INTRODUCTION

Picture are default 1200 x 800 resolution - click (photos in tables) to view larger images.

INTRODUCTION

My favourite DAP, and the one I used most often for testing (up to last year anyway) was FiiO X3 2nd generation (or X3ii). It was a perfect palm size, had a bevy of features, good power output, was pretty responsive, and pretty much did everything for around 200 USD. In my opinion, there wasn't a DAP I'd seen that could touch it in the value for money stakes. Like most FiiO DAPs, it took a while for the firmware to mature – but once it did, what a winner. And for me, the X3ii is still as good now as it was then. Great SQ, and killer features including true gapless and replay gain, and this time the mechanical wheel was much improved over the earlier X1. So how do you improve on something which is an absolute winner? Today we put the FiiO X3 3rd generation (X3iii) through its paces – so lets find out if FiiO have succeeded (or at least continued the tradition).

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 X3 3rd generation (from this point known as the X3iii) was provided to me gratis as a review sample. I have made it clear to FiiO in the past that I did regard any product they sent me as their sole property and available for return any time at their request. I have continued to use a lot of their gear for follow up reviews, but also for everyday use. I had previously purchased a lot of FiiO products and inquired if I could purchase other review samples a while ago from FiiO (for personal use). They have insisted I keep any further sample products for for my own use. So I acknowledge now that the X3iii I have is supplied and gifted completely free of any charge or obligation. I thank FiiO for their generosity.

I have now had the X3iii for around 3 months. The retail price at time of review is ~ USD 200.

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

I'm a 50 year old music lover. I don't say audiophile – I just love my music. Over the last couple of years, I have slowly changed from cheaper listening set-ups to my current set-up. I vary my listening from portables (mostly now from the FiiO X5iii, X7ii and iPhone SE) to my desk-top's set-up (PC > USB > iFi iDSD). My main full sized headphones at the time of writing are the Sennheiser HD800S, Sennheiser HD600 & HD630VB, MS Pro and AKG K553. Most of my portable listening is done with IEMs, and it has mainly been with my own personally owned IEMs - the Jays q-Jays, Alclair Curve2 and LZ Big Dipper - as well as my 64Audio U10 sample (an earphone I may yet purchase at a future date). A full list of the gear I have owned (past and present) is listed in my Head-Fi profile (note to self - it does need updating).

I have very eclectic music tastes listening to a variety from classical/opera and jazz, to grunge and general rock. I listen to a lot of blues, jazz, folk music, classic rock, indie and alternative rock. I am particularly fond of female vocals. I generally tend toward cans that are relatively neutral/balanced, but I do have a fondness for clarity, and suspect I might have slight ‘treble-head’ preferences. I am not overly treble sensitive, and in the past have really enjoyed headphones like the K701, SR325i, and of course the T1 and DT880. I have a specific sensitivity to the 2-3 kHz frequency area (most humans do) but my sensitivity is particularly strong, and I tend to like a relatively flat mid-range with slight elevation in the upper-mids around this area.

I have extensively tested myself (ABX) and I find aac256 or higher to be completely transparent. I do use exclusively red-book 16/44.1 if space is not an issue. All of my music is legally purchased (mostly CD – the rest FLAC purchased on-line). I tend to be skeptical about audiophile ‘claims’, don’t generally believe in burn-in, have never heard a difference with different cables (unless it was volume or impedance related), and would rather test myself blind on perceived differences. I am not a ‘golden eared listener’. I suffer from mild tinnitus, and at 50, my hearing is less than perfect (it only extends to around 14 kHz nowadays). My usual listening level is around 65-75 dB.

For the purposes of this review - I've used the X3iii predominantly solo and tested most of the functions I am able to. I have prior experience with entry level Sony's (very early models), then step-ups to the Cowon iAudio7, iPhone4, iPod Touch G4, iPhone 5S, HSA Studio V3, FiiO X5, X1, X3ii, X5ii, X7, X1ii, X7ii, X3iii, iPhone SE, Cayin i5, and the L&P LP5, L5 Pro, and L3.

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 PERSONALLY LOOK FOR IN A DAP

I thought I’d list (before I start with the review) what I really look for in a new DAP at this level.

Clean, neutral signature – but with body (not thin)
Good build quality
Reasonable battery life – at least 8-10 hours
Easy to use interface
Able to drive both low impedance and (within reason) higher impedance cans without additional amping.
Value for money
Enough storage to hold either my favourite albums in red-book, or my whole library in a reasonably high resolution lossy format (for me – aac256)
Gapless playback
Replay gain if available
Reasonable EQ
Bluetooth/Wireless if available
DAC if available

Did I get all of this with the X3iii, and more importantly was the X3iii an improvement on the X3ii? I guess I'm in two minds because its still a work in progress. Read on and you'll see why I say that.

THE REVIEW

PACKAGING AND ACCESSORIES

The X3iii arrived in a fully printed black and white retail box measuring approx 110 x 165 x 53mm. The front has a full colour photo of the X3iii and the Sony “Hi-Res” logo. Inside the outer retail jacket is a rigid black box and lid simply adorned with the word “FiiO”. Removing the lid gives us our first look at the X1ii. Under this is another compartment which is home to the accessories.


Retail box	Inner box	Full accessory package

The total accessory package includes:

The FiiO X3iii
One USB data and charging cable
One clear flexible plastic / polycarbonate type case
One leatherette slip on case
Quick start guide and warranty
Screen protectors


Cables, manuals and protectors	Red leatherette case	Clear silicone case

The accessories are reasonable quality and both cases are a snug fit and protect nicely. With case fitted, the X3iii can be docked into both DK1 dock and also the K5 dock/amplifier.

TECHNICAL SPECIFICATIONS
(From FiiO's website), and I've included the X3ii specs, as well as the specs for the X5ii which is now very close in price.

Model	X3 3rd Gen	X3 2nd Gen	X5 2nd Gen
Approx current price	$200 USD	$140 USD	$250 USD
Dimensions	~ 114 x 59 x 13 mm	~ 97 x 58 x 16 mm	~ 109 x 64 x 15 mm
Weight	126 g	135 g	165 g
DSD Support	Yes up to DSD64	Yes up to DSD128	Yes up to DSD128
Lossless PCM Support	APE, ALAC, AIFF, FLAC, WAV, WMA	APE, ALAC, AIFF, FLAC, WAV, WMA	APE, ALAC, AIFF, FLAC, WAV, WMA
Lossy Support	MP3, AAC, WMA, OGG	MP3, AAC, WMA, OGG	MP3, AAC, WMA, OGG
Use as external DAC	Yes	Yes	Yes
Battery	2350 mAh	2600 mAh	3300 mAh
Play time	~10hr	~11hr	~10hr
DAC Chip	PCM 5242 x 2	CS4398	PCM1792A
Main amp chip	OPA1622	OPA1612+LMH6643	OPA1612 + BUF634
Soc	JZ4760B	JZ4760B	JZ4760B
SNR (H/O)	≥112 dB (A-weighted)	≥113 dB (A-weighted)	≥117 dB (A-weighted)
THD+N (H/O)	<0.002% (32Ω/1kHz)	<0.001% (32Ω/1kHz)	<0.001% (32Ω/1kHz)
Output to 16ohm	120 mW SE, 110 mW Bal	224 mW	436 mW
Output to 32ohm	160 mW SE, 190 mW Bal	200 mW	245 mW
Output to 300ohm	15 mW SE, 20 mW Bal	24 mW	27 mW
H/O Impedance	<1.4Ω SE, <1.2Ω Bal	<0.2Ω	<0.2Ω
Line Out?	Yes – combined with H/O	Yes – separate outputs	Yes – separate outputs
Digital Out?	Yes – combined with H/O	Yes – combined with L/O	Yes – combined with L/O
Internal Storage	Nil	Nil	Nil
External Storage	Single sdxc	Single sdxc	Dual sdxc
Screen	320x240 TFT	320x240 TFT	400x360 IPS
OS	Custom FiiO (Linux)	Custom FiiO	Custom FiiO
Wireless	Bluetooth	No	No

CHANGES FROM X3ii

The main differences between the X3iii and X3ii are:


X3iii vs X3ii	X3iii larger but thinner	X3iii screen larger and colder

Slightly larger footprint but more modern looking build + flatter
Larger but colder screen (colour)
Addition of Bluetooth
Change from mechanical to touch based wheel
Upgrade to internal components
Addition of balanced output
Lower power output on new model

BUILD AND DESIGN

External
One of the first things I noticed when setting my eyes on the X3iii was how much different the external design was. It's much slimmer, but also longer and wider. The thinner body on the X3iii adds to the impression of overall sleekness and more contemporary design.


Left side	Right side

The front is made of tempered black glass and is dominated by the 320x240 TFT screen at the top, and the touch wheel at the bottom. Around the touch wheel are the usual 4 buttons. The buttons are tactile and have a nice feel and feedback to being clicked. The upper left button brings up a context menu that is dependent on the menu you are in. The upper right button is a back button, and puts you back up one hierarchal level. The bottom two buttons are forward, back / up, down / fast forward, rewind – depending on your application. The middle button is simply to select (i.e. action button). Like the X3ii – if you want to change volume – hold this button in (when screen is active) and the wheel volume control is activated.

On the left hand side is the power on/off and below that the vol up / down rocker buttons. There is also a new programmable button below that, and you can assign this to playback control, cycle the EQ settings, next or previous folder jump, or changing the themes. Below this is the micro SDXC slot (which FiiO says will take up to 256 Gb cards). The buttons again give a really nice tactile response, and for my hand, are nicely located within easy reach. At the bottom is the combined headphone out / line-out jack (which now also does coax out also), the micro USB port for charging / data transfer, and the new 2.5mm balanced output. The micro USB port is compatible with both of FiiO's current docks – the K5 dock/amp and the DK1 dock.


Bottom / inputs	Rear cover

The actual X3iii casing is an aluminum alloy which is beautifully finished, smooth and slightly angular, but also providing an excellent fit in the hand. One slightly weird thing is that the rear panel has a small section right up the top which is slightly different. I'm not sure if this is just the review units or part of the design.

The new touch wheel is easy to use, and has reasonable sensitivity allowing easy movement and selection, but avoiding overshoot. FiiO has added a feature where you can control the overall sensitivity, and this is brilliant for adjusting the wheel to your own personal tolerances. The wheel is a marked improvement over the mechanical wheel on my X3ii, but falls a little short of the fine control available on Apple's Classic.

The screen is slightly larger than the screen on the X3ii, but the resolution is the same. Where the X3ii's screen is quite warm (has an orangish hue), the X3iii's screen colour is a lot cooler (blueish tinge). Depending on the album cover, this can sometimes give more contrast, and sometimes less (very dependent on what you're viewing). Both are relatively clear, and easy to read – but both also suffer in direct sunlight.

If I was judging the X3iii based on build impressions alone – its certainly looks more modern than the original X3ii, and the changes with the wheel are pretty good.

Internal
Internally the X3iii has some variation of the chipsets used in the original X3ii, with the SoC the same (both JZ4760B), but the DAC being a change (PCM5242x2 vs CS4398). The LPF and OP amp used are also different (OPA1622 and OPA 2140 vs OPA1612+LMH6643 and OPA1642). In terms of measurements, the specs (refer the table I made above) are so close as to be indistinguishable (distortion, crosstalk, SNR etc), but the older X3ii's specs are slightly superior. The X3iii has lower peak to peak voltage (single ended) but higher current output. The X3ii is noticeably more powerful than its newer sibling in real world tests. The other major difference was the inclusion of Bluetooth in the X3iii (which we'll cover shortly).

Battery
The X3iii is powered by a 2350 mAh Li-polymer battery which provides approximately 10 hours use in ideal conditions with an average load (like the F9), and Bluetooth disengaged. In my tests this was achievable using IEMs with the screen mostly off (with just the occasional checks to see how the battery was faring), and the DAP set to play continuously. This was somewhat similar to the X3ii's battery performance (10-11 hours). Charging was slightly quicker with the newer X3iii using a 5V 2.1a battery pack – just over 3 hours with the X3iii vs approx 4 hours with the X3ii. You can also play and charge at the same time if using a battery pack like this. Both have a deep sleep mode, whereby you can put them to sleep with inactivity, and it “sips” at the battery at a much lower rate, and can be almost instantly awakened (relatively anyway).

POWER OUTPUT
FiiO's output specs and recommendations show that they recommend use of 16ohm to 150ohm headphones – and the outputs are respectively:
120 mW at 16ohm (single-ended) and 110 mW at 16ohm (balanced)
160 mW at 32ohm (single-ended) and 190 mW at 32ohm (balanced)
15 mW at 300ohm (single-ended) and 20 mW at 300ohm (balanced)

These are a little less than the X3ii's output – but what does this mean in the real world? With FiiO's 28 ohm 106 dB/mW F9, I was able to get to my normal listening level of 65-75 dB at around 50-55/120 volume on low gain. At 120/120 on low gain, this was pushed to the 100 dB level (again low gain). 65-70/120 was enough to drive VE's 320 ohm Zen ear-buds to adequate volume (although they did seem to improve adding the A5 amp). And even HiFiman's 60 ohm 103 dB/mW RE2000 was reasonably well driven at 55/100.


Power tests with F9, Zen2 and RE2000	And no issue with MS Pror and HD630VB	But struggled with the HD800S

I did try the X3iii with my HD800S, and while you could get it loud enough at 80/120, the bass sounded anemic – and realistically adding additional amplification was needed for harder to drive loads. With the HD630VB there was no problem with amplification (50-55/120 was perfect), and the great thing was that the headset controls all worked perfectly (nice). Lastly was the Alessandro MS Pro, and again around 55/120 was perfect for my listening preferences. So for most IEMs, ear-buds and portable headphones, the X3iii should be enough by itself.

BLUETOOTH PERFORMANCE
The X3iii comes with both Bluetooth 4.1, and is capable of two way transmission – so you could attach the X3iii to a portable speaker, and also a hand-held controller (like the RM1) and use the remote to control the X3iii, and the X3iii to feed the Bluetooth speaker. So how did the Bluetooth perform in real life? For this test, I used FiiO's BTR1 Bluetooth lanyard and also my pair of Fiil Diva portables.

First step – turning Bluetooth on – and a 10 second wait between the time the Bluetooth switch is toggled, and the menu returns to say its ready. Better than the X1ii but not good enough in today's modern wireless world. Another 10 seconds to search and find the Diva, but pairing was very quick. The connection with the Diva at close range (ie in a pocket) was very good, really solid and a marked improvement over the X1ii. When I got into high traffic areas the connection was still very good. Next test was leaving the X3iii on the desk and walking away from it. I managed 12m before getting drop-outs. Comparatively, with my iPhone SE, the Diva finds and connects within a couple of seconds, has an operable range of around 10-12 meters (rock solid), and is also very stable in high electronic traffic areas.


Bluetooth with the FiiL Diva	And with the new FiiO BTR + Brainwavz B400s

The X3iii's Bluetooth transmitter is much improved over the X1ii, but it still has some speed issues with start-up. The Diva's headset controls all worked well, and I'd definitely use this pairing for out walking. The Diva was also pretty quick to connect again once the X3iii had stored it initially.

Next test – doing the same with the FiiO's BTR1 lanyard. This time another 10 seconds to find the device and about 3 seconds to connect. Connection was again extremely good and the controls on the BTR1 worked perfectly. Operational range this time was a lot shorter (around 4-5m), but the connection was very solid, and using the BTR1 with the X3iii in my pocket was no issue. Checking again with the iPhone SE, and its operable range is around 8m with the BTR1, and the audio is rock solid within that range.

So final thoughts on Bluetooth:

Works well paired with gear which has reasonable BT receivers
Overall not as strong as the Bluetooth connections with the iPhone SE
Slow connecting but relatively solid once connected
A definite improvement over the X1ii and a step in the right direction.

UI AND USABILITY
Anyone who's owned an X1, X3ii or X5ii will immediately recognise the UI. Its pretty functional and divided into 5 main areas

System Settings
Play Settings
Browse Files (folder navigation)
Category (tagged browsing)
Now Playing


Main menu	System settings	Music settings


Equaliser	Tagged browsing	Now playing screen

Rather than go through screen-shots of all the UI screens, its probably easier to cover the main features, usability/speed, what its missing, and any issues I think it has.

Features
For the price, the X3iii actually packs in a lot. You have your normal settings like timers, sleep mode, the ability to recognise in-line remotes in compatible head-sets (and the F9 IEM is a perfect match with the X3iii in this regard), language settings etc. There are some nifty additions though. The X3iii comes with 6 UI themes (and they aren't too bad IMO either). You can choose to display cover art, lyrics, and also change the on-screen font size (great for those of us with older eyes), screen brightness, and key-lock settings.

In the play settings, there is a 10 band equaliser – which works pretty well, and has presets for those who use them. There is line-out and coax functionality and the line-out can be set to variable or fixed which is nice to have. You can toggle to play through folders, and there is a gapless function which works for FLAC but has a very small small micro-gap for aac256 files (its good enough for me).

You can browse in folder mode, or by tagged library, and there is a rudimentary search function (first letter) which works surprisingly well if you just want to skip to a certain album or artist. Playlist functionality is pretty crude, but if you make them with an external app, they are pretty easy to manage (I use one for my test tracks).

Use as a DAC
The X3iii also has the ability to be used as a DAC or soundcard for your PC or laptop. I tried this on Windows 10, and after installing the drivers, the X3iii was recognised and easily configured. There was no issue with audio lag, and I was able to both game and watch movies with no issues. I also tried with my Linux desktop, and on 2 Linux builds I couldn't get connections. This could well be the Linux set-ups, I really need to go back to Debian at some stage. Worth noting though – Linux may not be straight forward (YMMV). When I get more time, I'll do more testing.

Balanced Mode
I'm the wrong person to be talking to in relation to the benefits of balanced mode on a DAP. There are benefits in power output (voltage and mW output) if implemented properly, and this can give benefits when driving full sized headphones which need it. A perfect example of this is the X7ii – that balanced mode is implemented well.

But what about the X3iii – where the power output is actually lower. Well lets look at the numbers, and pay particular attention to what is audible. The most common bits that people make claims on are that balanced is always cleaner, darker, more spacious, wider sound-stage ....…

Lets look at cleaner first. SNR on SE is 112 dB and on balanced is 112 dB. No difference and both (at that level) are beyond what we can hear anyway. Both have THD measurements at 0.002% and 0.003% = beyond our hearing. You'll get a magnitude more distortion from your earphones. Now the important one - crosstalk (channel separation). SE is 69 dB and balanced is 97 dB. That must make a big difference - right?

I'm going to quote something I bookmarked a long time ago:

The FCC minimum channel separation/crosstalk spec for FM Stereo used to be 29.7dB...yes, that's right, 29.7. It had to do with how the signal was generated and handled, but 30 - 40dB wasn't hard to achieve, and 50dB wasn't uncommon.

The bulk of what is perceived as stereo separation happens above 20dB with decreasing detectable improvements above 30dB or so. It's almost impossible to detect separation improvements above 40dB. Localization of a phantom image depends less on channel separation and much more on relative intensity and inter-aural time delay of the sound, and human hearing response at different angles.

