AF1120 mk2 ($700) vs Fearless S8 Freedom ($489)
Build, fit and comfort
The AF1120 mk2 is a 6 driver BA vs the 8 driver Freedom S8. Both IEMs have extremely ergonomic shells and are superbly comfortable. Both also have replaceable cables, although the S8 Freedom’s is arguably better quality. Comfort, isolation and build quality here are shared.

Sound & Value
Somewhat similar overall tonality. The AF1120 has better end to end balance, and although the bass looks lighter, the balance with the rest of the signature doesn’t make it sound bass light to me. Everything in a signature is relative. Both have very quick transients and do detail really well. The S8 Freedom has more emphasis in the lower end and a smoother overall tonality. The AF1120 has the better end to end balance with a slightly brighter top end. I really like both, and the winner here depends on the tonality you’re looking for.

Audiofly AF1120 mk2 ($700) vs Earsonics ES3 ($399)
Build, fit and comfort
The AF1120 mk2 is a 6 driver per side BA vs the 3 driver per side Earsonics ES3. Both IEMs have ergonomic shells and are very comfortable – but the nod would go to the Audiofly AF1120 for a slightly smaller and better fitting body. Both have very good build quality and replaceable cables, and my personal preference is for the 2 pin ES3 cable. Comfort, isolation and build quality here are comparable.

Sound & Value
These two have quite different tonality. The ES3 is very flat through the mid-bass, but has elevated sub-bass. So it is a very clean and clear monitor which sounds somewhat lean, but has some bottom end kick. Personally I find the ES3 can be a bit dry with male vocal fundamentals. The AF1120 may not have the bottom end kick – but it has a fuller mid-range, and ultimately sounds more natural. Both have very quick transients and handle detail really well. For my preferences, I much prefer the AF1120 despite the rather large price differential.

Audiofly AF1120 mk2 ($700) vs 64 Audio U10 ($1300)
Build fit and comfort
The U10 is a 10 driver per side multi-BA IEM vs the 6 driver per side AF1120. Both are extremely well made with ergonomic shells and replaceable cables. The U10 is slightly bulkier, and the AF1120 does ultimately fit a little more comfortably. Both have replaceable cables, although I prefer the U10’s 2 pin model. The U10 has the advantage of changing modules to control tonality, but at the cost of some isolation.

Sound & Value
There is a large price difference here, and the reason for choosing this comparison was because both are incredibly natural sounding monitors – with very similar mid-ranges. The U10 has more bass, but it actually has about the same overall impact because of the Apex modules (they measure bassier than they actually are). The bigger difference is at the other end of the frequency where the U10 has a little less lower treble emphasis and consequently isn’t quite as splashy with cymbals. There is a little more decay. The U10 is also a lot more open sounding (again the Apex modules). What both IEMs have though is a wonderful balance in the mid-range, and excel with both male and female vocals. The fact that I can favourably compare two IEMs with this much difference in price is a testament to the AF1120. Ultimately the U10 is slightly better (IMO), but if you’re on a tighter budget, the AF1120 will give you a similar signature for almost half the price.

VALUE
Always hard to judge, and especially when an IEM starts sitting in the $500 - $1000 bracket. Ultimately the AF1120 Mk2 delivery an excellent overall tonality, and a very special mid-range which (IMO) does sit it above most IEMs in the under $500 bracket. Ultimately is it a screaming bargain? I think it meets its overall value position – good build, good accessories, good comfort and fit, and a really balanced sound. Its not a dead-set “sonic diamond” bargain – but it does justify its price point.

AUDIOFLY AF1120 MK2 – SUMMARY
This was my first experience with Audiofly, and I have to say – they know how to tune a monitor pretty well. The AF1120 Mk2 meets its target as their flagship universal. Add in a very good accessory package, extremely good build quality, overall design, and exceptional comfort and you have a great overall package. If I had one recommendation on build, it would be to rethink the cable. Control those tangles with a change in design and it would cease to be a potential issue.

The tuning is mature and balanced across the spectrum. It has good extension at both ends, although perhaps slightly lean in sub-bass, and slightly emphasised in lower treble. Neither tuning choice is a mistake though – as a whole, the AF1120 Mk2 really works. It has a very natural overall tonality, and sounds great with both male and female vocals. I’ve had the AF1120 mk2 for almost 3 months, and for me its been a slow burner (impressing me more and more as I’ve spent time with them). They aren’t an IEM which immediately grabbed my attention, but one where my appreciation of their strengths has increased as I’ve got to know them better. Ultimately for me, that generally indicates a longer term keeper. If I didn’t have the Curve and U10, I’d be very tempted to get a pair. I will (based on my experience with the AF1120 mk2) unreservedly recommend them. For $700 they are not cheap – but IMO they do represent reasonable value.

My sincere thanks to Michelle and also the team at Audiofly for allowing me to review the AF1120 Mk2. I will miss having them around.

INTRODUCTION
One of the IEM choices I’ve been looking for over the years is an all BA IEM which can maintain balance and tonality, whilst providing high isolation. This has been a difficult search for me, as there are many different ideas on what constitutes balance. As such I’ve tried many multi-BA IEMs which have come close, but not quite met the standards for my personal preferences. I was contacted earlier this year by Head-Fi’s “listen4joy” who sent me his pair and asked if I’d review them. Did they tick my boxes for balance and tonality? Lets find out.

ABOUT FEARLESS AUDIO
Fearless Audio was founded in 2012 with the aim to create perfect fitting customised earphones, including for stage and also for running. According to their website, they were an early adopter of 3D printing technology and developed the world’s first 3d-printed catheter tuner earphones. Perhaps their website best explains their philosophy in their own words.

“Our primary focus is on users' music listening experience. Through years of cooperation with professional musicians, we have developed high performance earphones that suit all types of enthusiasts and musicians. During the past 7 years, we have been recognised as an industry leader by global consumers who insist on an unparalleled music experience.

Our corporate culture guides us in the pursuit of the ultimate music experience with the craftsman spirit of excellence, and a business philosophy centered on "fearless, quality, & innovation".”

Fearless Audio’s website and facebook page are each linked here and here

DISCLAIMER
The Fearless Audio S8 Freedom that I’m reviewing today was provided to me as a review loaner. It will be returned following the review. The retail price at time of review is ~ USD 489 (Penon Audio).

PREAMBLE
If you haven't read any of my reviews, I suggest starting here, as it will give you an insight into my known preferences and bias

For the purposes of this review - I used the Fearless S8 Freedom straight from the headphone-out socket of many of my portables, but predominantly the M6, M9, M11, and R2R2000. I have also experimented with a variety of amplifiers including the FiiO Q1ii, E17K, Q5, and xDuoo XP-2. IMO they do not benefit greatly from additional amplification. In the time I have spent with the Argent, I have noticed no change to the overall sonic presentation (break-in).

This is a purely subjective review - my gear, my ears, and my experience. Please take it all with a grain of salt - especially if it does not match your own experience.

THE PACKAGE
The Fearless S8 Freedom arrived in a 125 x 180 x 50mm box and lid, surrounded by a printed black and white sleeve. The sleeve has a leaf pattern on the front, and lists the S8 Freedom’s specifications on the rear. Opening the box and lid reveals a cleaning cloth, envelope with documentation and blue hinged lid carry case (70x125x40mm) which contains the S8 Freedom, cable and tip selection (along with a contact card).

The full accessory package includes:

• 1 pair Freedom S8 IEMs
• 1 x 2 pin stereo cable
• 1 x hinged lid carry case
• 7 pairs of “Fearless” silicone ear tips
• 1 pair of dual flange silicone ear tips
• 2 pair of foam tips
• A card with serial number
• Envelope with information in Chinese
• Cleaning cloth

This is a reasonable accessory package, and in-line with the overall asking price.

THE TECHNICAL SPECIFICATIONS


MEASUREMENTS
The graphs I use are generated using the Vibro Veritas coupler and ARTA software. Ken Ball (ALO/Campfire) graciously provided me with measurement data which I have used to recalibrate my Veritas so that it mimics an IEC 711 measurement standard (Ken uses two separate BK ear simulators, we measured the same set of IEMs, and I built my calibration curve from shared data). I do not claim that this data is 100% accurate, but it is very consistent, and is as close as I can get to the IEC 711 standard on my budget.

I do not claim that the measurements are in any way more accurate than anyone else's, but they have been proven to be consistent and I think they should be enough to give a reasonable idea of response - especially if you've followed any of my other reviews. When measuring I usually always use crystal foam tips (medium bore opening) - and the reason I use them is for very consistent seal and placement depth in the coupler. I use the same amp (E11K) for all my measurements - and output is under 1 ohm. Measurements above 9-10kHz are generally problematic with any hobbyist set-up, and should be disregarded, but generally my measurements from 20Hz to 9-10kHz have proven to be relatively close to many of the measurements of the manufacturers who support me.

The graphs are provided merely as a point of discussion, and later in the review I've included comparisons to other IEMs for similar reference. Channel matching is as good as I’ve seen on any IEM I’ve tested and is consistent over the entire frequency range.



BUILD
External
The S8 Freedom has the type of shape synonymous with higher end customs, and is a peanut/jelly-bean shape design. It is designed to ergonomically fit snugly inside your outer ear cavity, securely held inside the Concha with the skinny end inside your Intertragical notch. Just like true customs, it has a small rise of resin at the rear of the IEM shell to comfortably accommodate placement over the Crux helix and sit intact on the Cymba.
The outer shell material is a highly transparent resin with a blue tint. The internals are easy to see despite the tint (which i really like). The outer face is clear with the Fearless Audio logo on the left earpiece and model name “Freedom” on the right. The internal face is very smooth, and not utilising a dynamic driver means no requirement for an external vent or port. The housing has an and end to end length of 24mm, height of 16mm and depth of 14mm (excluding the nozzle). The nozzle is angled nicely forward and up, and is 10mm in length (including the flare at the base). The nozzle diameter is 5.5-6mm, has no lip, and has 3 separate sound channels in the tube.
At the top rear of the S8 Freedom shell is flush fitting recessed 2 pin (0.78mm) socket. The 2 pin cable plugs are colour coded (blue or red) for right and left. The socket is very firm with the supplied cable and feels very sturdy. The S8 Freedom comes with a single ended SPC (silver plated copper) cable. Its is an 8 core braided design. 4 braids on each side combined to an 8 core braid beowo the Y-split. The section below the 2 pin plugs is encased in a soft transparent shrink tube which naturally forms an ear hook. The Y-split is metal with a matching neck cinch, and the jack is 3.5mm, straight, and rhodium plated. The cable is really well built, and comfortable to wear.
Internal
Internally the S8 Freedom uses an all Balanced Armature driver system. The interesting thing is that they’ve chosen to use a combination of drivers from both Sonion and Knowles for their tuning of the S8 Freedom. They use dual Sonion BA for ultra-low frequency, Sonion dual BA for low-medium frequency, dual Knowles BA for medium-high frequency and dual Knowles BA for ultra-high frequency (a total of 8 BA drives). They’ve used a 4 way active crossover and 3 sound tubes.

FIT / COMFORT / ISOLATION
Internal and external isolation is extremely good (26dB), as you’d expect for a non-ported IEM. It does ultimately depend on tip choice and seal. I would rate passive isolation as well above average and usable on public transport. Although it does not completely block out aircraft drone, by the time you add music, you aren’t hearing cabin sounds.

Fit and comfort thoughts are very subjective, and will vary from person to person. My experience has been one of complete satisfaction. The S8 Freedom has been designed for an ergonomic fit (much like a custom monitor). For me they are a perfect, sit flush with my outer ear, and basically disappear within a few seconds of wearing (I could forget they are in). I have slept with them intact, and woken hours later with them still there and no discomfort. The S8 Freedom is designed to only be used cable over ear.
The S8 Freedom has a no lip on the nozzle, but the nozzle itself is relatively thick, and quite long. With my preferred foam tips, I have no problems with the tips coming off the nozzle – they are quite firm. I also tried my usual medley of Spiral Dots, Spin-fits, Ostry tuning tips and Sony Isolation tips – all fit easily but can slide off in your ear if you get a good seal. So really – would prefer some sort of shallow lip – a slight design flaw. They are a relatively shallow fitting IEM, but the nozzles are long enough for most tips to seal effectively. Foam still gives me the best combination of seal and comfort and these also remained very secure on the nozzle.

SOUND QUALITY
Most of the testing at this point was done with my FiiO M11, no EQ, and Comply foam tips. I used the M11 simply because paired they gave me a very transparent window to the music with low impedance, and more than enough power.

For the record – on most tracks, the volume level on the M11 was around 35/120 on low gain (depending on the track) which was giving me an average SPL around 65-75 dB. Tracks used were across a variety of genres – and can be viewed in this list . While testing I constantly switched with my reference pair (Alclair Curve + E17K with +4 bass) to give me a good reference base-line. The additional bass is to bring the Curve closer to reference.

Relativities

• Sub-bass – In balance with upper mid-range but sitting above lower mid-range – definitely above reference. Extension is extremely good and the sub-bass rumble is definitely audible (Lorde's “Royals). Surprisingly there is minimal bleed into other frequencies. The bass is a-typical of most BAs I’ve heard. It is quick with clean decay and good speed, but more impact than I am used to.
• Mid-bass – slightly below sub-bass but above lower mids with medium impact. The bass timbre and definition is quite clean and clear, and this is bass quality and quantity that most people should enjoy. With Eminem’s “Lose Yourself” I was surprised at the amount of impact the S8 was able to deliver whilst still maintianing clarity.
• Lower mid-range – recessed compared to bass and upper mid-range. There is a definite V-shape here. Both male and female vocal fundamentals are still very good though. Male vocals still come across with good body, and I’ve really enjoyed the likes of Eddie Vedder (Pearl Jam) and Shaun Morgan (Seether). The mid-range recession also gives a little impression of space and separation.
• Upper mid-range – There is a slow and shallow rise from the lower mid-range to a peak at 3-4 kHz, then a relatively extended progression to the lower treble. The transition from lower to upper-mids is cohesive, and there is enough presence to provide both detail and presence. There is some euphony with female vocals.
• Lower treble has a small peak at 6-7 kHz, and then drops a way a little through 8-10 kHz. The peak at 6-7 kHz still gives some nice detail and brilliance with cymbals, and the drop-off maintains smoothness and makes sure there is no brittleness or sharpness.
• Upper treble appears to extends quite well but is below the rest of the signature. It is difficult to capture properly on my measurement rig, and with my “aged” hearing I no longer notice much over 12 kHz anyway.

Overall this is a reasonably well balanced monitor with a “V” shape which has more to do with the slight recession in mid-range (intended) than any obvious emphasis at either end of the spectrum.

Resolution / Detail / Clarity

• Slightly elevated bass response gives a little more bass guitar than truly balanced, but doesn't hide or mask detail.
• Very good cohesion in the mid-range, but appears very slightly distant compared to some of the more mid-forward earphones I've listened to lately. This is not necessarily a bad thing
• Clean and clear in the presence area with very good detail especially around vocals and guitar.
• Very good upper end detail (hi-hats/cymbals) with good decay – no signs of being over done. Just enough heat to balance things nicely.
• No signs of lack of resolution – some who prefer brighter presentations may find these a little on the smooth side.

Sound-stage, Imaging

• Good directional cues, just outside the periphery of my head space – so reasonable feeling of width and also of depth.
• Imaging is clean and clear and very good separation of instruments without being clinical. No signs of smearing.
• Good immersion (applause section of “Dante's Prayer”) with impression that crowd is around you (you are sitting right in it). Good sense of depth as well – although width slightly stronger.
• Live recording of Lakme's “Flower Duet” (Netrebko and Garanca) had very good presentation of space – especially as the singers move from front to rear of stage.
• Sibilance is present in “Let It Rain” - I know it exists in the recording. Not enhanced or over-emphasised.

Strengths

• Speed and impact of both sub and mid-bass.
• Reasonable sense of stage
• Good for both female and male vocals.
• Nicely euphonic upper mid-range
• Detailed and clear with no brittleness

Weaknesses

• Nothing springs to mind. This is a really easy to listen monitor with good mix and cohesion considering the mild V-shape.

AMPLIFICATION REQUIREMENTS
The S8 Freedom doesn’t need amplification for overall volume – and because its impedance is a relatively low 15 ohms, a source with an output impedance of around 0-2 ohms (to meet damping requirements) should make the best match. Most good sources should easily sit in the 0-1 ohm range.
With the M11 around 35-40/120 low gain volume covers my normal 65-75 dB listening level. With M9 the range is 38-43/120 for the same listening volume. The S8 Freedom is pretty easy to drive, and even the diminutive M6 has no problems driving them and sounding extremely good to boot. Next up was amplification, which meant testing with the Q1ii, E17K, Q5, and XP-2. In each case I noted a slightly different tonality but noticed no real differences in dynamics on any of the additionally amped sources. The XP-2 (via bluetooth) added some extra warmth which was not ideal for my tastes, but IMO the S8 Freedom can do perfectly well without additional amping.

RESPONSE TO EQ?
Personally I find the S8 Freedom pretty much aligned to my personal tastes with regard to default signature. To test EQ ability, I used the M11’s built in EQ to give a slight cut to bass and whilst the S8 responded well, I preferred the default. I also boosted the upper treble at around 8-10K using the M11, Neutron and a parametric equaliser. Again – the S8 responded well to the change – but in all honesty I can’t see myself using EQ with this IEM. Fearless Audio got this one pretty right.

COMPARISON WITH OTHER IEMS
These comparisons were all done with the M11, (no EQ) – and volume matched using a calibrated SPL meter and fixed 1kHz test tone first. For this series of tests I’ve tried to look at both value and quality – pitting the S8 Freedom against other IEMs in a similar price category. For comparison I’ve used the FiiO’s FA7, FH7, Audiofly’s AF1120 mk2 and Dunu’s DK-4001. This is pretty subjective, but the graphs do show relativity against the other IEMs for reference.

Fearless S8 Freedom ($489) vs FiiO FA7 ($300)
Build fit and comfort
The FA7 is quad BA vs the S8 Freedom’s eight. Both have an ergonomic shape and both fit perfectly. Both are well crafted from resin and have well made replaceable cables – with the S8 cable being more pliable. In this comparison, the S8 takes the points for cable, but both are equal for comfort, and ergonomics.

Sound & Value
These are chalk and cheese. FiiO tried to add some warmth to their signature, and elevated the bass – a lot compared to the mid-range. The mid-range (if you cut the bass) is almost perfect, but in its default signature, it is overly warm, lacks definition, and is highly bass emphasised. The added bass bleeds into the mid-range, and it sounds cloyingly dark. Thankfully Fearless were able to add the bass while retaining clarity and balance. A good example of tuning both bad and good. Here the S8 wins by a mile and is well worth the additional money.

Fearless S8 Freedom ($489) vs FiiO FH7 ($450)
Build, fit and comfort
This pits a 5 driver DD/BA Hybrid vs the 8 driver all BA S8 Freedom. Both IEMs have ergonomic shells and are very comfortable for long term listening. Both also have replaceable cables. Comfort and build quality here is shared. Personally for me, fit is slightly better on the S8 (longer nozzle) and the S8 wins inn terms of isolation.

Sound & Value
There is some similarity with these two IEMs, but the differences shown in the frequency response don’t quite show the true story. The perceived bass of the FH7 DD is closer than the graphs show vs the S8’s BA delivery (the S8 does have more overall impact though, and is quicker). Mid-range is somewhat similar, but the main difference comes with the more forward mids of the FH7 vs the more classical slow rise of the S8 (from lower mids to upper mids). Both are clean and clear though, and both pretty well balanced. The FH7 is a little leaner whilst the S8 is a little more laid back. My preference here is the S8.

Fearless S8 Freedom ($489) vs Audiofly AF1120 mk2 ($700)
Build, fit and comfort
The AF1120 mk2 is a 6 driver BA vs the 8 driver Freedom S8. Both IEMs have extremely ergonomic shells and are superbly comfortable. Both also have replaceable cables, although the S8 Freedom’s is arguably better quality. Comfort, isolation and build quality here are shared.

Sound & Value
Somewhat similar overall tonality. The AF1120 has better end to end balance, and although the bass looks lighter, the balance with the rest of the signature doesn’t make it sound bass light at all. Everything in a signature is relative. Both have very quick transients and do detail really well. The S8 Freedom has more emphasis in the lower end and a smoother overall tonality. The AF1120 has the better end to end balance with a slightly brighter top end. I really like both, and the winner here depends on the tonality you’re looking for.

Fearless S8 Freedom ($489) vs vs Dunu DK-4001 ($899)
Build fit and comfort
The DK-4001 is a 5 driver traditional hybrid vs the 8 driver BA Freedom S8. Both are extremely well made with ergonomic shells and replaceable cables. The DK4001 is a multi-jack modular cable which is extremely well designed, but I still prefer the overall ergonomics of the S8 Freedom cable. The S8 Freedom is a little more comfortable overall, and naturally has better isolation (being port-less).

Sound & Value
These two are again quite close in overall signature (remembering the DK-4001 has DD vs BA for the bass). Both are clean and clear. The S8 is warmer and smoother while the DK-4001 is cooler and brighter. I really like the sound of both IEMs, but based on overall value, the S8 pulls a little ahead (if this is the type of signature you’re looking for).

VALUE
This is an easy one. The S8 Freedom sits in a price bracket which a few years ago would have been higher-end, but nowadays is recognised as more of a value segment. And it really delivers. The signature – while coloured and definitely V-shaped – is also well balanced and very well tuned. Add the stellar build and you get a pretty complete package. While I wouldn’t call them sonic diamonds, I could easily have these as one of my primary IEMs and be very happy.

FEARLESS S8 FREEDOM – SUMMARY
I’d heard about the Fearless S8 Freedom before I had a chance to review them, and was somewhat suspicious about some of the hype. Often when you read nothing but good things about an IEM, you naturally question whether the hype train is running amok. In this case (IMHO) the hype is justified. The S8 is a very good IEM at a reasonable price point.

The tuning is not one I’d necessarily gravitate towards, but it does have great balance, and the bass tuning is both tasteful and not overdone. It definitely has more kick than I was expecting – but its fun and exciting without being overdone. The great thing about the tuning is the detail which is still present, and the overall tonality is really pleasing. Female vocals are excellent.

Add to that the quality build, cable and the comfort, and you have quite a package. For $489 they are not cheap – but IMO they do represent value. I’m actually toying with the idea of buying a pair eventually – just because its one of those signatures which is actually quite appealing.

My sincere thanks to listen4joy and also the team at Fearless for allowing me to review the S8. I can definitely recommend this IEM.

INTRODUCTION
I’m luckier than most because the (part-time) reviewing I do often exposes me to something new which I may not have been aware of. Such has been the case with the IEM I’m reviewing today. I received contact from Earl Chon of AME Custom Earphones in Korea asking if I’d like a listen to their Argent – a 6 driver Inner Ear Monitor featuring a combination of 4 BA drivers and 2 Electret (micro electrostatic) drivers. I’d heard about electrostatic drivers before, but never had the chance to try them, so this was to be an interesting encounter. Read on to see how I found the 6 driver Argent Hybrid IEM, and where they would rank amongst the IEMs I’ve tried.

ABOUT AME CUSTOM EARPHONES
Unfortunately, the information on AME is pretty sparse on the internet. Earl – this should be an opportunity to showcase a little about you! I’ll try to update this section later. What I did establish is that AME is located in Seoul South Korea and was originally started to give support to musicians for customer earphone builds. Their popularity grew, leading to the current two releases (Argent and Radioso), and looking to expand to a wider audience.

Here is a quote from their website, which really does give an insight into what drives the company:

“For everyone who loves musicians and music, I am introducing an indigenous custom earphone brand”

Well we definitely love music and musicians. AME Custom’s website is linked here.

DISCLAIMER
The AME Argent that I’m reviewing today was provided to me as a review loaner. It will need to be returned, although I’m already thinking about how I can afford one of my own. Carry on with the review and you’ll see why! The retail price at time of review is ~ USD 1200.

PREAMBLE
If you haven’t read any of my reviews, I suggest starting here, as it will give you an insight into my known preferences and bias.

For the purposes of this review – I used the AME Argent straight from the headphone-out socket of many of my portables, but predominantly the X5iii, M9, M11, and R2R2000. I have also experimented with a variety of amplifiers including the FiiO Q1ii, E17K, Q5, xDuoo XP-2, and XRK NHB. IMO they do not benefit greatly from additional amplification, although with the warmer amps, the tonality changes have been interesting (YMMV and it may depend on your source). In the time I have spent with the Argent, I have noticed no change to the overall sonic presentation (break-in).

This is a purely subjective review – my gear, my ears, and my experience. Please take it all with a grain of salt – especially if it does not match your own experience.

THE PACKAGE
The AME Argent arrived in an unassuming 138 x 217 x 500mm box and lid. Inside was the Argent IEMs nestled in a foam insert, an aluminium alloy carry case and a box containing the tips and other accessories.



The full accessory package includes:

• 1 pair AME Argent Hybrid IEMs
• 1 x 2 pin stereo cable
• 1 x aluminium alloy 2-piece case (80mm diameter x 35mm height)
• 3 pairs of Spinfit silicone ear tips (1 x L/M/S)
• 3 pair of Comply foam tips T400 (M)
• 1 3.5mm to 6.3 mm adaptor
• A cleaning brush
• A leather cable tidy
• A card with serial number etc.

This is a good overall accessory package, and in-line with the overall asking price.

THE TECHNICAL SPECIFICATIONS


MEASUREMENTS
The graphs I use are generated using the Vibro Veritas coupler and ARTA software. Ken Ball (ALO/Campfire) graciously provided me with measurement data which I have used to recalibrate my Veritas so that it mimics an IEC 711 measurement standard (Ken uses two separate BK ear simulators, we measured the same set of IEMs, and I built my calibration curve from shared data). I do not claim that this data is 100% accurate, but it is very consistent, and is as close as I can get to the IEC 711 standard on my budget.

I do not claim that the measurements are in any way more accurate than anyone else’s, but they have been proven to be consistent and I think they should be enough to give a reasonable idea of response – especially if you’ve followed any of my other reviews. When measuring I usually always use crystal foam tips (medium bore opening) – and the reason I use them is for very consistent seal and placement depth in the coupler. I use the same amp (E11K) for all my measurements – and output is under 1 ohm. Measurements above 9-10kHz are generally problematic with any hobbyist set-up, and should be disregarded, but generally my measurements from 20Hz to 9-10kHz have proven to be relatively close to many of the measurements of the manufacturers who support me.

The graphs are provided merely as a point of discussion, and later in the review I’ve included comparisons to other IEMs for similar reference. Channel matching is extremely good over the entire frequency range.

BUILD
External
The AME Argent has the type of shape you normally associate with higher end customs and is a peanut/jelly-bean shape design. It is designed to ergonomically fit snugly inside your outer ear cavity, securely held inside the Concha with the skinny end inside your Intertragical notch. Just like true customs, it has a small rise of resin at the rear of the IEM shell to comfortably accommodate placement over the Crux helix and sit intact on the Cymba.

The outer shell material is a highly transparent resin, and the clarity of the resin is amazing – amongst the best I have seen. It is literally like looking into a window (to view the IEM inner components). The outer face is a face-plate, and my pair is decorated with a polished Paua shell (abalone) design. On the right ear-piece is the word AME and on the left the model name Argent. One small note – and not the manufacturers fault. The outer face resin cover on the right side has chipped/lifted on my pair, and unfortunately taken some of the text away.

The internal face is very smooth, and not utilising a dynamic driver means no requirement for an external vent or port. The housing has an end to end length of 21mm, height of 16mm and depth of 14mm (excluding the nozzle). The nozzle is angled nicely forward and up and is 7mm in length. The nozzle diameter is 6mm, has a generous lip, and has 4 separate sound channels in the tube.

At the top rear of the Argent shell is an almost flush fitting standard 2 pin socket (protrudes by about 0.5mm). The 2 pin plugs are colour coded (blue or red) for right and left. The socket is very firm with the supplied cable and feels very sturdy. The Argent comes with a single ended cable. AME have used a high purity (6N OCC) silver plated copper wire encased in a very flexible transparent TPU sheath. From the 2 pin connectors to the Y-split is a single twisted pair on each side, and then from y-split to jack appears to be a twisted triple. The Argent cable has flexible formable ear-loops. I find these loops comfortable and work well. Both the Y-split and Jack are metal, and there is a cinch above the Y-split which works well for snugging the cable tight. The cable has extremely low microphonics – essentially non-existent when using the cinch.

Internal
Internally the AME Argent uses a hybrid 6 driver system, but not the conventional way we’d normally expect. There are dual low frequency Balanced Armature (BA) drivers for the bass and lower mids, single BA drivers for the mid-range, single BA drivers for the upper mids, and dual Electrostatic drivers for the high and super high frequencies. This is managed by a four-way cross over network. This is the first time I’ve heard an electrostatic tweeter in an IEM, and the results are stunning. Seemingly effortless detail and extension without any signs of abrasiveness or grain.

FIT / COMFORT / ISOLATION
Internal and external isolation is extremely good, as you’d expect for a non-ported IEM. It does ultimately depend on tip choice and seal. I would rate passive isolation as above average and usable on public transport. Although it does not completely block out aircraft drone, by the time you add music, you aren’t hearing cabin sounds.

Fit and comfort thoughts are very subjective and will vary from person to person. My experience has been one of complete satisfaction. The AME Argent has been designed for an ergonomic fit (much like a custom monitor). For me they are a perfect, sit flush with my outer ear, and basically disappear within a few seconds of wearing (I could forget they are in). I have slept with them intact, and woken hours later with them still there and no discomfort. The AME Argent is designed to only be used cable over ear.

The Argent has a good lip on the nozzle. I’ve tried Spiral Dots, Spin-fits, Ostry tuning tips and Sony Isolation tips – all fit easily and are secure. They are a relatively shallow fitting IEM, but the nozzles are long enough for most tips to seal effectively. Saying that, foam still gives me the best combination of seal and comfort, and my preference is for either Comply or stretched Shure tips.

SOUND QUALITY
Most of the testing at this point was done with my FiiO M11, no EQ, and Shure foam tips. I used the M11 simply because paired they gave me a very transparent window to the music with low impedance, and more than enough power.

For the record – on most tracks, the volume level on the M11 was around 40/120 on low gain (depending on the track) which was giving me an average SPL around 65-75 dB. Tracks used were across a variety of genres – and can be viewed in this list https://www.head-fi.org/f/articles/brookos-test-tracks.17556/

While testing I constantly switched with my reference pair (Alclair Curve + E17K with +4 bass) to give me a good reference baseline. The additional bass is to bring the Curve closer to reference.

Relativities

• Sub-bass – In balance with the other frequencies – perhaps slightly below reference. Extension is good and the sub-bass rumble is audible (Lorde’s “Royals) but sits more in the background. There is no bleed into other frequencies. The bass is typical of most BAs I’ve heard – quick with clean decay, and more speed than impact oriented.
• Mid-bass – slightly elevated compared to sub-bass and lower mids with light to medium impact. The bass timbre and definition are very clean. The bass is very consistent and for those looking for a balanced signature throughout the signature, the Argent delivers well. For those looking for more bass impact, they may find the Argent a little light.
• Lower mid-range – recessed compared to bass and upper mid-range. Both male and female vocal fundamentals are still very good. Male vocals may come across a little on the leaner side – but not much, and I’ve really enjoyed the likes of Pearl Jam and Joe Bonamassa. The slight recession also gives a wonderful sense of overall space and separation.
• Upper mid-range – There is a slow and shallow rise from the lower mid-range to a peak at 4-5 kHz, then a relatively extended progression to the lower treble. The transition from lower to upper-mids is cohesive, and there is enough presence to provide both detail and presence. There is some euphony with female vocals.
• Lower treble has extremely good extension. It is also quite linear with a small peak at 7 kHz, and a stronger peak at 9-10 kHz (is this the electrostatic driver stretching its legs?). This does provide a lot of air, but surprisingly no resulting brittleness or sharpness. And this is the stunning part that separates the Argent form anything else I’ve heard. The extension and range of the treble brings amazing detail and clarity – yet without the harshness or brittleness a BA would deliver with the same peaks.
• Upper treble extends quite well with some decent “air” but is difficult to capture properly on my measurement rig, and with my “aged” hearing I no longer notice much over 12 kHz anyway.

Overall this is a balanced monitor with a slight “U” shape which has more to do with the slight recession in mid-range (intended) than any obvious emphasis at either end of the spectrum.

Resolution / Detail / Clarity

• Clarity overall is (in a single word) amazing. The first time I heard the Argent I was gob smacked. And especially with jazz, or any rock with a lot of cymbals. It was like listening to my HD800S – every brush audible, but shimmering decay rather than etched. Listening to guitar (Nils Lofgren Live) had similar revelation – every movement on the fret board, intakes of air, rapped knuckles on the guitar …. perfect. And the beauty is that you get this sort of detail without the track sounding etched or overly coloured.

Soundstage, Imaging

• Directional queues are brilliant – extremely clear and concise. Presentation of stage is just outside the periphery of my head space with binaural tracks, so averagely expansive for an IEM. Amber Rubarth’s “Tundra” is excellent for this and it was wonderful how immersive this simple binaural track could be.
• With the live recording of Loreena McKennitt’s “Dante’s Prayer”, the applause section is a good test for width and depth (the sound of the audience flowing around me).
• Width of stage is a little wider than overall depth, but still gives a good presentation and feel of sitting in the audience.
• “Let it Rain” (Amanda Marshall) gave a nice three-dimensional feel (the way the track is miked) with good guitar and vocal presence. There was sibilance with Amanda’s vocals – and it should be easily noticeable because it’s in the recording. But the nice thing about the Argent is that while the sibilance is there – it’s not over-emphasised or further enhanced.

Strengths

• Speed of both sub and mid-bass.
• Reasonably expansive sense of stage
• Good for both female and male vocals.
• Nicely euphonic upper mid-range
• Extremely detailed and clear with no brittleness

Weaknesses

• Quantity of the bass is on the light side, which may leave some wanting (I personally find it good as-is)

AMPLIFICATION REQUIREMENTS
The Argent doesn’t need amplification for overall volume – and because its impedance is a relatively low 21 ohms, a source with an output impedance of around 0-2 ohms (to meet damping requirements) should make the best match.

With the M11 around 35-40/120 low gain volume covers my normal 65-75 dB listening level. With the X5iii this is similar (33-38/120) and the M9 rounds out the FiiOs with 38-43/120. So, the Argent are pretty easy to drive, and even the diminutive M6 has no problems driving them and sounding extremely good to boot. are generally at around 35-40/120 single ended.


Next up was amplification, which meant testing with the Q1ii, E17K, Q5, XP-2, and XRK NHB. In each case I noted a slightly different tonality but noticed no real differences in dynamics on any of the additionally amped sources. The XP-2 (via Bluetooth) and the XRX-NHB both added some extra warmth which was nice, but IMO the Argent can do perfectly well without additional amping. To add warmth or change tonality though – well I guess that depends on preference.

RESPONSE TO EQ?
Personally, I find the Argent pretty much spot on regarding signature balance. But I had noticed a couple of people talking about wanting a little more bass, so decided to test this. I used two methods – first my iPhone XR to E17K, and applying +4 bass via the inbuilt EQ. This immediately elevated the sub and mid-bass to an above average level, although it did introduce some real boom. The sound was really quite boomy, so I tried for a more clinical approach using the M11 and it’s built in EQ. This netted a cleaner overall bass response, and still elevated the thump and sub-bass rumble without compromising the rest of the signature. So, for anyone looking for additional bass over the default signature, and doesn’t mine EQing, the Argent can definitely deliver.

COMPARISON WITH OTHER IEMS
These comparisons were all done with the M11, (no EQ) – and volume matched using a calibrated SPL meter and fixed 1kHz test tone first. For this series of tests, I’ve tried to look at both value (comparison to higher value IEMs) and quality. Unfortunately, I don’t have a lot in this price bracket – but comparisons to the HiFiMan RE2000, 64 Ears U10 and Dunu DK-4001 should be both current and relevant. For comparison with bang for buck IEMs, I’ve used the FiiO’s new FH7, Audiofly’s AF1120 mk2 and Fearless Audio’s S8 Freedom.

This is pretty subjective, but the graphs do show relativity against the other IEMs for reference.

AME Argent ($1200) vs HifiMan RE2000 Gold ($1500)

Build fit and comfort
The RE2000 is a single DD vs the AME Argent 6 driver hybrid. Both have an ergonomic shape, but the RE2000 has some hard edges, and I’ve always had comfort issues with it. Both are made of durable materials and have well-made replaceable cables – with the Argent cable being more pliable and less prone to tangling. In this comparison, Argent takes the points for cable, comfort, and ergonomics.

Sound & Value
Both have some similarity in their signatures, with both being a little V shaped (the RE2000 is more pronounced). Where they differ is in the bass and lower treble. The RE2000 has more pronounced bass with more natural texture (typical of a DD) whilst the Argent has more speed. In the treble, the Argent has more clarity and extension. They both have great overall balance but could be called a little on the coloured side. In terms of overall value, I’ve always considered the HifiMans a little over-priced, while with the Argent I can see more overall value. My pick – the Argent.

AME Argent ($1200) vs 64 Audio U10 ($1300)

Build, fit and comfort
The U10 is a 10 BA driver (per side) vs the Argent’s 6 driver hybrid. Both IEMs have ergonomic shells and are very comfortable for long term listening. Both also have replaceable 2 pin cables (the cable on the Argent is better quality and fits firmer). The body on the Argent feels better built and does fit me better.

Sound & Value
These are very different sounding IEMs. On the graph I could have matched the mid-range – which would have shown a lot more bass or matched the bass – which shows a lot less mid-range and treble. Both have very good balance, and the U10 has less colouration overall. BA Bass doesn’t tend to be as strong as dynamic driver, so the U10 doesn’t sound out of balance. My main issue with the U10 has always been that I felt they needed more treble extension (I often EQ them) – although I do admit that is preference. The U10 appears comparatively warm and a little bassy, whilst the Argent is cleaner, more detailed, and cooler overall. My personal preference here is for the Argent – but that is personal. Both IEMs value is (to me anyway) reasonable.

AME Argent ($1200) vs Dunu DK-4001 ($89)

Build fit and comfort
The DK-4001 is a 5-driver traditional hybrid vs the 6 driver BA/Electrostatic hybrid Argent. Both are extremely well made with ergonomic shells and replaceable cables. The DK4001 is a multi-jack modular cable which is extremely well designed, but I still prefer the overall ergonomics of the Argent cable. The Argent is a little more comfortable overall.

Sound & Value
These two are quite close in overall signature. Both are relatively flat in the bass (remembering the DUNU has a DD for bass response). Both have slightly coloured upper mid-ranges. Both are clean, clear and slightly on the cool side. Overall, I prefer the greater detail in the Argent, but both are extremely well tuned IEMs. The DK-4001 is considerably cheaper and has the modular cable – but I do believe the Argent’s higher price converts to value through the performance of the electrostatic tweeters.

AME Argent ($1200) vs FiiO FH7 ($450)

Build, fit and comfort
This pits another 5 driver DD/BA Hybrid vs the 6 driver Argent. Both IEMs have ergonomic shells and are very comfortable for long term listening. Both also have replaceable cables. Comfort and build quality here are shared.

Sound & Value
Again, there is some similarity with these two IEMs, but the differences shown in the frequency response don’t quite show the true story. The perceived bass of the FH7 DD is very similar to the Argent’s BA delivery. Mid-range is quite similar, but the main difference comes with the added detail and crispness from the Argent vs the slightly mellower FH7. Both are clean and clear though, and both well balanced. The FH7 has a better bang for buck appeal, but once you hear the Argent’s clarity and detail, it’s kind of hard to go back to a lot of other IEMs. FH7 on value. Argent on performance.

AME Argent ($1200) vs Audiofly AF1120 mk2 ($700)

Build, fit and comfort
The AF1120 mk2 is a 6 driver BA vs the 6 driver Argent hybrid. Both IEMs have extremely ergonomic shells and are superbly comfortable. Both also have replaceable cables, although the Argent’s is arguably better quality. Comfort and build quality once again here are shared.

Sound & Value
Again, similar overall tonality. The AF1120 has better end to end balance, and although the bass looks lighter, the balance with the rest of the signature doesn’t make it sound bass light at all. Everything in a signature is relative. Both have very quick transients and do detail well, although the Argent once again has that effortless detail and extension which is quite special. This is a tough one – and taking both value and overall sound quality into account, they are evenly matched. On SQ alone, the Argent would remain ahead – but at a price.

AME Argent ($1200) vs Fearless Audio S8 Freedom ($550)

Build, fit and comfort
This pits an 8 driver BA vs the 6 driver Argent hybrid. Both IEMs have ergonomic shells and are very comfortable for long term listening. Both also have replaceable cables. Comfort and build quality here are once again shared.

Sound & Value
This was quite a tough one. Both essentially sound similar, but because of the Argent’s comparatively higher upper mid-range and treble response and comparatively lower bass response, it sounds cleaner, leaner and clearer than the S8. The S8 has good balance and is on the warmer and smoother side of things. Both sound great. I’m a detail junkie, so for me the Argent wins (for my preferences) in a straight shoot out. Saying that, I also love the S8 and it represents really great value at this price point.

VALUE
This is a hard one. The Argent is not a cheap IEM. But if you consider the overall package, and especially the effortless performance of the electrostatic drivers, then it becomes a question of where diminishing value sits. The main question I use to evaluate value is “would I buy them”, and knowing I have to return these eventually, I would say a definite yes. I’m already figuring what I’ll have to sell in order to get a pair. And that should speak volumes. To me – the perception of value is there. Are they great value (diamonds in the rough)? – probably not. Are they fair value? – to me yes, emphatically.

AME CUSTOM AUDIO ARGENT – SUMMARY
When you get to review an audio item over the $1000 mark, it’s easy to be wowed by the price tag and expectation. But there are times when the overall package really delivers, and this is one of those times. The Argent is a 6-driver hybrid – 4 BAs and 2 electrostatic tweeters. The tuning is superb, and what has blown me away from the first listen has been the detail and extension without the grain or harshness. They could be described as on the slightly lean or cool side – but it’s a signature I draw towards anyway, and a little EQ’s bass warmth can aid those who need it. If I had to liken the Argent to anything, it sounds like a slightly leaner (and less open) version of my HD800S. And that is high praise.

Add to that the quality cable and overall build, plus the comfort, and you have quite a package. For $1200 they are not cheap – but IMO they do represent value. I want a pair.

My sincere thanks to Earl and the team at AME for allowing me to review the Argent. I love them!

INTRODUCTION

Brainwavz seem to be on a roll just recently. Their last 3 releases (at least the ones I’ve known about) have been the B400 IEM, HM100 circumaural closed headphones, and now they have a first full sized planar headphone. The Alara is their latest release, and I have had a chance to take it for a test drive over the Xmas break.

So what is different about a planar headphone (from a traditional dynamic)? Instead of using a moving voice coil (to pull the diaphragm in and out from one ring within the driver), a planar uses an ultra thin diaphragm suspended between two plates of magnets. This typically results in very low distortion, and fast transient response. There often is a typical downside – planars tend to be heavier, and can sometimes suffer from perceived reduction in sound-stage.

Although I’ve heard a few planars (mainly Audeze LCD series or HifiMan) the only one I own is the Audeze Mobius. So for this review, I’ll be simply taking a look at how the Alara performs against my open dynamics, and also briefly comparing to their HM100.

ABOUT BRAINWAVZ
Brainwavz Audio was formed in 2008 as a subsidiary of GPGS Hong Kong. Their goal has always been to develop a full range of audio solutions (mostly earphones and headphones) that cater for a variety of different tastes, uses and price brackets. They originally started with predominantly OEM designs from other companies, and more recently have been working to develop their own stand-alone products.

In their own words:
At Brainwavz we have a simple mission, to produce innovative, high quality audio products with a dedicated focus on high-end sound. Our strength, success and product range is built on the unique relationship with our customers. A relationship that has produced a simple and obvious result, we give real users real sound quality.

DISCLAIMER
The Brainwavz Alara headphone that I’m reviewing today was provided to me freely as a review sample. Marlon has asked me to keep it for my personal use, or for follow up comparisons, and I thank him for this. The retail price at time of review is USD 499 – 550.

PREAMBLE
If you haven’t read any of my reviews, I suggest starting here, as it will give you an insight into my known preferences and bias.

For the purposes of this review – I’ve used the Alara from a variety of devices including (among others) my FiiO portables including X7ii, X5iii, M9, my iPhone and also the Luxury & Precision LP5 Gold. I also used my desktop set-up iFi stack (iUSD, iTube, iDSD), both with and without the VE Enterprise Tube amp. Finally I also tested them portable but amped (using the Q1ii, Q5, A5, XRK-NHB and IMS X1).

In the time I have spent with the Alara, I have noticed no change to the overall sonic presentation (break-in). This is a purely subjective review – my gear, my ears, and my experience. Please take it all with a grain of salt – especially if it does not match your own experience.

THE PACKAGE
The Alara comes in a large retail outer measuring 170 x 245 x 120mm. The box is predominantly white with some good photographs of the Alara and a list of specifications and accessories on the back.


Inside the box is a sturdy fabric/mesh covered carry case. This contains the Alara and accessories. The full accessory pack includes:

• The Alara planar headphones (fitted with pleather + velour pads)
• The carry case (with detachable strap)
• 2.0m stereo cable to 3.5mm jack
• Screw on 6.3mm adaptor
• Spare pair of pleather + velour ear-pads
• User guide including warranty card

THE TECHNICAL SPECIFICATIONS

MEASUREMENTS
The graphs I use are generated using the Vibro Veritas coupler and ARTA software. In this particular case, I used no calibration apart from an adjustment to take the 4k Hz resonant peak of the measurement hardware out. I don’t have a headphone measurement rig, and have no ear simulator – so you can’t use the graph as a representation of how the Alara sounds. What I use is a head width simulator coupled with a latex soft face (or the headphones) with a hole so the veritas can sit flush.

My main aim is to take a reference headphone – my HD600 – and then compare the Alara on the same rig and under the same conditions, and show the differences. The graphs are provided merely as a point of discussion, and later in the review I’ve included measurements of different headphones using the same set-up.


BUILD
External
The Alara is a very nice looking headphone – simple yet stylish and reasonably low profile for a planar. They have typical planar heft – coming in at 484 grams (includes the 2.0m cable). But the weight distribution is pretty good overall.

The headband is nicely rounded with very soft foam padding encased in the black leatherette. When worn this sits nicely on my head with no obvious pressure spots. The top of the head-band has the Brainwavz name embossed. The two ends of the headband terminate in a pair of black plastic sockets which are screwed in place. It reminds me somewhat of a Beyer (DT880) type headphone assembly.

The headband sliders are steel with very short extension (just 25mm per side). The sliders are not marked, but have a smooth action with some obvious click for each extension. The sliders terminate in the black hard plastic yoke assembly. While the yokes appear nicely built, they are plastic so there may be some concerns around longevity (time will tell), The yokes swivel side-to-side in their assembly about 5-10 deg both ways which allows easy seating of the cups onto your head. One small note here and a comment where the design (for me) is a little ill though out. I have a large head (I’m 6 ft tall and reasonably solidly built). With no extension of the sliders at all the Alara fits comfortably on my head. If anything they might be sitting slightly low (so no adjustment possible). The headband is simply a little too long in its default position. For those with a smaller head, you might have issues.

The ear-cups are circumaural, and are very comfortable for me. Internal measurements on the pads are approximately 60mm x 50mm x 15mm – so just enough room for each ear. The outer pad measurement is approximately 100 x 85 x 45mm. The pads are attached to a removable studded plate (simple pull/push on or off) which makes pad changing very easy. The cups all black, all metal, and embossed with the Brainwavz name and logo. At the bottom of each ear-cup is a socket for the replaceable cable. The frame has L/R marking which is mirrored on the cable – but somewhat hard to see (black on grey would be easier than white on grey Brainwavz!). The sockets are 3.5mm stereo sockets (o pretty easy to convert to balanced).

Cable
Brainwavz supplies a 2m cable. The cable is OFC wiring with an outer sheath, and terminates with a 3.5mm straight gold-plated screw threaded jack. This allows the 6.3mm adaptor to be screwed in place for a very secure fit. The cable is encased in a cloth like fabric which is a little more difficult to manage, has slight microphonics (the cable material), but ultimately would be more likely to be used for a stationary listening position.

Pads
Brainwavz supplies two sets of the same pad. The pads are easy to swap out (gently lever/pull off, remove from headphone, change pads, push on after lining up the “studs”). The pads are soft pleather over memory foam, with the pleather perforated internally. The outer material against your ear is velour – and its very soft.

All in all, I would describe the build and design as pretty good – with my only real concerns being with the black plastic yoke (IMO light-weight metal would have been a better choice), and the length of the head-band.

COMFORT / ISOLATION
Isolation with the Alara is about average for an open headphone – i.e. it will leak sound out, and allow ambient noise in.

Comfort for me is personally is very good. The ear-pads fit completely around my ears, and the foam cushions provide softness without becoming irritable. The headband is nicely curved to minimise individual pressure points. I do find them a little on the heavy side, but to be fair I’ve had some several hour sessions with the Alara and not felt stiff or sore afterwards.

Clamp is moderate – enough to stay in place, but not enough to cause undue pressure. As a glasses wearer there is some slight pressure from the cups (pushing the glasses to the bridge of my nose), but nowhere near as bad as the HD600/650 from Senn or the HM5/HM100. I know that the clamp can be adjusted over time simply by carefully bending the steel extenders, or by simply stretching for a few days across some books.

SOUND QUALITY
My testing for this section was done with the FiiO X7ii (AM3A module), no Eq or Viper engaged, and paired with the FiiO A5 amplifier. I used the X7ii + A5 simply because it provides both a very transparent window to the music with low impedance, and also more than enough power. Tracks used were across a variety of genres – and can be viewed in this list https://www.head-fi.org/f/articles/brookos-test-tracks.17556/


Relativities

• Sub-bass – very good extension, with practically no roll off into the sub-bass. The sub-bass rumble in Lorde’s “Royals” is audible and clearly defined, and I find it quite balanced with the rest of the signature. Definitely no bass bleed from the sub-bass. I would call it neutral sub-bass rather than overly enhanced.
• Mid-bass – good impact, and very slightly elevated compared to the sub-bass (small mid-bass hump). There is good impact and it is both quick and clean.
• Lower mid-range – essentially flat and perfectly balanced with the bass. Male vocals have good presence and richness in timbre and I’m not finding male vocalists thin or lacking.
• Upper mid-range – slightly elevated compared to lower mid-range (mainly in the 3-5 kHz area, which helps add euphony in the presence area for female vocals. There is a dip from 1.5-2.5 kHz but it doesn’t appear to sound unnatural to me (perhaps the tiniest bit of stridency with a very few female artists). I think the dip is countered by ear geometry – so I suspect the Alara is in fact tuned very flat.
• Lower treble – very good extension without dropping off, even after 10 kHz. Cymbals have good presence with good decay. This isn’t an accentuated treble – and one which I find perfectly balanced.
• Upper treble – seems to be nicely extended. Its hard for me to judge this area, because my hearing tops out well under 14kHz nowadays, and the measuring equipment is not accurate enough from about 9 kHz up. No signs of brittleness, and I personally don’t find anything missing.

Resolution / Detail / Clarity

• Clarity is excellent, and there is a high level of detail in all of my usual test tracks. With Nils Lofgren’s “Keith Don’t Go”, the micro details such as audience interaction and fret-board slides are easily heard. Portico Quartet’s “Ruins” is likewise brilliant with every detail of the cymbal brushes and snare taps present, yet perfectly mingled within the music. I think this is attributable to the nicely neutral frequency response.
• Cymbals hits (especially hi-hats and crash-cymbals) are present, and the trailing decay is audible and not at all little splashy. My test track for this is Pearl Jam’s EWBTCIAST, and the cymbals have a nice shimmering decay which sounds perfectly natural.

Sound-stage, Imaging

• My usual first track for checking width, depth and shape of perceived sound-stage is Amber Rubarth’s “Tundra”. While there is projection just outside my perceived head-space (violin), the overall impression is more of intimacy than space, and everything sounds incredibly clean and clear – but also quite close.
• Directionally the track is consistent and stage shape has perfect balance of depth and width. Imaging of all 3 instruments is extremely precise with good sense of separation, and the transients are extremely clean.
• I use the applause sections of “Dante’s Prayer” and Lakme’s “Flower Duet” for a feeling of immersion. Very good headphones can give you a real sense of being in the audience. The Alara is draw droppingly realistic with this. Grandly spacious – no. But there is a great sense of depth and width, and the presentation really is extremely clean and clear. There is a life-like sense of flow around me.
• The last track in this section is Amanda Marshal’s “Let it Rain” which has a natural 3 dimensional feel (the way the track was miked). The Alara handles it really well, the sense of instruments being around you is very good.. I also use this track as my sibilance test (its quite a hotly mastered track – and it is present in the recording). The Alara does reveal the sibilance but it isn’t highlighted.

Strengths

• Overall balance end to end in the frequency response – quite exceptional.
• Bass balance of impact, timbre, speed and definition.
• Imaging is a strong point – very clean and easy to pick directional cues
• Very good at lower volumes with extremely good clarity
• Both male and female vocals are rich, display good timbre, and (more importantly) sound realistic.

Weaknesses

• There might be very slight (and it is marginal) dissonance with a couple of tracks (female vocalists – e.g. Hannah Reid from London Grammar). This is really nitpicking though, and I remain unconvinced that it might actually be the track mastering.
• Perceived sound-stage is reasonably intimate for an open head-phone.

AMPLIFICATION REQUIREMENTS
The Alara is one of those headphones which looks harder to drive on paper than it really is. The on-line Digizoid Headphone Power Calculator tells me that at 20 ohms and 94 dB sensitivity, it requires 1.59 Vrms, 79.5 mA and approx 126 mW to reach 115 dB SPL (on the verge of pain). This halves if you’re simply wanting to top out at 110 dB (mW required actually drops by 2/3). Because of the low sensitivity, the Alara requires more current than voltage, and as long as your DAP can supply the necessary power output (high current), there is no reason why you can’t drive the Alara straight from a DAP or portable. So lets start with the lowest volume output – my iPhone SE – and work from there. From my testing (volume matched and compared subjectively to the X7ii + A5 combo) using the track “Trains” from Porcupine Tree’s album “In Absentia”:

• 55% volume on the iPhone produced ~70-75 dB. The iPhone was definitely loud enough, and sounded really good. The X7ii + A5 combo sounded slightly more dynamic at the same volume level. Somewhat cleaner and better defined.
• 65/120 volume on the X5iii (low gain) achieved ~70-75dB and while the X5iii was slightly warmer than the X7ii + A5, it was a combination which was on par with the X7ii +amp.
• With the M9, the volume required was approx 70/120 on low gain to achieve ~70-75dB, and again the M9 had no problem driving the Alara with good control over the drivers.
• 67/120 volume on the X7iii (low gain) achieved ~70-75dB and I noticed no difference in dynamics when addding the A5.
• The final test was with Luxury & Precision LP5 Gold. This is a DAP with a very powerful internal amp (it drives my HD800S easily), and for the Alara only required ~25% of the pot for equivalent volume. Completely subjectively, it was also one of the best sounding combos – but that could well have been placebo on my part.

What this means is that virtually all of my higher end DAPs are easily able to drive the Alara to very listen-able levels without distortion, and without needing extra amping. This surprisingly includes my iPhone SE – which manages quite nicely at around 55% volume. It would not be my 1st choice though.

So does the Alara get better with amping? For this I used the Q1ii, Q5, XRK-NHB, and E17K. With each of the amps I didn’t really notice any audible signs of greater driver control (once volume matched). What I did notice was that the slight added warmth (2nd order distortion) of the XRK-NHB was a pleasant addition to the tonality. This continued when I used my desktop set-up (iFi stack). I really liked the Alara with the iFi stack, but adding VE’s Enterprise tube amp took them to a slightly higher level for me. Does the Alara need a lot of amplification though? In my opinion – not really.

RESPONSE TO EQ?
I like the Alara’s default frequency response, and TBH I really wouldn’t want to change it. I did initially think the dip on my measurement rig at 2kHz might be an issue. But using my desktop set-up and JRiver Media Center’s parametric EQ, nulling this dip out did not really enhance the sound. I can hear the dip in frequency sweeps – but it really doesn’t detract (so maybe its associated with the external ear / pinnae). Either way – I personally don’t think added EQ is necessary.

I did try to experiment with added sub-bass just to see what the Alara would do, and it really did respond magnificently. But here some added amplification helped.