So....long answer...separation above 40dB doesn't improve sound quality, below 40dB it slowly degrades, the final separation is equal to the device with the least separation in the system. Once degraded by a device, no device following it can restore separation.

As you can see, SE crosstalk at 69 dB and balanced at 97 dB actually means nothing - we can't hear it.

So is the balanced out an improvement on X3iii? No (IMO) – it sounds exactly the same as the SE output when you volume match properly.

Missing Features / Issues
The one feature I really miss is the lack of replay gain which was working perfectly on the X3ii. For a device like this, I used to love setting the player to shuffle all songs and not having to worry about changing volume. With the X3iii sadly we are still waiting, and I'm not sure if its likely to be implemented any time soon.

The other issue is speed related – both the UI and scanning. I have 6867 tracks all very uniform aac256 on my sdxc card in my X3ii. It scans the entire library in about 3 minutes 30 seconds. Not rocket fast, but OK for someone who doesn't often add new music. The same card on the X3iii takes 12 minutes and 28 seconds. Yep – its that slow! And the UI is a little sluggish (not quite as bad as the X1ii). It lags more than the X3ii, there is often a 1-2s delay between pressing play and music actually starting.

Basically, if I was giving the X3iii a top mark for more modern build and aesthetic design (compared to X3ii), for the UI, usability, speed and even features, that score would be around 6/10 because in reality FiiO have gone backwards on the last generation. The issue isn't navigation either, as the X3iii is very simple to navigate. Its simply the lack of some features, and the slow speed.

SOUND QUALITY & COMPARISONS

The following is what I subjectively hear from the FiiO X3iii. Some of you may find this section a little limited, so I’ll give you some insight into the way I’ve changed my opinion on how to describe the sound with any competently made DAC, DAP or amplifier. The problem with trying to break the sonics down to bass, mids and treble is that DAP / DAC / amp is designed (or should be designed) to be essentially flat across the frequency spectrum. If it has enhanced bass, then isn’t it adding colouration that should come from the headphones or EQ or recording? Likewise, I won’t comment a lot on sound-stage, as this is primarily a by-product of the actual recording, or the transducers you’re using.

So how do I go about describing it? Well my gear isn't great for measuring DAPs but judging by the correspondence from FiiO, and their own measurements, the X3iii is quite linear in its frequency response, apart from a small (0.3-0.4dB) drop in the sub bass from 60 hz down (graphs can be referenced here - http://www.fiio.net/en/products/72/parameters). What I will do is comment on overall tonality and resolution, and also expand further when comparing the X3iii to both the X3ii and also the X5ii (which is now a comparable price).

For the record – on most tracks, the volume on X3iii was adjusted to give 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.17556 When I tested side-by-side with other DAPs I used test tones, and an SPL meter to volume match. I used the same track, and had the players set up so I could rapid switch. Testing was performed with a pair of Brainwavz B400 IEMs which have a quite linear/neutral frequency response.

X3iii General Tonality
I had to check first with a couple of DAPs I own to get a base-line for neutrality first. This included my iPhone SE, FiiO X7ii and original FiiO X5 – all of which are essentially neutral, with perhaps the faintest hint of warmth in the tonality. After going back and forth several times, to my ears the X3iii has essentially a neutral tonality, perhaps the slightest hint of warmth, and is perhaps slightly cooler than the X3ii, and essentially closer to the overall signature of the X7ii.

Resolution / Detail / Clarity
Clarity and resolution is very good for this DAP, but after swapping with some of the other “higher tier” DAPs, the one thing which stood out for me was a slightly more vivid colouration or forwardness in the upper-mids or lower treble which isn't present in the likes of the X7ii. Its very subtle, but becomes more noticeable with longer sessions swapping back and forth. What also stands out though is how good the X3iii is able to render both detail and clarity – at this price point it is very good. It misses nothing – from the different nuances of the cash registers in PF's “Money” to the clicks of Withers drumsticks in “Sultans of Swing”. If I didn't have the X7ii switching right now, I'd be even more impressed, but the X7ii is definitely at a higher level in detail retrieval.

Soundstage / Imaging
Why is this section even here? The perception of sound-stage in a DAP is a result of the music you listen to (the recording) and the transducers you use. The DAP has virtually nothing to do with it, as long as it has decent crosstalk measurements, and there is no DSP involved. I often laugh quietly to myself when I read reviews claiming one DAP has more sound-stage than another. For the record, I volume matched the X3iii and X3ii, and tested my binaural tracks. Both sounded the same in terms of perceived soundstage depth or width.

X3iii vs X3ii

This will be pretty quick. In terms of form factor and overall build quality, the new X3iii is a step up for a more modern design, both in terms of how it feels, looks, and especially how the navigation wheel operates.

In terms of sound – they are virtually identical (slight difference in overall warmth/tonality) – I could happily live with either.

In terms of features, the X3iii adds Bluetooth, and this time it is well implemented in terms of stability. The X3iii also handles IEM's with on-control cables very well. But it gives up replay-gain (which I really miss), and it is also less powerful than the 2nd generation.

So now we come to speed and usability, and I'm afraid this is where the X3iii simply isn't an improvement – its actually a regression. The newer X3iii is simply slower, laggy, and at times extremely frustrating.

Overall – is it an improvement? I have to actually say no, and especially when the X3ii is so much cheaper now. The X3iii looks and feels better, has reasonably well implemented Bluetooth, and the navigation is an improvement – but the speed issue detracts from what could have otherwise been an overall improvement.

X3iii vs X5ii

The X5ii was a great value DAP in FiiO's line-up, and with the introduction of their newer Android based DAPs, you can now get one brand new for not much more than the price of an X3iii – which makes this a very valid comparison.

Physically the X3iii is a little slimmer, a little narrower, and slightly longer than the X5ii – so you could say they are similar overall size. The X3iii does look more modern, and the wheel is an improvement over the mechanical wheel on the X5ii. In terms of hardware though, the X3iii gives up a lot of power, and the ability to have a larger collection (the X5ii has dual sdxc slots). You do gain the Bluetooth functionality and also the balanced output.

In terms of sound, they both have extremely similar tonality and I think I'd struggle to tell the two apart in a blind test. For speed and usability, the X5ii is the better implemented DAP, and also has the properly implemented replay gain. I guess this one comes down to what your overall use is. If Bluetooth and/or balanced operation is important to you, then the choice is simple. If you use neither, I'd probably suggest that you'll get more features and better user experience from the X5ii.

X3iii vs Cayin N3

The Cayin N3 is the new “darling” DAP from Cayin and is really making waves for its features and its sound quality – especially at this price point. The N3 is smaller physically, and both it and the X3iii are very well built. In terms of power (again referring to the specs), the N3 has slightly lower power output, but its near enough to be in the same ballpark (130 mW vs 160 mW into 32 ohms). The N3 has an AK4490EN DAC under the hood, so this gives it the ability to play all the formats the X3iii can cover, as well as DSD up to DSD256. The N3 also has Bluetooth, and it has about the same stability as the X3iii. Battery life (per specs) is around 12hr for the N3 vs 10hr for the X3iii.

The N3 is a lot faster – loading the library, scrolling, and general speed of use. Both units sound very good for the money (although I would say the N3 is the slightest bit smoother/flatter and the X3iii is the tiniest bit more vibrant/edgy), and general SQ is again good to above average for the price point with both DAPs. The UI is slightly easier to navigate with the X3iii's wheel, but I'm sure given time I'd get used to the N3's button layout.

Which leaves us again with features – and you could argue that the N3 has slightly more features for a lower price (slightly better implemented gapless, and has working replay-gain). At this stage the N3 looks to be the better overall buy.

VALUE

So how do I see the overall value of the X3iii? This is really a tough one, as if you look in isolation, FiiO have created a device that sounds really nice, and has some nice features. It just handles pretty poorly (slow). I guess I'm on the fence with this one – paired with the F9, its nice and light, easy to use (on cable controls), and if I just hit shuffle its a pretty good experience. But as soon as you go to delve deeper into the UI, things start to slow up and the lag gets noticed. For the features you're getting your moneys worth. For the lag though – it takes a lot of the gloss off the price. What doesn't help is the better options that are out there for similar money.

FIIO X3iii – SUMMARY

My thanks to FiiO for their support with my questions, for supplying the review sample, and for including me in their review rounds.

The X3iii is a very well presented DAP with good build which looks great and feels really nice in the hand. It has a pretty decent feature-set overall, which includes EQ, tagged and folder browsing, gapless (almost perfect) and even a search function. It has enough power for most portable headphones, and decent (although not stellar) battery life.

FiiO has added Bluetooth this time round, as well as a balanced output. The Bluetooth is well implemented (can be a bit slow though), and while I personally don't see much use in the balanced output, others may see things slightly differently.

Its major failing is in its overall speed – both in scanning (simply dreadful) and generally laggy UI.

If you don't mind the laggy behaviour, and simply want a very good sounding DAP for ~ USD200, then the X3iii fits the bill because it really sounds quite nice. But again – if that's what you're looking for, there are some better options out there. My recommendation would be to look at the Cayin N3, or older model FiiO X3ii or X5ii. Each are IMO simply a far better value proposition.

Its hard rating this one, because its actually a pretty good DAP. But the overall speed can't be overlooked, and I do think there are better options out there. Overall 3.5 stars from me. Fix the speed and introduce replay-gain, and you're heading closer to 5.


X3iii balanced with the B400	Great for Blues with the MS Pro

Did firmware update inscrease the speed and other problems?

Picture are default 1200 x 800 resolution - click to view larger images.

INTRODUCTION

I've stuck to a couple of rules since I first started reviewing and getting samples sent to me. The first was not to openly solicit review samples (it helps keep me at a distance from the manufacturer, so I'm less likely to show overly positive bias). The second rule works similarly – treat any sample as borrowed (unless I buy it – and I do buy the things I want to keep). Both rules have served me well so far.

What has been really nice is when a new company contacts me out of the blue, and asks if I'd like to review something. That was the case with Simgot Audio. I was contacted by Sabrina, and she asked if I'd be willing to take one of their new IEMs for a spin. It was the EN700 Pro, and I have to admit I was curious about the models I'd seen others reviewing – were they really as good as everyone was saying? I remember seeing the quite funky design and thinking to myself – could they actually be that comfortable? I'll try and answer some of these questions in the following review. Welcome to the Simgot Audio EN700 Pro – now lets take it for a spin.

ABOUT SIMGOT AUDIO

Simgot Audio is a Chinese earphone company first formed in 2015. Sabrina tells me that the company specialises in the design and manufacture of audio devices, and at present that seems to mainly encompass their EN700 series – standard, bass and pro versions.

In their own words : “Simgot is committed to provide music lovers with the most cost-effective and prestigious Hi-Fi headset products. Adhering to the best innovation, Simgot shows full respect for intellectual property and design, taking art designs, refined technology, superior listening comfort, impeccable service and product innovation as requirements and standards.”

They can be found at Facebook HERE, or their product range viewed at their website HERE. My time so far with Sabrina has been excellent - and they have been more than willing to answer my questions regarding their technology.

DISCLAIMER

The Simgot EN700 Pro that I’m reviewing today was provided to me gratis as a review sample. I have made it clear to Simgot that I still regard any product they send me as their sole property and available for return any time at their request. But I thank them for the ability to continue use of the EN700 Pro 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 Simgot themselves.

I have now had the EN700 Pro a little over 5 weeks. The retail price at time of review is USD 149.99, and will soon be available via Amazon, or purchased direct from their website.

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

I'm a 50 year old music lover. I don't say audiophile – I just love my music. Over the last couple of years, I have slowly changed from cheaper listening set-ups to my current set-up. I vary my listening from portables (mostly now from the FiiO X5iii, X7ii and iPhone SE) to my desk-top's set-up (PC > USB > iFi iDSD). My main full sized headphones at the time of writing are the Sennheiser HD800S, Sennheiser HD600 & HD630VB, MS Pro and AKG K553. Most of my portable listening is done with IEMs, and lately it has mainly been with the Jays q-Jays, Alclair Curve2, 64 Audio U10 and LZ Big Dipper. A full list of the gear I have owned (past and present – although needs updating) is listed in my Head-Fi profile.

I have very eclectic music tastes listening to a variety from classical/opera and jazz, to grunge and general rock. I listen to a lot of blues, jazz, folk music, classic rock, indie and alternative rock. I am particularly fond of female vocals. I generally tend toward cans that are relatively neutral/balanced, but I do have a fondness for clarity, and suspect I might have slight ‘treble-head’ preferences. I am not treble sensitive (at all), and in the past have really enjoyed headphones like the K701, SR325i, and of course the T1 and DT880. I have a specific sensitivity to the 2-3 kHz frequency area (most humans do) but my sensitivity is particularly strong, and I tend to like a relatively flat mid-range with slight elevation in the upper-mids around this area.

I have extensively tested myself (ABX) and I find aac256 or higher to be completely transparent. I do use exclusively red-book 16/44.1 if space is not an issue. All of my music is legally purchased (mostly CD – the rest FLAC purchased on-line). I tend to be sceptical about audiophile ‘claims’, don’t generally believe in burn-in, have never heard a difference with different cables (unless impedance related etc), and would rather test myself blind on perceived differences. I am not a ‘golden eared listener’. I suffer from mild tinnitus, and at 50, my hearing is less than perfect (it only extends to around 14 kHz nowadays). My usual listening level is around 65-75 dB.

For the purposes of this review - I used the Simgot EN700 Pro straight from the headphone-out socket of most of my portables. I did not generally further amp them (I did test them with my E17K, A5 and IMS HVA), 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 EN700 Pro, I have noticed no change to the overall sonic presentation (break-in), although I know that Simgot recommends it. Time spent now with the EN700 Pro would be easily 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 REVIEW

PACKAGING AND ACCESSORIES
The EN700 Pro in a rectangular retail box consisting of a printed outer sleeve over a box and lid. The retail sleeve is approx 130 x 200 x 47mm, charcoal grey, and has a graphic (in black) of the Simgot EN700 Pro on the front cover (along with Sony Hi-Res logo), and specifications + exploded diagram of the EN700 Pro on the rear.


Outer box	Inner box

The inner box has a textured black outer surface, and simply the words “Suzaku” and a graphic of the Suzaku or Vermilion bird on the top cover. Opening this reveals the EN700 Pro nestled safely in a foam holder, and also the included carry case. Underneath the top tray are further cut-outs, and this houses the included tip selection and manual.

The accessories include:

3 pairs of silicone tips (S/M/L) – bass enhanced
3 pairs of silicone tips (S/M/L) – mid/high enhanced
Leather storage case (large)
Cleaning tool (mine has been misplaced)
Maintenance and warranty manual.
1 x 3.5 mm single ended two pin earphone cable
Simgot EN700 Pro IEMs


Full package contents	Tuning tips

The storage case is 75 x 85 x 30mm (so reasonably big but still pocket-able). It is semi-rigid and consists of leather outer over a fabric lined inner. It is a rounded rectangular shape with a lift up flap, secured via a magnetic internal plate. It is engraved on the rear with the words “salute to art and science”. It gives reasonable protection for everyday use. The entire package is reasonable for this price point, although personally I'd also like to see at least some foam tips included

TECHNICAL SPECIFICATIONS
(From Simgot's packaging / website)

Model	Simgot EN700 Pro
Approx price	$150 USD
Type	Single Dynamic Driver IEM
Driver - Dynamic	10mm polymer composite titanium plated diaphragm
Freq Range	15Hz – 40 kHz
Impedance	16Ω
Sensitivity	101 dB (at 1 kHz)
Cable	1.35, replaceable 2 pin (0.78)
Jack	3.5mm gold plated straight
Weight	33g with default cable and tips
Casing material	Aluminium alloy and stainless steel

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.

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.

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.

My sonic impressions of the Simgot EN700 Pro – written well before I measured:

Bass performs well (sub and mid-bass), reaches low but is not over-emphasised. There is audible sub-bass rumble, so bass extension appears to be pretty good.
Lower mid-range does not sound recessed at all, and male vocals are well represented.
Upper mid-range is emphasised, and it is a definite colouration, but one I appreciate. Female vocals have a wonderful sense of euphony, and the bump gives very good clarity without losing overall tonality
Lower treble extension is good – but there appears to be some roll-off above about 7 kHz. Cymbal fundamentals are pretty good – but the decay is ever so slightly truncated (hardly noticeable in most tracks). It does contribute to a clean and clear sound though, and one that is thoroughly enjoyable.
Overall a well balanced earphone with an upper mid-emphasis
Channel matching is excellent

BUILD


External side of the shell	Internal side of the shell

The first time I saw the Simgot shape I can remember thinking to myself that it just kind of looked weird. Its not until you get them in your hand that you realise how good the design is. The EN700 Pro has an eliptical body which has a flat patterned external face and very smooth and rounded internal face. The body measures approx 22mm across and 16mm in height, with a depth of approx 12-13mm. According to Sabrina, the body is a mix of aluminium alloy and stainless steel. It is two piece, but the join is so well managed, it is practically seamless.


From the front	From the rear

The external face is flat with an attractive vertical ridged pattern and the word Simgot on each side (vertically on the cable exit). The internal face is beautifully finished with no sharp edges and is extremely comfortable. There is a single port adjacent to the nozzle and L/R markings (very clear) on each side.

The nozzle protrudes on a slight angle up from the main body (so it is forward when worn properly). It is 6-7mm in length, has a diameter of 5mm, is mesh covered for protection, and has a generous lip.


Y-split and cinch	3.5mm jack

At the top of each IEM is a 2 pin 0.78mm socket which sits flush with the EN700 Pro's body. The cable fits snugly and the connection is very sturdy. The cable is made up of 8 strands of 6N single-crystal copper with silver plating, and then coated with a flexible polymer coating. From the IEM to the Y-split, there are two twisted pairs, and below the Y split is a twisted quad. From the two pin male connector, there is a preformed wire loop which is flexible and quite comfortable, and also sits nicely (similar to FiiO's new F9). Because of the sturdiness and design, there is no need for strain relief. Simgot have also tested the cable (which is Kevlar fibre reinforced) to 400D on the Du Pont strain scale.

The y-split is a solid clear hardened rubber, and there is a well designed cinch above it. The Jack is 3.5mm, gold plated, straight, and features enough length to allow fitting to my iPhone SE with case intact. This would be one of the nicer cables I've come across aesthetically. Its lightweight, quite flexible, and only mildly microphonic (this disappears when using the cinch and some basic cable management). The cable is 1.3m in length although some of this is taken up by the preformed ear loops.

One minor point to note is that the cable wire (in my photos) is showing signs of greening (oxidation). It's just aesthetic – and Simgot have already recognised it as a fault, and corrected it for the retail releases. I will try to update the photos when the new cable arrives.


2 pin 0.78mm connectors	nicely braided cable

Internally the EN700 Pro utilises a 10mm polymer composite titanium plated diaphragm. This is coupled with an N50 ultra strong neodymium magnetic coil for precision. The EN700 Pro is certified high resolution (a frequency range from 15-40 kHz)

Probably the only thing I haven't mentioned yet (which I find quite endearing) is the red/blue shells. Normally the red would the right ear-piece (red = right) and blue would be left. With the EN700 Pro this is reversed.