COMPARISONS
Comparing headphones is always hard – especially when you don’t have another open planar for direct comparison. But I could compare it with a recognised reference (HD600) which should give readers an understanding of how it sounds comparatively. To give more alternatives, I also used my HD800S, and Brainwavz HM100 dynamic.

In all cases I used the X7ii + A5 combo. With the graphs – please re-read the measurement section earlier in the review. The graphs show comparative measurements on the same rig – and without an ear simulator. The comparisons were all done without EQ, and volume matched using a calibrated SPL meter and fixed 1kHz test tone first. They are very subjective (my opinion only).

Alara vs HD600
Build / Design
Both headphones share similar build materials – a mix of plastic and metal. The HD600 clamp is stronger (when new) but can be relaxed with gentle stretching. Both have detachable cables, and both have very good padding. Both have replaceable ear-pads, but the HD600 is more modular in design.

Comfort / Ergonomics
Both are extremely comfortable and very ergonomic – with good head support and circumaural pads. The Alara is significantly heavier – although I still don’t find it fatiguing over long periods. The HD600 has longer extenders and can be used for smaller heads – the Alara has a longer headband by default which lacks adjust-ability for smaller heads.

Overall Sound Quality
The first noticeable point is that the HD600 needs significantly more volume / power. The second thing is that the HD600 is airier / brighter, and leaner through the lower mid-range. The Alara has better overall bass extension and impact, more body to the lower mid-range (male vocals sound significantly better to me), and is more balanced in end-to-end frequency response. The Alara also has a better sense of imaging (the HD600 is slightly hazy in comparison). The Alara is quicker with transients and sounds cleaner. In terms of sound-stage, the HD600 has a slightly larger overall stage, however I would call neither expansive. Both are great sounding headphones – just with different frequency signatures.

Alara vs HD800S
Build / Design
Both headphones share similar build materials – a mix of plastic and metal. The Alara clamp is stronger but can be relaxed with gentle stretching. Both have detachable cables, and both have very good padding. Both have replaceable ear-pads. The HD800S has angled drivers to enhance sound-stage.

Comfort / Ergonomics
The Alara is more compact (but heavier). The HD800S is larger in size but lighter. Both have very good padding and are both comfortable and very ergonomic. The HD800S has longer extenders and can be used for smaller heads – the Alara has a longer headband by default which lacks adjust-ability for smaller heads. Overall comfort goes to the HD800S – it remains one of the most comfortable headphones I’ve experienced.

Overall Sound Quality
The first noticeable point is that the HD800S needs again needs more volume / power. The second thing is that the Alara is warmer with more noticeable bass although the lower mid-range is quite similar. Some of the noticeable bass warmth could be because of the Alara’s less treble emphasis comparatively. Again the Alara has better overall bass extension and impact, and again male vocals do sound better to me (although I prefer female vocals on the HD800S). Imaging is pretty close on both headphones – they both give very consistent and clean spatial cues. In terms of sound-stage, the HD800S has a significantly larger overall stage, and is expansive where the Alara is more intimate. Again both are great sounding headphones with similar frequency signatures (HD800S is brighter and airier, Alara is warmer and richer). The fact that the Alara is not embarrassed in this company speaks volumes for the headphone (especially when comparing cost/value).

Alara vs HM100
Build / Design
Both headphones share similar build materials – a mix of plastic and metal. The HM100 does have the wooden cups, and is a closed design vs Alara’s open design. The HM100 clamp is significantly stronger but can be relaxed with gentle stretching. Both have detachable cables, and both have very good padding. Both have replaceable ear-pads.

Comfort / Ergonomics
Both are extremely comfortable and very ergonomic – with good head support and circumaural pads. The Alara is heavier – although I still don’t find either fatiguing over long periods. The HM100 has longer extenders and can be used for smaller heads – the Alara has a longer headband by default which lacks adjust-ability for smaller heads. OOTB the Alara is more comfortable.

Overall Sound Quality
Both have similar overall volume at the same power output. The HM100 is airier / brighter, and much leaner through the lower mid-range. It also sounds quite closed in. The Alara has significantly better overall bass extension and impact, more body to the lower mid-range (male vocals sound significantly better to me), and is more balanced in end-to-end frequency response. The Alara also has a better sense of imaging (the HM100 is hazy in comparison). The Alara is quicker with transients and sounds cleaner. In terms of sound-stage, the Alara has a slightly larger overall stage, however I would call neither expansive. Both are great sounding headphones – but after direct comparison, I do find myself enjoying the Alara a lot more. It simply sounds more natural.

VALUE
The Alara is not a cheap headphone, and the price of $500-550 sits it squarely in the price range for a second hand Audeze LCD2 or HifiMan HE500/560. For an extra 2-3 hundred dollars you can add in an EL-8 or go brand new on an LCD-2. As far as budget planars go, the Alara is a little more expensive than the HE-400S and M1060. Unfortunately I can’t comment on these headphones because although I’ve heard both the LCD2 and EL-8 it was during “NZ Meet” conditions and I haven’t got an opportunity to compare side-by-side.

I can compare with my current full sized headphones, and for my tastes, while the HD800S clearly bests them for overall comfort and staging ability – the Alara is not embarrassed in overall performance. Sonically it is very good. And I prefer it to my HD600s.

When you look at the overall package of the Alara – aesthetics, comfort, build, and most of all sound – I could imagine this headphone in a slightly higher price bracket. For the RRP of $500-550 you’re getting a very well balanced headphone with planar transient speed and low distortion.

BRAINWAVZ ALARA – SUMMARY
I’ve always wanted a decent planar and was sorely tempted to try a Monoprice M1060 when I first heard about them, but it was difficult to justify with the amount of headphones I have (my wife only has so much tolerance).

The Alara from Brainwavz was an instant hit for me. A beautifully balanced headphone sonically, with a depth of bass extension which is highly addictive and quite different to my experience with dynamics. Couple this with a genuinely neutral end-to-end frequency response, and you have a headphone which is very pleasurable to listen with (critically or in a relaxed setting). The icing on the cake for me is that for a planar its relatively easy to drive.

The overall build quality seems very good (maybe a slight question over the plastic yokes – time will tell), and the comfort is excellent. The one design flaw comes with the long head-band. Those with smaller heads may find a lack of adjustment options. Fortunately the Alara fits me perfectly.

The asking price of $500-550 is not cheap, but for me the Alara justifies the expense and for the overall package, it competes well with other headphones in similar price brackets. I just want to close with thanking Marlon for allowing me the chance to review the Alara. IMO it is the best Brainwavz release to date. If I was informed tomorrow that the Alara was the only headphone I could ever own – I wouldn’t be disappointed.


Amos asked me (before I left for our family Xmas holiday) to give some thought ot a “best of” summary for 2018. I haven’t written it yet – but for me, the top prize goes to Alara. I’ve reviewed some great products in 2018 – but the Alara is something extra special. Nice one Brainwavz.

INTRODUCTION

When I heard about the Brainwanz HM100, the first thing I wanted to know was how closely it related to the HM5. The HM5 was a Yoga OEM clone from the CD-880, which quite a few branded headphone manufacturers used as a base for their own models. This included Fischer Audio’s FA-003, and others from Lindy and Digitech. The Brainwavz HM5 was a real contender for a relatively neutral closed back headphone, and one which in many ways was akin to the lauded Sennheiser HD600 in tonality. When Marlon contacted me to ask if I was interested in reviewing the HM100, the answer was an immediate yes. The HM5 was brilliant – just a little iffy on long term build quality. Could the HM100 maintain the stellar sound, and deliver superior build and overall performance?

ABOUT BRAINWAVZ
Brainwavz Audio was formed in 2008 as a subsidiary of GPGS Hong Kong. Their goal has always been to develop a full range of audio solutions (mostly earphones and headphones) that cater for a variety of different tastes, uses and price brackets. They originally started with predominantly OEM designs from other companies, and more recently have been working to develop their own stand-alone products.

In their own words:
At Brainwavz we have a simple mission, to produce innovative, high quality audio products with a dedicated focus on high-end sound. Our strength, success and product range is built on the unique relationship with our customers. A relationship that has produced a simple and obvious result, we give real users real sound quality.

DISCLAIMER
The Brainwavz HM100 headphone that I’m reviewing today was provided to me freely as a review sample. Marlon has asked me to keep it for my personal use, or for follow up comparisons, and I thank him for this. The retail price at time of review is USD 170 (normal RRP 199).

PREAMBLE
If you haven’t read any of my reviews, I suggest starting here, as it will give you an insight into my known preferences and bias.

For the purposes of this review – I’ve used the HM100 from a variety of devices including (among others) the FiiO X7ii, X5iii, M9, my iPhone and my iFi stack (iUSD, iTube, iDSD). I have also tested them amped (including the Q1ii, Q5, XRK-NHB, and E17K).

In the time I have spent with the HM100, I have noticed no change to the overall sonic presentation (break-in). This is a purely subjective review – my gear, my ears, and my experience. Please take it all with a grain of salt – especially if it does not match your own experience.

THE PACKAGE
The HM100 comes in quite a large retail outer measuring 250 x 275 x 135mm. The box is predominantly white with some good photographs of the HM100 and a list of specifications and accessories on the back. Inside the box is a sturdy fabric/mesh covered carry case (foam interior). Inside this is the HM100 and accessories. The full accessory pack includes:

• A pair of HM100 headphones (fitted with pleather pads)
• The hard carry case
• 1.3m stereo cable to 3.5mm jack
• 3.0m stereo cable to 3.5mm jack
• Screw on 6.3mm adaptor (fits both cables)
• A pair of velour earpads
• User guide including warranty card

THE TECHNICAL SPECIFICATIONS

MEASUREMENTS
The graphs I use are generated using the Vibro Veritas coupler and ARTA software. In this particular case, I used no calibration apart from an adjustment to take the 4k Hz resonant peak of the hardware out. I don’t have a headphone measurement rig, and have no ear simulator – so you can’t use the graph as a representation of how the HM100 sounds. What I use is a head width simulator coupled with a latex soft face (or the headphones) with a hole so the veritas can sit flush.


My main aim is to take a reference headphone – my HD600 – and then compare the HM100 on the same rig and under the same conditions, and show the differences. The graphs are provided merely as a point of discussion, and later in the review I’ve included measurements of different headphones using the same set-up. What is clearly obvious using this methodology is how close the HM100 is to the HD600’s default signature.

BUILD
External
The HM100 looks to me both retro and at the same time elegant. The darker tan of the wood cups contrasts nicely with the lighter tan of the ear-pads, and the silver and black highlights of the rest of the headphone. They are quite large on the head, and they have some heft – coming in at 435 grams (includes the 1.2 m cable).

The headband is nicely rounded with very good soft foam padding encased in the tan leatherette. When worn this sits nicely on my head with no obvious pressure spots. The top of the head-band has the Brainwavz name embossed and is machine stitched. The two ends of the headband terminate in a pair of chrome coloured plastic sockets which are screwed in place.



The headband sliders are stainless steel with a lot of spring, and this is the likely cause of the quite high initial clamp force. The sliders are marked, but also glide smoothly – with no obvious click for each marker. The sliders terminate in another chrome coloured plastic socket which connects to the yoke assembly. The yokes are made from a lightweight but very strong alloy, and are reminiscent of Beyerdynamic’s yokes on the DT880/990 series. The yokes swivel side-to-side in their assembly about 20-25 deg both ways which allows easy seating of the cups onto your head. The yokes end with a black plastic swivel connector to the ear-cups.


The ear-cups are circumaural, and both large and comfortable. Internal measurements on the pads are approximately 75mm x 55mm x 30mm – so plenty of room for each ear. The outer cup measurement is approximately 110 x 85 x 75mm. The pads are attached to a removable plate (simple twist to rotate on or off) which makes pad changing very easy. The cups have a plastic frame, black trim, and wooden rear covers which are nicely finished and are embossed with the Brainwavz brand. At the bottom of each ear-cup is a socket for the replaceable cab’e. The sockets have red or blue internal connectors for easy identification of left and right. They are 3.5mm mono sockets (2 = stereo signal).

Cable(s)
Brainwavz supplies two cables – a 1.2m and longer 3m cable. Both are copper internals with an outer sheath, and terminate with a 3.5mm straight gold-plated screw threaded jack. This allows the 6.3mm adaptor to be screwed in place for a very secure fit. The 1.2m cable is encased in a dual side-by-side outer TPU (thermoplastic polyurethane) sheath.


The end result is a cable which is very malleable, resistant to tangling, and has quite low microphonics. The 3m cable is encased in a cloth like fabric which is a little more difficult to manage, has higher microphonics (the cable material), but ultimately would be more likely to be used for a stationary listening position. The connector jacks are clearly marked left (blue) and right (red) with rings on the connector housings.


Pads
Brainwavz supplies two sets – the fitted tan leatherette, and a pair of black velour. The pads are easy to swap out (rotate mount, remove from headphone, change pads, reattach mount). The changes to sonic signature are smaller than expected (see graph). This may be more to do with the tighter clamp while new. I would expect as the clamp diminishes to see a slight roll-off in sub-bass with the velours. The pads appear well made and are quite comfortable.

All in all, I would describe the build as pretty good – with my only real concerns being with the chrome coloured plastic (IMO metal would have been a better choice). Only time will tell if this becomes a future issue.

COMFORT / ISOLATION
Isolation with the HM100 is about average for a sealed headphone. With them in place and no music, I can still hear the keyboard when typing, but it is muted. With music playing at my normal 70-75 dB level this practically disappears. While I find the HM100 quite good for isolation both ways (noise in and out) in a room with moderate background noise, I would not be recommending them as suitable for higher noise environments (ie planes, sub-way).

Comfort for me is personally is very good. The ear-pads fit completely around my ears, and the foam cushions provide softness without becoming irritable. The headband is nicely curved to minimise individual pressure points. I do find them a little on the heavy side, but to be fair I’ve had some several hour sessions with the HM100 and not felt stiff or sore afterwards.

Clamp is quite high, and as a glasses wearer there is some pressure from the cups (pushing the glasses to the bridge of my nose). I know that the clamp can be adjusted over time (HM5 were the same) simply by carefully bending the steel extenders, or by simply stretching for a few days across some books.

SOUND QUALITY
My testing for this section was done with the FiiO X7ii (AM3A module), no EQ, and the tan pleather pads. I used the X7ii simply because it provides both a very transparent window to the music with low impedance, and also more than enough power.

For the record – on most tracks, the volume level on the X7ii (paired with AM3a) was ~65-70/120 Single Ended (on low gain) which was giving me an average SPL around 65-75 dB (track dependent). Tracks used were across a variety of genres – and can be viewed in this list.

Relativities

• Sub-bass – surprisingly good extension, but definitely starts to roll off a little into the sub-bass. The sub-bass rumble in Lorde’s “Royals” is definitely audible, and I find it quite balanced considering the rest of the signature. Definitely no bass bleed from the sub-bass.
• Mid-bass – good impact, and elevated compared to the sub-bass. There is reasonable thump and my only comment would be that it is slightly resonant. Its not really muddy or anything – there just seems to be a little mid-bass hump, and this adds a slightly boomy quality overall. It is slight though, and does not stop me from enjoying the bass on the HM100 very much.
• Lower mid-range – very tastefully done and perfectly balanced with the upper mid-range. Male vocals have good presence and richness in timbre and I’m not finding male vocalists thin or lacking.
• Upper mid-range – elevated compared to lower mid-range (mainly in the 3-5 kHz area, which helps add euphony in the presence area for female vocals. This tuning isn’t massively overdone, but can benefit (IMO) in a cut with a reasonable Q (covering 3-5 kHz) by about 5-6 dB. Its not necessary, but I personally think this balances things slightly better. There is a very cohesive interchange from low to upper mids.
• Lower treble – very good extension without dropping off, even after 10 kHz. Cymbals have good presence with a decent decay.
• Upper treble – seems to be nicely extended. Its hard for me to judge this area, because my hearing tops out around 14kHz nowadays, and the measuring equipment is not accurate enough from about 9 kHz up. No signs of brittleness, and I personally don’t find anything missing.

Resolution / Detail / Clarity

• Clarity is absolutely excellent, and there is distinct detail in all of my usual test tracks. With Dire Straits “Sultans of Swing”, the micro details such as drumstick clicks are easily heard, and there is no signs of masking from the bass guitar. Pink Floyd’s “Money” is likewise phenomenal with every detail of the registers present, yet perfectly mingled within the music. I think this is attributable to the nicely neutral frequency response.
• Cymbals hits (especially hi-hats and crash-cymbals) are present, and the trailing decay is audible. If I was nit-picking, I’d say that the decay can be a little splashy. My test track for this is Pearl Jam’s EWBTCIAST, and while good, the cymbals don’t have quite the shimmering tail off I’ve heard from some other headphones.
• Portico Quartet’s “Ruins” is a good track for checking the overall balance on hi-hat taps and general cymbal decay, and the balance overall in this track is excellent. Cymbal brushes are again easily audible and sustained.

Sound-stage, Imaging

• My usual first track for checking width, depth and shape of perceived sound-stage is Amber Rubarth’s “Tundra”. While there is projection outside my perceived head-space (violin), the overall impression is more of intimacy than space (so what I would normally expect from a closed headphone).
• Directionally the track is consistent and stage shape has both depth and width (perhaps slightly more width).
• Imaging of all 3 instruments is very precise with good sense of separation.
• I use the applause sections of “Dante’s Prayer” and Lakme’s “Flower Duet” for a feeling of immersion. Very good headphones can give you a real sense of being in the audience. The HM100 manages this quite well with both tracks. There is a life-like sense of of flow around me, although slightly more left / right than front / back.
• The last go-to track is Amanda Marshal’s “Let it Rain” which has a natural 3 dimensional feel (the way the track was miked). The HM100 handles it well. I also use this track as my sibilance test (its quite a hotly mastered track – and it is present in the recording). The HM100 does reveal the sibilance without any masking. This could be further evidence of a possible small 7-8 kHz peak?

Strengths

• Overall balance end to end in the frequency response – quite exceptional.
• Bass balance of impact, timbre and definition.
• Imaging – very clean and easy to pick directional cues
• Very good at lower volumes with good clarity
• Female vocals have a wonderful touch of euphony. Male vocals are still reasonably rich, and display good timbre.

Weaknesses

• 3-5 kHz peak may be slightly overdone, and may benefit from EQ.
• Slight boominess / resonance in the bass (can be normal with closed back headphones).
• Small amount of “heat” – possibly in the 7-8 kHz region. Its not bad, just perhaps slightly overdone.

AMPLIFICATION REQUIREMENTS
The HM100 is one of those headphones which looks harder to drive on paper than it really is. The on-line Digizoid Headphone Power Calculator tells me that at 64 ohms and 96 dB sensitivity, it requires 2.26 Vrms, 35.31 mA and approx 80 mW to reach 115 dB SPL (on the verge of pain). This halves if you’re simply wanting to top out at 110 dB. What this means is that virtually all of my current DAPs are easily able to drive the HM100 to very listen-able levels without distortion, and without needing extra amping. This includes my iPhone SE – which manages quite nicely at around 50-55% volume.

So does the HM100 get better with amping? For this I used the Q1ii, Q5, XRK-NHB, and E17K. With each of the amps I didn’t really notice any audible signs of greater driver control (once volume matched). What I did notice was that the slight added warmth of the XRK-NHB was a pleasant addition to the tonality, and with the other amps, some of the hardware EQ (bass boost or tone controls) were fun to play around with. But does the HM100 need a lot of amplification? In my opinion – not really.


RESPONSE TO EQ?
My first go to was the E17K’s tone controls and anything more than a +2 bass did become a little boomy, so for me personally I wouldn’t touch the bass too much. But a -4 treble adjustment (which affects upper mids and lower treble) did seem to nicely adjust the overall signature taking some of the splash out of the cymbals.

Going back to the X7ii’s EQ I dropped the 4 kHz and 8 kHz sliders by 4dB, and for my tastes it was a noticeable improvement. But this will depend ultimately on preference.

COMPARISONS
I found this a really difficult section to write. Most of my other closed headphones have been sold or given to family members. I chose instead to compare directly to the HD600 and HD630VB, and to use FiiO’s A5 amplifier to ensure the HD600 was getting enough power.

These comparisons were all done without EQ, and volume matched using a calibrated SPL meter and fixed 1kHz test tone first. These are very subjective comparisons.

HM100 vs HD600

Build
Both headphones share similar qualities – high clamp when new, but otherwise very comfortable with good padding. Both are also quite modular in design. Materials appear to be well thought out with both headphones, although I would be wary of the chrome coloured plastic on the HM100 (hopefully it is as sturdy as it looks). Both have good quality cables with built in 6.3mm adaptors.

Comfort / Ergonomics
Both are extremely comfortable and very ergonomic – once you get over the new (high clamp) factor. The HD600 are lighter and probably nudge ahead in this area.

Overall Sound Quality
These two are quite close in overall signature. I noticed this also with the original HM5. Both are appreciably balanced / neutral with natural tonality. The HM100 are bassier and slightly boomier through the mid-bass. The HD600 is more open with both a wider and deeper sense of stage. The HM100 also appear to be slightly brighter / sharper. But really (and this is the greatest compliment I could give the HM100), the HM100 is as close (IMO) as you can get to an HD600 closed clone.

HM100 vs HD630VB

Build
Both headphones share similar overall build qualities – reasonably sturdy with a good selection of build materials. The HD630VB is slightly better built (metal hinges), but does not have the replaceable cables or ear-pads of the HM100. The HD630VB does have the variable bass and also the on-cable controls for portability. Both are relatively heavy headphones. I would consider the HD630VB to have better overall build quality, but both to have strengths in additional features.

Comfort / Ergonomics
Both are extremely comfortable and very ergonomic. I do find the HM100 has better headband padding, and is a little better for longer term listening. The HD630VB is better for overall portability – but ultimately the HM100 is more comfortable for me.

Overall Sound Quality
I originally thought these two would also be quite close and I was surprised with the overall differences. The HD630VB has more sub-bass impact but is also a lot weaker through the mid-bass and lower mid-range area. It is also brighter overall (likely to be as a result of the missing mid-bass). This can be corrected to a certain extent via dialling up the bass quantity. Probably the most obvious difference though is in overall tonality. The HM100 have a larger perceived head-space, and are less peaky and more natural sounding. It would be fair to say that before I tried the HM100, the HD630VB have been one of my favourite closed back cans. That spot now goes to the HM100. For my personal tastes – the HM100 simply sounds better.

VALUE
When you look at the overall package of the HM100 – aesthetics, comfort, build, and most of all sound – it would be easy to imagine this headphone in a considerably higher price bracket. For the RRP of $199 you’re getting a truly well balanced headphone with a timeless frequency response.

Yes, parallels can be made with the considerably cheaper HM5, and yes the two signatures are very similar. With the HM100 you get all that was good about the HM5 but in a classier looking overall package. The tweaks might be small but they are IMO worth it:

• A little extra bass
• Better overall build
• Better aesthetics
• Improved comfort

At the RRP this represents very good value. And if you can find the HM100 at promotional pricing (currently $170), the value proposition increases.

BRAINWAVZ HM100 – SUMMARY
When I first tried the HM5 from Brainwavz, it was an instant hit for me. A beautifully balanced headphone sonically, but with some small deficiencies (eg issue with headphone arms/hinges breaking longer term), and quite an industrial unattractive look. Fast forward to it’s successor today (the HM100) and Brainwavz have addressed a lot of those deficiencies.

The HM100 is an exceptional looking headphone, with a slight retro but still classy look coupled with some design changes which (hopefully) address the issues with overall build quality from the HM5. Couple this with added padding (increased comfort) and some slight tweaks in sound, and you really have a headphone which punches above its weight.

The HM100 is the closest I’ve heard to a closed back Sennheiser HD600, with a very balanced overall tonality, and very good clarity. For the overall package, I consider the asking price of $199 to be very good value, and if you can pick them up cheaper (promotions), they represent excellent value.

I just want to close with thanking Marlon for allowing me the chance to review the HM100.



Share this:

INTRODUCTION
My initial intro to LZ’s range of IEMs was the A4, and it was a truly remarkable triple hybrid IEM with a well though out tuning system. Since then I tried (and purchased for myself after the review) their flagship 7 BA Big Dipper. Recently they have gone back to design another hybrid – this time their new A5. Would it improve some of the A4’s minor issues, and more importantly, could it deliver a higher sonic fidelity and better value despite the higher price? Lets put it through its paces.

ABOUT LZ
LZ (Lao Zhong) was originally a technician repairing home appliances. But he’s always had a love for, and a fascination with, audio – stretching back for more than 20 years. This led to him actually making his own speakers, and then eventually to playing around with IEMs. He bought an expensive pair of big name brand IEMs (and no I won’t mention them), but was not impressed with them. So he borrowed some money, started DIYing his own IEMs and listing them on Taobao. Little did he know how popular the LZ-02 would become, and he wasn’t expecting the interest outside China that it garnered.

In 2015, LZ product discussions appeared on some of the more popular western audio websites for the first time, and their customer base has grown as they got more exposure. They’re located in Shenzhen China, with the factory located in Dongguan. The company is surprising small – with just 7 staff in their main office. They now have a product range of more than a half dozen items – mainly IEMs, but also including a very reasonably priced after-market cable. They’ve also released a tunable flagship model IEM (the Big Dipper) which I reviewed on head-Fi, and eventually purchased for my personal use.

LZ’s message is a simple one – he just wants to make affordable IEMs for the public. And I really love the way he states it. He simply says that “we want to deliver our music to the world”. Not our products. Not our sound. Our music. I kind of like that philosophy.

DISCLAIMER
The LZ-A5 that I’m reviewing today was provided to me freely as a review sample. LZ HiFi have asked me to keep it for my personal use, or for follow up comparisons, and I thank them for this. I’d also like to thank duyu (Frank) for acting as the go between and facilitating the review sample. The retail price at time of review is USD 260.

PREAMBLE
If you haven’t read any of my reviews, I suggest starting here, as it will give you an insight into my known preferences and bias.

For the purposes of this review – I used the LZ-A5 straight from the headphone-out socket of many of my portables, but predominantly the FiiO X7ii, L&P L3, Cayin N5ii and my iPhone. I did not generally further amp them (I did test them with my Q1ii, XRK-NHB, and E17K), as IMO they do not benefit greatly from additional amplification (YMMV and it may depend on your source).

In the time I have spent with the LZ-A5, I have noticed no change to the overall sonic presentation (break-in), although I note that LZ recommends it. This is a purely subjective review – my gear, my ears, and my experience. Please take it all with a grain of salt – especially if it does not match your own experience.

THE PACKAGE
The LZ-A5 arrived in a 190 x 117 x 58mm “book style” retail box. It is matt black with LZ’s logo on the front. Opening the box reveals a foam insert which holds the IEMs, the filter storage tray, and the carry case (which in turn houses the rest of the accessories).

The total accessory package includes:

• 1 pair of LZ-A5 Hybrid IEMs
• 1 x 3.5 mm single ended to MMCX earphone cable
• 3 pairs of silicone single flange tips
• 1 pair of medium foam tips
• 1 round metallic carry case
• LZ instruction manual and documentation
• 4 sets of tuning filters

THE TECHNICAL SPECIFICATIONS
MEASUREMENTS
The graphs I use are generated using the Vibro Veritas coupler and ARTA software. Ken Ball (ALO/Campfire) graciously provided me with measurement data which I have used to recalibrate my Veritas so that it mimics an IEC 711 measurement standard (Ken uses two separate BK ear simulators, we measured the same set of IEMs, and I built my calibration curve from shared data). I do not claim that this data is 100% accurate, but it is very consistent, and is as close as I can get to the IEC 711 standard on my budget. I suspect it is slightly down at around 9-10 kHz, but seems reasonably accurate through the rest of the spectrum.

I do not claim that the measurements are in any way more accurate than anyone else’s, but they have been proven to be consistent and I think they should be enough to give a reasonable idea of response – especially if you’ve followed any of my other reviews. When measuring I always use crystal foam tips (so medium bore opening) – and the reason I use them is for very consistent seal and placement depth in the coupler. I use the same amp (E11K) for all my measurements – and output is under 1 ohm.

The graphs are provided merely as a point of discussion, and later in the review I’ve included comparisons to other IEMs for similar reference.

The graph shown is using the black filter. Later in the review I’ll discuss the other tuning options. Channel matching is very good.

BUILD
The LZ-A5 has a traditional oval ergonomic shape and is designed to be used over ear. The pair I have consists of a 2 piece black anodised alloy shell (the seam is hardly visible), with a screw on filter which forms the nozzle and allows you to change the tuning. The LZ-A5 measures ~21mm in width, ~14mm in height (main body only), and ~13mm in depth.