As far as my impression of overall build and design goes – I can't really fault anything they have done.

FIT / COMFORT / ISOLATION

I'll start with the easy one (isolation), and we can then look at fit and comfort. Isolation is dependent on tip selection, and if you get a good seal, it is actually pretty good (about average for a vented dynamic IMO), but will not ultimately reach the high isolation of sealed BA IEMs. It would still be reasonably good for a busy street, or some forms of public transport though – although wouldn't be my personal choice for long haul flights.

Now we get to fit and comfort – and these thoughts are more subjective. As I said above, the EN700 Pro has an ergonomic body shape, with a good length of slightly angled nozzle, and for me personally they are extremely easy to fit – but the nozzle does give a relatively shallow in-ear fitting. They are designed for over-ear use. Anyone used to ergonomic over-ear designs should have no issues. They are extremely comfortable for everyday use.


Brilliant lip design means most tips fit easily	And the comfort is superrb

With the nice lip on the nozzle, I had no problem at all fitting practically any tip, and I have to also give Simgot kudos for the included tips. Normally I can't wear default single flange silicone tips – my wonky ear canals won't maintain a seal with a shallow fitting IEM. Simgot includes two types of tips – a thinner “mid/high” single flange and a more rigid “bass enhanced” tip. The “mid/high” tips wouldn't seal, so practically all the bass was gone. The “bass enhanced” tips sealed really well though.

I tried and had varying success with my usual go-tos, including large Comply, stretched Shure Olives, Spiral-dots, Sony Isolation, Ostry tuning tips and Spinfits. The beauty of the design is that practically everything worked, In the end though I actually stuck with the default tips giving the best mix of seal, clarity, and comfort.

The Simgot EN700 Pro sits nicely flush with my outer ear, and are comfortable to lie down with. I've slept with them often, and have no discomfort on waking. So the overall build and comfort is brilliant – how do they sound?

SOUND QUALITY

The following is what I hear from the Simgot EN700 Pro. 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 (single ended), no EQ, and default “bass” tips. I used the X7ii simply because it gives me a very transparent window to the music with low impedance, and more than enough power. There was no DSP engaged.

For the record – on most tracks, the volume level on the X7ii (AM3A amplifier module) was around 40-45/120 (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 – has really good extension and even at my low listening levels is audible, but there is no overly boosted emphasis and it sits extremely well within the overall frequency mix. There is some really good rumble to give presence which stops short of overshadowing vocals. I'm detecting no bleed into lower mid-range (masking of frequencies).
Mid-bass – pretty linear compared to sub-bass and slightly elevated (small mid-bass hump) compared to lower mid-range. It sounds quite natural but with good impact.
Lower mid-range – slightly recessed compared to bass and upper mid-range, but does not sound overly distant, and male vocal fundamentals have good strength.
Upper mid-range – elevated compared to lower mid-range, and there is a rise from 1 kHz to the main peak at 3 kHz. The result is a clean and clear vocal range, with extremely good overall cohesion and some real euphony for female vocals to sound sweet and elevated. This is probably the most coloured part of the entire frequency range – but especially for female vocal lovers, it is a colouration I really like.
Lower treble is sustained through to 7 kHz and then rolls off a little before picking up again in the upper treble. There is very good overall detail and clarity – but without too much etch or grain which some other IEMs overdo by trying too hard. Overall this area does not over-emphasise simply because the bass is so nicely balanced.

Resolution / Detail / Clarity

Really excellent overall clarity, and this was apparent on every track I tested. The dynamic driver Simgot is using is a really good one – and detail is brilliantly present without being too peaky or over-done.
Cymbal hits have very good clarity and overall presence, and really nice decay which doesn't seem to truncate at all, and its actually really nice to have such realism in a $150 IEM.
Overall I feel as though I'm hearing everything in the recording – and this is especially nice at my lower listening levels.

Sound-stage, Imaging

Directional queues are extremely good – very precise, and presentation of stage with the binaural track “Tundra” is definitely beyond the periphery of my head space – so really good sense of width and depth.
I've been using Netrebko and Garanca's rendition Lakme's “Flower Duet” to test staging depth lately. Its a live performance, and I've seen the video (it was after seeing it a few years ago that I immediately bought the album “the Opera Gala”). Toward the end of the track they retire to the rear of the stage and continue singing. The EN700 Pro captures it beautifully with a nicely spherically presented sound-stage – no issues with L/R dominance with this track. When the applause started at the end it was all around me too – enough to give me goose bumps. Brilliant!
Amanda Marshall's “Let it Rain” was my next track and it was again brilliant (very 3D like experience - the way the track was miked). There was the slightest hint of sibilance with Amanda's vocal – but again, its the way it is recorded – so not unexpected. What was good was that the sibilance wasn't enhanced, but the detail still shone through clearly.

Strengths

Overall tonal balance and clarity – while retaining a very smooth sonic presentation
very good sense of stage and imaging
Detailed at low listening levels
Reference sound with slight colouration or forwardness in upper mid-range area. Transition between lower and upper mid-range is extremely good.

Weaknesses

I'm really struggling to find one. This signature really does tick all my boxes. If anything – maybe a few dB off the first upper mid-range peak at 3 kHz, but that is really nitpicking.

AMPLIFICATION REQUIREMENTS

The Simgot EN700 Pro doesn’t need amplification for overall volume – and because its impedance isn't spectacularly low, any source with an output impedance of less than 2 ohms should pair OK. All of my sources are pretty low OI and I had no issues with tonality changes. I don't tend to notice hiss (older ears) – so no real issues for me with the EN700 Pro. However, I sweet talked my wife (she has practically perfect hearing still and can hear our cat walking on carpet), to test the X7ii and EN700 pro from the SE output. Even at close to max output there was no noticeable hiss – (no music playing of course!)

With my iPhone SE around 30% volume is more than enough with most tracks, and the new FiiOs are generally at around 45-50/120. I have tried the EN700 Pro with the E17K and also with my A5, but none of them seemed to be adding anything to my listening set-up other than some extra bulk.

RESPONSE TO EQ?

Why would you want to? I suppose that isn't a valid answer, so I played around with the X7ii's EQ dropping the 2-4 kHz sliders by 3 and 4 dB respectively. The change was actually pretty good, so I spent 10 minutes nulling, then later increasing, the bass. Each time the EN70 Pro reacted beautifully – further growing my respect for this IEM.

COMPARISON WITH OTHER IEMS

These comparisons were all done with the X7ii, (no EQ or DSP) – and volume matched using a calibrated SPL meter and fixed 1kHz test tone first. Choosing the comparisons, I wanted to firstly compare the EN700 Pro to a couple of the best performers in the sub $200 bracket (the MEE P1 and LZ-A4) and then look at other comparisons in higher brackets and see how it fared. So I ended up also comparing with the $250 Alclair Curve, and Rhapsodio's older ~$550 RTi1 single dynamic. Hopefully this gives enough insight to anyone interested in this IEM. Here are my very subjective personal thoughts:

Simgot EN700 Pro (~USD 150) vs MEE P1 (~USD 200)


Simgot EN700 and MEE P1	Frequency comparisons

Starting as usual with build quality – both IEMs are extremely well made with permanent materials, smoothed edges, and good quality replaceable cables. Both are extremely comfortable to wear. The P1 does come with the extra cable, but it also requires amplification from weaker sources, as it is quite difficult to drive for an IEM. Isolation on both is very similar.

Sonically, these are two similar sounding IEMs, with slightly different flavours. The EN700 does sound cleaner and clearer (the slightly lower bass and bump at 6-7 kHz), and also a little thinner. The P1 sounds fuller, but also more distant (vocals), and has a bit of very top end splashiness which the EN700 Pro avoids quite nicely.

For the last 12 months, the P1 has been firmly on my list as one of the benchmarks in the sub $200 bracket. Its definitely found its match with the EN700 Pro. For my preferences the 700 Pro has better overall tonality, clarity, and is cheaper to boot.

Simgot EN700 Pro (~USD 150) vs LZ-A4 (~USD 200)


Simgot EN700 and LZ-A4	Frequency comparisons

Overall build quality is once again excellent on both, and neither skimp on materials. Where the EN700 Pro has the LZ-A4 beat though is in ergonomics – it is simply very, very comfortable. With the right tips the LZ-A4 can be comfortable in its own right – but its not quite in the same ball park. Both have removable cables, but the Simgot cable is aesthetically a little nicer. The big advantage the LZ-A4 has or course is the tunable filters, and this can't be underestimated , as they really are implemented well.

Sonically the two (I used black/grey on the LZ-A4) are again very similar – probably more so than the P1. Both have an excellent and natural bass response, both are also extremely clear and clean (vivid is a word that springs to mind). The EN700 Pro is a little more forward in the upper mid-range, and overall is the brighter of the two earphones – but not excessively so. I love both earphones, and here the real choice is between the tuning capability of theLZ-A4 and the greater comfort, and default tonality of the EN700Pro at a considerably lower price. For my preference (if I had to choose) it would be the Simgot, but I would be happy with either. Both are brilliant.

Simgot EN700 Pro (~USD 150) vs Alclair Curve (~USD 250)


Simgot EN700 and Alclair Curve	Frequency comparisons

The Curve has been my one constant over the last two years. Its the IEM I will never sell, and for me is an unsung hero somewhat on the Head-Fi wilderness. It is a dual BA IEM with an extremely close to reference tuning.

Build quality is fantastic on both IEMs, and despite the EN700 Pro having a metal shell vs the polycarbonate compound on the Curve, both are great examples of how well an IEM can be made. Comfort and fit are also great on both, but in this case, the Curve slips slightly ahead with its slightly more ergonomic shape.

Sonically these two have similarities, but where the Curve is quite flat, the EN700 Pro is more v shaped with far more prominent mid-range and lower treble. Because of this, the EN700 Pro is a lot more vivid, and vibrant, with bass that has more impact, and a far greater sense of euphony with female vocals. But it is also undoubtedly more coloured, and this one again comes down to preference.

The EN700 Pro would never replace the Curve – it is simply a different earphone, but it makes a nice compliment at a very affordable price. It's also not embarrassed at all in this comparison.

Simgot EN700 Pro (~USD 150) vs Rhapsodio RT1i (~USD 550)


Simgot EN700 and Rhapsodio RT1i	Frequency comparisons

I chose this comparison simply because it pitted two very good single dynamic driver earphones against each other, regardless of price.

Build material choice is good on both, although for overall finish I thing the EN700 Pro actually looks a little better. The cable on the RTi1 is definitely a little more premium. Fit and comfort is extremely good on both.

Sonically I am reminded again for the P1 comparison. The RT1i is a more V shaped monitor with a definite upper-mid/lower treble peak centered at 5-6 kHz. The RT1i delivers a fun sound which I still very much enjoy, but there is some heat which comes with some definite sizzle (personally I prefer it EQ'd down a little), and vocals have a little more distance. The added bass make the RTi1 a little fuller, but also thicker and not as clean and clear. The EN700 Pro has less bass emphasis, but it seems more in line with the vocal presence, and the lack of the big peak makes a more coherent signature overall. For me – this is an easy one. The EN700P Pro gives a more vivid but also more balanced tonality for almost a quarter of the price.

VALUE

This is the big one for the Simgot EN700 Pro – it just represents incredible value. If I was auditioning this earphone without knowing the price, I'd honestly be expecting cost to be something in the $250-$300 range. When I first looked around and found it at $200, I told Sabrina then that it represented incredible value for what it delivered in tonality, build and overall package. When she told me it was intended for the RRP to be just $150 I was floored. If I had a wall of fame – this would easily go onto it.

SIMGOT EN700 PRO – SUMMARY

I've had an incredible amount of fun with these monitors, and would have had the review out a couple of weeks ago – but waited until the cable issues had been addressed. The good news is that it's given me the chance to put further time on them, and if anything my impression of them has strengthened (if that's possible).

The EN700 Pro combines excellent overall design with a good choice of permanent materials to deliver an IEM which not only looks aesthetically pleasing, but should also stand the test of time. Combine that with a good quality cable, extremely good fit and overall comfort, and you have half of a winning formula.

The second half of the formula is of course the tonality and sonic performance, and here once more the EN700 Pro continues to shine. What you get is a nice balance between bass, mids and highs, with a subtle bump in the upper-mids for a nicely coloured and euphonic monitor. Bass has good impact and extension, and this is equally matched at the other end with a detailed but non-fatiguing upper end.

The RRP at USD 150 belies the overall performance and I can thoroughly recommend these – especially for female vocal lovers. Are they 100% perfect – no. But they are pretty darn close, and at $150 I can't really give them anything but a perfect score.

I just want to close with thanking Sabrina for arranging the review sample. Simgot – I look forward to seeing what you come up with next!

Would need to know your personal preferences. Feel free to PM me - we can discuss

@Brooko

@Brooko
In your opinion, for POP music with female vocals like Demi Lovato, Rita Ora, Dua Lipa, Simgot EN700 Pro for $ 115 or B400 for $ 170, what would be the best sound at the best price? Thank you very much.

Personally I’d prefer the Simgot - it’s a little more dynamic with modern pop music.

Picture are default 1200 x 800 resolution - click to view larger images.

INTRODUCTION

Most of you will know my review style by now – and typically it has always been listen and measure, and then try to reconcile the two. I'm also a strong proponent of blind testing (where possible), volume matching properly when making comparisons, and trying to look as objectively as possible at a product when evaluating.

But very occasionally some of the methodology goes out the window – usually when I find something I can't measure (don't have the gear), and especially so when I find something I really like and can't explain why properly. So this is going to be one of those reviews – pretty much completely subjective. It'll be honest, and I'll try to dial back any superlatives or hype – as the two are things I try to stay away from.

Anyone who frequents Head-Fi will have probably have heard of Venture Electronics by now, and if you don't know the company name, you'll probably know some of their products – especially their ear-buds (Monk, Asura and Zen). I've reviewed all three in the past and came away more than impressed about how good an ear-bud could sound. Last year Lee approached me, and asked me if I'd be interested in reviewing a statement amplifier – showing what their capabilities really are. I agreed and took delivery of the VE Enterprise. There is quite a story which I'll come to in a minute – but lets first get an idea of who VE is.

ABOUT VENTURE ELECTRONICS (VE)

Venture Electronics (or VE) is a 6 year old audio company based in Shenyang, Liaoning in the Peoples Republic of China. I was able to ask Lee a little about the company, and he has been very open and approachable – something I love to see when dealing with a manufacturer. It really shows a lot about a company when they show pride in their own achievements, and are so open about sharing information with their customer base.

VE is relatively small (for now) with less than 10 employees, and had a small product line (Zen, Asura and Monk ear-buds, Duke IEM, Runabout portable amp). Over the last couple of years, they've branched out with cables and interconnects, and 3 statements amps – designed to show audio lovers what the company really can do. These include the VE Amp One (transistor), VE Amp Three (electrostatic), and the Enterprise Tube amp which I'm reviewing today.

I asked Lee about their core business, and he said they were primarily an internet based company. Their goal long term is “to have the best budget and hi-end gear”, and it was refreshing to see some frank and honest comments in reply to some of my inquiries. I’m going to quote one of Lee’s replies, because it really does add to my impression of VE as a company.

“We see our fans, not just as moving wallets. I see our budget gear (like the Monk) as a walking ad for our brand, among our online community (people who love earphones), because they mainly they love the ART the earphones can deliver, like gaming, movie, anime and stuff. We believe the Zen is the best ear-bud in the world, and as we can sell the monk for cheap then it might go viral and get more attention to the other products. We believe to be the best Hi-Fi company, we need to have the best of the best gears, not only budget ones. If we only do budget, people will have a false image of us not being serious enough, so the idea is very simple”

And to close, I asked Lee about VE’s mission statement or values statement, and the answer I received made perfect sense – “keeping it real”. As I’ve furthered my correspondence with him – I can reassure anyone reading that this is a value very much in evidence.

BREAKING NEWS

Lee just contacted me to advise that he and KK intend open sourcing the design of the amp - they want to share what they've done with the World. He says probably in a month or two (they are busy with other more pressing things at the moment. Anyway - given how good the Enterprise is, I think this is quite amazing news!

DISCLAIMER

The Enterprise tube amplifier I'm reviewing today is a loaner, and I'll have to return it to Lee. 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 VE themselves. I have now had the Enterprise for a year, and I sincerely apologise to Lee for the time taken. The retail price at time of review is USD 849, and can be purchased via Ali Express at VE's online store-front.

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

I'm a 50 year old music lover. I don't say audiophile – I just love my music. Over the last couple of years, I have slowly changed from cheaper listening set-ups to my current set-up. I vary my listening from portables (mostly now from the FiiO X7ii, X5iii, and iPhone SE) to my desk-top's set-up (PC > USB > iFi iDSD). My main full sized headphones at the time of writing are the Sennheiser HD800S, Sennheiser HD600 & HD630VB, MS Pro and AKG K553. Most of my portable listening is done with IEMs, and lately it has mainly been with the Jays q-Jays, Alclair Curve2, Big Dipper and 64Audio U10. A full list of most of the gear I have owned (past and present is listed in my Head-Fi profile – this needs an update, and is on my list of things to do).

I have very eclectic music tastes listening to a variety from classical/opera and jazz, to grunge and general rock. I listen to a lot of blues, jazz, folk music, classic rock, indie and alternative rock. I am particularly fond of female vocals. I generally tend toward cans that are relatively neutral/balanced, but I do have a fondness for clarity, and suspect I might have slight ‘treble-head’ preferences. I am not treble sensitive (at all), and in the past have really enjoyed headphones like the K701, SR325i, and of course the T1 and DT880. I have a specific sensitivity to the 2-3 kHz frequency area (most humans do) but my sensitivity is particularly strong, and I tend to like a relatively flat mid-range with slight elevation in the upper-mids around this area.

I have extensively tested myself (ABX) and I find aac256 or higher to be completely transparent. I do use exclusively red-book 16/44.1 if space is not an issue. All of my music is legally purchased (mostly CD – the rest FLAC purchased on-line). I tend to be sceptical about audiophile ‘claims’, don’t generally believe in burn-in, have never heard a difference with different cables, and would rather test myself blind on perceived differences. I am not a ‘golden eared listener’. I suffer from mild tinnitus, and at 50, my hearing is less than perfect (it only extends to around 14 kHz nowadays). My usual listening level is around 65-75 dB.

For the purposes of this review - I used the Enterprise in a number of different configurations (which I'll cover as we progress), and with a number of different headphones. The review has also been written in several different stages over the last 12 months, and this is the culmination of finally bringing things together. Time spent now with the Enterprise is in the 100's of 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

THE DELIVERY
I took some photos of the arrival – but its easier if I just go through the story – as the photos at the time were simple iPhone shots (from memory). Anyway – the courier arrived with a large package securely foam wrapped and also boxed in a pretty sturdy corrugated outer box. The first thing I noticed though was that the box was showing signs of wear, and when I picked it up, there were ominous audible rattling from inside. Uh-oh.

So I got it out – and everything looked fine from the outside. Plugged it in and turned it on – tubes lit up. Check the headphone socket – and no sound. Time to open the sucker up. Undid the top, and …… mess. The standards holding the tube tray were sheared off (it was amazing it was still lighting up), and one of the rear RCA inputs had a broken wire.