The outer face of each IEM is adorned with a crimson “wing design”, as well as an L or R printed next to the MMCX socket. At the rear of each IEM is a single DD port or vent. The shell design is extremely smooth with no rough edges or hard points. It is also very ergonomic (for me the fit is practically perfect).

The tuning filters are threaded into the nozzle socket, and once in place it extends the nozzle (on a forward angle) ~9mm from the body. The nozzles are 5mm in diameter and have a mesh end and reasonable lip.

The cable is 1.2m, fully cloth sheathed, and has built in form-able wires at the MMCX connectors. These form-able loops are ~85 mm in length, and I personally find them quite practical and easy to use. The cloth sheath is definitely micro-phonic, but this can be alleviated using the cinch and with some careful management (under clothing). The y-split is a metal cylinder which for me sits mid-sternum, and includes a very good cinch. There is good strain relief at the bottom of the Y-split and again at the jack.



The jack is 3.5mm, right angled, and is smart-phone case friendly. It is gold plated. Above the jack is a Velcro cable tie which is quite handy for securing the IEMs when not in use, but which is also a little bulky, and not quite as simple as Dunu’s very similar solution.

Internally the LZ-A5 uses 2 pairs of dual Knowles BA drivers (mids and highs), along with a titanium silver composite diaphragm on the dynamic driver.

FIT / COMFORT / ISOLATION
Isolation is above average considering the LZ-A5 is a vented hybrid, and most public transport noise should be isolated, with the remainder masked by your music. Of course this does depend on how good your tips are, and what sort of seal you get.

Fir and comfort can vary from person to person, and for me personally the LZ-A5 is a huge improvement over the LZ-A4 in this area. The ergonomic design really works, and I find it extremely comfortable – both for everyday use, and also for evenings. They sit flush with my outer ear, and basically disappear within a few seconds of wearing (I could forget they are in). I have slept with them intact, and woken hours later with them still there and no discomfort.


The nozzles have a very good lip, and with the standard sizing, I had no issues fitting Spiral Dots, Spin-fits, Ostry tuning tips and Sony Isolation tips. My tip of choice for the LZ-A5 was either the Symbio Mandarines or Sony Isolation tips. Both provide me with an excellent seal.

FILTERS
This always a tough one – as there are often many options, and without measurements, it is very easy for our brains to throw a filter over everything we hear. Because of this, we can grow quickly accustomed to an IEM’s tonality and lose sight of its performance against the other options.

The front filters double as the nozzles. They are 9mm in length (7mm exposed when fitted), 5mm in diameter with a mesh over the nozzle and good lip. They also have a threaded screw to fit the front of the LZ-A5, and are also fitted with a rubber washer to maintain seal and integrity. They are pretty easy to change out.


The documentation included with the LZ-A5 is not exactly clear or helpful in deciding on filter choices, referring to frequencies in a vague way. Hopefully this illustrates things a little easier. With the filters I received, the black and blue almost match each other with only about 1-2 dB difference at 2-3 kHz, and the rest of the curve matching to less than 1 dB. The same thing occurs with the red and grey filters. In fact, if you wear red and grey together or black and blue together, and wait for your ears to adjust, you’d swear you are using well matched monitors. I would have been worried that I had an outlier set of filters – except for the fact that my friend and fellow reviewer on Head-Fi (Hi-Fi Chris) measured his different set, and came up with almost identical measurements. I’ve seen other reviews claiming differences between all 4 filters, but until someone can get those pairs measured, I’m naturally sceptical. So for now I’ll describe the black and blue together, and red and grey together.

Black / Blue
These filters are quite heavily V shaped, and the main characteristics are very accentuated sub-bass (peaking around 40-50 Hz), a somewhat recessed lower mid-range, very much elevated upper mid-range, a small peak at 7 kHz and another larger peak around the 12-13 kHz area.

Overall this gives a very vivid signature which has quite a bit of low end warmth, but this is countered by the elevated upper mid-range which does tend to have male vocals sounding a little thin, and the overtones or harmonics sometimes having a little too much emphasis. Personally I find it quite easy to listen to the blue or black after my ears have had time to adjust as long as I am listening at reasonably low levels (which I do normally anyway). Guitar does sound quite edgy and bordering on brittle.

The 7 kHz peak doesn’t bother me personally (at least not as much as the upper mid-range), and while there is some heat in hi-hat and crash cymbals (stemming mainly from their fundamentals in the upper mid-range), its not too much to bother me generally (it just sounds a bit “forced”). The 12 kHz peak also adds more “air” and a little more sizzle than is realistic, and for my tastes is another area where things have just gone slightly overboard.

On the whole, if you really like a very vivid presentation, and listen at relatively low levels – you may quite like this combo.



Grey / Red
Again this filter combo is quite V shaped, but they are definitely more balanced than the Blue or Black. The sub-bass is at the same intensity level, and the lower mid-range has a similar recession, and the big difference here is the much lower upper mid-range peak, and lower 7 kHz peak also. The upper treble peak at 12 kHz remains intact.

These filters give a much more balanced mid-range and lower treble with far more palatable transitions through the octaves. The only real issue with this tuning is the sub-bass. Its much more noticeable now that the upper mid-range is a little closer to reference, and can tend to dominate. The good news is that it is a relatively easy fix to cut the sub bass a little via EQ to round them out.

My preference
After spending considerable time with the filters, I wouldn’t say any of them really suit my individual preferences, but I do like the grey the best. If I combine the grey with a cut in the sub-bass, and a slight correction in the upper treble – these sound really quite good. I know LZ is considering adding other tuning options – so I do hope there is a way to keep the grey mid-range, and simply cut that bass a bit.

SOUND QUALITY
My testing for this section was done with the FiiO X7ii (AM3A module), no EQ, and Symbio Mandarin tips. I used the X7ii simply because paired they gave me both a very transparent window to the music with low impedance, and also more than enough power. I used the grey filter – because listening without EQ, this is the most palatable filter for me.



For the record – on most tracks, the volume level on the X7ii (paired with AM3a) was ~50-55/120 Single Ended (on low gain) which was giving me an average SPL around 65-75 dB. Tracks used were across a variety of genres – and can be viewed in this list https://www.head-fi.org/f/articles/brookos-test-tracks.17556/

Relativities

• Sub-bass – very good extension and clearly elevated and dominant in the overall frequency range. Has a lot of rumble even at low listening levels, and with sub-bass dominant tracks (like Lorde’s Royals) can bleed into (or mask) the lower mid-range. Can tend toward looseness.
• Mid-bass – good impact, but takes a back seat to the sub-bass. I actually think the mid-bass is tuned pretty well, but the sub-bass often dominates it.
• Lower mid-range – there is a recession compared to sub and mid-bass, and also the upper mid-range, and does sound slightly distant. Male vocals do not quite have the same presence as female vocals, but they do have enough body to be enjoyable.
• Upper mid-range – elevated compared to lower mid-range, and there is a slow rise from 1 kHz to a first peak at 3 kHz. The result is a clean and clear vocal range, with very good cohesion and some euphony for female vocals to sound sweet and elevated. There is also good sense of bite with guitars – and plenty of presence for fundamental cymbal strikes. Note that with the blue or black filters, this area is overly emphasised and far too etched (unnatural).
• Lower treble has very good extension, and is quite sustained through to 10kHz with just a small peak around 7kHz. But it isn’t over-emphasised with this filter combination, remaining at slightly lower than the upper mid-range amplitude. This presents a lot of clarity and detail, but without too much glare.
• Upper treble – extended through to 12-13 kHz and there is a bit of a peak in this area with all filters. It does not bother me too much (although a small cut here can improve the realism by removing some slight brittleness). This will depend on your sensitivity to upper treble.

Resolution / Detail / Clarity

• For me this is very dependent on the track I am listening to. If its something with lighter overall bass like Nil’s Lofgren’s “Keith Don’t Go” (acoustic guitar), the LZ-A5 is very detailed and clear, and it is easy to pick out micro details (movements on the fret-board etc). If it is even a little more bass dominant (eg Pink Floyd’s “Money”), as soon as the bass guitar kicks in, some of the micro detail which I know is in the track gets lost (masked).
• Cymbals hits (especially hi-hats and crash-cymbals) have nice presence with this filter, and there is good sense of trailing decay. Cutting 12 kHz slightly does enhance the realism a little more – as does cutting the sub-bass.
• Portico Quartet’s “Ruins” is a good track for checking the balance on drumstick clicks, hi-hat taps and general cymbal decay, and it is clear that the BA’s are tuned quite well in this filter configuration. With the blue or black filters though, the same track becomes overly spotlit – and cymbal brushes become blobs, and the upper mid-range becomes shrill and peaky.

Sound-stage, Imaging

• Directional queues are relatively good (as long as its not a bass dominant track).
• Imaging is good in the sense that you get clear direction of sound, and it is consistent – but it can be a little soft sometimes with this filter.
• Presentation of stage is definitely at the periphery of my head – so these are more intimate than expansive.
• Reasonably spherically presented sound-stage – with a no real L/R dominance.
• The applause section of “Dante’s Prayer” was very well represented with a good feel of flow around me.
• “Let it Rain” (Amanda Marshall) had its usual 3D-like sense of spatial presentation (it is the way the track was miked). There was only a slight hint of sibilance with Amanda’s vocals – and I know its present in the recording – so not unexpected. The sibilance was reasonably subdued which was appreciated.

Strengths (grey filter)

• Really nice mid-range which is good for both male and female vocals
• General clarity
• Imaging and intimate staging (without L/R dominance)
• Progression of mid-range (lower, upper) and cohesion with the treble response.
• Good at lower listening levels

Weaknesses

• Sub-bass dominant, and with bassy tracks, there is masking of other frequencies
• Upper treble is very slightly etched, and if you’re sensitive in this area, it may portray to much air.
• Upper mid-range if you’re using black or blue filters – way too much emphasis, and does get fatiguing

AMPLIFICATION REQUIREMENTS
The LZ-A5 is an easy IEM to drive with its 16ohm impedance and 105 dB sensitivity. It was easily driven with all the sources I tried, and this included my iPhone SE and players like FiiO’s X1ii (neither are power houses). My iPhone SE only needed about one 35-40% of its volume for a comfortable 65-75dB for me.

I did try it with the Q1ii, Q5, XRK-NHB, and E17K amps (after volume matching, and quick switching between amped an un-amped). I didn’t notice any appreciable difference in dynamics, and it was the first IEM I’ve tried with the XRK-NHB where I haven’t been awed by the addition of the extra harmonics (the last thing the A5 needs is additional warmth).

RESPONSE TO EQ?
Oh I’m so pleased we are at this section. For this I wanted to correct the blue/black filters first, so using my iPhone SE, I used the Equaliser app, and its parametric equaliser to try to null the upper mid-range’s over-exuberance. I then lifted the dip in the lower mid-range slightly. Finally I brought the sub-bass back and also took a little heat out of 12 kHz. I really like the result, and hope that it helps others as a starting point, and that they can provide feedback on their own tweaks.

The settings are:

• 40Hz, Q=0.5, -3.5 dB
• 800Hz, Q=0.5, +3.0 dB
• 2000Hz, Q=0.1.5, -6.0 dB
• 3000Hz, Q=1.5, -6.0 dB
• 12000Hz, Q=1.0, -2.0 dB

Next step was to use the X7ii and simply tackle the grey filter by reducing 12 kHz and also the sub-bass. For this I simply dropped the last two sliders (31 and 62 Hz by -6dB), and the very highest slider (16 kHz) by around 4 dB (also affects the 12 kHz). Again (for me) instantly better. Still plenty of rumble, but this time not so much domination.

The A5 transforms with carefully applied EQ – I just wish I could do this via the filters …….

COMPARISON WITH OTHER IEMS
A hard one to try and compare because of the filters. So for this one I looked simply to show the overall performance compared to some other tunable IEMs (FLC’s FLC8S, LZ’s own A4 and Dipper). I also quickly compared to a couple of well regarded IEMs in the $250-300 range. These comparisons were all done with the X7ii, (no EQ) – and volume matched using a calibrated SPL meter and fixed 1kHz test tone first.



Tunable IEMs
LZ A5 grey filter (~USD 260) vs LZ-A4 Black+grey filter (~USD 195)
Both have very good overall build quality – solid materials, well put together. Both have replaceable cables (MMCX) and although they are functional – I’m not really a fan of either cable design. The A4 has more possible filter combinations (more versatile) but is let down by its non-ergonomic design and subsequent comfort issues. The A5 has a far more ergonomic design and very comfortable fit – but suffers a bit from the limited tuning options.

Sonic comparison – and this is comparing the black/grey A4 to the grey A5:

• A5 has noticeably more sub-bass, and because of the imbalance in total tonality with the A5’s bass I personally find it just a touch bloomy.
• Lower mids are very similar, and male vocals are close to identical on both.
• Both have very clear upper mid-range
• I prefer A5’s lower treble – both are extended, but cymbals have slightly better decay with the A5 (in this filter configuration)
• The A5 sounds warmer and a little more intimate. The A4 sounds more vivid and a little more open.

My overall preference would be the A4 sonics in the A5 body if it was possible.

LZ A5 grey filter (~USD 260) vs FLC8S red, none, gold filters (~USD 299)
Again two tunable IEMS – this time the 5 driver hybrid A5 vs the 3 driver hybrid FLC8S. Overall build quality is good on both but the A5 gets the nod for the better quality materials. Both have removable cables, and both stock cables are ones I’d personally replace. Both have an ergonomic fit – I do like the A5’s ergonomics slightly better – but both are comfortable. The A5 has 4 current tuning options. The FLC8S has 3 different tuning points which when combined with the filters (and using no filter options as well) can provide up to 60 different options. This gives far greater control on the overall sound.

Sonic comparison – and this is comparing the red/none/gold combo to the grey A5:

• A5 again has noticeably more sub-bass. The FLC8S bass sound better proportioned, seems quicker (better decay) and not as much bloom.
• Lower mids are somewhat similar in presentation – both have good timbre and tone.
• Both have clean and clear upper mid-range, but FLC8S does sound cleaner and closer – mainly due to the earlier rise after 1 kHz and the lack of any sub-bass masking.
• Both have good treble extension, but again the FLC8S does sound cleaner and more articulate – mainly because of the lack of any masking.
• The A5 sounds warmer overall – both are quite intimate sounding in terms of staging. FLC8S images a little better.

My preference here is divided. The FLC8S will give you better options if you prefer to tweak the filters. If you’re proficient with a parametric EQ – I can actually get as good results with the A5. For most though – the FLC8S is probably going to be the better option considering the ability to tune the sound.

LZ A5 grey filter (~USD 260) vs LZ-Big Dipper +bass, -mid, -treble (~USD 640-820)
Both have very good overall build quality, use quality materials and are well put together. Both have replaceable cables – I much prefer the more flexible Dipper cable though. The Dipper is very ergonomic and is the more comfortable overall for my ears. The A5 has the 4 tunable filters. The Dipper has the option to have 0-3 filter switches – the more expensive 3 switch model gives up to 8 tuning options.

Sonic comparison – and this is comparing the grey A5 to Dipper with bass switch on, but others off:

• A5 again has noticeably more sub-bass, and is warmer than the Dipper. The A5’s bass has more impact. The Dippers bass is much quicker with less decay. Although the Dippers bass graphs somewhat similar amplitude – this is the difference between DD and BA bass. The Dippers bass is clean articulate and balanced. The A5 is heavier, more bass dominant and unfortunately has a masking effect on other frequencies.
• Dipper has more body in its lower mids and male vocals are richer.
• Both have clear upper mid-range but Dippers is a little leaner overall.
• Both have extended lower treble – but the Dipper has a little more glare (I think this is the extension right through from the upper mid-range.
• The A5 sounds warmer but vocals are more distant. This doesn’t express as bigger stage though. If anything Dipper sounds wider.

I thought the A5 performed quite well against the Dipper overall, and if you cut the A5 sub-bass a bit, it really is a well tuned IEM. But I prefer speed and articulation, and the Dipper delivers that for my preferences. This is why I actually ended up paying for the Dipper (buying the review sample from LZ).

Standard IEMs
LZ A5 grey filter (~USD 260) vs FiiO FH1 (~USD 75)
Both have really good build quality with replaceable cables and very comfortable ergonomic build. The A5 build materials are slightly better, and is a 5 driver hybrid vs the FH1 2 driver hybrid. The A5 has the tuning options (although they are a little limited). I like the FH1 cable much more than the A5, and FiiO also provides a balanced cable in the package.

Sonic comparison – and this is comparing the grey filter A5 to the FH1:

• A5 is a little warmer with the increased sub-bass but I actually prefer the tonality of the FH1 bass. The FH1 has more balanced overall tonality, so the response actually has a nice warmth, but does not dominate.
• Both have very good lower and upper mid-range, but there is less masking with the FH1
• Treble is a little more pronounced, a little airier with the A5. The FH1 has similar capability with extension but is more balanced.
• Overall the A5 is more vivid overall, where the FH1 has more balance.

The FH1 is simply best in class at sub $100 and TBH performs in the +$200 range. If both of these were priced the same – I’d take the FH1. This could change if there were better filter options on the A5.

LZ A5 grey filter (~USD 260) vs Brainwavz B400 (~USD 180)
This is a 5 driver hybrid vs a 4 driver BA.

Both have good build quality with replaceable cables and very comfortable ergonomic build. The A5 build materials and finish are slightly better. The A5 has the tuning options (although they are a little limited). Brainwavz also provides a balanced cable in the package.

Sonic comparison – and this is comparing the grey filter A5 to the B400:

• A5 is definitely warmer with the increased sub-bass but again I prefer the tonality of the B400 overall. The B400 is more balanced overall but has less lower treble, so the response has a nice warmth, but does not dominate.
• Both have very good lower and upper mid-range, but there is less masking with the B400
• Treble is a lot more pronounced, and airier with the A5. The B400 has good extension but is tuned to be quite smooth.
• Overall the A5 is more vivid and V shaped with quite distant vocals, where the B400 has more balance and is smoother.

Again – I see more current overall value with the B400, and if you were price matching, this would allow you to get the B400 with upgrade cables.

LZ A5 grey filter (~USD 260) vs Alclair Curve (~USD 250)
This is a 5 driver hybrid vs a 2 driver BA.

Both have good build quality with replaceable cables and very comfortable ergonomic build (the Curve wins on the comfort though – its simply the most comfortable ergonomic universal I’ve ever tried). The A5 has the tuning options (although they are a little limited). The Curve has a much better cable.

Sonic comparison – and this is comparing the grey filter A5 to the Curve:

• There are some big differences here – the A5 is much warmer, with more impact, and slower bass response. The Curve sounds thinner but faster. It still has good bass articulation, but won’t satisfy bass lovers.
• Both have good lower and upper mid-range, but there is no masking with the Curve. Curve sounds a lot cleaner and clearer.
• Despite the graph showing less amplitude in the lower treble, the Curve is far more articulate and detailed. If you prefer a more vivid and v shaped sound the A5 would be the way to go. More balance – definitely the Curve.

This one comes down to preference. I’ve always liked balance and details – so for me the Curve remains my reference IEM.

VALUE
So how do I see the overall value of the LZ-A5? This is a tough one because the A5 does have a lot of potential and simple reissue of a couple of filters could effectively transform it into a must have IEM. On the plus side – it has great build and fit, and the versatility is good with the filter options. On the negative – for me, the current filter options simply don’t have enough variety, and the cable could be better. Is it worth $260? Well I’d say its good value at $260, but not great value (yet). Will LZ provide another couple of filter options – that will be the real “value” question. Lets hope.

LZ-A5 – SUMMARY
I should have posted this review a couple of weeks ago, but work load and the difficulty of writing an in-depth review on a tunable monitor have kept me back. I apologise to both LZ and duyu – but we got there in the end.

The LZ-A5 is somewhat of a paradox as far as hybrid IEMs go. It is very well built, with solid choice of materials and the tuning system is very easy to use (although somewhat limited currently). LZ fixed the comfort issue which was the only major flaw with the LZ-A4, but unfortunately they’ve regressed a bit with the current tuning, and the cable is probably a bit over engineered, and not really practical for long term use. A simple twisted braid would be cheaper and more practical (IMHO of course).

As far as the SQ of the LZ-A5 goes, if you’re a fan of a warmer bottom end, and a vivid V shaped tuning, you may well love the options LZ provides. I think they did well with the mids and highs of the grey and red (please dial down the bass on one of them!), but the blue and black are simply overdone in the upper mid-range (for my tastes anyway). I think this IEM may be polarising. It reminds me a bit of Trinity audio – sometimes you just need to dial back on the vividness.

For the price of $260 you are getting an IEM with a lot of potential, but some of it is unrealised. If you are prepared to EQ, or perhaps DIY some filter tuning through added damping – these could be really good. In their current form though I don’t necessarily see them as an upgrade from the A4 – except in the comfort stakes.

I just want to close with thanking Lao Zhong and duyu (Frank) for arranging the review sample.


UPDATED FILTERS
So LZ re-thought things and released another set of filters for the A5. The graphs of the new filters are attached. Rather than go through everything, I’ll summarise the changes, and if this changes the value and final summary for me. The updated filters can be ordered from Penon Audio – I’m not sure what the LZ A5 ships with by default now. So what has changed?

• Starting with the black filter – it is essentially the same as the original black but with about 2-3 dB reduced between 2-3 kHz. Still too coloured for my preference, but many may like it.
• The blue filter virtually has no change – perhaps a 1 dB softening between 2-3 kHz
• The grey filter has the biggest change. This time it bridges the gap between the original grey/red and the blue filters.
• The new red filter is perhaps 1-2dB softer than the original red filter at 2-3 kHz but again, the change is minimal

Are the changes worth it? Well yes because at least there is a little more variety now, but unfortunately (IMO) the tuning changes are still quite one dimensional (mostly the upper mid-range). I wish they had really given some changes in both bass and mid-range. There is a lot that could be done – and I still don’t think they have captured the value. My favourite remains the red filter (new or old), and I do quite like these – although I do still find the bass a little over-done. Does my scoring or conclusions change? No – because really only two filters have changed (admittedly for the better), and I still think the overall signature is quite coloured.

Should you get the new filters? Well for a small outlay, you may find it worth it – especially if you like a coloured upper mid-range emphasis. And there is absolutely nothing wrong with that. A few years ago – I also loved this tuning. Over the last 3-4 years my tastes have changes a bit. Reference they are not – but many will like this tuning.

INTRODUCTION
Just on three months ago, I had the pleasure of reviewing Brainwavz’s B400 IEM – a quad BA in a 3D printed shell for $190-$275 (depending on your choice of cables and colour). It took me back to the days when Brainwavz were on a high with the B2 – a dual hybrid with incredible sound (an IEM I absolutely loved). The B400 was a different tuning – well extended, nicely balanced signature, but with a polite lower treble. For the price and its technical capability, I had no hesitation in grading it a 5 star IEM.

Shortly after its release, Pandora advised me that they were going to redo their B200 with the same 3D printed shells, and asked if I’d be interested in hearing them. I didn’t get a chance to take part in the B200 V1 review round – but evidently it met with positive feedback from a lot of people on Head-Fi. Two of my favourite IEMs are both dual BA. So lets see how good these are ……

ABOUT Brainwavz
Brainwavz Audio was formed in 2008 as a subsidiary of GPGS Hong Kong. Their goal has always been to develop a full range of audio solutions (mostly earphones and headphones) that cater for a variety of different tastes, uses and price brackets. They originally started with predominantly OEM designs from other companies, and more recently have been working to develop their own stand-alone products.

In their own words:

At Brainwavz we have a simple mission, to produce innovative, high quality audio products with a dedicated focus on high-end sound. Our strength, success and product range is built on the unique relationship with our customers. A relationship that has produced a simple and obvious result, we give real users real sound quality.

DISCLAIMER
The Brainwavz B200 V2 IEM that I’m reviewing today was provided to me gratis as a review sample (outside normal tours etc). Pandora has asked me for my subjective opinion and feedback, with no restrictions or caveats. Brainwavz have asked me to keep it for my personal use, or for follow up comparisons, and I thank them for this. The retail price at time of review for the basic model is ~USD 120. Additional upgrade cables can be purchased at time of ordering for $30-$55

PREAMBLE
If you haven’t read any of my reviews, I suggest starting here, as it will give you an insight into my known preferences and bias.

For the purposes of this review – I used the Brainwavz B200 V2 straight from the headphone-out socket of many of my portables, but predominantly the X5iii, X3iii, X7ii and my iPhone. I did not generally further amp them (I did test them with my Q1ii, XRK-NHB, and E17K), as IMO they do not benefit greatly from additional amplification (YMMV and it may depend on your source). I did spend some considerable time with the XRK-NHB (more on that later). In the time I have spent with the B200 V2, I have noticed no change to the overall sonic presentation (break-in). Time spent now with the IEM would be approximately 25-30 hours.

This is a purely subjective review – my gear, my ears, and my experience. Please take it all with a grain of salt – especially if it does not match your own experience.

THE PACKAGE
The Brainwavz B200 V2 arrived in an approximately 93mm x 165mm x 45mm retail box with “B200” in embossed red text on a black background. Inside the retail outer is a plastic tray with the longer Brainwavz carry case. Inside this are the B200V2 and the accessory package.


This includes:

• 1 pair B200 IEMs
• 3.5mm MMCX stereo cable
• 2.5mm MMCX balanced cable
• Brainwavz carry case
• 2 sets of silicone ear tips (S M L)
• 1 set of Comply™ foam tips T-100 Red
• 1 shirt clip
• 1 x velcro cable tie
• Instruction manual & warranty card (24 month warranty)

THE TECHNICAL SPECIFICATIONS


MEASUREMENTS


The graphs I use are generated using the Vibro Veritas coupler and ARTA software. Ken Ball (ALO/Campfire) graciously provided me with measurement data which I have used to recalibrate my Veritas so that it mimics an IEC 711 measurement standard (Ken uses two separate BK ear simulators, we measured the same set of IEMs, and I built my calibration curve from shared data). I do not claim that this data is 100% accurate, but it is very consistent, and is as close as I can get to the IEC 711 standard on my budget. I suspect it is slightly down at around 9-10 kHz, but seems reasonably accurate through the rest of the spectrum.

I do not claim that the measurements are in any way more accurate than anyone else’s, but they have been proven to be consistent and I think they should be enough to give a reasonable idea of response – especially if you’ve followed any of my other reviews. When measuring I usually always use crystal foam tips (medium bore opening) – and the reason I use them is for very consistent seal and placement depth in the coupler. For the B200 V2 I had to use Shure Olives simply because of the nozzle size, and to ensure a consistent seal. I use the same amp (E11K) for all my measurements – and output is under 1 ohm.

The graphs are provided merely as a point of discussion, and later in the review I’ve included comparisons to other IEMs for similar reference.

Channel matching is extremely good (practically perfect) on the tweeter BA driver from 1 kHz up. Unfortunately the woofer BA is out slightly and on my pair is noticeable with some tracks.

BUILD


The Brainwavz B200 has a traditional peanut or jelly bean ergonomic shape, and one which is adopted by most manufacturers when they really want a small and completely ergonomic in ear monitor. It is very much a slightly smaller version of the B400 and also reminds me a little of the MEE P1 or Shure standard housings. The B200 V2 I have is clear (or frosty) standard shell, and as far as I am aware is not being offered in other colours (at this stage). It is 3D printed into two halves using the same type of resin usually used for Custom IEMs. These are then populated with the BA drivers, crossover, filters, MMCX socket and joined to become the final earpiece.

The shell is approx 20mm across, 12mm high and 11-12mm deep at its widest point. It is very light, but feels quite resilient. The shell is translucent, and you can clearly see the armatures inside. There is no text on either shell apart from an “L” or “R” adjacent to the MMCX sockets. Apart from that, the only other noticeable point is a small pressure release hole on the internal side next to the L/R indicators.



The shell join is pretty seamless over most of this pair of B200 V2, and there isn’t the same “ridging” that I had on the prototype B400 I reviewed. Both the internal and external surface areas are well rounded with gentle ridges and valleys designed to perfectly fit with the main contours of your ear.

The nozzle protrudes slightly forward and slightly up from the front of the IEM and extends approx 6mm from the main body. It has an external diameter of approx 4mm, a generous lip, but is very small – and takes a Comply T100 tip. The lip really helps being able to use some larger tip sizes, but overall many of the larger tips I have simply won’t fit (more on that later).

At the top rear of the B200 V2 shell is a recessed standard MMCX socket. The socket is firm with both included cables and requires a firm hand to change them.