I contacted Lee, sent photos of the damage, and waited to see what he said. Anyone who knows Lee will know that under the sometimes gruff exterior, he's a guy with a heart of gold (which he sometimes shows for all to see). He can be fiery, and always passionate. After venting about the guy who packed it, and also the courier companies – he offered to get it returned and repaired (and post would be expensive as the amp is heavy!). I suggested instead that if he sent me replacement parts, I'd have a go at fixing it.

So despite not being the most electronically capable person, I received the parts, successfully repaired the tube tray, and soldered the RCA wire. Ever since, the Enterprise has run without a hitch – except for one very minor issue. When connected to a powered DAC, there can be a very low feedback (hum) – which I can only attribute to damage on delivery. The reason I surmise this is because VE are simply too good not to notice this for delivery, and also because if I use one of my DAPs (battery powered) as source, there is zero hum – just crystal clear, beautiful sound. My K5 with X7ii seems to be a bit of an exception though. Out of the other powered DACs, the hum is barely audible most of the time – but for critical listening for the review, I simply used the battery powered sources I have at my disposal (isolated from my PC's USB).

Why am I relating this? Because it gives you an idea of the service level VE has with there gear. There was never any questions regarding the damage, just concern for getting things right. And for anyone worried about possible damage with a future delivery of an Enterprise – don't be. I know Lee has addressed this particular problem – it shouldn't happen again.

There wont be a packaging section – so lets move on to specifications, build and design.

TECHNICAL SPECIFICATIONS

Model	VE Amp Two
Approx price	$849 USD (VE Store on Ali Express)
Type	Vacuum Tube Amplifier
Freq Range	20Hz – 20 kHz +/-0 0.5dB
Output Impedance	25Ω
Maximum Current Output	0.01A
Maximum Voltage Output	60V RMS
Max Power Output 32ohm	5mW RMS per channel
Max Power Output 300ohm	30mW RMS per channel
Max Power Output 600ohm	60mW RMS per channel
THD	<0.15% 20Hz-20kHz, 5V RMS
IMD	<0.22%, 5V RMS
SNR	>93dB 5V RMS unweighted, gain-21.6 dB
Crosstalk	>88dB, 20Hz-20kHZ
Gain	12 (21.6 dB)
Topology	CF+WCF
Power Supply	220V AC, 0.3A
Power Consumption	18W
Connectors - Input	2×RCA jack
Connectors - Output	2×RCA jack for Pre-out
Headphone Out	6.35mm Stereo
Dimensions	305 x 255 x 100mm
Weight	8.8Kg
Casing material	Steel

BUILD


Front LED	Headphone jack and volume pot

The VE Enterprise is a big amplifier. It's solid, heavy, and looks reassuringly clean and industrial. The prototype I have has a matt black front and rear plate, and steel sides, top and bottom. The steel is 3mm thick, and the whole unit is very well put together.

The front panel has a red “operating” LED at the front, a single 6.3mm headphone jack just right of centre, and the volume potentiometer at the right. The pot has extremely smooth tracking and runs from about 7 o'clock to 5 o'clock – so around 300 degrees of movement.[/SIZE=12px]


Side View	Tube array

The rear panel features two RCA inputs at the left, two RCA pre-outputs next to this, and a standard power socket at the far right (adjacent to this is an on/off switch and fuse).

The top plate is a plain sheet of steel with four cut-outs to house the vacuum tubes. Both sides are fully closed, as is the underside. The feet are circular with rubber rings for surface protection and damping.[/SIZE=12px]


Rear panel	RCA inputs and outputs

Internally, the Enterprise has (looking from the rear) two power transformers on the right hand side, and the tube tray and circuit board on the left. The circuit board and tube tray are mounted on metal standards. The topology for the amplifier is a WCF+CF arrangement. I'm afraid it doesn't mean much to me – but I have been able to ascertain that it is a full tube output. The WCF (white cathode follower) refers to the main output topology, and the CF (cathode follower) is an impedance conversion stage which transforms a high impedance circuit into a lower impedance signal.[/SIZE=12px]


Internal view from rear	And from side

This makes it less susceptible to interference, and can aid overall tonality (something to do with sine waves, synced oscillations and overtones). I'm afraid most of it was over my head – but I can tell you it sounds pretty amazingly good – whatever magic Lee and KK have managed to design.

The amp is powered by three Electro Harmonix 12AU7/ECC82 electron tubes, and one Electro Harmonix 12AT7 electron tube.[/SIZE=12px]


Tube tray and board	Top plate with tubes

Although I had a few issues with the initial delivery, in the time since the Enterprise has been rock solid, and never missed a beat.

POWER AND HEAT

The Enterprise will (understandably) heat up over time, but what surprised me was that despite the 4 tubes, it never got excessively hot. It gets slightly warm, but my LD MKIV was the warmer of the two amps when running for a few hours. Even after 3-4 hours, I can comfortably rest my hand on the top. The use of the steel and overall design to dissipate heat is pretty good.

So what about power? I have to confess when I first looked at the specs, I baulked and even had to ask Lee if he hadn't made a typo. But of course what I was forgetting was that this is a full tube output, and the key here is voltage and not current. Probably the easiest way of relating how the output translates in terms of real power is to use the HD800S and and SPL meter to give some real values.[/SIZE=12px]


Enterprise and HD600	Enterprise and T1

At the ear, with well recorded music (I was listening to a little Genesis at the time), and my HD800S, 8 o'clock was giving me 65dB (a comfortable listening level for me), 9 o'clock was in the 70-75 dB range, and 10-11 o'clock was hitting 90+ dB. Switching to Amber Rubarth's “Sessions from the 17th Ward” and around 9 o'clock on the pot was giving me my normal listening level. In all cases with the HD800S, I wouldn't be able to go over 12 o'clock on the pot (or even get near it), it would be just too loud. So the Enterprise is a power house for voltage hungry cans. The great thing about the pot was that there was plenty of room for fine tuning – it never felt restricted. I also couldn't detect channel imbalance – even at low listening levels. This pot is amazingly well implemented

So what about something a little easier to drive – maybe something which might not respond so well to voltage. For this I used the more efficient 32ohm 98 dB SPL Alessandro MS Pro. There wasn't a great deal of play on the plot (about 8 o'clock with modern music) was at a normal listening level – but the MS Pro sounded genuinely pleasant. The good thing about using the X7ii or any of the other FiiO DAPs as source for the Enterprise was that you can set the line-out to variable, and give yourself more play on the pot, and this worked well. Would I use the MS Pro with the Enterprise regularly? No – not really. The Enterprise doesn't manage to capture the same gains that it does with the HD800S – and the MS Pro (for me anyway) is there as an open portable.

I've also tried the Enterprise with my Beyer T1 and HD600S, and both cans shone with the Enterprise. It's simply a fantastic amp for higher impedance cans.

Which brings us to sound – how good is the Enterprise?

SOUND QUALITY

The following is what I hear from the VE Enterprise. 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 as source and the HD800S. There was no DSP engaged.

For the record – on most tracks, the volume level was calibrated to around 65-75 dB, so no more than 9 o'clock on the pot. Tracks used were across a variety of genres – and can be viewed in this list http://www.head-fi.org/a/brookos-test-tracks.

I choose not to comment on bass, mids, treble, and most definitely not sound-stage – simply because IMO when we are talking about an amp – they shouldn’t be discussed. An amp's job is to amplify 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. And IME an amp does not affect perceived sound-stage (unless there is DSP or cross-feed in play) – that is solely the realm of the transducers and the actual recording.

I can however comment on clarity, tonality, and on any perceived strengths or weaknesses, and to do this I simply used the K5 which is measurably one of the most linear (neutral) amps I have (capable of driving the HD00S) and then rapid swapped between the two. I volume matched using an SPL meter and calibrated test tones. Both amps used my X7ii as DAC.

Tonality
The first thing I noticed slipping backwards and forwards between the two was that the two sounded very, very similar. I was expecting the Enterprise to sound warmer, and it simply doesn't. To me that is a good thing. Lee and KK were aiming to build a very linear tube amp, and they have achieved that. Over time though, what I did notice was that despite the very similar tonality, there is an ever so slight softening of consonants in female vocals (Amanda Marshall's “Let It Rain” is a sibilant recording, and there wasn't the same harshness with the Enterprise+HD800S than the K5+HD800S). I'm guessing that this is simply the 2nd order harmonic distortion from the tubes, and although you could argue its not really Hi-Fi (adding distortion), I don't care – it simply sounds better to me with the Enterprise. This trait was repeated often (and especially in that upper mid-range / lower treble region) where vocals particularly just sounded a little more organic, more realistic – while with the K5 there was the faintest sheen. I have to stress though, the differences are very small, and the K5 is still a brilliant amp, especially considering its relative price range.

Clarity
Everything is portrayed that is in the recording, and I mean everything. This is not a syrupy, overly warm tube amp. I was particularly impressed by the resolution of micro details in the likes of Pink Floyd's “Money”, or the ability to hear Lofgren's bridge finger work on “Keith Don't Go”. The Enterprise has no problems keeping up with it's solid state counterparts, and resolution is definitely not an issue.

Strengths

Neutrality
Tonality
Resolution
Natural portrayal – particularly of vocals

Weaknesses

Sonically I can't find any – and the only weakness I really see with the Enterprise is that unfortunately its a big amp – and for me personally the size causes issue with my desktop set-up.

COMPARISON WITH OTHER AMPS

For this series of tests, I'm simply going to compare the Enterprise with my LD MKIV (now sold), Audio GD NFB-12, and iDSD. I'm going to keep this section relatively short because it is very subjective, and a lot of this was taken from notes over the past year.

Enterprise vs NFB-12
The NFB-12 was my first real desktop DAC/amp, and although my daughter now monopolises it in her own PC set-up, I still to this day find its rich tonality and copious power to be brilliant. As far as form factor goes, the NFB-12 is roughly quarter the size of the Enterprise and does include a pretty good DAC (dual Wolfson). The NFB-12 has easily enough power for cans up to 600 ohm, and equally was able to drive my passive speakers extremely well. But in direct comparison, the solid state NFB-12 is actually warmer than the full tube Enterprise, and I actually find the Enterprise overall a cleaner and clearer listening experience. Both are excellent amps – well built, and with very good tonality. But for my tastes, the Enterprise is the more resolving of the two and I prefer its overall sonic signature – especially with the HD800S.


Enterprise and HD800S	LD MKIV and HD800S

Enterprise vs Little Dot MKIV
The MKIV was my first desktop tube amp. It now lives in Australia with its new owner and if I hadn't had to sell it (to help pay for the HD800S), I'd still own and use it. Its another full tube (OTL) and much like the Enterprise, I found it to be quite linear, with enough tube warmth (and 2nd order harmonics) to make any higher impedance headphone shine. It didn't have quite the overall linearity in comparison with the Enterprise – being just a little on the warm side, but its advantage was in price, tube rolling options, and the smaller footprint. Overall I preferred the tonality off the Enterprise in direct comparison, but could easily live with both. I preferred the T1 with the LD, but the HD800S with the Enterprise.

Enterprise vs iFi iDSD
The iDSD is my current desktop amp. It has been the one constant in my set-up for the last 18 months, and to be honest I'm not intending changing it any time soon. It does have a DAC section as well so please take this comparison with a grain of salt. In terms of power output, both amps have the ability to power any and all of my headphones beyond listenable levels. The difference is that the iDSD will easily handle very low impedance loads with it's switchable amp modes, where the Enterprise is more limited. Both are very linear and very resolving, but once again the slightly warmer of the two is iDSD. I can lose my self in the music with both amps, and especially with the HD800S. In terms of overall sonics, I would hand it marginally to the Enterprise, because I've had more of those moments with it in the last 12 months where I've totally lost myself in the moment, and completely forgotten what I was doing. This may have contributed to the length of time I've taken with this review. The only other thing I can comment on is footprint. The iDSD is tiny – its the perfect desktop companion – so for my current needs its why I've stuck with it. The Enterprise is the amp that I will gravitate to when the kids eventually leave home, and I have the space for my own “den”. Two great amps – two different uses.

VE ENTERPRISE – SUMMARY

Firstly I do want to apologise to Lee for taking so long with this. He has been exceedingly patient, and I guess I've put this off for a while simply because its a difficult amp to review. I tend to like to shy away from the completely subjective, and yet with this review, that is all I could cover.

The Enterprise is an all tube output high voltage amplifier which has exceptional build quality, and an industrial (aesthetically) but very clean design. Sonically it has a very clean, linear tonality, with an extremely pleasing tonality which adds to the music rather than masking it.

Its a reasonably large and heavy amp, but would be perfect for a large shelf or rack system. Its one of the few pieces of audio gear I have absolutely fallen in love with but (at this time) won't be buying. My only issue (and it is a personal one) is the size. I have two teenagers, a house that feels too small at the best of times, and no dedicated listening area other than at my PC. If I could miniaturise this without affecting its sonic signature, I'd buy it tomorrow. Sadly for now I will have to bid it adieu, and send it back to Lee. But it is likely to be in my future at some stage when I have both more room and more time.

Lee and KK wanted to build a statement amp – something which showcased their design skills. They achieved it and more. Its the best tube amp I've heard (and that includes some of the Woo amps - admittedly under Meet conditions). It goes back in the box next week, and I will be counting days until I get the chance to reacquaint myself again. 5 star – and eventual end game for me.

Below are some of the other photos – click for larger images:

[/table

Pictures in tables are default 1200 x 800 resolution - click to view larger images.

INTRODUCTION

I love trying new technologies, and especially when they are coming from companies who are very innovative, and who have vast knowledge of the industry. My friend Alex (Twister6) talked to Unique Melody some time ago and mentioned my name to them. As many know, I don't solicit review samples (I prefer companies to approach me – it helps me personally remain more impartial), so it was somewhat of a welcome surprise to receive contact from Lawrence of UM as I'd always wanted to try their range (especially after hearing a UM Merlin prototype some time ago). Lawrence asked me if I'd like to review their new planar magnetic ME.1 IEM, so I immediately jumped at the chance. I was naturally curious to see how the planar tech translated into IEM form, and even more so after doing some research and learning how they'd been using acoustic filters to reduce pneumatic pressure (similar ideas to Apex and Adel tech in other brands).

ABOUT UNIQUE MELODY

Unique Melody originated with custom remoulding IEM shells back in 2008, and this business slowly grew as demand for higher quality portable audio started to rise. Through 2009 UM started designing their own earphones, and experimenting with their own driver configurations. Although the early days were predominantly the repair and reconfiguration of other brands stage monitors, the team at UE had a desire to produce similar high quality IEMs but with an audiophile targeted tuning. This led to the release of the highly lauded Merlin and Miracle IEMs. Since then the business has continued to grow, and UM is generally seen as being among the top tier of custom IEM producers.

Among their team are sound engineers, electrical engineers and audiologists, and combining this knowledge and expertise with state of the art technology and advanced equipment, has allowed UM to experiment and innovate further. Their motto is “let music inspire your soul”. I like that sort of idealism.

Unique Melody can be found on Facebook here, and on Twitter here
Their online store can be found here

DISCLAIMER

The UM ME.1 that I’m reviewing today was provided to as a review sample, and will be returned at the completion of the review. 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 UM themselves.

I have now had the ME.1 approximately 4 weeks. The retail price at time of review (for the universal version) is scheduled to be USD 769.

Edit 26 Sep - UM have invited me to hang onto the ME.1 for follow up questions and comparisons, so I genuinely thank them for this privilege. The UM.1 remains their property and available for return if/when they so require it.

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

I'm a 50 year old music lover. I don't say audiophile – I just love my music. Over the last couple of years, I have slowly changed from cheaper listening set-ups to my current set-up. I vary my listening from portables (mostly now from the FiiO X5iii, X7ii and iPhone SE) to my desk-top's set-up (PC > USB > iFi iDSD). My main full sized headphones at the time of writing are the Sennheiser HD800S, Sennheiser HD600 & HD630VB, MS Pro and AKG K553. Most of my portable listening is done with IEMs, and lately it has mainly been with the Jays q-Jays, Alclair Curve2, 64 Audio U10 and LZ Big Dipper. A full list of the gear I have owned (past and present – although needs updating) is listed in my Head-Fi profile.

I have very eclectic music tastes listening to a variety from classical/opera and jazz, to grunge and general rock. I listen to a lot of blues, jazz, folk music, classic rock, indie and alternative rock. I am particularly fond of female vocals. I generally tend toward cans that are relatively neutral/balanced, but I do have a fondness for clarity, and suspect I might have slight ‘treble-head’ preferences. I am not treble sensitive (at all), and in the past have really enjoyed headphones like the K701, SR325i, and of course the T1 and DT880. I have a specific sensitivity to the 2-3 kHz frequency area (most humans do) but my sensitivity is particularly strong, and I tend to like a relatively flat mid-range with slight elevation in the upper-mids around this area.

I have extensively tested myself (ABX) and I find aac256 or higher to be completely transparent. I do use exclusively red-book 16/44.1 if space is not an issue. All of my music is legally purchased (mostly CD – the rest FLAC purchased on-line). I tend to be sceptical about audiophile ‘claims’, don’t generally believe in burn-in, have never heard a difference with different cables (unless impedance related etc), and would rather test myself blind on perceived differences. I am not a ‘golden eared listener’. I suffer from mild tinnitus, and at 50, my hearing is less than perfect (it only extends to around 14 kHz nowadays). My usual listening level is around 65-75 dB.

For the purposes of this review - I used the UM ME.1 both amped and straight from the headphone-out socket of most of my portables. In the time I have spent with the UM ME.1, I have noticed no change to the overall sonic presentation (break-in), Time spent now with the ME.1 would be easily 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 REVIEW

PACKAGING AND ACCESSORIES


Outer sleeve	Inner wooden box	Under the lid

The UM ME.1 arrived in a large box consisting of a simple black outer sleeve over a wooden hinged lid box. The box is approximately 215 x 145 x 80mm and simply adorned with with the UM logo. Inside is two tier foam encased compartments holding the ME.1, and included accessories.

The accessories include:

3 pairs of foam tips (S/M/L)
4 pairs of silicone tips (VS/S/M/L)
Rubber storage case (large)
Padded “soft” carry case (large)
Cleaning tool
3.5-6.3mm adaptor
Airline adaptor
cleaning cloth
Warranty card and frequency response chart
1.2m two pin (0.78mm) earphone cable
Unique ME.1 IEMs


Contents of the box	All the accessories	The Unique Melody ME.1

The storage case is a little over 100mm in diameter and 40mm in height, but has quite a neat cable tidy and should provide reasonable protection. It's not pocketable though. The soft carry case is zippered with many compartments, and while it won't provide maximum protection for your ME.1, it is a good size as a carry case (loose trouser or jacket as opposed to jeans).

TECHNICAL SPECIFICATIONS

Model	Unique Melody ME.1
Approx price	$769 USD for the universal version
Type	Planar magnetic IEM
Driver	18.5 mm
Magnet	Neodymium, 2 layer, high strength
Impedance	23.1Ω
Sensitivity	109 dB (at 1 kHz)
Cable	1.2, replaceable 2 pin (0.78)
Jack	3.5mm gold plated straight
Weight	54g with cable and tips, 18g earpieces only
Casing material	Acrylic

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.

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 used the included foam tips (so medium bore opening) - and the reason I use foam instead of silicone is for the 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.


ME.1 freq and channel matching	UM's ME.1 graph	ME.1 and C.A. Jupiter

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. I've also included a scan of UM's measurement for this IEM and I'm quite pleased that my measurements are very consistent with theirs for this pair.

My sonic impressions of the Unique Melody ME.1 – written well before I measured:

Bass appears quite flat, is very quick and well articulated, but missing impact. It is not an overly warm tonality.
Lower mid-range is prominent – no signs of recession.
Upper mid-range seems a little off for my particular tastes – just a little strident (my hearing is very sensitive in this area). Last time I heard something like this was when there was an early rise in the fundamentals followed by a gap soon after. To me this results in an over abundance of fundamentals and a bit of a lack of harmonics. Some people may very well like this presentation, but I find it a bit dissonant. For anyone wanting to know which earphone it reminds me of – its the Campfire Jupiter.
Lower treble extension is good – there is enough here to clearly and cleanly articulate cymbals, while at the same time remain short of enhancing sibilance.
Overall a lean signature with a bump in the mid-range, but suffers a bit (IMO) with the transition between lower and upper mid-range.
Channel matching on the whole is very good.

BUILD


ME.1 external plate	ME.1 internal moulding (rear)	ME.1 internal moulding (top)

The ME.1 is quite an attractive earphone, and the first thing I thought upon seeing them was the fusion of traditional custom IEM (internal face) with a mini Audeze LCD headphone exterior. Clearly a lot of thought has gone into the design, and I applaud Unique Melody for what they've come up with. Compared to the iSine, this is a much more attractive design – and the fit is impeccable.

The external outer face is flat, circular, 23mm in diameter and has an alloy grill with damping behind it. This then sits on a much more standard shaped internal IEM body made of 3D printed acrylic, with a fine polish and gloss finish. The internal side is beautifully rounded and moulds brilliantly to my ear. The body is approximately 23mm across, 17mm high and about 17-18mm deep (from the back of the plate).

On the edge of the plate on both ear pieces is “Unique Melody” and “ME.1”. Both earpieces also have a left and right indicator on the internal side. The nozzle is very slightly angled forward and up, and for me is a perfect fit. The nozzle extends about 7mm from the main body, and has a diameter of 6mm. There is no lip, just a bit of knurling to aid grip. There is also no mesh – just an internal coil.


ME.1 (front) note acoustic ports	ME.1 (rear) side	ME.1 connectors

Forward of the nozzle and adjacent to the plate is a 4mm acoustic port which houses an acoustic damping feature with a result similar to 64 Audio's Apex technology. It has been designed to release acoustic pressure, and allow listening at far lower levels without losing any of the details. I'm quite impressed by this. Anyone who follows me will know about my permanent tinnitus, and I've been particularly interested in both the Adel and Apex technology. Both have worked well for me, and I find earphones with this tech seem to encourage me to listen at lower levels. The ME.1 is no exception, and I've been getting fantastic results from volumes mostly in the 60-70 dB range.

At the top of the outer plate is a housed and protruding 2-pin socket (0.78mm). The connectors on the cable fit snugly over this socket and the resultant fit is incredibly stable. The connectors are enclosed in a hard plastic/rubber compound housing – which in turn extends to formable ear guides. These are easily shaped to your personal anatomy and the angled connectors help with a low and streamlined profile.


ME.1 y-split and cinch	ME.1 3.5mm jack	ME.1 gorgeous cable

The cable is gorgeous, very flexible, and has no memory issues. It consists of 8 single crystal copper wires formed into 2 sets of twisted pairs (each side above the Y-split), and joined to a common 4 x twisted pair cable for the main cable. The Y-split is a metal alloy tube with matching cinch, is heavy enough to keep the cable nicely in place when worn, but light enough not to create discomfort. The Jack is 3.5mm, gold plated, straight, and features enough length to allow fitting to my iPhone SE with case intact. This would be one of the nicest cables I've come across aesthetically. I'd love this for some of my other IEMs.

As far as my impression of overall build and design goes – I can't really fault anything they have done. This is as close to perfect as you can get (my one preferred change would be a lip on the nozzle).

FIT / COMFORT / ISOLATION

I'll start with the easy one (isolation), and we can then look at fit and comfort. Isolation is usually dependent on tip selection, and seal, but in this case the ME.1 is essentially a semi-open IEM. My wife and daughter both have incredible hearing (my wife is in her late 40's and can still here our small cat walking on carpet!). She helped me test and in a quiet room with the ME.1 playing at about 72-3 dB average, it was inaudible from more than 2-3 feet away, and only slightly audible until she got to within a foot. Playing at my normal levels, the great thing is that I can still hear (faintly) my surrounds – which makes them an ideal IEM for use at work. You won't be using these in a high noise environment though.

Now we get to fit and comfort, and as I mentioned earlier, the ME.1 has one of the most ergonomic body shapes I've come across. For me personally they are extremely easy to fit – but the nozzle does give a relatively shallow in-ear fitting. I also found it easier to get a stable fit by carefully moulding the formable over-ear guides properly so that they lock the IEM in place.


Lipless nozzle	Tips which fit, and don't fit	Comfort is superb

Unfortunately the lipless nozzle limited my tip choices. The supplied foams fit well, and Comply 400 series were perfect fitting too. Spinfits stayed on the nozzle nicely, but I was unable to use Spiral Dots, Ostry tips, and even my Sony Isolation tips. I found a pair of silicone dual flanges which fit pretty well, but tended to lighten the bass impact. In the end I've gone with the default foams and these have given me the best combination of seal and comfort.

The ME.1 sits almost flush with my outer ear, and would be comfortable to lie down with, but of course doing that blocks the grill and alters the sound. And speaking of sound – how do these perform sonically? Lets find out.

SOUND QUALITY

The following is what I hear from the Unique melody ME.1. 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 PC using Jriver Media Center with the iFi iDSD as DAC and amp. I used no EQ for this section, and the stock foam tips I mentioned earlier. I used this set-up mainly so I could talk more about EQ in the section following this. There was no DSP engaged.

I used my normal listening level of 65-75 dB (measured with my trusty SPL meter). 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 – has very good extension and at my low listening levels is definitely audible, but its polite or even recessed compared to the vocals. There is a slight rumble present, but its limited.
Mid-bass – very linear compared to sub-bass with virtually no mid-bass hump. It is very quick, and very well defined, but lacks any real impact. I really like the speed and definition, but I guess my personal preference leans toward a small mid-bass hump.
Lower mid-range – very linear up to about 500-600 Hz then starts to slightly elevate. Renders male and female vocals equally well, but the peak between 1-2kHz is quite forward. The only real issue I have is the drop in the upper mid-range which leaves vocals sounding a little strident.
Upper mid-range – there is a big drop from the peak at 1-2 kHz down almost 10 dB to a trough at 3 kHz. This normally wouldn't be a big issue if it was another frequency – but this is exactly where the harmonics for the mid-range live. Combine that with the early peak, and (for me anyway) it is a recipe for quite a strident and hard edge- especially for female vocals. Others may not have the same sensitivity to this area that I have – but this is one area I find to be deficient in the overall signature.
Lower treble is sustained quite well with very good overall detail and clarity – but without too much etch or grain which some other IEMs overdo by trying too hard.

Resolution / Detail / Clarity

Really excellent overall clarity, and this was apparent on every track I tested. I don't know if it is the planar technology but everything sounds extremely clean and clear. This is particularly apparent when listening to the bridge work on tracks like Lofgren's “Keith Don't Go”. One of the nicest things about the ME.1.
Cymbal hits have excellent clarity and overall presence, and beautiful decay with no truncation.
Overall I feel as though I'm hearing everything in the recording – and this is especially nice at my lower listening levels.

Sound-stage, Imaging

Directional queues are very good – precise and clean, and presentation of perceived stage with the binaural track “Tundra” is definitely beyond the periphery of my head space. A really genuine sense of width and depth.
I often use the applause from a live version of Loreena McKennitt's “Dante's Prayer” to give me a sense of rendering perceived width vs depth. The ME.1 actually coped with this pretty well, and the sense of stage is nicely spherical (which is often rare in most IEMs). I played this a number of times because despite the sense of width and depth, I was left feeling that the rendition of the applause was quite flat and a bit lifeless. I then used my EQ (which we'll discuss shortly) and all of a sudden the audience sprang to life.
Amanda Marshall's “Let it Rain” is always my final track to test spatial presentation (its usually a very 3D like experience - the way the track was miked). For me the magic didn't really start happening (again) until I I increased the harmonics. This may be just my preference for colour in the 3 kHz area – but its interesting to note. The other thing to note is that this particular track is recorded with a reasonable level of sibilance in it. The ME.1 copes with this marvellously. Its still present, but not over emphasised). Nice stuff.

Strengths

Clarity, speed and rendering of detail.
A very good sense of stage and imaging with a genuinely open sound
Great detail at lower listening levels
Not far away from a reference sound and easy to achieve with EQ.

Weaknesses

Both sub and mid-bass are quite linear, and could do with a little lift for a more natural tonality.
3 kHz hole (for me) removes a lot of harmonics, and leaves the mid-range just a little sharp, or strident (without the harmonics to sweeten things).

AMPLIFICATION REQUIREMENTS

This was an interesting topic, because the lowish impedance combined with high sensitivity means you can get to a very listenable level quite easily. On my iPhone SE around 40% volume was giving me more than enough volume. But consistently when I applied EQ and applied a more powerful source, the impression I got was that there was almost more life to the music. This could be just placebo on my part, but I was volume matching carefully.


Variety of sources	And also amps

Anyway – adding extra amplification definitely won't hurt, and I'd be interested to hear from others if they perceive any advantages from amplification. You don't need it for volume in this case, and I don't know enough about planars to understand if the technology reacts to better power inputs. What I found was that my X5iii and X7ii more than handled the ME.1 without additional power being required. My iPhone seemed to lift with the use of the A5 or Q1ii, and I also played around with the E17K using a combo of its tone controls plus some targeted EQ from the Equaliser app.

RESPONSE TO EQ?

The part I was looking forward to. The ME.1 does so many things incredibly well, but for my personal tastes (and I listen to a lot of female vocals), the lack or harmonics in the upper mid-range was causing me some issues. So using J.River's simple 10 band equaliser, I devised a very basic EQ to add a small mid-bass hump, drop the fundamental mid-range back a bit to a more traditional slight recession, and add some harmonic emphasis to the 3kHz and 6kHz areas.

This solved basically all my issues with overall tonality, and once I had it worked out, it wasn't hard to transfer a similar curve to my portable devices. My EQ may not suit everyone, but I'd encourage anyone having an issue to consider playing around (especially with the mid-range) as it makes a heck of a difference. After I'd made the changes, I went back and repeated my normal listening tests, and if this was the default tuning I'd genuinely be considering what I'd have to sell to buy a pair. I've been using this EQ at work for the last week, and it is perfect.

COMPARISON WITH OTHER IEMS

This was going to be an impossible task for me, simply because the default tonality does not gel with my particular preferences. Normally I would compare default on default – but that would not really be fair given my issues with the tonality. So for this exercise I chose to compare the ME.1 to the other IEMs listed below – but with each EQ'd to my particular preferences. Because I had the EQ dialed in using PC > Jriver > iDSD > ME.1, I stayed with that combo. For the comparison IEMs I simply used the X7ii once volume matched.

Its hard to compare something so different in tech, and I've recently traded my U6, so for the comparisons I went with the $250 Alclair Curve (one of my favourite reference IEMs), Rhapsodio's older ~$550 RTi1 single dynamic, HiFiMan's ~$699 RE800, Fidue's ~899 Sirius, and 64 Audio's U10. When looking at the graphs, rather than matching at 1 kHz, I've tried to instead match roughly the lower mid-range, as there was a lot of discrepancy otherwise (some very different tunings in there).

Unique Melody MEE.1 (~USD 769) vs Alclair Curve (~USD 249)


ME.1 vs Alclair Curve	Frequency comparison

Starting as usual with build quality – both are built really well with virtually no imperfections. The ME.1 is a lot larger, and thus appears more solid – but the Curve has had a lot of use over the last couple of years, and still looks practically new. Fit goes to the Curve, but both are brilliantly ergonomic and very comfortable. Cable quality goes to the ME.1 – it really is extremely good. Isolation goes to the Curve, but in turn width of perceived sound-stage goes to the ME.1.

Sonically ME.1 (with EQ) vs Curve (no EQ).
Even with EQ, the Curve has a more natural sounding bass response. Both have great speed, but there is more rumble with the un-EQ'd Curve. The Curve is a little leaner, but the ME.1 has a richer tonality with this EQ being applied. In terms of perceived sound-stage, it is a lot better on the ME.1, and it shows as one of its strengths. Both have good treble extension. The ME.1 is also quite effortless in its delivery of clarity. If I was picking based on the EQ adjusted ME.1's sound and discarding the price differential, I'd prefer the ME.1. If I was just considering the default, it would be the Curve all the way.

Unique Melody MEE.1 (~USD 769) vs Rhapsodio RTi1 (~USD 550)


ME.1 vs Rhapsodio RTi1	Frequency comparison

The RTi1 is a single dynamic driver which has hovered in price between $550-$800, so its definitely in the same ball park. In terms of actual build quality, the two are evenly matched, but the ME.1 has the more professional looking finish. Both have quality cables, and very good ergonomic fits. One again the RTi1 wins on isolation, but the ME.1 conquers for sound-stage.

Sonically ME.1 (with EQ) vs RTi1 (with 6 kHz spike reduced via EQ)
This is definitely a contrast, with the RTi1 being the quite bassy V shaped sound, and the ME.1 the much more balanced sounding. Again I'm amazed (each time I swap) at how much cleaner and clearer the ME.1 sounds, and I can see why this technology is likely to be come more popular. The RTi1 has a really nice mid-range (especially after removing the 6 kHz spike) but it almost sounds distant or hazy in direct comparison to the ME.1. As both are EQ'd to get to their best, the choice is easier this time – for me the ME.1 just does so much right.

Unique Melody ME.1 (~USD 769) vs HiFiMan RE800 (~USD 699)


ME.1 vs HiFiMan RE800	Frequency comparison

Next we come to an IEM I actually really like and one which is very close to the ME.1 in price. The RE800 is well built, and the official version will be released with replaceable cables which will aid the build quality further. Speaking of build quality, both are very good, but the ME.1 has the better overall quality (less likely to fail IMO) – its simply more robust. The ME.1 also wins on cable quality. Comfort goes to the RE800 and that is simply because they are so small they disappear when worn. Isolation again goes to the RE800 and the ME.1 has the more spacious sound.

Sonically ME.1 (with EQ) vs RE800 (with 7 kHz spike reduced via EQ)
This is a much closer comparison, with bass being similar after EQ (although the dynamic driver in the RE800 has more impact), and both now having a very coherent mid-range and detailed lower treble. Both this time are crystal clear, and its quite hard to pick a preference as both have their really good points. Ultimately this one comes down to preference (both under EQ). For default tuning on both though – I'd go with RE800.

Unique Melody ME.1 (~USD 769) vs Fidue Sirius (~USD 899)


ME.1 vs Fidue Sirius	Frequency comparison

The Sirius is a 5 driver hybrid which could be described as crystal clear with an extremely mid-forward but also sweet and coherent mid-range. In terms of build, its a definite tie – both are flagship quality. The ME.1 has the edge on comfort, and once again isolation goes to the Sirius and overall stage to the ME.1 (although the sense of stage is a bit better with the Sirius.

Sonically ME.1 (with EQ) vs Sirius (default tuning)
Its amazing how close these actually sound after my EQ of the ME.1. This time, the ME.1's EQ'd bass sounds a little fuller (although again the Sirius has the better sense of impact from the dynamic driver), and the mid-range sounds a little more distant than the Sirius. But that is really due to the Sirius' very forward mid-range and upper-mid emphasis. Going back and forth I'm actually now hearing how coloured the Sirius is in comparison. The ME.1 does sound more natural. Both are crystal clear. Whilst I really like the Fidue's colour (especially with female vocals), the EQ'd ME.1 is just more balanced and natural sounding. Again though – if EQ wasn't an option – then my preference would definitely be with the Sirius.

Unique Melody ME.1 (~USD 769) vs 64 Audio U10 (~USD 1300)


ME.1 vs 64Audio U10	Frequency comparison

Some may see this one as a little unfair given the price difference, and I would normally have used the U6 (but its now with its new owner). I had to include this one though as the U10 has the ADEL tech, and there are a lot of similarities between the two earphones. In terms of build, the ME.1 has the better overall materials and far better default cable (I'm using a balanced one from FiiO for the time being on the U10). The ME.1 is a little more comfortable, but the U10 stays in my ear better and is a lot lighter. In terms of isolation, the U10 is a little better, but this time the sense of stage is similar. The U10 also gives the opportunity for tunability with the different modules.

Sonically ME.1 (with EQ) vs U10 + G1 module (default tuning)
These two are really close in overall tonality, with the U10 having more bass presence and a little more warmth. Both are crystal clear, and I'm sure now its not only the planar driver – it has to also be the acoustic filtering helping (because the U10 has the same gorgeous sense of clarity and definition). Both can also be used at very low volumes and they sound fantastic. Ultimately though I don't need EQ on the U10 whilst I do on the ME.1, and for my tastes the U10 triumphs. More expensive to be sure, but if money wasn't an object I'd be choosing the U10. This does say a lot about the ME.1 though as its not overshadowed at all in this comparison.

VALUE

Always a tough one to call, and especially when the tuning doesn't really gel with my preferences. But looking at the overall package, and taking into account the fantastic build quality, the clarity of tone, and the response to EQ, I'd suggest that the ME.1 is not overpriced at its RRP. I just wish it had a different default tuning, as I'd even be tempted at its price point if the tuning was more to my taste.

UNIQUE MELODY – SUMMARY

I'll have to return these soon, and I'll be genuinely sad to see them go. Lawrence and his team at Unique Melody has come up with an impressive overall package, and its really impressive that they have been able to fit this technology into the ME.1's relatively small earpieces (compared to other planars).

The ME.1 has stellar build quality, well chosen accessories, and fantastic overall fit and comfort. The clarity and sense of space (perceived sound-stage and imaging) is up there with the best I've heard. The only issue I personally have is that I don't like the default signature. I'm afraid the combination of early mid-range bump along with drop in harmonics soon after leaves me with a strident tonality, and I find it quiet dissonant. The tuning is somewhat similar to Campfire Audio's Jupiter in that respect. If you are willing to EQ though, the ME.1 (for my tastes anyway) can be tuned to be a real pearl.

As little as a year ago, I would probably have panned the tuning (I know I did with the Jupiter, and have regretted it since). The tuning is simply not for me, and I would urge others to maybe experiment with their own IEMs to mimic the ME.1 curve before committing – or even better, try them first if you can.

If the tuning was to my taste, I'd be giving the ME.1 a perfect score (they really are that good). I can give them a 4/5 because of the response to EQ and the overall performance.