There are 2 cables included, one single ended and one balanced. The single ended is OFC and features formable ear-guides (which work pretty well for me), and a twisted pair of wires (with PVC sheath) to the y-split. The Y-split is made of flexible black rubber, with good strain relief and a cinch. Below the Y-split, the two twisted pairs become a heavier twisted pair (again wrapped in PVC sheath) as the channels are wrapped around each other. The balanced cable is basically a mirror of the single -ended, except with a 2.5mm jack. Both balanced and single ended jack are ~45 deg angled and have very good strain relief. The cables are pretty flexible and only have mild residual memory. There is slight microphonic transfer with both cables, but this can be alleviated by using the cinch.

FIT / COMFORT / ISOLATION
Isolation is generally good with the B200 V2 but ultimately will depend on the tips you use and how good the seal is. The other dual BAs I own (Curve and q-Jays) do ultimately isolate far better, but these will be good enough for most people for public transport. I would guess (based on my experience with the B400) that these should be OK on a flight – eliminating most cabin noise and having the music mask the rest of the ambient drone.


Fit and comfort thoughts are more subjective, and will vary from person to person, and my experience has been one of complete satisfaction. As I mentioned earlier, the B200 V2 has been designed for a completely ergonomic fit. For me they are a perfect, sit flush with my outer ear, and basically disappear within a few seconds of wearing (I could forget they are in). I have slept with them intact, and woken hours later with them still there and no discomfort. The lack of hard edges and the smooth finish contribute to an extremely positive experience. The B200 V2 is designed to only be used cable over ear.



The B200 V2 has an excellent lip on the nozzle, but has quite a skinny nozzle width (similar to Shures SE series). I’ve tried Spiral Dots, Spin-fits, Ostry tuning tips and Sony Isolation tips, and unfortunately while they fit, it was somewhat loose, and I’d leave tips in my ears. The included Comply 100 tips fit the nozzle well, but are too narrow for my big dumbo ear canals. The included silicones would not seal, but I did have plenty of options with a lot of generic small tips I’ve collected over the years.

The one tip I do have and which tends to fit me extremely well with shallower fitting IEMs is the Shure Olives. They are perfectly sized for the nozzle, long lasting, and provide a great seal.

SOUND QUALITY


Most of the testing at this point (unless otherwise stated) was done with my X7ii, no EQ, and Shure Olive tips. I used the X7ii simply because paired they not only gave me a very transparent window to the music with low impedance, and more than enough power – but also allowed me to use the balanced option. There was no EQ engaged.

For the record – on most tracks, the volume level on the X7ii (paired with AM3a) was around 35-40 Balanced or 50-55/120 Single Ended (on low gain) which was giving me an average SPL around 65-75 dB. Tracks used were across a variety of genres – and can be viewed in this list https://www.head-fi.org/f/articles/brookos-test-tracks.17556/

Relativities

• Sub-bass – rolls off early and is just barely audible (sits well in the background). No real rumble, and no sense of impact.
• Mid-bass – elevated compared to sub-bass and has a very slight mid-bass hump. Impact is light (probably because of the missing sub-bass), and I would describe the bass overall as “polite”. There is some good quality mid-bass there (quick and very clean), and if you like a lighter more mid-focussed signature these may appeal.
• Lower mid-range – very slightly recessed compared to bass and upper treble, but not enough to make vocals distant. Male and female vocal fundamentals are good – with nice weight and overall timbre.
• Upper mid-range – elevated compared to lower mid-range, and there is a very even rise from 1 kHz to the first peak at just over 2kHz. Cohesive transition from lower to upper-mids, and very good euphony for female vocals (the upper mid-range is close to perfect for female vocals IMO).
• Lower treble has a nice overall balance throughout, and is reasonably linear throughout. There is the tiniest bump at 7 kHz which gives good clarity with cymbal strikes, and the subsequent decay is also very good. Because the bass impact is lacking, the lower treble is perfect in this context – smooth but also has good detail.
• Upper treble rolls extends quite well with some decent “air”, but is pretty difficult to capture properly on my budget measurements set-up, and with my “aged” hearing I’d be lucky to notice much over 13-14 kHz anyway.

Resolution / Detail / Clarity

• Clarity overall is really good. Upper-mids and lower treble have enough emphasis to give guitars bite and definition. Micro details are quite evident and this is likely due to the light bass presence.
• Cymbal hits have good clarity and presence but aren’t emphasised and sit quite nicely within the overall mix. Decay is brilliant, and trails off nicely after the cymbal strike.

Sound-stage, Imaging

• Directional queues are good – clean and clear without being over emphasised. Presentation of stage is just on the periphery of my head space with binaural tracks, so not what I would call expansive.
• Lately I’ve been using Lakme’s “Flower Duet” – an excellent live recording which has two sopranos (Netrebko and Garanca) moving to the rear of the stage at the end of the song, and continuing the last chorus from there. This gives me a good medium to capture the impression of stage depth. The B200 captured the transition quite well – a nice ability to present change of stage depth (good imaging).
• The applause section of the same track showed a very good sense of immersion (the sound of the audience flowing around me), and the tonality gave a reasonable touch of realism. Width and depth seems nicely matched.
• “Let it Rain” (Amanda Marshall) gave a nice 3 dimensional feel (the way it is miked) with extremely good guitar definition and nice overall clarity. There was the usual sibilance with Amanda’s vocals – and it should be there because its in the recording, but it wasn’t over done. By now I had to reset my ears as the lighter bass was starting to sound normal – and its quite amazing how good the B200 V2 sounds when you adjust to the overall signature.

Strengths

• Overall tonality and reasonable (but overall lean) balance of the frequency range.
• Very good imaging and a nice (if slightly intimate) sense of staging.
• Very nice cohesion with lower and upper register vocals
• Good for both female and male vocals.
• Balance between mid-range and lower treble is a real strength.

Weaknesses

• The sub-bass is quite clearly deficient / subdued, which is a real pity, because if it was linear, the B200 would be an incredible monitor.

AMPLIFICATION REQUIREMENTS


The Brainwavz B200 V2 doesn’t need amplification for overall volume – and because its impedance isn’t overly low, any source with an output impedance of less than 3-4 ohms (to meet damping requirements) should pair OK.

With my iPhone SE around 35-45% volume is more than enough with most tracks, and the FiiOs are generally at around 45-55/120 single ended. I tried the B200 V2 with the Q1ii, A5, E17K and XRK-NHB, but noticed no real differences in dynamics on any except for the XRK-NHB. The second order harmonics with the XRK-NHB were very enjoyable and did tend to add perceptually more weight to the mid-bass (harmonic warmth) which I thought really suited the slightly cool and lean B200.



None of the amps seemed to be adding additional quality (compared to the non-amped DAPs), but what both the Q1ii and A5 were able to add was there hardware bass boost, and this really did add some quite nice impact. The B200 V2 is an easy IEM to drive though, and I think amping (while not necessary) might be the easy choice for hardware EQ tweaks.

RESPONSE TO EQ?
By now you already know where I consider the B200’s weakness to be – that pesky sub-bass. I’d already shown what hardware bass boost would do, so it was time to bring the E17Ks tone controls into play. Even a +4dB bass boost was enough to put more than enough warmth back into the signature, and in my humble opinion completed the overall balance. Using the X7ii’s built in EQ was an even better result, enabling me to initiate more of a change to the sub-bass only.

In reality though, I can get used to the default signature quite quickly – but its nice to know that those wanting a more warmth can do so easily and quickly.

BALANCED VS SINGLE ENDED
I measured these, and there was no difference with the X7ii’s AM3a amplifier module apart from volume. Even the slight change in impedance wasn’t enough to change the overall frequency response. I’m not a great believer in the adage that balanced makes a huge difference. Yes, if the implementation is vastly different you can sometimes notice a difference, but more often than not the changes to cross-talk are already below the audible barrier, and most modern set-ups don’t have crosstalk issues anyway. Its nice to have the option – but sonically I don’t hear any benefits. If you volume match properly, I doubt you will either.

COMPARISON WITH OTHER IEMS
These comparisons were all done with the X7ii, (no EQ) – and volume matched using a calibrated SPL meter and fixed 1kHz test tone first.



For the comparisons I chose the B400 (Brainwavz current flagship), the two other dual BAs I have (q-Jays and Curve), the FiiO FH1 and Meze 12 Classic. This gave a good mix of value, driver configuration and price band.

Brainwavz B200 V2 (~USD 119) vs FiiO FH1 (~USD 75)
The FiiO FH1 is a dual hybrid IEM, which (like the B200 V2) has a very ergonomic design, is very comfortable, and comes with both SE and balanced removable cables. In terms of overall comfort, build, fit etc – this is a pretty even match. The FH1’s finish does look slightly more professional – but that would be splitting hairs.



Sonically the two might look similar on a graph, but are fairly different when in the ear. The difference is of course in the lower and sub-bass where the FH1 has a lot more extension and this translates into a deeper, warmer, richer signature. Both have a similar mid-range, and very similar treble also. To me, the FH1 overall frequency balance is better (even though I’d prefer slightly less overall bass). And when you factor the price difference, and the similarity in build and comfort, I do think the FH1 is the better option (unless you prefer a very neutral/lean bass).

Brainwavz B200 V2 (~USD 119) vs Meze 12 Classic (~USD 79)
The Meze 12 Classic is a single dynamic IEM, which is small comfortable, and shares a pretty similar overall signature. The 12 Classic is comfortable when worn (due to its size), but the B200 V2 is more comfortable, has better ergonomics, and has the benefit of the replaceable cables (the 12 Classic cable is fixed). Both have good build quality.



Both have a very similar sonic signature with neutral/lean bass, slightly elevated upper mid-range and reasonably good extension on the treble without it being highlighted. The B200 V2 sounds slightly thicker through the mid-range, and also has a little less lower treble energy. The 12 Classic in turn has a little lower end impact. The two sound very similar – smooth and slightly lean/bright. In this comparison the two are variations of a common theme. The question is if the B200’s superior fit and replaceable cables are worth the extra outlay – and that will alrgely depend on an individual’s budget and intended use.

Brainwavz B200 V2 (~USD 119) vs Brainwavz B400 (~USD 179+)
I can make this fairly quick. The B400 is Brainwavz’ current flagship quad BA IEM. It is also 3D printed, and the actual shell design is pretty much an exact replica of the B200 V2 (just very slightly larger to accommodate the two extra drivers). Everything else is pretty similar, although you do get a few more accessories with the B400.



In terms of sound, this is a similar situation to the FH1 comparison. The main difference is in the lower and sub-bass again, with the B400 having more extension, and a warmer overall signature. The mid-range on the B400 is also a touch less forward than the B200 V2, and the overall signature is warmer, but also a little more effortless. The obvious question is if the B400 is worth the extra $50, and IMO te answer is definitely yes. For its price, the B400 (in my humble opinion) is one of the best buys currently in the sub $200 category.

Brainwavz B200 V2 (~USD 119) vs Alclair Curve (~USD 250)
This is the first of the dual BA vs dual BA comparisons. The Curve from Alclair is easily the most comfortable and ergonomic monitor I own. When worn they simply disappear. In terms of overall build quality the two are close, with the Curve having slightly better finish aesthetically. The Curve comes with one x 2 pin cable, but it is arguably better quality than the two from Brainwavz.



The Curve is also one of the most balanced monitors I have, with superb extension at both ends, but it is also ever so slightly on the cool side of strictly neutral (probably one of the reasons I like it so much). The bass is there when you need it, but never dominates. Switching between the two, the B200 V2 is both leaner (in terms of impact), and also more coloured (vivid – but clearly emphasised) in the mid-range. The Curve is a little brighter in the lower treble, but this can be easily managed through the use of different tips (Comply tend to cut the 7 kHz small peak).

So is the Curve worth double the admission price of the B200 V2? This is again down to preference. For me the Curve sounds a lot more natural – both with vocals and in term of instruments. The B200 V2 is easy to get used to with its lighter bass and more euphonic mid-range. For me though, the Curve is closer to my individual preferences, and worth the extra outlay.

Brainwavz B200 V2 (~USD 119) vs Jays q-Jays (~USD 289)
Now we get to the second of the dual BA vs dual BA match ups. The q-Jays from Jays Audio is a diminutive dual BA with exceptional design , build quality, and because of its size – fit and comfort. The q-Jays has replaceable proprietary cables which are great quality, but do not come with a balanced option. Overall on build quality, fit, design and aesthetics, the q-Jays are a class ahead, but the B200 is not that far behind, which is very good considering the price difference.



Like the Curve, the q-Jays have a very balanced overall signature, but this time with comparatively more bass extension, and actually sound slightly warmer than the Curve, and definitely warmer than the B200 V2 (which sounds quite this and lean in comparison). Again, when quickly switching, the B200 V2 is comparatively both leaner and also more coloured, with the mid-range sounding quite airy and definitely coloured. The q-Jays do have a 7 kHz peak which some have found problematic (I don’t), but this is easily managed by slightly deeper insertion (it cuts any sibilance).

So again are the q-Jays worth more than double the admission price of the B200 V2? Again this will depend on budget and preference. I really like the q-Jays for their natural tonality, and when A/Bing it is easy for me to pick the q-Jays as closer to my overall preference. But in isolation, the B200 V2 is again quite easy to get used to with its lighter bass and more euphonic mid-range.

VALUE
This is a tough one to grade. The B200 V2 has a lot going for it in terms of overall build, comfort, accessories, and even its default signature. Yes its bass light, and IMO this is a flaw, but its also an easy fix. I could say the FH1 is better overall value, and it is – but its also exceptional for its price range. The B200 V2 represents above average total value when you look at the total package, and for someone who really appreciates a lighter bass presentation, that value will grow.

BRAINWAVZ B200 V2 – SUMMARY
Its always harder reviewing the flagship of a range first, and then the lower or mid-range offering afterwards. Especially when the flagship is a very good performer like the B400. The good news is that Brainwavz have kept many of the good parts of the B400 (excellent mid-range, well designed and ergonomic shell, good accessory package).

The B200 is comfortable to wear, and its build is pretty good for a sub $150 IEM. The cables are replaceable, and you get a balanced cable as well as single ended. The mid-range is exceptional, and there is some pretty good treble extension without being overbearing. The main issue is that they are noticeably bass light, and for many this will be a turn off. What I did find though was that in isolation (just using the B200 exclusively), once your brain adjusts, they are still a really nice overall signature. And if you use an amp with a hardware bass boost, this can add to the sub-bass that the drivers aren’t delivering.

While they aren’t (to me anyway) massive bargains at their asking RRP, they still represent pretty good value overall, and if you like a lighter, leaner, more mid-focussed signature – chances are these will tick most of your boxes.

For me personally, I think the FiiO FH1 represents better overall value, and I’d probably also look at the Simgot EN700 Pro as another sub $150 value proposition with a pretty nice signature. But definitely its worth the extra money to go straight to the B400.

My thanks once again to Pandora and the team at Brainwavz for their continued faith in me as a reviewer. You have a pretty good IEM here, and one that will definitely appeal to lovers of a lighter signature.

INTRODUCTION
FiiO's roll with affordable hybrid IEMs continues with the third in the F series (following the release of the F9 and F9 Pro) – the new FH1. When I reviewed the F9 and F9 Pro recently, they were variations on a similar theme, with extremely similar overall signatures, and the main changes being both cosmetic, and some slight variation in the upper mid-range and lower treble. While both received an extremely positive reception, there were calls for a similarly designed IEM, but with a little more bass emphasis – a slightly warmer F9 if you will. FiiO of course were already a step ahead (the FH1 had been planned for some time), and hit the market in December 2017.

So what has changed with the FH1, and how does the tuning differ from their F9 triple hybrids? Lets put FiiO's FH1 through it's paces.

ABOUT FIIO

By now, most Head-Fi members should know about the FiiO Electronics Company. If you don’t, here’s a very short summary.

FiiO was first founded in 2007. Their first offerings were some extremely low cost portable amplifiers – which were sometimes critiqued by some seasoned Head-Fiers as being low budget “toys”. But FiiO has spent a lot of time with the community here, and continued to listen to their potential buyers, adopt our ideas, and grow their product range. They debuted their first DAP (the X3) in 2013, and despite some early hiccups with developing the UI, have worked with their customer base to continually develop the firmware for a better user experience. The X3 was followed by the X5, X1, X7 and most of these DAPs are now into their 2nd or even 3rd generations.

They've also developed new cables, desktop and portable amplifiers, DACs, ear-buds and earphones. FiiO’s products have followed a very simple formula since 2007 – affordable, stylish, well built, functional, measuring well, and most importantly sounding good.

DISCLAIMER

The FiiO FH1 IEM that I’m reviewing today was provided to me gratis as a review sample. Although I have made it clear to FiiO on many occasions that I still regard any product they send me as their sole property and available for return any time at their request, they have told me that the product is mine to do with as I see fit. So I thank them for the ability to continue use of the FiiO FH1 for follow up comparisons. I do not make any financial gain from this review – it is has been written simply as my way of providing feedback both to the Head-Fi community and also FiiO themselves.

I have now had the FiiO FH1 IEM for 5 weeks. The retail price at time of review is ~ USD 75.

PREAMBLE - 'ABOUT ME'. (or a base-line for interpreting my thoughts and bias)


For the purposes of this review - I used the FiiO FH1 straight from the headphone-out socket of many of my portables, but predominantly the X5iii, X3iii, X7ii and my iPhone. I did not generally further amp them (I did test them with my Q1ii, A5, and E17K), as IMO they do not benefit greatly from additional amplification (YMMV and it may depend on your source). In the time I have spent with the FiiO FH1, I have noticed no change to the overall sonic presentation (break-in). Time spent now with the FH1 would be approximately 35-40 hours.

This is a purely subjective review - my gear, my ears, and my experience. Please take it all with a grain of salt - especially if it does not match your own experience.

THE REVIEW

PACKAGING AND ACCESSORIES
The FiiO FH1 arrived in an approximately 110mm x 165mm x 53mm retail box with a picture of the FH1 on the front cover. Its essentially the same sized box as on the F9 and F9 Pro. Inside the retail outer is a black box and lid – simply adorned with the FiiO logo.

Inside you get a black glossy Pelican case, the FH1 in a cut-out foam enclosure, 2 sets of silicone tips and an extra cable (this one balanced) .

Retail box	Inside the box

The storage case is very similar to the Dunu Pelican type cases, has internal measurements of ~ 98mm x 58mm and approx 34mm deep. It is rigid with felt like internal padding and provides pretty good protection as well as storage. Because of it's size, its more suited to jacket pocket than pants pocket use.


TECHNICAL SPECIFICATIONS
(From FiiO's packaging / website)

FREQUENCY GRAPH

The graphs I use are generated using the Vibro Veritas coupler and ARTA software. Ken Ball (ALO/Campfire) graciously provided me with measurement data which I have used to recalibrate my Veritas so that it mimics an IEC 711 measurement standard (Ken uses two separate BK ear simulators, we measured the same set of IEMs, and I built my calibration curve from shared data). I do not claim that this data is 100% accurate, but it is very consistent, and is as close as I can get to the IEC 711 standard on my budget.

I do not claim that the measurements are in any way more accurate than anyone else's, but they have been proven to be consistent and I think they should be enough to give a reasonable idea of response - especially if you've followed any of my other reviews. When measuring I always use crystal foam tips (so medium bore opening) - and the reason I use them is for very consistent seal and placement depth in the coupler. I use the same amp (E11K) for all my measurements - and output is under 1 ohm.

The graphs are provided merely as a point of discussion, and later in the review I've included comparisons to other IEMs for similar reference. I've also included a quick comparison graph with the F9 and F9 Pro for interest sake.

My quick sonic impression of the FiiO FH1 – written well before I measured:

• Bass is enhanced slightly over both the F9 and F9 Pro, but it is mostly in the sub-bass region. It also appears bassier than both of its siblings principally because of the lower amplitude in the upper mid-range and treble regions. Extension is very good and there is audible rumble.
  
• Lower mid-range is reasonably linear, with a light recession. Both male and female vocals are well represented and sound quite natural. Upper mid-range is emphasised, and reaches a peak in the presence area. Female vocals have a a very good sense of euphony, and there is good cohesion and transition from lower to upper mid-range.
  
• Lower treble extension is good, but it is definitely lower in overall amplitude from the F9 series, and there are small peaks at both 7 and 9-10 kHz. Both of these are relatively benign – especially compared to its siblings.
  
• The overall signature is one of very nice overall balance, but with a warm tonality due to the enhanced sub-bass and lower treble.
  
• Channel matching is extremely good on the pair I have – very good in the mid-range and treble, with the dynamic drivers slightly out (its not noticeable with music).

BUILD

The FiiO FH1 (like the F9 series) is beautifully built and seeing what FiiO can do at this early stage in overall development really does make me question how so many other companies struggle to get ergonomic design right. The main body is a polycarbonate polished glossy plastic, with a nano-thermal exterior coating which is supposed to be very skin friendly. The external face has an ABS electroplated silver decorative inlay, and the nozzle is brass (extending to the internal drivers). FiiO tells us that the brass has higher density than aluminium, which produces a more natural sound. The outer shell is available in 4 colours – black, blue, red and green. The entire shell is beautifully rounded and sized to perfection (very ergonomic)

External face view	Front view

The FH1 measures ~ 20mm across with a total height (including cable exit) of 17mm, and depth of 12mm. The nozzle is angled forward and extends ~ 7mm from the main body (so relatively shallow fitting). It is ~ 5mm in diameter with a generous lip and mesh protective cover.

Rear view	Internal face view

On the internal face of each unit are two ventilation ports and a L or R designator. The cable exit uses an MMCX connector and this is situated on top of the main body, and naturally forward. The connectors are tight, and although they do not sit quite flush with the main body, they still feel very sturdy. There is a small red or blue marking on shell next to the MMCX socket (makes IDing left or right very easy), and the angle of the cable exit allows other after-market cables to be substituted easily.

The FH1 comes with two included cables – a standard 3.5mm stereo which has in-line mic, volume and playback controls, and also 2.5mm balanced cable option. Both cables have a hard rubber / moulded plastic housing for the MMCX connector which then joins to preformed flexible ear-hooks which are extremely comfortable and keep the IEM in place brilliantly (I love this design). On the MMCX mating collar are either red or blue markings which makes determining left or right very easy, and there is also knurling to the cable ends to make grip easier for removal.

Ear guides and connectors	SE mic, control unit and y-split	3.5mm right angle jack

The SE cable has a control unit on the right side which hangs just about equal with my jaw if worn cable down (so ideal height for the mic). The on-cable controls are designed to work with Android devices and do so brilliantly with FiiO's X1ii, X3iii, X5iii and X711 devices, allowing play/pause (one push), next track (two pushes), and previous track (three pushes). The volume control rocker also works. The microphone is crystal clear for calls (with my iPhone SE), as is the audio. I also tried the FH1 with my wife's Galaxy, and everything worked as it should.

Below this (about mid-chest) is a small tubular y-split with good relief below the split, but no relief above it. Y splits tend to be a little more forgiving in terms of wear, so no real issues with this. The jack is gold plated, 4 pole (for the in-line controls) and right angled. It has a small shoulder which allows perfect mating to my iPhone without having to worry about the case being an issue. It also has very good strain relief. The balanced cable is a very soft and pliable twisted pair, and FiiO tells us it is silver plated OFC. There are the same formed ear-loops and this time a 2.5mm balanced jack.

Balanced cable y-split	Balanced cable jack	Connectors

Both cables have a rubber cable tie intact with the cable – the same as that used on their other IEMs and pretty much all of Dunu's releases now. This is a really simple mechanism that is unobtrusive - but means that whenever it's time to store the IEMs, the cable is always tidily looped. This remains one of the most simple, yet practical, methods of cable ties I have ever seen.

FIT / COMFORT / ISOLATION

I'll start with the easy one (isolation), and we can then look at fit and comfort. Isolation will be a little dependent on tip selection, and if you get a good seal, it is definitely above average for a hybrid with a dynamic driver. It is pretty good for most situations, and I thought it was pretty good for even some forms of public transport, although I'd probably go to an all BA set-up for air travel. The FH1 are designed to be worn cable up. Fit and comfort is exemplary – especially with the formed loops.

Most tips fit pretty well	And the FH1 is extremely comfortable

I have one ear canal slightly different to the other one (my right is very slightly smaller) - so I tend to find that usually single silicon flanges don't seal overly well. This is often even more of an issue with shallow fitting IEMs. Because the FH1 has a very nice nozzle lip (the brass nozzle is excellent), I had no issues fitting any of my tips, and had great success with Ostry’s blue and black tuning tips, Sony Isolation tips, Spin-fits, and also Spiral Dots. The included tips were also pretty good, but I settled with what suits me best, and in the end I've been using either stretched Shure Olives or Symbio Mandarins.

The FiiO FH1 sits nicely flush with my outer ear, and is extremely comfortable to lie down with. I've slept with them often over the last few weeks, and have had no discomfort on waking. The combo of the in-line controls with a FiiO DAP makes them brilliant for late night.

So how do they sound?

SOUND QUALITY

The following is what I hear from the FiiO FH1. YMMV – and probably will – as my tastes are likely different to yours (read the preamble I gave earlier for a baseline). Most of the testing at this point (unless otherwise stated) was done with my X7ii, no EQ, and Shure Olive tips. I used the X7ii simply because paired they not only gave me a very transparent window to the music with low impedance, and more than enough power – but also allowed me to use the balanced option. There was no EQ engaged.

For the record – on most tracks, the volume level on the X7ii (paired with AM3a) was around 30-35 Balanced or 45-50/120 Single Ended (on low gain) which was giving me an average SPL around 65-75 dB. Tracks used were across a variety of genres – and can be viewed in this list http://www.head-fi.org/a/brookos-test-tracks.

Relativities

• Sub-bass – good extension, nice audible rumble, in balance with the rest of the spectrum but does tend to be slightly emphasised.
  
• Mid-bass – slightly elevated almost like an HD600. Sounds natural and gives good impact without masking the mid-range.
  
• Lower mid-range – slightly recessed compared to bass and upper treble, but not enough to make vocals distant. Male and female vocal fundamentals are very good – rich and full.
  
• Upper mid-range – elevated compared to lower mid-range, and there is a very even rise from 1 kHz to the first peak at just over 2kHz. Cohesive transition from lower to upper-mids, and very good euphony for female vocals.
  
• Lower treble has a nice overall balance throughout, and small peaks at ~7 and 9-10 kHz. The 7 kHz gives good clarity with cymbal strikes, and the subsequent decay is quite dependent on your music. If there is anything bass dominant (i.e. a lot of bass guitar), there can be an element of masking. Its not extreme though, and there is actually quite nice detail through the lower treble area.
  
• Upper treble rolls extends quite well with some decent “air”, but is pretty difficult to capture properly on my budget measurements set-up.

Resolution / Detail / Clarity

• Clarity overall is quite decent. Upper-mids and lower treble have enough emphasis to give guitars bite and definition. Micro details are quite evident as long as there isn't a strong bass line (masking).
  
• Cymbal hits have a good clarity and presence but unlike the F9 series, they aren't high-lighted as much, and tend to sit a little back in the mix.

Sound-stage, Imaging

• Directional queues are quite good – clean and clear without being over emphasised. Presentation of stage is just on the periphery of my head space with binaural tracks, but the violin in Tundra does project beyond that (so good emphasis on width).
  
• I also played Lakme's “Flower Duet” - an excellent recording which has the two sopranos (Netrebko and Garanca) moving to the rear of the stage at the end of the song, and continuing the last chorus from there. The FH1 captured the transition quite well – which shows a nice presentation of stage depth.
  
• The applause section of the same track showed a very good sense of immersion (the sound of the audience flowing around me), and the natural tonality gave a nice sense of realism. This usually indicates a nice sense of both width and depth balance.
  
• “Let it Rain” (Amanda Marshall) gave a nice 3 dimensional feel (the way it is miked) with good crispness of guitar and a lot of overall clarity. There was the usual sibilance with Amanda's vocals – and it should be there because its in the recording. The interesting thing was that it was quite present in the opening bars, but quickly became more masked as the bass kicked in.

Strengths

• Overall tonality and reasonable (but warm) balance of the frequency range.
  
• Good sense of stage and imaging
  
• Very nice cohesion with lower and upper register vocals
  
• Great for both female and male vocals and with slightly more bass warmth to give a richness which might be absent in the F9 series.

Weaknesses

• The sub-bass might be a little too warm for some, and especially if you enjoy a little more detail in lower treble – it could produce some masking.