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

Picture are default 1200 x 800 resolution - click (photos in tables) to view larger images.

INTRODUCTION

One of my first introductions to FiiO (from a DAP perspective) was the original X1. At the time I was looking for an affordable portable player which I could use on-the-go and also around home (pairing an appropriate amplifier for full sized cans). When it was first released, the firmware was a work in progress. It took FiiO a while to get it right, but eventually what we got was a fully featured pocketable audio player with very good SQ, and some killer features including true gapless and also replay gain. The only negative (for em anyway) was the mechanical control wheel. Mine had become loose over time (a testament to how often I used it), and now navigation with it is decidedly challenging (it jitters all over the place – no accuracy in selection). Enter FiiO's upgrade – the new X1 2nd generation (or X1ii). Could FiiO improve on what was to me the best sub $100 DAP being offered? Read on for my impressions.

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 X1 2nd generation (from this point known as the X1ii) was provided to me gratis as a review sample. I have made it clear to FiiO in the past that I did regard any product they sent me as their sole property and available for return any time at their request. I have continued to use a lot of their gear for follow up reviews, but also for everyday use. I had previously purchased a lot of FiiO products and inquired if I could purchase other review samples a while ago from FiiO (for personal use). They have insisted I keep any further sample products for for my own use. So I acknowledge now that the X1ii I have is supplied and gifted completely free of any charge or obligation. I thank FiiO for their generosity.

I have now had the X1ii for around 9-10 months. The retail price at time of review is ~ USD 95-100. The reason I have waited to review this item is for eventual firmware maturity.

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

I'm a 50 year old music lover. I don't say audiophile – I just love my music. Over the last couple of years, I have slowly changed from cheaper listening set-ups to my current set-up. I vary my listening from portables (mostly now from the FiiO X5iii, X7ii and iPhone SE) to my desk-top's set-up (PC > USB > iFi iDSD). My main full sized headphones at the time of writing are the Sennheiser HD800S, Sennheiser HD600 & HD630VB, and AKG K553. Most of my portable listening is done with IEMs, and it has mainly been with my own personally owned IEMs - the Jays q-Jays, Alclair Curve2 and LZ Big Dipper. A full list of the gear I have owned (past and present) is listed in my Head-Fi profile (note to self - it does need updating).

I have very eclectic music tastes listening to a variety from classical/opera and jazz, to grunge and general rock. I listen to a lot of blues, jazz, folk music, classic rock, indie and alternative rock. I am particularly fond of female vocals. I generally tend toward cans that are relatively neutral/balanced, but I do have a fondness for clarity, and suspect I might have slight ‘treble-head’ preferences. I am not overly treble sensitive, and in the past have really enjoyed headphones like the K701, SR325i, and of course the T1 and DT880. I have a specific sensitivity to the 2-3 kHz frequency area (most humans do) but my sensitivity is particularly strong, and I tend to like a relatively flat mid-range with slight elevation in the upper-mids around this area.

I have extensively tested myself (ABX) and I find aac256 or higher to be completely transparent. I do use exclusively red-book 16/44.1 if space is not an issue. All of my music is legally purchased (mostly CD – the rest FLAC purchased on-line). I tend to be skeptical about audiophile ‘claims’, don’t generally believe in burn-in, have never heard a difference with different cables (unless it was volume or impedance related), and would rather test myself blind on perceived differences. I am not a ‘golden eared listener’. I suffer from mild tinnitus, and at 50, my hearing is less than perfect (it only extends to around 14 kHz nowadays). My usual listening level is around 65-75 dB.

For the purposes of this review - I've used the X1ii and tested most of the functions I am able to. I have prior experience with entry level Sony's (very early models), then step-ups to the Cowon iAudio7, iPhone4, iPod Touch G4, iPhone 5S, HSA Studio V3, FiiO X5, X1, X3ii, X5ii, X7, X1ii, X7ii, X3iii, iPhone SE, Cayin i5, and the L&P LP5, L5 Pro, and L3.

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 PERSONALLY LOOK FOR IN A DAP

I thought I’d list (before I start with the review) what I really look for in a new DAP.

Clean, neutral signature – but with body (not thin)
Good build quality
Reasonable battery life – at least 8-10 hours
Easy to use interface
Able to drive both low impedance and (within reason) higher impedance cans without additional amping.
Value for money
Enough storage to hold either my favourite albums in red-book, or my whole library in a reasonably high resolution lossy format (for me – aac256)
Gapless playback
Reasonable EQ
Bluetooth/Wireless if available

Did I get all of this with the X1ii, and more importantly was the X1ii an improvement on the X1 original? Well lets just say mostly on the features, but not entirely on the improvement, and although I hope that some of the remaining shortcomings with the firmware might still be improved over time, I have my personal reservations on how much can still be achieved.

THE REVIEW

PACKAGING AND ACCESSORIES

The X1ii arrived in a fully printed white retail box measuring approx 95 x 165 x 40mm. The front has a full colour photo of the X1ii and the rear has a list of the main features (in both English and Chinese). Inside the outer retail jacket is a white rigid box and lid simply adorned with the word “FiiO”. Removing the lid gives us our first look at the X1ii. Under this is another compartment which is home to the accessories.


Retail box	Inner box	Full accessory package

The total accessory package includes:

The FiiO X1ii
One USB data and charging cable
One clear flexible plastic / polycarbonate type case
Quick start guide and warranty
Screen protectors
Hi-res sticker
Customizing stickers

The accessories are reasonable quality and the case is a snug fit and protects nicely. With case fitted, the X1ii can be docked into both DK1 dock and also the K5 dock/amplifier.

TECHNICAL SPECIFICATIONS
(From FiiO's website), and I've included the original X1 specs, as well as the specs for the X3ii which is now very close in price.

Model	X1 2rd Gen	X1 Original	X3 2nd Gen
Approx current price	$95-100 USD	$95-100 USD	$140 USD
Dimensions	~ 97 x 56 x 12 mm	~ 96 x 58 x 14 mm	~ 97 x 58 x 16 mm
Weight	102 g	106 g	135 g
DSD Support	No	No	DSD64/128
Lossless PCM Support	APE, ALAC, AIFF, FLAC, WAV, WMA	APE, ALAC, FLAC, WAV, WMA	APE, ALAC, AIFF, FLAC, WAV, WMA
Lossy Support	MP3, AAC, WMA, OGG	MP3, AAC, WMA, OGG	MP3, AAC, WMA, OGG
Use as external DAC	No	No	Yes
Battery	1800 mAh	1700 mAh	2600 mAh
Play time	~12hr	~12hr	~11hr
DAC Chip	PCM 5242	PCM5142	CS4398
Main amp chip	ISL28291	ISL28291	OPA1612 + LMH6643
Soc	JZ4760B	JZ4760BS	JZ4760B
SNR (H/O)	≥113 dB (A-weighted)	≥110 dB (A-weighted)	≥113 dB (A-weighted)
THD+N (H/O)	<0.003% (32Ω/1kHz)	<0.003% (32Ω/1kHz)	<0.001% (32Ω/1kHz)
Output to 16ohm	100 mW	100 mW	224 mW
Output to 32ohm	70 mW	65 mW	200 mW
Output to 300ohm	8 mW	8 mW	24 mW
H/O Impedance	<1.0Ω	<0.2Ω	<0.2Ω
Line Out?	Yes – combined with H/O	Yes – combined with H/O	Yes – separate outputs
Digital Out?	No	No	Yes
Internal Storage	Nil	Nil	Nil
External Storage	Up to 256 Gb	Up to 200 Gb	Up to 200 Gb
Screen	320x240 TFT	320x240 TFT	320x240 TFT
OS	Custom FiiO (Linux)	Custom FiiO	Custom FiiO
Wireless	Bluetooth	No	No

CHANGES FROM X1 original

The main differences between the X1ii and X1 are:

Rounded more hand friendly build
Addition of Bluetooth
Change from mechanical to touch based wheel
Upgrade to internal components
Addition of deep sleep functionality

BUILD AND DESIGN

External
One of the first things I noticed when setting my eyes on the X1ii was how much different the external design was. It's sleeker, more rounded (curvy) and just looks so much more modern than the previous model. Dimensionally they X1 original and X1ii are actually very close, but the thinner body on the X1ii just adds to the impression of sleekness and more contemporary design.

The front is made of tempered black glass and is dominated by the 320x240 TFT screen at the top, and the touch wheel at the bottom. Around the touch wheel are the usual 4 buttons. The buttons are tactile and have a nice feel and feedback to being clicked. The upper left button brings up a context menu that is dependent on the menu you are in. The upper right button is a back button, and puts you back up one hierarchal level. The bottom two buttons are forward, back / up, down / fast forward, rewind – depending on your application. The middle button is simply to select (i.e. action button). Like the X1 original – if you want to change volume – hold this button in (when screen is active) and the wheel volume control is activated.


Side buttons	Inputs and outputs

On the left hand side is the power on/off and below that the vol up / down rocker buttons. The buttons again give a really nice tactile response, and for my hand, are nicely located within easy reach. At the bottom is the combined headphone out / line-out jack, the micro USB port for charging / data transfer, and the micro SDXC slot (which FiiO says will take up to 256 Gb cards). The micro USB is compatible with both of FiiO's current docks – the K5 dock/amp and the DK1 dock.

The actual X1ii casing is an aluminum alloy which is beautifully finished, smooth and nicely rounded – providing excellent fit in the hand.

The new touch wheel is easy to use, has reasonable sensitivity allowing easy movement and selection, but avoiding overshoot. FiiO did add a feature where you can use the actual wheel for button presses, but I advise to turn this off, as it actually interferes with the wheels tracking. It was a nice idea – just not really practical. The wheel is a marked improvement over the mechanical wheel on my X1, but falls a little short of the fine control available on Apple's Classic.


Screen comparison X1ii to X1	Docking with K5 and DK1

The screen is the same size and resolution as the original X1, but where the X1's screen is quite warm (has an orangish hue), the X1ii's screen colour is a lot cooler (blueish tinge). Depending on the album cover, this can sometimes give more contrast, and sometimes less (very dependent on what you're viewing). Both are relatively clear, and easy to read – but both also suffer in direct sunlight.

If I was judging the X1ii based on build impressions alone – its a real improvement over the original X1, without many critiques.

Internal
Internally the X1ii has a variation of the chipsets used in the original X1, with the SoC from the same family (JZ4760B vs JZ4760BS), and the DAC being an upgrade from the same family (PCM5242 vs PCM5142). The LPF and OP amp used is the same on both devices (OPA2322 and ISL28291). In terms of measurements, the specs (refer the table I made above) are so close as to be indistinguishable (distortion, crosstalk, SNR etc). The X1 has fractionally higher peak voltage output, but when comparing the two with test tones, the FiiO F9 IEM, and an SPL meter, the actual output difference was negligible (both at vol 33/100 – and the difference only 0.3 dB higher on the X3ii). This would make comparisons pretty easy. The other major difference was the inclusion of Bluetooth in the X1ii (which we'll cover shortly).

Battery
The X1ii is powered by a 3.7V 1800 mAh Li-polymer battery which provides approximately 11-12 hours use in ideal conditions with an average load (like the F9), and Bluetooth disengaged. In my tests this was achievable using IEMs with the screen mostly off (with just the occasional checks to see how the battery was faring), and the DAP set to play continuously. This was very similar to the original X1's battery performance. Charging was slightly quicker with the newer X1ii using a 5V 2.1a battery pack – just over 3 hours with the X1ii vs approx 4 hours with the X1 original. You can also play and charge at the same time if using a battery pack like this. The one addition the X1ii has (relating to battery) is a deep sleep mode, whereby you can put the X1ii to sleep with inactivity, and it “sips” at the battery at a much lower rate, and can be almost instantly awakened (relatively anyway).

POWER OUTPUT
FiiO's output specs and recommendations show that they recommend use of 16ohm to 100ohm headphones – and the outputs are respectively:
100 mW at 16ohm
70 mW at 32ohm
8 mW at 300ohm

These are practically the same as the original X1's output – but what does this mean in the real world? With FiiO's 28 ohm 106 dB/mW F9, I was able to get to my normal listening level of 65-75 dB at around 35/100 volume on low gain. At 100/100 on low gain, this was pushed beyond the 100 dB level (again low gain). 40/100 was enough to adequately drive VE's 320 ohm Zen ear-buds, and even HiFiman's 60 ohm 103 dB/mW RE2000 was nicely driven at 40/100.


Power tests with F9, Zen2 and RE2000	And with HD800S, MS Pro and HD630VB

I did try the X1ii with my HD800S, and while you could get it loud enough at 60/100, the bass just didn't sound right – not as articulate as usual – and realistically adding additional amplification was needed for harder to drive loads. But for most portable use (it was great with both the MS Pro and the HD630VB), you simply won't need an extra amplifier – the X1ii (like the original X1) has pretty good power output.

BLUETOOTH PERFORMANCE
The X1ii comes with both Bluetooth 4.1, and is capable of two way transmission – so you could attach the X1ii to a portable speaker, and also a hand-held controller (like the RM1) and use the remote to control the X1ii, and the X1ii to feed the Bluetooth speaker. So how did the Bluetooth perform in real life? For this test, I used Trinity Audio's Bluetooth lanyard and also my pair of Fiil Diva portables.

First step – turning Bluetooth on – and a whopping 13 second wait between the time the Bluetooth switch is toggled, and the menu returns to say its ready. Not a good start. Another 10 seconds to search and find the Diva, and then a further 3-4 seconds to pair. The connection with the Diva at close range (ie in a pocket) was pretty good, the occasional hitch, but OK for walking outside. When I got into high traffic areas though – the connection wasn't the best, and even having it close was no guarantee of it working well. Next test was leaving the X1ii on the desk and walking away from it. I managed 6-7m before getting a lot of drop-outs. For the record, with my iPhone SE, the Diva finds and connects within a couple of seconds, has an operable range of around 10-12 meters (rock solid), and is also very stable in high electronic traffic areas. I'm suggesting the X1ii's Bluetooth transmitter is simply underpowered. The good news with the Diva was – all the headset controls worked well. End result, I'd use the Diva with the X1ii for walking, as long as I wasn't going to be in any high density traffic areas. And the Diva was pretty quick to connect again once the X1ii had stored it initially.

Next test – doing the same with the Trinity Audio lanyard. This time another 10 seconds to connect. And again about 3-4 seconds to pair. Connection was good with the X1ii in front of me. As soon as I moved it to my pocket, it started glitching, and even turning my head would cause cut-outs. Maximum range away from the unit was 3m, and its basically unusable. Again – checking with the iPhone SE, and its operable range is around 12m with the lanyard, and the audio is rock solid within that range. One final note – the Trinity lanyards full functionality worked completely with the iPhone, but didn't with the X1ii.

So final thoughts on Bluetooth:

Works well paired with gear which has reasonable BT receivers in unobstructed short range
Overall somewhat weak and unstable
Very slow connection
If turned on, slows the X1ii when restarting
Personally I'd use my iPhone

UI AND USABILITY
Anyone who's owned an X1, X3ii or X5ii will immediately recognise the UI. Its pretty functional and divided into 5 main areas

System Settings
Play Settings
Browse Files (folder navigation)
Category (tagged browsing)
Now Playing

Rather than go through screen-shots of all the UI screens, its probably easier to cover the main features, usability/speed, what its missing, and any issues I think it has.

Features
For the price, the X1ii actually packs in a lot. You have your normal settings like timers, sleep mode, the ability to recognise in-line remotes in compatible head-sets (and the F9 IEM is a perfect match with the X1ii in this regard), language settings etc. There are some nifty additions though. The X1ii comes with 6 UI themes (and they aren't too bad IMO either). You can choose to display cover art, lyrics, and also change the on-screen font size (great for those of us with older eyes). You can change screen brightness, key-lock settings, and it also has a USB mode for use in the car (I couldn't get this working with my Camry – so probably incompatible).


Main menu	Settings	EQ	Tagged library

In the play settings, there is a 7 band equaliser – which works pretty well, and has presets for those who use them. There is line-out functionality and this can be set to variable or fixed which is nice to have. You can toggle to play through folders, and there is a gapless function which works for FLAC but has a small micro-gap for aac256 files. It does not really bother me – but if perfect gapless is essential for you, then it may pay to look elsewhere for now. Interestingly gapless is perfect on the original X1.

You can browse in folder mode, or by tagged library, and there is a rudimentary search function (first letter) which works surprisingly well if you just want to skip to a certain album or artist. Playlist functionality is pretty crude, but if you make them with an external app, they are pretty easy to manage (I use one for my test tracks).

Missing Features / Issues
So gapless will be one of the big ones (depending on your tolerance to a micro gap), but the other one I really miss is the lack of replay gain which was working perfectly on the X1 original. For a device like this, I used to love (original X1) setting the player to shuffle all songs and not having to worry about changing volume. With the X1ii sadly we are still waiting, and I'm not sure if its likely to be implemented any time soon.

UPDATE 20 SEP – FiiO have a fix for lossy gapless being trialed on the X3iii. Expect this to filter down to the X1ii soon.

The other big issue is speed related – both the UI and scanning. I have 6576 tracks all very uniform aac256 on my sdxc card in my X1 original. It scan the entire library in about 3 minutes 30 seconds. Not rocket fast, but OK for someone who doesn't often add new music. The same card on the X1ii takes 12 minutes and 30 seconds. Yep – its like wading through molasses! And the UI is straight up sluggish. It lags more than the original X1, there is often a 1-2s delay between pressing play and music actually starting, and sometimes it looks as though its playing – but no sound. Usually its just a matter of pressing stop and then play again – but you shouldn't have to do this. I've also had a couple of instances when I've plugged in an earphone, and its engaged line-out mode. Thankfully you get a warning so you don't blast your ears – but these are all bugs, and they are very random.

Basically, if I was giving the X1ii a 10/10 for better build and aesthetic design (compared to X1 original), for the UI, usability, speed and even features, that score would be around 5/10 because in reality FiiO have gone backwards on the original. The worrying thing is that the X1ii is now 10 months old – and things aren't improving. The issue isn't navigation either, as the X1ii is very easy to navigate. Its simply the lack of, or broken state of, some features, and the extremely slow speed.

SOUND QUALITY & COMPARISONS

The following is what I subjectively hear from the FiiO X1ii. Some of you may find this section a little limited, so I’ll give you some insight into the way I’ve changed my opinion on how to describe the sound with any competently made DAC, DAP or amplifier. The problem with trying to break the sonics down to bass, mids and treble is that DAP / DAC / amp is designed (or should be designed) to be essentially flat across the frequency spectrum. If it has enhanced bass, then isn’t it adding colouration that should come from the headphones or EQ or recording? Likewise, I won’t comment a lot on sound-stage, as this is primarily a by-product of the actual recording, or the transducers you’re using.

So how do I go about describing it? Well my gear isn't great for measuring DAPs but judging by the correspondence from FiiO, and their own measurements, the X1ii is quite linear in its frequency response, apart from a small (0.3-0.4dB) drop in the sub bass from 60 hz down (graphs can be referenced here - http://www.fiio.net/en/products/57/parameters). What I will do is comment on overall tonality and resolution, and also expand further when comparing the X1ii to both the original X1 and also the X3ii (which is now a comparable price).