AMPLIFICATION REQUIREMENTS

The FiiO FH1 doesn’t need amplification for overall volume – and because its impedance isn't overly low, any source with an output impedance of less than 3-4 ohms (to meet damping requirements) should pair OK.

With my iPhone SE around 35-45% volume is more than enough with most tracks, and the FiiOs are generally at around 45-50/120 single ended. I tried the FH1 with the Q1ii, A5, and E17K, but noticed no real differences in dynamics. None of the amps seemed to be adding additional (compared to the non-amped DAPs). The FH1 really is an easy IEM to get the best out of.

RESPONSE TO EQ?
Glad you asked. There was two ways to tackle this, either dropping the sub-bass just a little bit (to avoid the masking) or raising the lower treble a little to overcome the added warmth. I used the X7ii again, and first dropped the 31Hz slider by about 5 dB and then the 62Hz by around 4 dB and the 125Hz by about 2dB. The rest I left alone. The result was an immediate slight drop in the warmth of the bass guitar (Pearl Jam's “Elderly Woman BTCIAST”), and a lift in fidelity with the cymbals. This is a signature I would likely gravitate more toward – but that’s simply my taste and preference. The next step was to slightly raise the 4 kHz and 8 kHz sliders, and this was less noticeable. Yes – it gave slightly more detail, but it was a worse result than simply taking a smidgen of bass out.

In reality though, I am very much OK with the default signature – but its nice to know that those wanting a little less warmth can do so easily and quickly.

BALANCED VS SINGLE ENDED
I measured these, and there was no difference with the X7ii's AM3a amplifier module apart from volume. Even the slight change in impedance wasn't enough to change the overall frequency response. I'm not a great believer in the adage that balanced makes a huge difference. Yes, if the implementation is vastly different you can sometimes notice a difference, but more often than not the changes to cross-talk are already below the audible barrier, and most modern set-ups don't have crosstalk issues anyway. Its nice to have the option – but sonically I don't hear any benefits. If you volume match properly, I doubt you will either.

COMPARISON WITH OTHER IEMS

These comparisons were all done with the X7ii, (no EQ) – and volume matched using a calibrated SPL meter and fixed 1kHz test tone first. It was a hard one to choose the comparisons, because the FH1 really does punch above its price range. So in the end I chose to compare to some of the IEMs (mainly hybrids and a couple of multi-BAs) in considerably higher brackets. So I chose the F9 Pro, LZ A4, Brainwavz B400, Dunu's DN-2000, Aedle's ODS1, and my benchmark – the Alclair Curve.

FiiO FH1 (~USD 75) vs FiiO F9 Pro (~USD 139)

We can make this one pretty short. As far as build and design goes, the shape, comfort and cables are practically identical. The F9 Pro has the more permanent materials (alloy shell), but that doesn't really matter when they are worn. The F9 Pro also has better overall accessories. Both are very easy to drive and come with balanced and SE cables. Both also have similar isolation.

Sonically the two are quite similar, but where the F9 Pro is a little cooler and drier in the top end, the FH1 is more on the warm and lush side. Both have very rich bass response, and extremely good transition from lower to upper mids. Technically the F9 Pro is a little more resolving, but its not a huge difference, and if you do take a little bass quantity out of the FH1 via EQ, I was surprised to find that I liked the overall tonality a little better. Both are outstanding value.

FiiO FH1 (~USD 75) vs LZ A4 (~USD 200)

The LZ A4 is a triple hybrid IEM which is tunable via changing front and rear filters. It's black and pink filter combo comes closest to the FH1, so this is what I used for the comparison. The LZ A4 has the better use of permanent materials, has more overall accessories, and is tunable. The FH1 has the balanced cable choice, the far more ergonomic design, and is less than half the price. The FH1 does isolate better and is a little easier to drive.

Sonically – both are incredibly good IEMs with good balance despite their mild U shaped default frequencies. Despite the measurably fractionally fuller bass on the LZA4, it is the FH1 which does sound a little richer (especially through the mid-range), and slightly more tonally correct. The LZA4 has the slightest bit more upper end energy comparatively and does sound a little brighter as a result. Both are incredibly good IEMs, and the choice here is whether the LZA4's tuning options (which are excellent) trump the more comfortable ergonomics and lower price of the FH1. For me personally, the FH1's comfort ultimately wins out, although it would be a different story if the A4 was in a fully ergonomic chassis.

FiiO FH1 (~USD 75) vs Brainwavz B400 (~USD 180-220)

Brainwavz came from nowhere with the B400, and knocked it out of the park IMO. A quad BA in a very ergonomic housing, and spectacular tuning. Compared to the FH1, I'd call design and ergonomics a tie, and both come with balanced and single-ended cables. The B400 has better isolation.

The difference here is in the drivers and the tuning. Both are clear, smooth and rich monitors, but it is the presentation which is slightly different. The FH1's dynamic driver moves more air, and provides more impact and slam with its bass, where the B400 has more speed and agility. The FH1 is a little smoother and warmer in its vocal delivery, but is also a little more coloured (in a good way) with female vocals. Both have very good lower to upper mid transitions and are very coherent. This one is a rally hard one to call and ultimately depends on your preference for bass presentation. But it shows just how good the FH1 is – especially considering the price difference

FiiO FH1 (~USD 75) vs Aedle ODS1 (~USD 360)

The ODS1 is (like the FH1) a dual driver hybrid, but there are some big differences in the overall design. Both are ergonomic and extremely comfortable, but with the ODS1's short lipless nozzles, you may have to do some serious tip rolling to find something suitable. The ODS1 has the more luxurious build/design but ultimately the FH1 has the better (IMO) cables, and of course comes with the balanced option.

Sonically the FH1 and ODS1 both have similarly shaped curves, similar bumps in the mid-range, and similar treble peaks. The difference is in the bass where the ODS1 has at least 5-6 dB more bass. Consequently the ODS1 is an overly warm monitor with too much bass emphasis, and subsequent problems with masking of other frequencies. The ironic thing here is that if the ODS1 had been closer to the FH1's bass tuning, it would be a much more popular IEM (at least on these forums). If I EQ (E17K) the ODS1's bass out to match the FH1, the ODS1 really sings. This is a no contest though – the FH1 handily trumps the much more expensive monitor.

FiiO FH1 (~USD 75) vs Dunu DN2000 (~USD 240)

The Dunu DN2000 another triple driver hybrid, which was one of the more popular triple hybrids when they were beginning to come into vogue. It is a cartridge design with a fixed cable and copious accessories. In terms of build materials, the DN2000 has the more permanent materials, but the FH1 pulls ahead with superior ergonomics, comfort, and of course the detachable cables.

Sonically these two are variations on a very similar theme. Both have extremely similar bass quantity and quality, and the main difference between the two is in the FH1's more forward presentation of vocals (particularly female) and the slightly brighter top end. Its been a while since I last listened to the DN-2000 and it was relatively easy to fall in love with its signature all over again (especially with acoustic music), but while I was ABing, the thought that kept occurring was how well the FH1 was presenting the same tracks. The DN-2000 might have the slightest bit more resolution in the lower treble, but for a third of the price and better ergonomics, my choice would be easy.

FiiO FH1 (~USD 75) vs Alclair Curve (~USD 249)

To finish with, what happens when I put the FH1 against one of my favourites in the sub $250 bracket? The Alclair Curve is a dual BA and the most ergonomic IEM I own. Both IEMs have very good build quality – with the FH1's shell being carbonate vs the acrylic compound shell of the Curve. Both have replaceable cables. Both have exceptional comfort. The FH1 of course has the balanced cable option – the Curve isolates better.

Sonically these two have quite similar overall signatures, with the main difference being the bass. Where the FH1 is warm and rich, the Curve is a little more on the cool and lean side, very quick, but definitely not a rich tonality like the FH1. What did surprise me was how much I was beginning to like the FH1's default signature (it was growing on me), so I gave the Curve a little bass boost and was mazed at how much it added to some tracks (using the Q1ii's hardware EQ was a present revelation). This one comes down to how you prefer your tonality (lush and warm vs cool and lean), and I quite like both. The FH1 won't supplant the Curve, but it has given me some food for thought on just how good it performs.

VALUE

By now you'll already know where I see the strengths of the FH1, and as with both the F9 and F9 Pro, the massive strength is in perceived value. At $75 I can't think of too many IEMs which I would put on an equal footing for what FiiO is offering in terms of build, ergonomics and sonic signature. I would predict that the FH1 is going to become incredibly popular in a very short time. The fact that it can hang with, and in some cases beat, a variety of higher cost IEMs speaks volumes about its value proposition.

FiiO FH1 – SUMMARY

I was a little wary coming into this review – especially with the positive reaction I had from the F9 Pro. I was expecting the FH1 to be an IEM tuned with much heavier bass, relinquishing the balance of the F9 in favour of a much more “consumer friendly” signature. The FH1 does have more bass warmth, but in many ways it is also a mature tuning, and I think FiiO really understands the idea of balance.

The FH1 combines good build and design, fantastic ergonomics, and still maintains the inclusion of dual cables (balanced and SE). Gone is the treble spikes of the F9 series – replaced instead by a mellow but still well extended treble. Added is a dollop more sub-bass, and although it can mask some of the finer details (if you have a track with a lot of sub or mid bass), its at the same time not overdone like some of the cheaper consumer oriented monitors.

If you do find them a touch warm, simply drop the sub and mid-bass down a couple of notches with EQ, and the resultant signature is (for my tastes) simply sublime.

At USD 75.00, the FH1 is a real bargain, and I would absolutely recommend them, especially to those who like a touch of bass warmth with their music. I put these through my new objective ranking calculation module, and unsurprisingly they scored incredibly well.

My thanks once again to Lily and the team at FiiO for their continued faith in me as a reviewer.

Scoring Chart

INTRODUCTION

If I mentioned Campfire Audio, chances are that most Head-Fier's will know who they are, and be able to list 1 or more of their IEMs. And thats quite a feat considering they've only been on the scene or two years. I've been fortunate to be able to audition most of their range by participating in tours organised by Ken Ball and facilitated by our own d marc0, and the range is pretty impressive. Ken has a vision and its slowly being realised.

The tour sample today is the Dorado – a triple driver hybrid retailing at USD 999. So lets put it through its paces, and see where it sits in the line-up.

ABOUT CAMPFIRE AUDIO

Campfire Audio is a partner company or off-shoot from ALO Audio, and is run by ALO's CEO and founder Ken Ball, and a small team of like-minded enthusiasts and engineers. Ken of course is the CEO and founder of ALO Audio (2006) and ALO is very well known for creating high quality audio components – including cables, amplifiers and all manner of other audio equipment. Ken founded Campfire Audio in 2015 – with a vision of creating extremely high quality earphones with excellence in design, materials and of course sound quality.

I've been privileged to not only have the chance to review some of their range, but also conduct direct discussions with Ken himself, and this culminated in Ken assisting me to recalibrate my own measurement gear so that it could more accurately reflect an IEC711 standard of measurement. The thing I have been incredibly impressed with in my dealings with Ken and Campfire is their absolute passion for sound and commitment to quality and service.

DISCLAIMER

The Campfire Dorado earphone that I’m reviewing today was provided as a tour review sample – organised via Ken Ball and d marc0. They have asked me for my opinion and feedback, with no restrictions or caveats. I do not make any financial gain from this review – it is has been written simply as my way of providing feedback both to the Head-Fi community and also Campfire Audio. The Dorado will be returned at the completion of this review.

I have now had the Dorado for almost 5 weeks. The retail price at time of review is ~USD 999.

PREAMBLE - 'ABOUT ME'. (or a base-line for interpreting my thoughts and bias)


For the purposes of this review - I used the Campfire Dorado from various sources at my disposal – both straight from the headphone-out socket of various devices, and also with further amplification. In the time I have spent with the Dorado, I have personally noticed no change to the overall sonic presentation (burn-in).

This is a purely subjective review - my gear, my ears, and my experience. Please take it all with a grain of salt - especially if it does not match your own experience.

THE REVIEW

PACKAGING AND ACCESSORIES

The Dorado arrived in the distinctive Campfire 122 x 81 x 54 mm cardboard retail hinged lid box. Like the Lyra II, the box is a reddish/crimson colour and continues with the galaxy type theme. The top (lid) simply has the word Dorado and a short description, and the front face has a picture of the Dorado.

The total accessory package includes:

• 1 pair Campfire Dorado IEMs
• 3.5mm SPC Litz MMCX stereo cable
• Leather zippered carry case
• IEM cleaning tool
• 3 sets of silicone ear tips (S M L)
• 3 sets of Crystal foam tips (S M L)
• 4 sets of Spinfit tips
• Campfire Audio logo clothing button / pin
• Campfire’s fold-out user manual
• Campfire’s warranty card
• 2 small red “individual IEM bags”

The Campfire Audio carry case is very sturdy, but more “jacket or bag pocketable” than trousers. It measures approx. 115 x 75 x 45 mm and is zipped on 3 sides. When opened it reveals a softer interior which will definitely protect and preserve your IEMs. The exterior is quite strong, and also pretty rigid. You also get two red “baggies” with drawstrings, and these are for housing each IEM to stop them knocking together (if you are really particular about your IEMs).

All in all it is a very well put together package, and I applaud Campfire for including the extra foam tips and the Spin-fits.

TECHNICAL SPECIFICATIONS

FREQUENCY GRAPH

The graph below is generated using the Vibro Veritas coupler and ARTA software. Ken Ball (ALO/Campfire) graciously provided me with measurement data which I have used to recalibrate my Veritas so that it mimics an IEC 711 measurement standard (Ken uses two separate BK ear simulators, we measured the same set of IEMs, and I built my calibration curve from shared data). I do not claim that this data is 100% accurate, but it is very consistent, and is as close as I can get to the IEC 711 standard on my budget. It seems to be down at around 8-10 kHz in comparison to Ken's graphs, but seems reasonably accurate through the rest of the spectrum.

I do not claim that the measurements are in any way more accurate than anyone else's, but they have been proven to be consistent and I think they should be enough to give a reasonable idea of response - especially if you've followed any of my other reviews. When measuring I usually always use crystal foam tips (so medium bore opening) - and the reason I use them is for very consistent seal and placement depth in the coupler. I use the same amp (E11K) for all my measurements - and output is under 1 ohm.

Any graphs are provided merely as a point of discussion, and later in the review I've included comparisons to other IEMs for similar reference.

The Dorado is what I would call a bass dominant monitor (on the warm side of neutral), but retaining a somewhat forward mid-range and some genuine air in the lower treble. The bass has a lot of extension and both impact and slam. The lower mid-range has a little recession relative to both bass and upper mid-range, but doesn't sound overly diffuse. The thing I can't quite get over is how Ken has created a sense of space with this monitor but still keeps vocals sounding very present.

Upper mid-range has a slow rise to a natural peak at 2 kHz, and displays very good cohesion between lower and upper mid-range with no dissonance or tonality issues. Lower treble shows excellent extension, and has some genuine treble energy, but this is so nicely balanced with the bass that its not obtrusive in any way.

Overall I’d say that the Dorado has a warm and smooth frequency response, with a good sense of detail in the top end (particularly with cymbal fundamentals), and despite the warm overall lean, still exhibits good overall tonal balance. The bass on these is definitely north of neutral, but at the same time there is enough balance through the mid-range, and upper end to sound very coherent.

As you can see from the graphs the drivers are very well matched (and some of the differences shown in my measurements are likely to be minor differences in seating each ear piece). I find this is typical of Ken's driver matching – I don't think I've ever seen a Campfire IEM with mismatching drivers.

BUILD AND DESIGN

The Dorado uses a ultra high density liquid alloy shell, and the reason for moving all Campfire IEMs to this type of shell is the combination of mechanical strength and acoustic stability. The shell is very similar in shape to that of the Lyra, but with a quite striking “copper/tan” colouring. The other major change is the longer nozzle. This allows the inclusion of the Tuned Acoustic Expansion Chamber (TAEC) which allows Ken to discard the more traditional tube and damper tuning systems. According to Campfire, the 3D printed TAEC chamber provides a means of applying acoustic tuning without the compression associated with more traditional methods, and this results in better extension on high frequencies and a more open sound.

Nozzle height and angle	Cable connectors	The litz cable

The Dorado measures approximately 20mm in length, 14mm in height and has a depth of approx. 10mm (excluding the nozzle). The nozzle itself is angled slightly forward and slightly up when worn, extends approx. 12mm from the main body, and has an external diameter of 6mm. The shape is very ergonomic, and the Dorado is designed to be used with the cable over ear. The IEM shell is 3 pieces in total – nozzle, shell and back plate, but the seams are so smooth you can hardly see them. There are L/R markings on the inside of both ear pieces and the Campfire logo is also discretely engraved on the outer face. There is a small vent or port adjacent to the cable exit on each ear-piece. Internally the dynamic driver for the Dorado is a custom 8.5mm beryllium PVD diaphragm transducer, and it is coupled with a dual BA pair for the upper mids and treble.

At the top of the shell is a beryllium coated copper MMCX connector, and when used with the supplied SPC ALO Litz cable, the connection is made with a very reassuring click. The cables do rotate in their sockets, but the connection itself seems very robust.

The cable is ALO’s “SPC Litz” which is high purity sliver-plated copper wire encased in a very flexible medical grade PVC jacket. The male MMCX connector is again beryllium coated, fits very snugly, and has either a blue or red dot on the connector to indicate L/R. There is a 70mm length of memory wire for over-ear wear, and I’ve found this very malleable, but also holds its shape very well. The cable is approximately 1.25m long, and consists of two twisted pairs above the Y split which continue as a twisted quad right through to the jack. The Y split is small and light and houses an in-built cinch which works really well. The jack is 3.5mm, right angled, and has clear rubber housing. Strain relief is excellent. The jack will also fit my iPhone SE with case in place.

FIT / COMFORT / ISOLATION
Fit for me is fantastic – the shells are very ergonomic in shape, and this includes the angle of the nozzles and also the placement of the cable exits. The shells (when fitted) do not extend outside my outer ear, and I have no issues lying down with the Dorado intact. The memory wire is also really well implemented here so that snugging the wires properly is easy. The fit is usually shallow with ergonomic shells, but with the rounded internal edges and the extended nozzle length, I have no issues getting an amazing seal by simply pushing the earpieces in a little better. I love the extra length on the nozzle for my preferences. Isolation is well above average for a hybrid, and I'd use these for public transport.

Those who’ve read my reviews will know that I have one ear canal slightly different to the other one (my right is very slightly smaller) - so I tend to find that usually single silicon flanges don't fit overly well. With the extra length on the Dorado nozzles I found that personally I had a lot more tip choices available to me – even silicone worked pretty well, and that included Spin-Fits, Ostry’s blue and black tuning tips, and Spiral Dots. The lip on the Dorado nozzle was pretty good for every tip I tried and I credit the reason for a lot of the success with the tips I tried to the angle of the nozzle. It isn’t just good – it is perfect. In the end my personal preference was to simply use Comply, although before I send these back, I really want to try a set of stretched medium Shure Olives.

SOUND QUALITY

The following is what I hear from the Campfire Audio Dorado. YMMV – and probably will – as my tastes are likely different to yours (read the preamble I gave earlier for a baseline). Most of the testing at this point (unless otherwise stated) was done with my FiiO X7ii (AM3A module) and medium Comply T400 tips. For the record – on most tracks, the volume level on the X7ii with the AM3A single ended was 35-40/120 on low gain which was giving me an SPL range of around 65-75 dB.

Tracks used were across a variety of genres – and most can be viewed in this list http://www.head-fi.org/a/brookos-test-tracks.17556. There was no DSP or EQ engaged.

Relativities

• Sub-bass – elevated compared to the rest of the spectrum, and has very good extension. At low listening levels the rumble is still clearly audible. The sub bass doesn't dominate with tracks like Lorde's Royals, but does give a lot of impact and slam while still allowing her vocals to come through clearly.
  
• Mid-bass – quite linear (although elevated) and matches the level of sub-bass extension. Has excellent impact and slam with tracks like Amy Winehouse's “You know I'm no good” or Feist's “The bad in each other”, and while it is quite dominant, it again doesn't over do things. Bass lovers will really enjoy it, lovers of a cooler more linear bass line will likely find it too much. Definite on the warm side.
  
• Lower mid-range – there is a recession compared to sub and mid-bass, but matches quite nicely with the upper mid-range (nice natural progression). Male vocals have excellent presence, tonality and timbre and nothing sounds distant.
  
• Upper mid-range – slightly elevated compared to lower mid-range, and there is a gentle rise from 1 kHz to a first peak at around 2 kHz. There is a dip after this, but because of the overall bass warmth, there is no feeling of dissonance. The rise is enough to provide good cohesion and some euphony for female vocals.
  
• Lower treble has very good extension, but never gets into the bright or spiky range. I think there may be a little more in the 7-10 kHz area than I'm measuring (it definitely sounds as though there is more energy there). There is a good sense of detail – although it may be a little shaded by the elevated bass with some tracks.
  
• My measuring equipment tends to struggle with accuracy over 10 kHz, and its a hit or miss whether I can actually hear it. Upper treble doesn't show any sign of deficiencies to me.

Resolution / Detail / Clarity

• Clarity is OK despite the warmth of the default frequency response. Cymbals are a little fuzzy and they don't stand out as clearly as many of my other monitors. While the decay is there, the bass does tend to mask it a little.
  
• If there is too much bass present in the track, you can lose a bit of upper end detail.
  
• Quite clean and clear in the presence area, with good detail around vocals and guitar (as long as there isn't too much bass guitar or drum).

Sound-stage and Imaging

• Good directional cues, and depending on the recording can be just on or slightly outside the periphery of my head space – so reasonable feeling of width and also of depth. I would call it more intimate than expansive with binaural tracks like Tundra.
  
• Separation of instruments and imaging is good without being razor sharp. Some of the focus is at times “soft” (masking from the bass).
  
• The applause section of “Dante's Prayer” was nicely presented with a realistic flow around me. It was a little more left / right than in front or behind.
  
• “Let it Rain” was excellent. The track is recorded a little hot and has quite a three-dimensional sense of spatial presentation – it is the way the track was miked. There is a nice sense of space – but again its intimate rather than expansive. I know sibilance exists in the recording, but the Dorado pretty much completely eliminates it so there is obviously some masking going on.

Sonic Strengths

• Overall a warm and pleasing tonality with reasonable balance for a U/V shaped default signature.
  
• Intimate sense of staging as long as the track isn't bass dominant.
  
• Both male and female vocals are presented quite naturally.

Sonic Weaknesses

• Can be bass dominant with heavier bass emphasised tracks (this will come down to preference)
• There is a little auditory masking going on (because of the bass dominance), and overall detail can suffer a little.

AMPLIFICATION REQUIREMENTS

The Dorado is not a hard IEM to drive with its 15 ohm impedance and 107 dB sensitivity. It was easily driven with all the sources I tried, and this included my iPhone SE and players like FiiO's X1ii (neither are power houses). My iPhone SE only needed about 30-40% of its volume for a comfortable 65-75dB and going over 50% volume was simply to loud for me on most tracks (pushing into the 80-85dB range).

I also went back and forth (volume matching with test tones and fixed volumes using a few different combos – iPhone SE & FiiO Q1ii, X7ii with A5 and E17K, and X7ii by itself, and did not notice any appreciable difference between amped and straight out of a DAP.

RESPONSE TO EQ

Those who know me will likely guess that the Dorado, while very pleasant tonally, is not my ideal signature. I normally gravitate toward a cooler, clearer signature. I just wanted to use a rough and ready EQ, so my first step was to connect the E17K to the X7ii, and drop the bass by about -4 to -6 dB. For me it was an improvement, and allowed both the mid-range and lower treble to shine a little more.

Bass lovers (and those who like a warmer signature) who buy the Dorado may well be happy with the default signature, but its nice to know that it responds really well to some subtle tweaks. My favourite DAP combo with the Dorado is the L&P L3 with Jazz EQ setting (which lowers the bass and ups the mid-range & treble a little). For my tastes, this really makes the Dorado sing.

COMPARISON WITH OTHER IEMS

Its always a hard one to try and pick earphones to compare with. Ideally I would have liked to compare with the HifiMan RE800 and RE2000, but unfortunately I don't have them at the moment (out with another reviewer). So I decided instead to compare to the Lyra II (similar signature), Dunu's DK3001 and Fidue's Sirius (higher end triple hybrids), and also the LZ Dipper and 64 Audio U10 (both very good multi-BAs). Finally I compared it with my Alclair Curve – simply because it is my default, and also because it is relatively similar to the Andromeda.

For the source, I wanted something very neutral, but with a good digital control, to make sure I could volume match. So I chose to use the FiiO X7ii. No DSP or EQ was used. Gain was low (I didn't need any more). I volume matched using a calibrated SPL meter and fixed 1kHz test tone first. My listening level was set to an average of 70dB.

Campfire Audio Dorado (~USD 999) vs Campfire Audio Lyra II (~USD 699)

Campfire Dorado and Lyra II	Frequency comparisons

I couldn't compare the two side-by-side (the Lyra II is back on tour), but I do have frequency plots and my time with the Lyra was very recent, so please forgive the fact that this is from memory.

Both have the usual brilliant quality Campfire build, and both are diminutive and extremely comfortable. Size is similar apart from the Dorado's longer nozzle (which I actually prefer).

Looking at the frequency response, it is very similar and I'm willing to bet the dynamic is tuned very similarly on both. The difference is in the lower treble where the heat from the Lyra II in the 7-10 kHz range is shelved on the Dorado. This does two things – both softening the upper end, and also making the bass appear more dominant.

The Dorado is perfect for someone who is sensitive to treble and prefers a warmer signature. The Lyra II will better suit someone who likes more energy and contrast – and in this case (for me) I prefer the Lyra II.

Campfire Audio Dorado (~USD 999) vs DUNU DK3001(~USD 469)

Campfire Dorado and Dunu DK-3001	Frequency comparisons

Both are hybrid IEMs, with the DK-3001 being a 1 (DD) + 3 (BA) vs the Dorado's 1 + 2 set up. The DUNU is half the price, Both are built extremely well and include quality cables. The DK-3001 includes a balanced option. The DK-3001's big let-down is in its ergonomics – there is a hard ridge on the inside of each ear-piece, and this causes long term discomfort (and has done for most reviewers). You can alleviate this with careful tip selection – but you shouldn't have to. Anyway the Dorado is supremely comfortable in comparison.

Sonically both have a warmish bottom end, but are very different signatures. The DK-3001 has a boosted upper mid-range which extends through to the lower treble. It is on the brighter side of neutral, and whilst I enjoy the default signature, it may be too bright for some. For me personally, I love the combo of detail and lower end impact. The Dorado in comparison is a little bassier, but comes across as quite dark and warm in comparison due to the comparatively shelved upper end. The interesting contrast here is that both actually benefit from EQ. Take the Dorado's bass down a little, and similarly cut the DK-3001's upper mids and lower treble by about -4 dB, and you have two excellent hybrids.

My preference is for the DUNU – but this solely comes to preference.

Campfire Audio Dorado (~USD 999) vs Fidue Sirius (~USD 899)

Campfire Dorado and Fidue Sirius	Frequency comparisons

Again both are hybrid IEMs, with the Sirius being a 1 + 4 vs the Dorado's 1 + 2 set up. This time the pricing is very close (899 vs 999). The build on both is stellar – real quality materials and overall design. Fidue's modular cable system is excellent and for me gets the slight no over the Dorado. But again like the DUNU before it, the Fidue is not 100% ergonomically wonderful, with some slightly hard edges for those of us with bigger ears. The Sirius also has a port on the inside which can vary the bass response, so depending on fit, the bass can be relatively neutral or enhanced, depending on how they fit. No such issues with the Dorado.

For me the Sirius bass is extended, with decent impact, but tends toward a cooler and leaner signature, with a lot of mid-range emphasis. The Dorado again is at the opposite end of the spectrum with the much darker and warmer signature. Again this will come down to preference – but both are extremely good IEMs.

Campfire Audio Dorado (~USD 999) vs LZ Big Dipper 3/switch (~USD 860)

Campfire Dorado and LZ Big Dipper	Frequency comparisons

This comparison is very different, pitching the Dorado's hybrid configuration against the 7 BA set-up of the LZ Big Dipper. When I reviewed the Big Dipper, I was so impressed, I approached LZ about buying the review sample (I do this with any sample I want to use purely for personal pleasure) – so I now own it. The Dipper I have has 3 tuning switches so you can change bass, treble and mid-range. My preferred current combo is + bass, - mids, - treble.