For the record – on most tracks, the volume on X1ii was adjusted to give 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.17556 When I tested side-by-side with other DAPs I used test tones, and an SPL meter to volume match. I used the same track, and had the players set up so I could rapid switch. Testing was performed with a pair of Earsonics ES3 IEMs which have a remarkably similar response to Campfire's Andromeda.

X1ii General Tonality
I had to check first with a couple of DAPs I own to get a base-line for neutrality first. This included my iPhone SE, FiiO X7ii and original FiiO X5 – all of which are essentially neutral, with perhaps the faintest hint of warmth in the tonality. After going back and forth several times, to my ears the X1ii has essentially a neutral tonality, perhaps the slightest hint of warmth, and is indistinguishable from the original X1, and essentially very close to the overall signature of the iPhone SE. It shares common overall tonality with the X5 and X7ii – but both surpass it in terms of smoothness in presentation of notes, and clarity.

Resolution / Detail / Clarity
Clarity and resolution is very good for this DAP, but after swapping with some of the other “higher tier” DAPs, the one thing which stood out for me was a slight harshness in the lower treble which isn't present in the likes of the X7ii. Its very subtle, but becomes more noticeable with longer sessions swapping back and forth. What also stands out though is how good the X1ii is able to render both detail and clarity – at this price point it is phenomenal. It misses nothing – from the different nuances of the cash registers in PF's “Money” to the clicks of Withers drumsticks in “Sultans of Swing”. If I didn't have the X7ii switching right now, I'd be even more impressed, but the X7ii is definitely at a higher level in detail retrieval.

Soundstage / Imaging
Why is this section even here? The perception of sound-stage in a DAP is a result of the music you listen to (the recording) and the transducers you use. The DAP has virtually nothing to do with it, as long as it has decent crosstalk measurements, and there is no DSP involved. I often laugh quietly to myself when I read reviews claiming one DAP has more sound-stage than another. For the record, I volume matched the X1ii and original X1 (practically same DAC sections), and tested my binaural tracks. Both sounded identical. And the ES3 sounds the same in terms of sound-stage whether I use the X1ii or X3.

X1ii vs X1 Original
This will be pretty quick. In terms of form factor and overall build quality, the new X1ii is a step up, both in terms of how it feels, looks, and especially how the navigation wheel operates. FiiO clearly did their homework here – and they've come with a nice upgrade.

In terms of sound – they are virtually identical – I could happily live with either.

In terms of features, the X1ii adds Bluetooth (and not really that well implemented) and also the deep sleep feature (which I really like). The X1ii does handle IEM's with on-control cables a lot better than the original. But it gives up 100% properly working gapless, and replay-gain (which I really miss). In terms of other features, the two are practically identical.

So now we come to speed and usability, and I'm afraid this is where the X1ii simply isn't an improvement – its actually a regression. The newer X1ii is simply bitterly slow, laggy, and at times extremely frustrating.

Overall – is it an improvement? I have to actually say no. It looks and feels better, and the navigation is an improvement – but the speed issue detracts from what could have otherwise been an improvement.


X1ii vs X1	X1ii vs X3ii

X1ii vs X3ii
The X3ii was (IMO) the best value for money DAP FiiO had in their line-up through 2016. Its now only ~ $140 which makes it only marginally more expensive than the new X1ii – which makes this a very valid comparison.

Physically the X3ii has practically the same dimensions as the original X1, although the mechanical wheel on the X3ii was always far better than the original X1 (mine is still in great condition despite a lot of use). Still the X1ii is better in terms of form factor, looks and feel. The wheel is also better on the X1ii (should last longer), but its marginal. The X3ii does have the advantage of separate line-out socket, which doubles as a digital out. The X3ii is also a lot more powerful – almost 3 times the overall power output.

In terms of sound, the X3ii is a step up. More refined overall without giving up any neutrality. It can also play more formats including DSD. When taking into account features, the X1ii again adds Bluetooth, but both have the deep sleep feature. Again the X1ii handle IEM's with on-control cables better. And again it gives up 100% properly working gapless and replay-gain, as well as not being able to be used as a computer DAC. The X3ii also has a 10 band EQ compared to the X1ii's 7 band. Speed and usability once again go to the X3ii, and it is a joy to use in comparison to the X1ii's often laggy interface.

Overall – this is an easy choice – the X3ii is simply the better buy (especially at its current price point).

X1ii vs HiFiMan MegaMini
The MegaMini is due to be re-released with a few changes and a different price point. The internals remain the same, the shell becomes heavy-duty plastic/polycarbonate, and the new price point is supposed to be around the $150 mark.

Physically the MegaMini is a lot smaller and lighter. In terms of power (according to the specs) the X1ii actually has slightly higher output. Both can play similar lossy and lossless formats – although the MegaMini will do DSD64. In real life tests, the battery life is about the same, and both have very good sound quality.

The MegaMini is a lot faster, both loading the library (4 mins vs 12mins), scrolling, and just general speed of use. They both sound very good for the money, and general SQ is good to above average for the price point.

Which leaves us with features – and this is where we start to see some value in the X1ii. The MegaMini has no EQ, no line-out, no Blue-tooth (although that barely counts with the X1ii anyway), no in-line control support (headphones), no lyrics display, no gapless at all, and no settings for things like balance or volume presets. Its a very bare minimalist player. What it does, it does well – but it kind of puts things in perspective when comparing the two. This is one time I would prefer the X1ii.


X1ii vs HiFiMan MegaMini	X1ii vs Cayin N3

X1ii vs Cayin N3
I haven't had the N3 long – so please take the following with a grain of salt. Both the N3 and X1ii share similar overall dimensions, and both are extremely well built. In terms of power (again referring to the specs), the N3 should output close to double the power of the X1ii into a 32 ohm load, so an advantage there. The N3 has an AK4490EN DAC under the hood, so this gives it the ability to play all the formats the X1ii can cover, as well as DSD up to DSD256. The N3 also has Bluetooth (4.0 with AptX), and it is a lot better implemented than the X1ii. Battery life (per specs) is around the same for both units.

The N3 is a lot faster – loading the library, scrolling, and general speed of use. Both units sound very good for the money (although I would say the N3 is slightly smoother/flatter and the X1ii is a little more vibrant/edgy), and general SQ is again good to above average for the price point with both DAPs. The UI is slightly easier to navigate with the X1ii's wheel, but I'm sure given time I'd get used to the N3's button layout.

Which leaves us again with features – and this time the X1ii is on the back foot. The N3 virtually has all the features of the X1ii, but adds digital out, use as a DAC, has better implemented gapless, and has working replay-gain. It also has a 10 band EQ compared to the X1ii's 7 band. The difference in price between the N3 and the X1ii is $149 vs $99. If you can afford it – the N3 is the much better buy.

VALUE

So how do I see the overall value of the X1ii? This is really a tough one, as I don't know too many devices around $100, and FiiO have created a device that sounds really nice, and has some nice features. It just handles pretty poorly (slow). I guess I'm on the fence with this one – paired with the F9, its nice and light, easy to use (on cable controls), and if I just hit shuffle its a pretty good experience. But as soon as you go to delve deeper into the UI, things start to slow up and the lag gets noticed. For the features you're getting your moneys worth and more. For the lag though – it takes a lot of the gloss off the price.

FIIO X1ii – SUMMARY

My thanks to FiiO for their support with my questions, for supplying the review sample, and for including me in their review rounds.

The X1ii is a very well presented DAP with good build which looks great and feels really nice in the hand. It has a pretty good feature-set, which includes EQ, tagged and folder browsing, gapless (although not perfect) and even a search function. It has enough power for most portable headphones, and decent battery life.

FiiO has added Bluetooth this time round, but it has poor range, and is very slow. It is two way though, so if you pair with a remote and portable speaker, and have it not too far away from you, I can see how it could be appropriate for some people.

Its major failing is in its overall speed – both in scanning (simply dreadful) and generally laggy UI.

If you don't mind the laggy behaviour, don't use Bluetooth regularly, and simply want a very good sounding DAP for ~ USD100, then the X1ii fits the bill because it really sounds quite nice. But again – if that's what you're looking for, there are better options. My recommendation would be to spend an extra $40 and buy FiiO's X3ii (currently being replaced by a newer model), or an extra $50 and buy Cayin's N3. Both are simply a far better value proposition.

I agonised over rating this one. For a start I was considering 2.5 stars, but the X1ii is actually better than that and I think a lot of the detractors forget the price point, the features it does have, and the overall SQ. But there is no doubt it has issues, and to me 3 stars feels right. Sounds great – but I just can't really recommend it with its current speed and Bluetooth issues. There are better options out there.


Despite its shortcomings – great with F9	and Alessandro MS Pro

Picture are default 1200 x 800 resolution - click to view larger images.

INTRODUCTION
FiiO has been on a bit of a roll lately – introducing new product lines, and updating old ones. They also branched out into earphones and ear-buds – starting with the F1, EX1, and more recently the F3 and F5. They've proven to be very good – especially at the more budget end of the scale. I remember suggesting to FiiO a while ago that I'd love to see what they could do if they were to put their mind to a truly ergonomic IEM – similar to other offerings from Shure or Westone. They must have been of a similar mind-set, because we now have newly released their F9 – a triple driver hybrid at an unbelievable USD 99.

So lets take it for a little spin, and see what they've come up with

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 F9 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 F9 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 F9 IEM for around 4 weeks. The retail price at time of review is ~ USD 99.

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

I'm a 50 year old music lover. I don't say audiophile – I just love my music. Over the last couple of years, I have slowly changed from cheaper listening set-ups to my current set-up. I vary my listening from portables (mostly now from the FiiO X5iii, X7ii and iPhone SE) to my desk-top's set-up (PC > USB > iFi iDSD). My main full sized headphones at the time of writing are the Sennheiser HD800S, Sennheiser HD600 & HD630VB, and AKG K553. Most of my portable listening is done with IEMs, and it has mainly been with my own personally owned IEMs - the Jays q-Jays, Alclair Curve2 and Adel U6. A full list of the gear I have owned (past and present is listed in my Head-Fi profile).

I have very eclectic music tastes listening to a variety from classical/opera and jazz, to grunge and general rock. I listen to a lot of blues, jazz, folk music, classic rock, indie and alternative rock. I am particularly fond of female vocals. I generally tend toward cans that are relatively neutral/balanced, but I do have a fondness for clarity, and suspect I might have slight ‘treble-head’ preferences. I am not overly treble sensitive, and in the past have really enjoyed headphones like the K701, SR325i, and of course the T1 and DT880. I have a specific sensitivity to the 2-3 kHz frequency area (most humans do) but my sensitivity is particularly strong, and I tend to like a relatively flat mid-range with slight elevation in the upper-mids around this area.

I have extensively tested myself (ABX) and I find aac256 or higher to be completely transparent. I do use exclusively red-book 16/44.1 if space is not an issue. All of my music is legally purchased (mostly CD – the rest FLAC purchased on-line). I tend to be sceptical about audiophile ‘claims’, don’t generally believe in burn-in, have never heard a difference with different cables (unless it was volume or impedance related), and would rather test myself blind on perceived differences. I am not a ‘golden eared listener’. I suffer from mild tinnitus, and at 50, my hearing is less than perfect (it only extends to around 14 kHz nowadays). My usual listening level is around 65-75 dB.

For the purposes of this review - I used the FiiO F9 straight from the headphone-out socket of many of my portables, but predominantly the X5iii, X3iii and my iPhone. I did not generally further amp them (I did test them with my E17K and A5), 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 F9, I have noticed no change to the overall sonic presentation (break-in). Time spent now with the F9 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.

One last thing – I've notice of late my reviews have been getting too long, so this is my attempt at abbreviating them a little. Feedback is welcome

THE REVIEW

PACKAGING AND ACCESSORIES
The FiiO F9 arrived in their usual approximately” 110mm x 165mm x 53mm retail box with a picture of the F6 on the front cover and specifications and package contents on the rear. The retail box is black with the occasional red highlight, and white easy to read text. Inside the retail outer is a black box and lid – simply adorned with the FiiO logo.

Inside you get a black glossy Pelican case and a cardboard mini box containing the cables. Inside the Pelican case is a foam cut-out with the FiiO F9 safely nestled in the provided grooves. There is also two cardboard plates which house the included tips. The tip selection includes 6 sets of silicone single flange tips. There is also a warranty card and manual.


Retail box	Full accessory package	F9, cables and carry case

The tips come as “Bass” or “EQ” options – and the “bass” ones actually seal a little bit better for me (hence the bass designation I guess). The “EQ” once don't seal for me personally so not my ideal combo.

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. FiiO includes two replaceable cables (MMCX) – a 3.5mm standard stereo option (with on-cable controls) and a 2.5mm balanced option.

All in all, the accessory package is very good at this price point – especially having the two cable options.

TECHNICAL SPECIFICATIONS
(From FiiO's packaging / website)

Model	FiiO F9
Approx price	$99 USD
Type	Triple Driver Hybrid
Driver DD	1 x 9.2mm Titanium DD
Drivers BA	1 x dual BA unit
Freq Range	15Hz – 40kHz
Impedance	28Ω
Sensitivity	106 dB /mW
Cable	1.2m, replaceable (MMCX) x 2
Jack	3.5mm gold plated straight
Weight	21g with default cable
Casing material	Anodised CNC aluminium alloy

FREQUENCY GRAPH

The graphs below 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.

My quick sonic impression of the FiiO F9 – written well before I measured:

Bass is very linear but also has good extension, with a small mid-bass hump. There is audible sub bass rumble but it is in balance with the rest of the signature and does not overpower.
Lower mid-range is also 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 there is a strong peak around 7 kHz. Detail is extremely good but there is some definite heat at 7 kHz.
Overall a nicely well balanced earphone with good extension both ends, and just one troubling peak in the lower treble.
Channel matching is extremely good on the pair I have.

BUILD

The FiiO F9 is beautifully built and seeing what FiiO can do for sub $100 really does make me question how so many other companies struggle to get ergonomic design right. The main body is CNC'd, sand blasted and then anodized for a really nice metallic finish. There is a design on the outer shells, but even that is devoid of hard edges. The entire shell is beautifully rounded and sized to perfection

The F9 measures approx 21mm across with a total height (including cable exit) of 17mm, and depth of 12mm.The nozzle is angled forward and extends approx 6mm from the main body (so relatively shallow fitting). It is 5mm in diameter with a generous lip and mesh protective cover.


External view	Front view	Internal view

On the internal face of each unit are two ventilation ports and an engraved L or R designator. The cable exit uses an MMCX connector and this is situated on top of the main body, and naturally forward. FiiO have taken the critique of their F5 on board and this time the connectors are tight – although they still do not sit entirely flush with the body.

The F9 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 housing is either L or R markings, but the black on black is quite difficult to see. The left cable does have a raised bump though which makes things slightly easier.


Rear view	Nozzle lip	Connectors

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 F9 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 nice and skinny for use with smart-phone cases. It is also well relieved. 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.


Control unit	3.5mm jack	2.5mm balanced jack

Both cables have a very “Dunu like” 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 slightly above average for a hybrid with a dynamic driver. It is pretty good for most situations, but as soon as things start getting too noisy (public or air transport etc), you may find yourself wanting something with a little more isolation. The F9 are designed to be worn cable up. Fit and comfort is exemplary – especially with the formed loops.


Most tips fit pretty well	And the F9 are superbly 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 F9 has a nice nozzle lip, 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. I've just ended up using standard large Complys though – for a great combo of seal and comfort. And seems to dull the 7 kHz spike just a little.

The FiiO F9s sit nicely flush with my outer ear, and are extremely comfortable to lie down with. I've slept with them more nights than I can count now, 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 F9. 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 large Comply 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 45-50/120 (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, balanced with rest of spectrum and doesn't over-power.
Mid-bass – very 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 really good – rich and full.
Upper mid-range – elevated compared to lower mid-range, and there is a very rise from 1 kHz to the first peak at ~2.5 kHz. Cohesive transition form lower to upper mids, and very good euphony for female vocals.
Lower treble has a nice balance throughout, but a strong peak at 7 kHz (very similar to HiFiMan's new RE800). There is great detail, but also some heat which can make it fatiguing.
Upper treble rolls off like most headphones from about 14 kHz onward – but enough extension to provide “air”.

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 very evident.
Cymbal hits have a lot of clarity and presence but because of the 7 kHZ peak, they are also over emphasised and a touch hot or harsh. Cymbal decay sounds overdone.

Sound-stage, Imaging

Directional queues are good without being over emphasised. Presentation of stage is mostly just on the periphery of my head space with binaural tracks, but the violin in Tundra does sit outside (nice portrayal of width).
Elliptical sense of sound-staging – with slightly more lateral L/R leaning rather than depth.
With the applause section of “Dante's Prayer”, the FiiO F9 shows a good sense of immersion (the sound of the audience flowing around me), but there is more width than depth. “Let it Rain” is usually my next track to listen to and it gave a nice 3 dimensional feel (the way it is miked). Guitar is crisp and clear. There was a lot of sibilance with Amanda's vocals – and it should be there because its in the recording – but the F9's peak at 7 kHz is embellishing it for me.

Strengths

Overall clarity and balance of the signature.
Reasonable sense of stage and imaging
Good cohesion with lower and upper register vocals
Great for both female and male vocals and with enough bass warmth to stop things being too dry or sterile.

Weaknesses

Lower treble spike is just too prominent. It is the only issue with an otherwise excellent close to reference signature.

AMPLIFICATION REQUIREMENTS

The FiiO F9 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 ohms 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. I tried the F9 with the E17K and A5and none of them seemed to be adding anything to my listening set-up other than some extra bulk. The A5 was really overkill, and I had to be careful to use variable line-out to get a usable volume.

RESPONSE TO EQ?
This is an easy one – drop the 7 kHz spike, and you get a far better overall signature. With the X7ii, this was simply a matter of dropping the 8 kHz slider by -6dB and upping the volume a bit. This took the heat out of the overall signature and brought a lot of realism to the modified signature. I'd go as far as saying that with this EQ applied, the F9 could easily sit with monitors in the 250-300 range.

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. There was no difference perceptible to me once I'd volume matched and the measurements I took bore this out. Its nice to have the option – but sonically I don't hear any benefits.

COMPARISON WITH OTHER IEMS

These comparisons were all done with the X5iii this time, (no EQ) – and volume matched using a calibrated SPL meter and fixed 1kHz test tone first. I could have used a number of different DAPs but I'd been using the X5iii a lot this week (for its review), and simply wanted something not too bright. I wanted to compare against some reasonably well known IEMs in a similar price and signature bracket – so I chose the Meze 12 Classics, Fidue A73 and Dunu Titan 5. And because (IMO) the F9 performs so well for its price bracket, I also put it up against the $200 P1, $250 Alclair Curve and $700 HiFiMan RE800.

FiiO F9 (~USD 99) vs Meze 12 Classic (~USD 79)

The Meze 12 Classic has a cartridge style with a wood body. Build, fit and comfort are very good. However, the FiiO F9 has the better overall build materials, quality, and it has the benefit of replaceable cables, and the choice of two. It also has the better on-cable controls. Comfort goes to the F9's more ergonomic shape (although both are good).