Both are made from quality materials – the Dipper is custom made with resin molds (similar to custom ear phones). Both fit incredibly well and are very comfortable, but the Dipper I would class as a sliver better in the comfort stakes. The Dorado has the better cable overall (aesthetically). The Dipper of course has the ability to be tuned.

Sonically these two are quite different and you'll note that with the Dipper I chose match the bass on the frequency graph as it actually give a far better representation of each earphone's relative frequency plot. The Dipper does dip a lot in the lower mid-range, and has a subsequent much higher rise through the upper mid-range. So it is reasonably V shaped with robust (but very quick ) BA base, and then extremely detailed upper mids and lower treble. The end result is a cooler leaner signature, but with enough bass thump to keep things dynamic. Switching to the Dorado, and the first thing I noted was the much warmer signature, but also the better mid-range on the Dorado (especially with male vocals). The Dipper is just a little overdone (like the DK-3001), while for me the Dorado is a little too lower end emphasised.

Campfire Dorado (~USD 999) vs 64 Audio U10 (~USD 1000-1399)

Campfire Dorado and 64 Audio U10	Frequency comparisons

Again a similarly priced hybrid vs multi-BA comparison. You can get B Stock U10's for around the $1000 mark, although full retail will put you into the $1400 range. Both are made from quality materials – the U10 is acrylic while the Dorado has the alloy shell. Both are very ergonomic and very comfortable. The U10's default cable is its weak point (I've replaced mine), while the Dorado has the excellent SPC Litz. The U10 has the ability to further tune the signature with either ADEL or APEX modules.

Sonically these two might look similar on the frequency graph, but the bass response is quite different. The Dorado is quite a bit warmer and also has more impact. The U10 is more balanced (in terms of overall warmth) and the bass response is a lot quicker. The APEX/ADEL modules also release some of the bass pressure, and although there is still some decent thump, there isn't the same amount of auditory masking going on, so the U10 actually sound a little leaner and clearer. This is probably the closest comparison so far though and the most similar in signature. If I swap the APEX modules for the G1 ADEL modules I can bump the early upper mids to be even closer in overall signature – but again, the major difference is in the presentation of the bass (expected when its BA vs dynamic).

Campfire Dorado (~USD 999) vs Alclair Curve (~USD 250)

Campfire Dorado and Alclair Curve	Frequency comparisons

This will probably make the least sense in terms of price and driver set-up, but it is my go-to in terms of reference. The Alclair Curve is a twin BA with an extremely ergonomic shape, quality build, and despite all the IEMs I have access to, continues to be one of my most used IEMs. If you bump the bass on the Curve by around 4 dB, it also sounds almost eerily similar to an Andromeda, and I really do wish more people could experience it. For me the overall build quality is similar – although the Dorado has better materials. The Curve is more comfortable – although both are excellent in this area.


Sonically these two are opposites. The Curve default is a little on the lean side with fantastic detail without overdoing it. The Dorado is on the warm smooth side, but still has that nice smooth mid-range and treble.

For me personally I'd take the Curve and EQ to suit – but that is simply my preference at play. The Dorado has a warm smooth signature which will appeal to many – its simply a little too much on the dark side for me.

VALUE

So how do I see the overall value of the Dorado? $999 is in the upper echelons of price for an IEM, but the build quality is outstanding and if the signature suits your preferences it will be absolutely worth it. For a single dynamic though, and considering how many really good IEMs are existing in the $250-600 range though, the Dorado will never be regarded as a “bargain”. Fair pricing given the material and hand-made build (including the quality and care with driver matching). I do think that it is somewhat unique in the earphones I've reviewed. This combination of signature and quality is (like the Lyra II) not abundant in the market.

CAMPFIRE AUDIO DORADO – SUMMARY

The Dorado is an extremely well built and designed hybrid IEM with a very good ergonomic fit, and is easily one of the most comfortable of the Campfire IEMs I've personally tried. Some may find the longer nozzle problematic (if you have small canals) – but personally I love it. The SPC Litz cable is also brilliant, and a step-up from the Tinsel cable which was supplied with the earlier Campfire models.

Sonically the Dorado has a definite warm, smooth and slightly dark emphasis, and while the upper mids and lower treble are nicely extended, for my personal tastes they were just a touch too much on the smooth side and slightly masked by the lower end warmth.

At RRP of $999 the Dorado represents fair (OK) value for the quality you get, and I would recommend them to anyone who really likes this type of signature. For me personally they do not quite fit my overall signature preferences. I can see the appeal though and for anyone who like this type of signature they should definitely be considered. Once again for the scoring I put them through my new table system which you can see below.

Once again I’d like to thank Ken and Mark for making this opportunity available.

Scoring Chart

Headphones	Campfire Dorado			(out of 10)
	My Score	Out Of	Weighting	Weighted Score
Accessories	8.5	10	5.00%	0.425
Build	9.5	10	10.00%	0.95
Design	9.5	10	5.00%	0.475
Fit/Comfort	9.0	10	15.00%	1.350
Sound Quality
Bass Quality	8.0	10	8.00%	0.64
Mid-range Quality	8.0	10	8.00%	0.64
Treble Quality	7	10	8.00%	0.56
Overall Tonality	7.0	10	8.00%	0.56
Clarity	6.0	10	8.00%	0.48
Stage/Imaging	7.5	10	8.00%	0.60
Value	6	10	17.00%	1.02
TOTALS	86	110	100.00%	7.70

INTRODUCTION
When I first joined Head-Fi, I can remember that portable amps were all the rage – whether you needed one or not. And very popular amongst the amp market were CMOYs – which essentially were battery powered portable amps in an Altoids tin or similar. Strangely enough I never got to try one in the last 7 years, although I was always curious. Then earlier in 2017, Head-fier xrk971 from XRKAudio contacted me and asked me if I’d like to take his amp design for a spin. I said sure, and in late November the XRK-NHB (no holds barred) A Class portable amp arrived. Since then I’ve been putting it through its paces with a variety of different headphones. Those who follow me will know that I avoid using amplifiers unless they are truly justified (the headphones require the additional power), so what would I make of this portable Class A amp?

ABOUT XRKAudio
XRK Audio was a completely new contact for me – and one which came out of the blue. The company started as essentially a DIY project with its founder (xrk971) simply wanting to build himself a DIY portable amp as a fun project. After experimenting with the design, he allowed a few people to listen to it, and was pleasantly surprised with the overwhelmingly positive feedback. The common response was “you should sell this” – so he set up a storefront (XRK Audio) on DIYAudio and the company was born.
In talking to others, I’ve found that xrk971 is very responsive to feedback, and will also work individually with his customers to customise the amp to their needs – including changing components to meet needs for a specific use.
XRK Audio has a basic model A Class amp, an upgraded NHB model, and is currently also working on a desktop amp.

Further resources:
Head-Fi thread : here
XRK Audio Store : here
Discussion at DIY Audio : here

DISCLAIMER
The XRK NHB Portable A Class Amp that I’m reviewing today was provided to me gratis as a review sample. As I always do, I offered to return the amp on completion of the review, but I've been asked to hang onto it for follow uo questions or comparisons. So I acknowledge now that the XRK NHB I have is supplied and gifted completely free of any charge or obligation. I have now had the amp for approximately 5 weeks. The retail price at time of review is ~USD 199 for the standard model and ~277 for the upgraded model which I’m reviewing today.

PREAMBLE - 'ABOUT ME'. (or a base-line for interpreting my thoughts and bias)
For the purposes of this review - I used the XRK NHB with a variety of my portable sources (DAPs) including my iPhone SE, and a variety of L&P and FiiO DAPs. I also varied the listening with both IEMs and full sized headphones.
This is a purely subjective review - my gear, my ears, and my experience. Please take it all with a grain of salt - especially if it does not match your own experience.

WHAT I LOOK FOR IN A PORTABLE AMP

I usually list (before I start with the review) what I would look for in a portable amp. This is useful to remember when looking at my scoring later in the review.

• Genuine portability
• Good battery life
• Clean, neutral signature
• Easy to use
• Low output impedance
• Reasonable output power – should be able to drive IEMs and earphones up to 300 ohms
• Good gain control
• Hardware EQ if possible
• Value for money
• Free of EMI (use with smartphones)

THE REVIEW

PACKAGING AND ACCESSORIES
The XRK-NHB arrived in a standard but well padded courier pack. Included was the amplifier in a plan thin steel “mint” tin, and accompanied by a good quality 1m 3.5-3.5mm interconnect.


TECHNICAL SPECIFICATIONS
These were graciously supplied by xrk971 on request.
BUILD
The XRK-NHB is essentially similar size and exterior appearance as the old classic Cmoy type DIY amp. The steel tin is just your basic low cost container (I've seen some as Altoids tins – mine is just plain thin plate steel), and it belies the actual components within. The tin has a hinged lid rounded corners, and is a it bulky compared to many of the slim-line portable amplifiers now on the market.

At the top is an Alps stereo pot with power switch. Either side of this are the 3.5mm Switchcraft input (left) and output (right), and between the Alps pot and headphone out is a small white LED. Inside the case is the amp's circuitry, and two connectors for the 9v batteries you need to power it.
And thats pretty much it.
Internally is where the magic happens though. The standard amp features a custom designed double sided SMT/through-hole PCB with top-quality components including:

• Panasonic OSCON solid organic polymer ultra-low ESR caps
• Nichicon AK audio grade caps
• WIMA audio grade film caps
• Switchcraft jacks
• Alps RK09 potentiometer
• Zetex power MOSFETs
• NXP JFETs
• 1% SMT resistors

The NHB (or No Holds Barred) version includes the following upgrades:

• Upgraded input caps increased to 10uF + 100nF 100v MKT for deeper bass extension
• Upgraded output caps increased to Nichicon AK series 470uF 16v + 2.2uF Wima MKS for deeper bass extension
• FETS hand-matched to 4 significant figures for superb channel balance and stereo imaging and improved sound stage
• Hand-tuned harmonic profile and FET bias set points to achieve -66dB H2 and -96dB H3
• Frequency response per LTSpice simulation is now 5.8Hz to 20MHz (-0.2dB point)

So lets put the NHB version through its paces and look at some real world use.

HEAT AND POWER
The XRK-NHB is class A by design, and as a result it can get mildly warm when in use. After half an hour's use with the X7ii as source, and the HD800S as transducer, the temperature registered at just under 39° celcius on the hottest part of the amp. Definitely on the physically warm side, but nothing that is going to cause discomfort.
In terms of power output, the specs say that it'll put the following output into these loads:

• Into 32 ohms = 34 mW RMS
• Into 300 ohms = 54 mW RMS

But what does that mean in real world terms? So lets look at a few scenarios. Armed with my trusty SPL meter, I set out to see just what the XRK-NHB could and couldn't (subjectively) drive. For this test I used the XRK-NHB attached to my FiiO X7ii. The XRK-NHB Alps pot starts at around 2pm and runs to 10pm (imagining the face of a clock).

IEMs / Earbuds
First up was the Alclair Curve (22 ohm impedance, 111 dB/mW sensitivity), and just shy of 3pm on the pot (or about 10% of the total pot) was able to easily get me my preferred ave 70-75 dB volume level. The sound was very clean and clear, with a beautifully subtle warmth to the overall tonality. Even thought the pot was quite low, I could detect no sign of channel imbalance.

The second test was with VE's brilliant Zen2 open ear-buds (320ohm impedance, 108 dB/mW sensitivity), and this time I needed just over 3 pm on the pot (again not much more than 10-15%) to achieve the 70-75dB (this was quite hard to measure with the SPL meter – so take with a grain of salt). Again the Zen2 sounded beautifully driven with a rich smooth tonality which was also effortless in its overall presentation.
So what about headphones?

Full Sized Headphones
First up this time was my Alessandro's MS Pro (32ohm impedance, 98 dB/mW sensitivity), and this required slightly less than 3pm on the pot (or roughly 10% of the total pot) to get to my preferred listening level. Again the tonality is simply sublime with the MS Pros, and the XRK-NHB seems to have this ability to reach into the music and simply carry me away.

Time to really push the amp, and this time my 300 ohm, 102 dB/mW sensitivity HD800S. The power output specs tell me that this should be an easy job for the XRK-NHB, and that proved to be eminently true. At about 3.30 on the pot I was ionce again at my personal ideal listening level (ave 75 dB) listening to Sarah Jarosz's album “Build Me Up From Bones”. Even if I switched to Amber Rubarth's “Tundra” (which is an excellent recording, but needs a volume boost), 5pm on the pot (or about 30% of the total pot) was hitting a 75 dB average. Time to see what maxing the pot could do with the HD800S. Even with this quietly recorded track, the HD800S was measuring peaks into the mid to high 90 dB range, and with more modern music well over 100 dB. The XRK-NHB is certainly a power house!

And how did the HD800S sound with XRK-NHB? Put it this way, I've just ordered some more rechargable batteries for it. I'm not one who usually uses an amp when I can afford it, but the overall tonality of the XRK-NHB – especially with full sized cans lioke the HD800S and HD600 is simply stunning.

BATTERY LIFE
Being class A output, the XRK-NHB is a bit of a battery drainer. Its powered by 2 9V batteries, and performance will depend on the batteries you use. Unfortunately NZ is a bit of a backwater, and I was unable to find any Li-ion rechargable batteries, and its even harder in the mmodern age to get them shipped here. So I've been living with a pair of Powertech 8.4v 2000mAh NiMH rechargables. Unfortunately they only give me a little over 2 hours perfect output, and as they start running out of power, the amp starts distorting. I've ordered a pack of 4 x EBL 6000 mAh Li-ion batteries (which should arrive in 7-10 days), and they should give me close to 5 hours per pair.

Personally I'd love the life to be much longer, but it is what it is, and the sonic performance is worth the outlay and the hassle IMO.

SONIC PERFORMANCE
Preface
I’m going to preface this section with a little critique I received a while ago (by PM), and my answer to it – so that you can understand why I don’t comment on some things, and why I do comment on others. I was told my review on another amp was poor because I didn’t include sections on bass, mid-range, treble, sound-stage, imaging etc – yet referred to an amp as warm, full, or lean.

Now I can understand the reference to warm / full / lean – as they are very subjective terms, and whilst I’d like to avoid their use, they are invaluable to convey true meaning. Comparing my NFB-12 to the Aune X1S for example – the Audio-gd does sound richer and warmer. It’s the nature of the DAC and amp circuitry which is used.

But I choose not to comment on bass, mids, treble, and most definitely not sound-stage – simply because when we are talking about an amp – IMO they shouldn’t be discussed. An amp’s job is to amplify the signal with as low distortion as possible, and output as linear signal as possible. If it is doing its job properly, there is no effect on bass, mids, or treble – except if hardware boost is concerned. And IME an amp does not affect soundstage (unless there is DSP or cross-feed in play) – that is solely the realm of the transducers and the actual recording.
So we have that out of the way how does the XRK-NHB perform sonically, and can it match some of my other portables?

Tonality
The XRK-NHB is what I would describe as smooth, on the warm side of neutral, and probably as close as I've heard (from an SS portable amp) to a good tube amp. And in fact that is what xrk971 was aiming for. He wanted an amp that measured extremely well (and the SNR and noise floor measurements bear this out), was very linear in it's frequency response (check the graph below), and finally an amp which had a musical tonality – based on 2nd order harmonics (the same harmonics which give tube amps their distinct sound). This familiar with good tube amps will recognise what I'm trying to describe – an amp that is clear and clean, yet somehow retains a smooth and utterly cativating overall presentation. The thing I really like with this amp is that while its warm, its not thick and dark and over-bearing.

If you do follow the links (further reading at bottom of the review), you'll get to many measurements – including proof of the linearity and very good THD. I don't generally measure distortion because the sound card I have is limited (too noisy to accurately measure noise floor – ie you'd be limited by the measurement device). I can however measure frequency response, and the XRK-NHB is essentially flat from 20Hz to 20 kHz. This is a very linear amp.


My next test was to listen and subjectively compare the XRK-NHB to the E17K (one of the most linear/neutral devices I own). In subjective comparison, the XRK-NHB does have a richer / warmer / fuller tonality than the E17K. So what does this tell us? Simply that the XRK-NHB supplies reasonably linear, and clean output. Purely subjectively, it sounds on the warm side of neutral. It does also have a very clean background which creates a good sense of space.

COMPARISON WITH SIMILAR DEVICES
I thought at this stage it would be a good idea to try and compare the XRK-NHB with some alternatives. My prerequisite was that the comparable units should all be portable amps, and ultimately be capable of driving full sized headphones (such as the HD600 and HD800S). For testing I used the HD800S for subjective evaluation with the FiiO X7ii as source. I volume matched output for each of the amps using an SPL meter and 1 kHz tone, and then used a splitter from the X7ii's line-out so that I could rapidly switch the HD800S between the amps I was testing.
The amps I've chosen to test are:

- VE Runabout (V1)
- IMS Hybrid Valve Amp
- FiiO A5
- ifi iDSD
XRK-NHB (~USD 277) vs VE Runabout original (~USD 99)

Starting as usual with build quality, the VE chassis is much more aesthetically pleasing, but the cost of this is size, and for me its not really portable (nicely transportable though). The Runabout has the benefit of gain control and also can be run on power with the appropriate DC adaptor/converter. Both can be run on 9V battery (one for the Runabout and 2 for the XRK-NHB). Battery life for the Runabout is pretty good – around 30 hours.
Sonically the two both sound pretty good – very clean backgrounds, and good definition and clarity. With both of them I'm only at around a qurter of the pot too. The big difference is in the smoothness of the presentation, and the XRK-NHB just sounds effortless with the HD800S in this direct comparison. The Runabout still sounds pretty good with the HD800S, but as soon as I switch there is that instant “connection” with the music – its difficult to desribe – it just sounds right (and it is very addictive).

XRK-NHB (~USD 277) vs IMS Hybrid Valve Amp (~USD 179-270)

The IMS HVA is a vacuum tube portable hybrid dac/amp developed locally by an engineer in NZ. It's actually a pretty cool amp, and once you get over its pecularities, it both looks and sounds pretty stunning. It does have a very good DAC on board, and runs off an internal rechargable battery (providing around 10-12 hours use). It's main issue is that it is very easy to overdrive the valves, and so for most DAPs, you really need a source where you can run at 75% of it's line-out. It has a gain switch also. Both are a good size for stacking.

Tonally both sound very similar, and this is definitely the second order harmonics of the tubes on the HVA giving a comparable output to the created harmonics of the XRK-NHB. Both have a very good SNR and appreciably black noise floor. The difference for me is that the HVA has slightly more thickness to notes, where the XRK-NHB is just a little clearer. Both appear to drive the HD800S rather well although the bass from the XRK-NHB is either delivered a little cleaner or in slightly more quantity. I really like the HVA's tonality, but in this comparison, the XRK-NHB just (again) manages to connect with me a little more.

XRK-NHB (~USD 277) vs FiiO A5 (~USD 130)

The FiiO A5 is their premier portable amp. It has a beautifully sleek design, and is a real power-house, with the ability to put 150 mW into the HD800S at almost 15 Vp-p. It has extremely good battery life (13h), excellent measurements, hardware bass boost and gain, is very linear. It is slightly thinner than the XRK-NHB, but has a slightly larger overall footprint.

When I started the comparison, I first listened to the A5, and was once again surprised by how good it sounds with the HD800S. I had Norah playing, and could have quite easily just stopped for half an hour and enjoyed the music. But I had to switch, and I was expecting this comparison to be subjectively close. It wasn't. The A5 is excellent – clean, clear, engaging – everything you want an amp to be. The XRK-NHB is just in another realm – smooth and enveloping, and the bass once again seems deeper. I could live with either amp quite happily – but based purely on sounds, the XRK-NHB takes me deep into the music, and into places I simply didn't know existed with the A5.

XRK-NHB (~USD 277) vs ifi Micro iDSD (~USD 499)

This is my main desktop amp and DAC. I've had it now for around 2 years, and although I've tried many different amps and DAC/amps since I got it, nothing has been able to match its combination of footprint, features and tonality for its asking price. Its a little on the warm side of netral, so this comparison is a good one.
The iDSD is at least twice the size of the XRK-NHB, so I'd personally consider it transportable rather than portable. It's best features are the switchable gain settings which allow you to drive many demanding headphones, or the most sensitive of IEMs. It also comes with a very good Burr Brown DAC and has a subtle bass boost and ghardware DSP for speaker emulation.

It is of course wonderful with the HD800S (although it was bested when I used it as a DAC and also VE's Enterprise statement tube amp). The XRK-NHB doesn't get to quite these lofty heights, but it does easily keep up with iDSD subjectively. Both have an easy armth while retaining clarity and depth. The XRK-NHB is the warmer of the two, and appears to have a depth of tonality which I would have to say I actually enjoy more than the tonality of the already excellent iDSD.

Listening to this now, I can't but help wondering how good a desktop amp from xrk971 would be, especially if it was an all in one with a nice chassis, decent DAC etc.

VALUE
How do you make a call on this? You can buy a standard kit with everything you need for just $99 and build it yourself. For approx $140 you can get a prepopulated standard kit, or $160 for a prepopulated NHB kit. Standard matched FETs (4) will set you back $19 or $32 for the NHB version. But if you're like me, and just want the amp – then you can get a compeltely prebuilt and tuned amp for $199 for the Standard version, or $277 for the NHB version. The best part about doing things this way is you get personalised tuning – ie suited to your individual needs. Xrk971 hand-tunes the resistor network for best sound and harmonic profile, and does this with your own cans in mind. With this amp, I told him I had the HD800S and HD600 and I've got something which matches those cans beautifully. For others he's even tuned specifically for sensitive IEMs like the Andromeda. Other popular tunings include bnoth the HD650 and LCD2.

If you look at the chassis, the lack of features, the short battery life – it would be very easy to scoff at the price tag. But once you hear it, and spend time with it, the perception of value rappidly changes. I've felt this a few times – one was when I actually bought the HD800S. When you hear something which sounds so right you just have to have it, no matter the cost. A telling point for me was when I spent 3-4 hours scouring the net simply so I could get some decent rechargeable Li-ion batteries sent to NZ. Hooked = Yes, and loving it. The sad part now is that I'll have to buy this off xrk971 (I WANT to own this personally). That should indicate its value. Now how to explain this to the wife ......

XRK-NHB – SUMMARY
If you showed me a picture of the XRK-NHB, quoted its price, and told me that it has poor battery life, very basic operation, and no real feature set common to a lot of portable amps, I'd probably tell you to peddle your wares elsewhere. I am so glad that xrk971 approached me to try this amp. It has quite simply been a revelation for me.

At a glance, the XRK-NHB is an A-class amp in a C-moy type tin. It runs on a couple of 9V batteries, and depending on the batteries you use, you'll get anywhere from around 2-5 or 6 hours life. It'll easily drive anything up to about 300 ohms (although xrk971 says it doesn't do quite as well with low impedance low sensitivity headphones). It has very good specs including an impressive SNR and noise floor. Distortion numbers are pretty good too, and xrk971 has pruposely designed the amp with 2nd order harmonics in mind (similar to very good tube amps).

The magic starts when you pair it with a decent headphone. I've compared the XRK-NHB to a liot of my amps over the last month and consistently come away impressed. For someone who only uses a portable amp when he absolutely has to, I'm becoming someone setting up a permanent portable stack with the XRK-NHB as center piece.

Is the amp perfect? No – its still a pretty basic looking amp, and the battery life is poor by today's standards. But it sounds better than most of my portable set-ups. The clincher for me was when I used it with the L3 and compared it to L&P's LP5 Gold. Yep – the ~ $600 combo sounded on par with a DAC/amp more than twice its price. I would recommend this amp without hesitation – and especially if you are a tube lover.

I've used my objective scoring chart (for consistency), but the score for me means nothing at the end of the day. This one is a keeper. I just want to close with thanking xrk791 for arranging the review sample.

Scoring Chart
I WISH, I WISH ....
If I could request anything as far as improvements go, the list would be relatively short, but will indicate how much I value the XRK-NHB, both in it's current form and also its potential. Anyway - here is some food for thought ...
- a smarter and more solid chassis – preferably one easy to stack
- a rechargable (in unit) battery, and something which could provide 7 to 8 hours life preferably
- a gain switch (maybe something which also changes the tuning slightly) – so that you could have the option of more headroom for IEMs, but still use full sized headphones with a flick of the switch
- a desktop version – powered, with rear RCA's for speakers, and if possible a version with DAC (and bluetooth – OK I'm reaching!)
Basically – I'd pay reasonable money for something with a few more features. Something to think about anyway.

INTRODUCTION

Its been my week to catch up and finish a couple of reviews on ultra-portable devices, and also to write up one which has arrived very recently. The first couple were the FiiO K1 and i1 – budget offerings from FiiO – entry level pricing and pretty good value for money. The third one is at the other end of the scale, but still similar usage. In terms of price it's 7 times more expensive than the K1 – could the Cozoy Takt Pro prove its worth?

And before I get ahead of myself – what is the Takt Pro, and why are devices like this becoming more popular? Its simple really - there has been a plethora of different budget friendly smart-phones, tablets, and ultra-portable laptops which either don't have a lot of money spent on the audio portion of the hardware, or people are looking to utilise along with a small dac/amp to increase the audio fidelity and versatility. This is where very small dac/amps come in. Perfect for portability, and because the hardware is solely focussed on audio quality, they should fill the gap where the budget default has its shortcomings.

So lets put a higher end (USD $289) device to the test, and see if it justifies the extra outlay.

ABOUT COZOY

Cozoy was formed in 2014, and consists of a group of hobbyists, engineers and financial backers. They have their own in-house designers for metal work, circuitry, and tuning. They also use outside designers where needed. I get the feeling that this group is very focussed on bringing the best in both industrial design and sonic signature. Cozoy and Shozy are sister companies, and both display the same cutting edge clean and simple metal designs.

I really liked Cozoy’s product design philosophy – and this is a direct quote from their website:
“Cozoy's product design philosophy is to create fine metallic builds, with leading innovations on circuitry and implementations of cutting-edge metal processing techs.
Clean circuitry design with minimal features that affect sonic quality, strong shielding on cable, sockets and the build itself are all implemented to perfect sound reproduction and durability of our offerings.

In Cozoy we employ finest materials and designs, to ensure utmost fidelity and usability. Our team consists of specialists majored in industrial designs, acoustics design and various fields, together we hope to bring to the crowd audio excellence and long lasting designs.”

DISCLAIMER

The Cozoy Takt Pro USB based portable amplifier and DAC that I’m reviewing today is supplied by Cozoy completely free of charge, and is done so for the purpose of providing a review. I don't receive any payment or incentive to provide the review – but I do get to keep the sample (although I have a standard offer to return it if they so wish).

I have now had the Takt Pro for a couple of weeks. The retail price at time of review is USD 289.

PREAMBLE - 'ABOUT ME'. (or a base-line for interpreting my thoughts and bias)


For the purposes of this review - I used the Takt Pro mainly with my iPhone SE, iPad Mini, my PC and old Asus laptop.

This is a purely subjective review - my gear, my ears, and my experience. Please take it all with a grain of salt - especially if it does not match your own experience.

WHAT I WOULD LOOK FOR IN A PORTABLE DAC/AMP
This is what I would look for in a portable DAC/amp. This is useful to remember when looking at my scoring later in the review.

• Be genuinely portable => great build and small size
• Be reasonable in either battery life or drain on the host
• Be an improvement sonically over the original source
• Clean, linear signature
• Easy to use
• Able to drive both low impedance and (within reason) higher impedance cans
• Value for money

PORTABLE AMP/DACs I HAVE EXPERIENCE WITH
Previous = FiiO E7, Nuforce U-Dac3, RHA L1, Beyerdynamic A200P
Current = FiiO E17K, Q1, Q1ii, iFi Micro iDSD, IMS HVA

ULTRA PORTABLE AMP/DACs I HAVE EXPERIENCE WITH
Current = FiiO K1, i1, Cozoy Aegis, Cozoy Takt Pro

THE REVIEW

PACKAGING AND ACCESSORIES

The Takt Pro arrived in a very clean and simple white retail box and lid measuring 150x150x30mm. The lid features am etched graphical representation of the Takt Pro, and the base/rear has a list of features, specifications and supported devices.

Retail box - front	Retail box - rear	Inner packaging

Inside the box, nestled in a foam holder is the Takt Pro along with a box containing the accessories - three ~ 110 mm cables:

• A standard USB to micro-USB (for PC and laptop use)
• A micro-USB to micro-USB (for Android phone and tablet use)
• A lightning to micro-USB (for iPhone and iPad use)

In addition there is a small envelope with a quick start guide. And Cozoy also included 2 extra black cables for me – a lightning to micro-USB and a micro-USB to USB-C.

The cables are all really good quality and an ideal size – especially if you intend attaching the Takt Pro semi-permanently to an audio device.

TECHNICAL SPECIFICATIONS


BUILD
The Takt Pro is tiny, really tiny – its the smallest micro-USB DAC/amp I've seen so far. If I compare it to the Cozoy's Aegis, it is the same length and thickness, but half the width. At 60 x 13 x 6mm and a mere 8 grams in weight, its about the same thickness as the micro-USB cable jack which plugs into it (an amazing bit of engineering).

The Takt Pro body is made from 2 pieces of CNC'd 6063 aluminium alloy, with the bottom plate pressed in to the housing in a screw-less design which is practically seamless. The flat edges are bevelled to avoid any razor like edges, while the four corners are nicely rounded. At one end is a standard micro-USB port, and at the other a standard 3.5mm audio (stereo) output socket. On the main face is a small round button for play/pause and 2 small thin volume control buttons. All the buttons are very tactile and give good solid feedback (you know when they are pressed).

[SIZE]Internally the Takt Pro uses an ESS Sabre 9018Q2C (full system on chip which incorporates a built in amplifier). From what I've gleaned in my research, it has very low power consumption and is specially designed for mobile devices such as smart-phones, tablets and portable music players. It has support up to 384 KHz / 32 bit (DXD) and DSD up to 11.2 MHz / 1 bit . It has an SNR of 120dB and a harmonic distortion of 0.005%. According to specs from the net, the headphone amplifier delivers an output of 49mW (32Ohms) at up to 1.5 VRMS. It consumes only 3.3V and is also tiny, with dimensions of 5mm x 5mm. It also features jitter reduction HyperStream developed by ESS. The only other thing we know about the internals so far is that it uses a temperature compensated crystal oscillator (TXCO) to maintain higher frequency accuracy in a potentially variable heat environment.[/SIZE]

RMAA MEASUREMENTS

For those interested, Nathan (aka ohm image) took some RMAA measurements of the Takt Pro which includes a frequency response measurement under various loads you can see the full report here – http://ohm-image.net/data/audio/rmaa-cozoy-takt-24-bit.

My hobbyist gear really struggles with measuring DACs so I prefer to use resources on the net if they exist, and if I trust the person measuring (Nathan really knows his stuff). Essentially the Takt Pro is pretty linear from 20 Hz through to 10 kHz (under load), and then there is the usual slow drop which seems to be quite common in today’s DACs, and I think has to do with the use of filters. The other measurements he took include distortion, crosstalk, and dynamic range. The Takt Pro measures pretty well generally.

HEAT AND POWER

The Takt Pro does warm up slightly when in use for a while, but its simply mildly lukewarm rather than hot with the phone. If I'm using my desktop PC, its noticeably warmer (digital thermometer reads between 30 and 40 deg Celsius), but still no problems to hold it.

In terms of power output, the specs for the amp say that it'll put 49 mW into 32 ohms, however we don't know if this has been boosted at all within the rest of the architecture used.

Cozoy in their documentation don't suggest an ideal headphone impedance range, so I decided to go straight for the jugular, and see if it would handle my HD600. I know my iPhone SE by itself actually sounds pretty good with the HD600 (not as good as when the HD600 is properly amped – but not bad for leisurely listening). Yes it is a little bass light – but it still sounds like an HD600, and with the right recordings it still really sings. Measuring at the ear with my SPL meter required 10/16 clicks on the iPhones volume controls to reach 70-75 dB. With the Takt Pro the same volume took only 7/16 clicks.

A variety of sources	Great with the HD600 and iPhone	Some gain issues with IEMs though

Because I knew my eeePC would be the weakest source, I next tried the same test with it. Firstly I set the Windows volume to 100%, and quickly measured the output volume using the HD600s and a test tone. I then measured the same tone with the Takt Pro, and the difference was 10 dB in favour of the Takt Pro. The next test was with the eeePC, the HD600 the Takt Pro and some real music. The really cool thing about this little device is that you can change the volume and play/pause from the device. Around 25% on the Windows mixer was giving me a perfect listening level of 70-75 dB, and this was sounding really good. I added the XRK Audio NHB portable amp (which easily drives the HD600) just to see if there was any changes to the dynamics, and to my ears they both sound really good.

OK – we know its relatively powerful for such a small device, but how about with an earphone which is a lot more sensitive? Back to the iPhone SE, and this time with the 8 ohm, 102db SPL Dunu DN2000. And here was the first snag – with the iPhone SE at one click (playing Pink Floyds Dark Side of the Moon) I was already at my normal listening level of 65-75 dB. There just isn't any headroom. Thankfully there are workarounds – using Kaisertone's app allows a gain control – which can give you a lot more headroom. But for those with reasonably sensitive IEMs its something to note.

SONIC PERFORMANCE

Preface
I’m going to preface this section with a little critique I received a while ago (by PM), and my answer to it – so that you can understand why I don’t comment on some things, and why I do comment on others. I was told my review on another amp was poor because I didn’t include sections on bass, mid-range, treble, sound-stage, imaging etc – yet referred to an amp as warm, full, or lean.

Now I can understand the reference to warm / full / lean – as they are very subjective terms, and whilst I’d like to avoid their use, they are invaluable to convey true meaning. Comparing my NFB-12 to the Aune X1S for example – the Audio-gd does sound richer and warmer. It’s the nature of the DAC which is used.

But I choose not to comment on bass, mids, treble, and most definitely not sound-stage – simply because when we are talking about a DAC/amp – IMO they shouldn’t be discussed. An DACs job is to decode the signal in as linear fashion as possible, and the amp’s job is to amplify the signal with as low distortion as possible. Basically you should be aiming to output as linear signal as possible. If the device is doing its job properly, there is no effect on bass, mids, or treble – except if hardware boost is concerned. And IME an amp does not affect sound-stage (unless there is DSP or cross-feed in play) – that is solely the realm of the transducers and the actual recording.

So we have that out of the way how does the Takt Pro perform sonically?

Tonality
I listened and compared it to the E17K (one of the most linear devices I own). In subjective comparison, the Takt Pro is largely similar but I would say that there is a definite hint of pleasing warmth to the overall tonality – but without any loss of detail or transparency. In a lot of ways it reminds me of the X7ii with its way of sounding rich and full without tipping toward a very noticeably warmer tone like the X5iii.

Purely subjectively, it sounds pretty neutral to my ears, but ever so slightly on the warm, rich and full side of neutral. It does have a pretty clean background which creates a good sense / perception of space.

Format Support
I've tested with PCM up to 24/192 and also DSD 128 and the Takt Pro has had no issues natively decoding. For the tests I used my desktop and jRiver MC outputting directly to the Takt Pro.

In Comparison To The On-board Sound-cards
My Asus eeePC is an older model, and the sound-card was never very good on it. Its on the noisy side, and will regularly pop or cut-out. With the Takt Pro, it was like listening to one of my higher end DAPs! The difference was quite easily noticeable – there was a sense of more space and separation of instruments with the test tracks I used. Sonically the Takt Pro also delivered a richer overall tonality, and gave a sense of higher resolution.

With the Surface (I use for work), while the change wasn't as clear cut, it was no less dramatic. By now I'd switched back to my HD600s, and proceeded to test with and without the Takt Pro. With the Takt Pro, I was getting the same sense of tonal change, but it was more than that. Resolution appeared to be better – and this could be again the perception of more space and instrument separation coming form the lower noise floor (blacker background). I do know that at one stage I lost about half an hour (playing Agnes Obel's album Aventine) with the Takt Pro and the HD600s. It just really floored me how good the combo sounded.

CONNECTIVITY AND CONTROLS

Laptops / PCs
Using both the eeePC, and also my desktop, the Takt Pro connected and set-up without any need for additional drivers under Linux. What's more, both the volume control and play/pause button worked. I had almost the same experience with Windows based systems. Under Win 10 it was simple plug and play, but with my old Win7 Starter system on the eeePC it needed the drivers (located on Cozoy's site). Again the controls works seamlessly.

Tablets
While I can't check with an Android based device, I do have an iPad Mini I use regularly. The Takt Pro was recognised straight away and I was up and playing very easily. Again the controls worked seamlessly (volume and play/pause). Was it an improvement over the iPad's default on-board sound? There was a definite increase in overall volume,
and the change seemed similar to my experience with the iPhone. A little better overall tonality (a more dynamic overall sound). Would I use it regularly – yes – especially with headphones requiring a little more oomph than the iPad delivers. But again the issue was sensitivity with far easier to drive IEMs. This requires using an app like Kaisertone again.

Smart-phones
I first tried my wife's Galaxy and almost blew my ears to pieces (using IEMs). Connection was immediate, but again too much power. The controls worked nicely though and I'm sure there will be Android apps with gain controls. I also tried FiiO's own X5iii and X7ii (both being Android devices). The X5iii refused to play ball, and the X7ii hissed like crazy – but both are running older Android OS's. I guess the nature of Android is that things may be a bit hit and miss – but I'd hope that most of the modern DAPs shouldn't have too many issues.

With my iPhone SE, connection was again immediate, all the controls worked, and it integrated perfectly both with the default player and also the apps I tried like Kaisertone. Again I encountered the volume issue with more sensitive earphones, but it is solvable through using a different player (app). Whilst the sonic differences weren't as pronounced as with the eeePC, they were still apparent. The iPhone SE (which I genuinely like) was a little flatter, a little brighter – and with the Takt Pro the improvement was not massive, but still noticeable – warmer, richer, and ultimately more pleasing. The differences were subtle though.

Late Update
I was playing around with the Cayin N3 (in the middle of writing that review too), and thought “what the heck – lets try the Takt Pro” - using the USB-C output from the N3. Connected first time. On device controls worked too. Colour me impressed.

EMI / RFI
There hasn't been any so far, and that’s despite having the iPhone and iPad streaming (there was no sync issues either – video vs audio). And in this regard, the Takt Pro does seem to perform really well.

Power draw
Because it doesn't have its own battery / power source, this is always going to be somewhat of an issue with a device designed to be used portably. With the Takt Pro, my testing seemed to indicate that for laptops you're not going to really notice the power draw. This was similar with the much larger battery on the iPad Mini (its hardly noticeable). With the iPhone's smaller battery, I'd estimate that battery usage might have increased by a fraction more than the K1 (so around 15%), but again that's not what I'd call a huge issue (for me anyway). YMMV.

COMPARISON WITH OTHER DEVICES

I thought at this stage it would be a good idea to try and compare the Takt Pro with some alternatives. My prerequisite was that the comparable units should all be very portable DAC/amp devices which would work with my iPhone, laptop and iPad – so I’ve used the only ultra-portable USB devices I have, plus added the FiiO Q1ii and E17K which lose a bit on total portability, but for me would still be a consideration especially for laptops or I-devices.

For testing I’ve used my iPhone SE, headphone out of the device in question, and the MEE P1 Pinnacle (because of the higher impedance) to evaluate. All devices were volume matched with my SPL meter at 1 kHz with a constant test tone.

Cozoy Takt Pro (~USD 289) vs FiiO K1 (~USD 40)
I appreciate this is a bit of a mismatch, but the comparison should be valid. Both are “ultra-portable” - the K1 is similar height, slightly shorter, but double the width. Both are built really well. In terms of specs, the Takt Pro has similar impedance out, lower distortion, better SNR, and can play more higher res formats (including DSD). The Takt Pro also has better power output – 6 clicks on the iPhone to reach 75 dB vs 9 clicks with the K1. The Takt Pro actually does a reasonable job with the HD600 – whereas with the K1 its a little “flat”. The Takt Pro also has the on-device controls, and boasts much better connectivity with its included cables – with the K1 I have to use the Apple camera kit (which adds bulk).

In terms of sound, the Takt Pro subjectively has more richness and depth to its tonality, and definitely seems to have more overall resolution (ability to really bring out high level detail). The K1 is still very good for its price point, but the Takt Pro does seem to take things to a higher level, and enough that I'm quite blown away at how good this tiny device sounds in comparison.

Is the price difference worth it – for me and my preferences I'd say yes. I wouldn't (and actually don't) use the K1 a lot. I could see myself using the Takt Pro a lot.

Cozoy Takt Pro (~USD 289) vs FiiO E17K (~USD 99)
I should preface this to say that the E17K is still one of my favourites “Swiss Army Knife” for a portable amplifier. In terms of price bracket, the E17K is almost a third the price of the Takt Pro, and really they are targeted for different uses. The Takt Pro is the ultra portable, while the E17K is the portable. Both have rock solid build quality. The Takt pro has the benefit of size (you'll hardly notice it is there) and the on device play controls. The E17K has the benefit of features (tone controls, gain, volume pot, higher power output, can be used as stand-alone amp, and own battery). Both have very good connectivity options – although again with the E17K you need to be using the camera kit (I do have another cable which works – but it is patchy at best). The Takt Pro does have the better SNR but the E17K has the slightly better distortion measurements (in both cases they are beyond the limits of our hearing).

Sonically, the E17K is the slightly more linear of the two devices, and again the Takt Pro is slightly more dynamic, slightly richer and fuller. The overall resolution of the two seems similar though.

This is a tough one and again it depends on your overall use. I use the E17K a lot – especially for testing (the tone controls are brilliant). But I don't use it for day-to-day use with the iPhone. I think I would use the Takt Pro with the iPhone SE. So this one depends on your use. Both are great devices.

Cozoy Takt Pro (~USD 289) vs FiiO Q1ii (~USD 99)
The Q1ii is FiiO's answer for a portable DAC/amp for iOS devices, and it is a cracker. Its almost a third the price of the, is Apple MFI approved (comes with a lightning cable), and brings features such as bass boost, gain control, a volume pot, and can be used as stand alone DAC or amp. It has pretty much the same format support of the Takt Pro and has slightly poorer SNR measurement but about the same distortion measurements. It is capable of higher output power, and this can be boosted through its balanced connection. It's Achilles heel is that there are intermittent RFI/EMI issues if it is back-to-back stacked with my iPhone, which kind of defeats the purpose. For use as a DAC/amp with laptops, tablets etc – its great though/

Sonically these two are very, very similar and I think I'd have troubles picking them in a blind test. Both have a nice rich, dynamic and detailed tonality, and I could listen to both for hours.

Again it depends on your overall use. As a DAC/amp for my iPad mini or laptop, the Q1ii is a great device. But again I wouldn't use it for day-to-day use with the iPhone and I think I would use the Takt Pro with the iPhone SE. Despite the price difference, and mainly because of the EMI/RFI issues, I tend to think that most would choose the Takt Pro over the Q1ii – and especially if price wasn't the big issue.

Cozoy Takt Pro (~USD 289) vs Cozoy Aegis (~USD 299)
Now we back again to the ultra-portable vs ultra-portable, but this time we're talking a very similar price bracket. Both have a fantastic build quality, both have accessories (cables) and both have similar connectivity performances. The Takt Pro has the better overall measurements in terms of SNR and distortion. With the P1, they have very similar real overall power output, but the Takt Pro does not have the issue of high power draw from the source (Aegis can drain an iPhone's battery relatively quickly). Both suffer a little from their high gain (with the iPhone), requiring use of an app with gain control if you are using sensitive IEMs. The Takt Pro is overall smaller, and does have the on-device controls.

Sonically the overall signature is extremely similar, although it appears to me that the Aegis might be ever so slightly warmer (could be placebo on my part). The Takt Pro does sound ever so slightly more refined though, and given the choice purely on sonics, I'd pick the Takt Pro every time. If you also take the smaller size, lower battery draw, and on-device controls, its not hard to pick the better option.

VALUE

A tough one! The Takt Pro is at the pricier end of ultra-portable USB devices, but I genuinely think it delivers the experience you'd expect in this price range. I definitely have no reservations about the quality of the device, and for me this sits in the good value category, rather than the great value.

COZOY TAKT PRO – SUMMARY

I reviewed the K1 a couple of weeks ago, and I guess I was in two minds about its overall performance (great price point, but lower tier in terms of overall performance). With the Takt Pro I'm a lot more certain.

The Takt Pro is one of the smallest ultra-portable USB DAC/amps I've reviewed, and it really is tiny compared to the sonic performance. Build quality is fantastic, and the on-device controls are absolutely brilliant.

Connectivity for the Takt Pro is brilliant, playing nicely with most of the devices I tested, and its power draw is pretty tiny compared to its overall power output (doing a better than just “OK” job with my HD600). Its only real issue is the overall gain when using with an iPhone. It leaves very little volume room at the lower end of the iPhone's stepped control, but this is easily taken care of with the use of an appropriate music app (eg Kaisertone).

In terms of value, the Takt Pro offers very good overall performance for the outlay, so it gets a definite thumbs up from me.

I've included my scoring chart below for some insight into how I scored the Takt Pro. This is one little device I would definitely recommend. My thanks to Lok for the opportunity to review it.

Scoring Chart

INTRODUCTION

With the advent of the new Apple iPhone 7 and later models, they have slowly but surely been removing the 3.5mm audio socket, and forcibly moving people to use either Blue-tooth, or earphones / headphones which can be used straight from the lightning socket. This of course requires an adaptor or rewiring. FiiO saw this as an opportunity, and this year released the i1 – an Apple certified micro DAC/amp with lightning port.

So let’s put this $40 device through its paces and see how it performs and if it is worth considering.

ABOUT FiiO

By now, most Head-Fi members should know about the FiiO Electronics Company. If you don’t, here’s a very short summary.

FiiO was first founded in 2007. Their first offerings were some extremely low cost portable amplifiers – which were sometimes critiqued by some seasoned Head-Fiers as being low budget “toys”. But FiiO has spent a lot of time with the community here, and continued to listen to their potential buyers, adopt our ideas, and grow their product range. Today, their range includes DAPs, portable amps, portable dac/amps, desktop dac/amps, earphones, cables and other accessories.

FiiO’s products have followed a very simple formula since 2007 – affordable, stylish, well built, functional, measuring well, and most importantly sounding good.

DISCLAIMER

The FiiO i1 iOS lightning portable amplifier and DAC that I’m reviewing today is supplied by FiiO completely free of charge, and is done so for the purpose of providing a review. I don't receive any payment or incentive to provide the review – but I do get to keep the sample.

I have now had the i1 for about 3 months, but I don't really use it regularly (mainly because I have an iPhone SE which still has the 3.5mm socket). The retail price at time of review is USD 40.

PREAMBLE - 'ABOUT ME'. (or a base-line for interpreting my thoughts and bias)


For the purposes of this review - I used the i1 with my iPad Mini and iPhone SE.

This is a purely subjective review - my gear, my ears, and my experience. Please take it all with a grain of salt - especially if it does not match your own experience.

THE REVIEW

PACKAGING AND ACCESSORIES

The i1 arrived in a small 90 x140 x 35mm retail box consisting of a printed sleeve over an inner box. On the front is a picture of the i1, and on the back is some information and specifications.

Included in the package is the i1, a warranty document, quick start guide and shirt clip.


TECHNICAL SPECIFICATIONS
For this section I've included comparative data on FiiO's K1 ultra-portable which currently retails for ~USD 40.00 and would be an alternative (using a camera connection kit).

BUILD / DESIGN / FEATURES

The i1 consists of an MFI standard lightning plug (which has been certified by Apple), connected to an 80cm cable, and ending with an ~45mm metallic tube (approx 9mm diameter). The tube is a lightweight metal alloy and houses the electronics, a microphone, volume and playback controls, and also the 3.5mm audio socket.

The control on the module is via a simple pushable rocker switch. Up or down to change volume, press the middle to play/pause, double click to go forward, triple click to go back, press and hold to activate Siri.

The controls all work seamlessly with iOS – both with my iPhone SE and iPad Mini. The microphone seems to be relatively clear. I've taken a couple of calls with it, and as long as I have the main body relatively close to my mouth it seems to work well.

The internals consist of a single Nuvaton NAU88L 25 “codec” chip which combines the lightning audio module (LAM), D/A conversion, and amplification duties. The chip handles the iOS interaction and MFI authentication as well. Nuvaton's website states:

“The NAU88L25 is an ultra-low power high performance audio codec designed for headphone or headset application in smart-phone, tablet PC, Chromebooks, laptop, game controller, Blue-tooth headphones and other portable devices. It includes one I2S/PCM interface, one high quality stereo DACs, one mono ADC, a Class G stereo headphone amplifier, and industry leading advanced headset features.”

The only real issue I've had with the overall design is that the lightning jack is a little wider than my iPhone SE case, and I have to actually stretch the case over it to secure a fit and valid connection. Otherwise, for a $40 device it seems pretty well built.

HEAT AND POWER

The i1 doesn't seem to heat up at all, and is reasonably cool to the touch even after a few hours playing. I'm guessing this is because of the very low power input from the source, and also output from the amplifier.

In terms of power output, the specs say that it'll put the following output into these loads:
Into 16 ohms = 30 mW
Into 32 ohms = 14 mW

FiiO suggests headphones with impedance up to 32 ohms max – mainly due to the relatively weak amplification. My first step (using my trusty SPL meter and FiiO's new F9 Pro IEMs) was to measure maximum volume from both the i1 and also the iPhone's headphone out. The reading on the meter was exactly the same, so I can state reasonably confidently that for a 28 ohm load, there is no actual volume gain, but no gain loss either ( a good thing IMO). So this means that any headphones or IEMs you currently drive with your iPhone will be A-OK with the i1. Conversely, any that are normally beyond the phone's power output aren't going to be helped by the use of the i1.

I did manage to drive the difficult MEE Pinnacle P1 (50 ohm / 96 dB sensitivity) at about 55% volume on the iPhone, as well as the 320ohm VE Zen ear-buds, and both sounded pretty good. My personal preference is to give both a little more powerful source, but they had no real issues with volume. An interesting thing when swapping out headphones – as soon as you disconnect from the i1's 3.5mm socket, the I-device immediately stops playing (nice integration).

I also tried my HD630VB and MS Pro's and with these relatively easy to drive headphones, there were no issues with volume or perceived dynamics. Of course you lose the HD630VBs on-headset volume and playback controls – but that was expected.

SONIC PERFORMANCE

I'm not really going to go to much into this section. FiiO has a very good measurement set-up, and they are very proactive in supplying meaningful measurements on audio performance. They have graphed the i1 output under load (they didn't mention the actual load they used – but normally they'll use a 16 ohm or 32 ohm load with a signal at just under full volume (in this case at -5 dB). The resultant frequency graph was extremely linear with the smallest bit of movement in the upper registers (a fraction of a dB and unlikely to be audible).

So I once again volume matched and set about comparing, or A/Bing the 3.5mm headphone out from the i1 vs the 3.5mm headphone out from the iPhone SE. For this I used my Alclair Curve (being one of the most neutral monitors I own).

After a couple of hours going back and forth with a variety of music, I honestly can't say that I noticed any difference at all between the two outputs. Both are very linear, very clean and very clear. Is this a bad thing? No – the iPhone SE is the best sounding iDevice I've owned, and for the i1 to achieve this is a pretty good endorsement.

OTHER ERRATA

The FiiO App
When you first plug the i1, you'll get a little pop-up asking if you want to install the FiiO app from the App Store. Definitely do it. The app doesn't appear to do a lot (it gives instructions for use), but the real purpose is so that FiiO can deliver firmware upgrades to the i1 unit.

FiiO – small idea for the app in future (and to add value) – how about a decent EQ feature, or maybe some pre-set room DSPs? Just a thought.

Cables & Real World Use
Use of the provided clip is pretty much compulsory unless you have a very short earphone cable (if using with an iPhone), and at the moment its probably the one drawback with this device (combined with a normal earphone, the cables are just too long). Don't get me wrong – you need the 80cm length with the i1 so you can have your phone in your pocket and wear any set of IEMs. But the issue becomes the added length of your IEM cable. You can manage this by either tying or looping it inside your clothes, but there should be an easier way. FiiO have thought of this and come up with the RC-MMCX1s – an MMCX short cable at 60 cm length. The issue of course – its not short enough. Wearing the shorter cable + i1 means the control unit and mic is down around my belly-button. Not ideal for voice calls! The ideal size is a cable with the jack pretty much combined with the y-split. This then leaves the control unit of the i1 just below your chin, and becomes an ideal cable for use on the go. Then when you want to go to iPad use (or iPhone on a desk), simply use your longer cable.

Too long even with FiiO’s short cable	Plug and play with iOS is brilliant

FiiO – if you want to have something truly usable, this is the direction you need to go – providing shorter MMCX and 2 pin cable options. This then makes the i1 not just a work-around, but incredibly useful (I'd then use this all the time). The ability to have controls and use any of my higher end earphones – brilliant. Don't get me wrong though – the RC-MMCX1s is still ideal for pairing with a DAP mounted on your arm – we just need more options for pairing with the i1.

Power draw
Because it doesn't have its own battery / power source, this is always going to be somewhat of an issue with a device designed to be used portably. With the i1, my testing seemed to indicate that for both the iPhone and iPad the i1 is drawing so little power that you're not going to really notice any faster loss of battery life. Realistically its going to be no more than the internals of the iPhone or iPad.

OTHER OPTIONS / SIMPLE COMPARISONS

I thought at this stage it would be a good idea to try and compare the i1 with some alternatives. My prerequisite was that the comparable units should ultra-portable DAC/amp devices which would work with my iPhone, and iPad – so I’ve listed and compared 2 simple alternatives – the FiiO K1 and the Cozoy Takt Pro.

For testing I’ve used my iPhone SE, headphone out of the device in question, and my Alclair Curve to evaluate. All devices were volume matched with my SPL meter at 1 kHz with a constant test tone.

FiiO i1 (~USD 40) vs FiiO K1 (~USD 40)
The K1 is an ultra portable USB DAC/amp, and can be used with a camera connection kit. It has low power draw, a slightly higher gain (1.2 dB), but can also be used with your lap-top. Ideally you'd simply have it permanently attached to the rear of your iPhone case.

What you miss though is the mic and more importantly the controls – which are the real draw-card for me with the i1.

In terms of sound, both of these devices are very similar, with the K1 perhaps having the slightest hint of warmth to its sonic signature. Both are roughly on par as far as quality goes. So the K1 is definitely an option as an alternative – although for my preferences (with the correct length cable), I'd still prefer the i1.

i1 (~USD 40) vs Cozoy Takt Pro (~USD 289)
This is not a fair comparison – but it is a viable option, and one that shouldn't be taken lightly. There is a big price difference, but the Takt Pro has a few more features up its sleeves. The Takt Pro comes with good accessories (cable choices), and has the better connectivity options with Android and iOS (again you never have to jump through hoops - it just connects). The Takt Pro has resolution capability up to 32/384 and also DSD. It can also be used with Win 10 devices (plug and play). The best part about it though is that it has controls on the device (volume and play/pause).

The Takt Pro is more power hungry – and seems to draw around 15% more power from the iPhone (I've yet to measure conclusively), but it outputs enough voltage and gain to drive an HD600 – not as good as a really good amplifier, but enough to deliver the sort of performance where you can still get lost in the music.

Sonically the two are quite different. The Takt Pro has more richness and depth to its tonality, and definitely seems to have more overall resolution (ability to really bring out high level detail). The i1 is still very good, but the Takt Pro does seem to take things to a higher level, and enough that I'm quite blown away at how good this tiny device sounds.

Again it is a good option – it just depends on how much ultra-portability is worth to you, and whether it is purely for music playback, or if you also need the mic.

VALUE

This one is probably an easier one to call than most. The i1 delivers exceptional value for a budget audio device. It sounds better than just “decent” and the addition of controls and a microphone gives it genuine versatility. Once someone supplies some really short cables (hint, hint FiiO), the i1 will be an almost perfect replacement for I-device jacks.

FIIO i1 – SUMMARY

The i1 is a really good device, and the only reason I don't really use it (at the moment) is because my iPhone SE still have a 3.5mm audio jack, and I can't really be bothered with the cable management.

But if you look at what it does – decently good sound, instant and seamless connection, virtually no battery drain, and providing iOS controls and a mic – it doesn't take a genius to realise how handy this device can be.

Of course it is somewhat limited by its amplification stage, and cable management can be a bit of a hassle. If you need to drive headphones needing more power, my advice is to look at an ultra-portable device like the Takt Pro. But if you're just using ear-buds or IEMs, and have an iPhone 7 or higher (and want your jack back), I can definitely recommend the FiiO i1.

I just want to close with thanking Sunny and the team at FiiO for arranging the review sample.