Sonically they are similar in their overall balance. The F9 has more low bass extension, and more lower treble impact. I really rate the Meze 12, it is a brilliantly balanced non-fatiguing signature. The two are variations on a similar signature – with the major difference being the lack of lower bass impact, and the F9 having that extra zing in the top end. If I was judging purely on default sound, I'd probably take the Meze. If I take the rest of the package into account, the F9 draws even and probably goes ahead. If I lessen the 7 kHz peak on the F9 (simple EQ), then no contest – the F9 is the much better deal in my eyes.


FiiO F9 vs Meze 12 and Fidue A73	Frequency comparison

FiiO F9 (~USD 99) vs Fidue A73 (~USD 120-130)
Build materials are in favour of the FiiO F9 with it's alloy body vs the formed plastic of the A73. Ergonomics and fairly fit are evenly matched – both are comfortable to wear. The smooth lipless nozzle on the Fidue means you may be slightly limited on tip options. The FiiO F9 slips ahead on cable options (including the fact that its replaceable and has better controls).

Sonically the two are again quite similar with main differences being the warmer bass signature of the A73, and the position of their respective lower treble peaks (F9 at 7 kHz and A73 at 9 kHz). The two actually sound really similar with most tracks – but on default signature I'd take the sightly leaner F9. Under EQ (dropping the 8 kHz slider) is interesting. Both IEMs improve IMO, but again the leaner signature of the F9 is my preferred option. Taking the cheaper price, better build and cable options – this one again is firmly in favour of the F9 for me.

FiiO F9 (~USD 99) vs Dunu Titan 5 (~USD 130-140)

I've talked about the relationship between Dunu and FiiO before – we've seen it in the similarities of the FiiO EX1 to the Dunu Titan 1, and also in FiiO's use of very similar cables and also the brilliant Dunu on-cable ties. So why did I choose to compare the F9 to the T5 – simply because the F9 is so close sonically with the main difference being the positioning of the lower treble peaks.

Both have very good build quality and build materials. Both are extremely comfortable. Both have replaceable cables (although the FiiOs are standard cables where the T5 are more proprietary – longer stem on the MMCX).

Sonically the T5 is a little warmer in the bass, and a little more prominent in the mid-range. They both have a heightened upper mid-range which makes female vocals brilliant. Both also have lower treble peaks which some may find troubling (T5s is at 6 kHz). Interestingly enough the lowering of the 8 kHz slider (EQ) again helps both IEMs. Hard to call a winner based on sound – especially after EQ. But in terms of overall package (especially with price taken into account), again the F9 takes it.


FiiO F9 vs Mee P1 and Dunu T5	Frequency comparison

FiiO F9 (~USD 99) vs MEE Pinnacle P1 (~USD 199)

So what happens when you pit the F9 against arguably one of the best IEMs (MEE P1) in the sub $200 range? Both earphones have exceptional build quality, ergonomics, and comfort. The both have replaceable cables – the F9 having balanced vs the MEE P1's HQ SPC cable. The MEE P1 is definitely harder to drive. So far – the two match nicely.

Sonically the MEE P1 has a warmer slightly more V shaped sound, and doesn't have the lower treble peaks. Both convey detail well, but with the MEE P1 you get more warmth and also less etch. With the F9, you get a leaner more linear bass and a signature that sounds slightly cooler overall, plus having that spike around the cymbal area. On default sig – I'm MEE P1 all the way – it just has more balance in the upper registers. But EQ the spike out of the F9 and take into account the price, and you do have an IEM at half the price which can go toe to toe.

FiiO F9 (~USD 99) vs Alclair Curve (~USD 249)

I know this is getting a little out of the F9's depth, but what happens when I put it against one of my favourites in the sub $250 bracket? The Alclair Curve is the most ergonomic IEM I own (and yes this one I do own). Both IEMs have fantastic build quality – with the F9's shell being alloy vs the plastic/acrylic shell of the Curve. Both have replaceable cables. Both have exceptional comfort. The F9 of course has the balanced cable option – the Curve isolates much better.

Sonically these two have very similar signatures. Linear well extended bass, overall balanced signature, a bump in the mid-range, peaks at 7 kHz. The main difference is that the Curve has better overall balance, where the F9 is a little more coloured (especially in the upper mids and lower treble). Again dropping the 7 kHz peak makes the F9 a much better IEM, and it is not embarrassed in this company. For me – I'd still pay the extra and take the Curve. But the F9 shows incredible value for money – and that’s why I chose this particular comparison.


FiiO F9 vs Alclair Curve and HiFiMan RE800	Frequency comparison

FiiO F9 (~USD 99) vs HiFiMan RE800 (~USD 699)

Some of you will look at this and ask me why I chose this comparison. If you take a look at the graph, you'll see why.

Both have very good build, fit and comfort. The F9 has replaceable cables and a choice of SE and balanced. The RE800's cables are fixed, but the revised edition will have replaceable cables.

The similarity in signatures is unmistakeable and both are very close to reference signatures with one glaring fault. Yes you guessed it – the 7 kHz peak. Again with EQ nulling this peak down, both are simply incredible sounding monitors. But here's the kicker. The FiiO F9 is 1/7th the price of the RE800. You could buy the F9, an X5iii, a 128 Gb card, and still have more than $100 to spend on music of your choice.

And that is the real beauty of the F9 – its value proposition.

VALUE

By now you'll already know where I see the strengths of the F9 and one glaring strength is in perceived value. With the F9 its simply off the charts. This is an IEM which can comfortably go toe to toe with IEMs at multiple times its price. I would go so far as to declare the F9 as one of those IEMs which may well set a new bench-mark in the quality/price ratio.

If these were on the market when I was originally looking to buy a higher end pair of IEMs (I eventually started with the Shure SE425 and later the SE535), I doubt I would have spent the money I did. The only thing FiiO need to do with these is take that 7 kHz peak down a little (5-6 dB). Do that and the F9 is a solid gold winner.

FiiO F9 – SUMMARY

FiiO has really pulled out some surprises with their IEM releases this year. But the F9 is a warning shot across the bows of a lot of IEM makers. It is a serious contender at a very low price (almost entry point for some).

It combines good build and design, great ergonomics, and well thought out accessories, with an exceptionally mature and balanced signature. Its one downfall (IMHO) is that in reaching for additional detail, they simply made the error of overemphasising a narrow band at 7 kHz. It is easily EQ'd out, but it really shouldn't be there in the first place.

How do you rank these? They aren't perfect – but they've come so close when you take the price point into account. From my perspective (and weighted for value), the F9 are a definite 4.5, and very close to 5 for the price. As close as you can get to perfect on this budget. These won't be going in the review sample box – I'll still be using them regularly. And that should say all you need to know. Recommended without hesitation.

Hey man, I'm looking for an upgrade to my KZ ZS3. It's too bassy for my taste. I love my Grado SR80e and my Shure SRH440 so it's safe to say that I love treble but I appreciate the quality of bass that they produce - fast, grunty, and accurate.

This could be the one. I've seen reviews on the FH1 but that might have more emphasis on bass.

I'm capped at 100 USD. If you have other recommendations at this price range, feel free to list as well, or send me a PM.

Thanks as always!

I know that I'm a few years late, but now that I've finally created an account I just wanted to thank you: yours was one of the reviews that helped me a lot in choosing the F9 at the time. Cheers!

Picture are default 1200 x 800 resolution - click (photos in tables) to view larger images.

INTRODUCTION

That most elusive of audio hardware components – the perfect DAP or Digital Audio Player. Anyone who is into personal (and especially portable) audio will recognise the search for nirvana. The perfect player must be able to drive practically any headphone (from the most sensitive to the harder to drive), must sound incredible, have a perfect UI, perfect wireless, perfect bluetooth, perfect sorting ability, perfect EQ tools, long battery life, huge storage ability, be able to interface with practically any add-on we throw at it, and be priced at the value end of the spectrum. If you think I'm being just a little satirical – it's intended.

It is unlikely we'll ever agree what is the perfect DAP, so rather than trying to cover everything, I'll simply look at what “pushes my buttons” and why. On this journey, we'll explore the X5 3rd Generation (or X5iii) through my eyes (and ears), compare it to my own needs/wants, and take a little look at what FiiO offers at $400, and whether I think it is subjectively worth it. Along the way – we'll also look into some of the comments and critiques I've seen elsewhere, and my take on them (whether I think they are justified). So lets have a look at what I think of FiiO's X5iii.

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 X5iiiwas provided to me gratis as a review sample. I have made it clear to FiiO in the past that I did regard any product they sent me as their sole property and available for return any time at their request. I have continued to use a lot of their gear for follow up reviews, but also for everyday use. I had previously purchased a lot of FiiO products and inquired if I could purchase the X7 a while ago from FiiO. They have insisted I keep any further products for for my own use. So I acknowledge now that the X5iii I have is supplied and gifted completely free of any charge or obligation. I thank FiiO for their generosity.

I have now had the X5iii for 7 months. The retail price at time of review is ~ USD 400.

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

I'm a 50 year old music lover. I don't say audiophile – I just love my music. Over the last couple of years, I have slowly changed from cheaper listening set-ups to my current set-up. I vary my listening from portables (mostly now from the FiiO X5iii, X7ii and iPhone SE) to my desk-top's set-up (PC > USB > iFi iDSD). My main full sized headphones at the time of writing are the Sennheiser HD800S, Sennheiser HD600 & HD630VB, and AKG K553. Most of my portable listening is done with IEMs, and it has mainly been with my own personally owned IEMs - the Jays q-Jays, Alclair Curve2 and Adel U6. A full list of the gear I have owned (past and present is listed in my Head-Fi profile).

I have very eclectic music tastes listening to a variety from classical/opera and jazz, to grunge and general rock. I listen to a lot of blues, jazz, folk music, classic rock, indie and alternative rock. I am particularly fond of female vocals. I generally tend toward cans that are relatively neutral/balanced, but I do have a fondness for clarity, and suspect I might have slight ‘treble-head’ preferences. I am not overly treble sensitive, and in the past have really enjoyed headphones like the K701, SR325i, and of course the T1 and DT880. I have a specific sensitivity to the 2-3 kHz frequency area (most humans do) but my sensitivity is particularly strong, and I tend to like a relatively flat mid-range with slight elevation in the upper-mids around this area.

I have extensively tested myself (ABX) and I find aac256 or higher to be completely transparent. I do use exclusively red-book 16/44.1 if space is not an issue. All of my music is legally purchased (mostly CD – the rest FLAC purchased on-line). I tend to be skeptical about audiophile ‘claims’, don’t generally believe in burn-in, have never heard a difference with different cables (unless it was volume or impedance related), and would rather test myself blind on perceived differences. I am not a ‘golden eared listener’. I suffer from mild tinnitus, and at 50, my hearing is less than perfect (it only extends to around 14 kHz nowadays). My usual listening level is around 65-75 dB.

For the purposes of this review - I've used the X5iii and tested most of the functions I am able to. This does not include some applications like DLNA or DOP output – which I can neither test properly, nor am I interested in. We'll touch very briefly on streaming, but again it won't be an area I'll spend a lot of time on, simply because I simply use the X5ii predominantly as a player. I have prior experience with entry level Sony's (very early models), then step-ups to the Cowon iAudio7, iPhone4, iPod Touch G4, iPhone 5S, HSA Studio V3, FiiO X5, X1, X3ii, X5ii, X7, X1ii, X7ii, X3iii, iPhone SE, Cayin i5, and the L&P LP5, L5 Pro, and L3.

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 PERSONALLY LOOK FOR IN A DAP

I thought I’d list (before I start with the review) what I really look for in a new DAP.

Clean, neutral signature – but with body (not thin)
Good build quality
Reasonable battery life – at least 8-10 hours
Easy to use interface
Able to drive both low impedance and (within reason) higher impedance cans without additional amping.
Value for money
Enough storage to hold either my favourite albums in red-book, or my whole library in a reasonably high resolution lossy format (for me – aac256)
Gapless playback
Reasonable EQ
Bluetooth/Wireless if available

Did I get all of this with the X5iii, and more importantly was the X5iii an improvement on the X5ii? Mostly – yes, and I hope that some of the remaining shortcomings with the firmware will still be improved over time. What I also got was some additional features which really surprised me (we'll go through some of those too).

THE REVIEW

PACKAGING AND ACCESSORIES

The X5iii arrived in a somewhat smaller box than its previous generations. This is a fully printed retail box measuring approx 110 x 165 x 50mm. The front has a full colour photo of the X5iii and the rear has a list of the main features (in both English and Chinese). Inside the outer retail jacket is a black rigid box and lid simply adorned the word “FiiO”. Removing the lid gives us our first look at the X5iii. Under this is another compartment which is home to the accessories.


Retail box	Inner box	Full accessory package

The total accessory package includes:

One USB data and charging cable
One coaxial adapter cable
One leather case
One clear silicone “gel” type case
Quick start guide and warranty
Memory tray release key
The FiiO X5iii

The accessories are the usual quality I'd expect from FiiO) and the inclusion of both cases is really nice. I probably use the leather a little more than the clear silicone case – simply because it then fits the DK1 dock without having to do anything – and its also easier to slip out of the leather case if I want to use the K5.

TECHNICAL SPECIFICATIONS
(From FiiO's website), and I've included the old X5ii specs as well as the newer X7ii with AM3a module

Model	X5 3rd Gen	X5 2nd Gen	X7 2nd Gen
Approx current price	$400 USD	$238 USD	$650 USD
Dimensions	~ 114 x 66 x 15 mm	~ 109 x 64 x 15 mm	~ 129 x 67 x 16 mm
Weight	186 g	165 g	212 g
DSD Support	DSD64/128	DSD64/128	DSD64/128
Lossless PCM Support	APE, ALAC, AIFF, FLAC, WAV, WMA	APE, ALAC, AIFF, FLAC, WAV, WMA	APE, ALAC, AIFF, FLAC, WAV, WMA
Lossy Support	MP3, AAC, WMA, OGG	MP3, AAC, WMA, OGG	MP3, AAC, WMA, OGG
Use as external DAC	Yes	Yes	Yes
Battery	3400 mAh	3300 mAh	3800 mAh
Play time	~10hr SE, 8hr bal	~10hr SE	~10hr SE, 8hr bal
DAC Chip	AK4490x2	PCM1792A	ES9028 Pro
Main amp chip	OPA426x2	OPA1612+BUF634	Changes with module
SNR (H/O)	≥115 dB (A-weighted)	≥117 dB (A-weighted)	≥116 dB (A-weighted)
THD+N (H/O)	<0.003% (32Ω/1kHz)	<0.001% (32Ω/1kHz)	<0.003% (32Ω/1kHz)
Balanced?	Yes 2.5mm	No	Yes 2.5mm (AM3A)
Output to 16ohm (SE/BAL)	480 mW / 400 mW	436 mW	200 mW / 380 m/W
Output to 32ohm (SE/BAL)	250 mW / 240 mW	245 mW	150 mW / 400 mW
Output to 300ohm (SE/BAL)	28 mW / 26 mW	27 mW	17 mw / 63 mW
H/O Impedance (SE/Bal)	<1.0Ω / <3.0Ω	<0.2Ω	<1.2Ω / <1.7Ω
Line Out?	Yes	Yes	Yes
Digital Out?	Yes	Yes	Yes
Internal Storage	32 Gb	Nil	64 Gb
External Storage	512 Gb (256x2)	512 Gb (256x2)	512 Gb (256x2)
Screen	3.97in IPS TFT 480x800	2.4in IPS 400x360	3.97in IPS TFT 480x800
OS	Android 5.1	FiiO Proprietary	Android 5.1
RAM	1 Gb	N/A	2 Gb
Wireless	Bluetooth and WiFi	N/A	Bluetooth and WiFi

CHANGES FROM X5ii

The main differences between the X5iii and X5ii are:

Touch screen instead of solely manual controls
Change to Android based OS
Addition of internal memory
Addition of wireless functionality
Addition of balanced output
Dual DACs

BUILD AND DESIGN

The build quality is really quite excellent on the 3rd generation of the X5. Compared to the original X5ii, the first thing you notice is that despite packing in a lot more hardware features, the size is actually virtually the same (X5iii is very slightly bigger and heavier, but it is marginal). The casing is the usual high quality material (stainless steel composite) you expect from FiiO, but this time there is a gorilla glass back, and of course the close to full sized IPS touch screen. The corners on the casing are nicely rounded, and in terms of overall size it feels right in my hand (not too large, not too small), and has a good weighty feel without being too heavy.


Left side – volume wheel and play controls	Bottom – inputs and outputs

FiiO have put a lot of thought into this build, and on the left side of the device, they've done very well. There is their stepped volume wheel at exactly thumb height, and once I started using it, I suddenly noted how much I missed an actual volume wheel on the X5ii. Above it is the play/pause button, and below it is a rocker button which activates next/previous. All of them are in easy reach, are relatively discreet, and I have to compliment them on their design. It looks the part – and feels the part too. Unfortunately on the right side is where they have their first hiccup. The on/off (and screen on/off) button is on the right hand side directly across from the play/pause button. With one handed use, most of the time when pressing this button with my forefinger, I also inadvertently also press the play/pause or forward/next buttons. I don't mean to – its reflex. The on/off should be on top of the device – and incidentally this is where it appears on the X7ii (nice to see that FiiO listen to the critique's and improve the hardware!

On the right side about half way down are two “sim” slots (recessed trays akin to the sim slots in mobile phones) which hold the microSD cards. The X5iii at this time can take 2 x 256 Gb cards giving a total memory of 256 + 256 + 32 or 546 Gb of storage (less the operating space for the internal system). You access the cards using an included push tool (or a paper clip). I personally find it ideal as I'm not continually swapping cards in and out. The trays fit absolutely flush and are clearly labeled 1 and 2.


Right side – Micro SDXC trasy and on/off button	Rear gorilla glass

At the top of the X5iii is nothing (and in my personal opinion this is where the headphone / line-out ports should be). At the bottom from left to right are the 3.5mm headphone out, 2.5mm balanced headphone out, USB port, and switchable 3.5mm line or coax out. Unfortunately this means that when docked with their DK1, there is no way to connect to the headphone ports. A pity – because I am sure others would also consider using the dock this way. Otherwise the ports fit nicely and snugly, and the USB out is compatible with both the DK1 and K5 docks.

The 4 inch (3.97) IPS TFT screen is superb compared to the X5ii, both clearer and more vibrant. It has a wide viewing angle (almost 180 deg), and my only critique is that it very easily picks up finger prints and smudges. Low light visibility is excellent, but with full sunlight (like most touch screen devices), you have to shade the device for any decent viewing legibility.

Internally the X5iii is equipped with two top-of-the-line AKM AK4490EN DACs (one for each channel). FiiO chose this DAC for its format support (32bit and supports all PCM and DSD formats), and also for its smooth “velvety” tonality whilst still maintaining high resolution. The AK4490EN also has impressively low THD and high SNR measurements. Along with the dual DACs are dual crystal oscillators which FiiO state help in reduced jitter, improved clock accuracy, stability and virtually no sampling rate conversion artifacts. For amplification, the X5iii uses two dual channel OPA1642 chips for its low pass filtering stage, and a custom-made OPA426 chip for amplification.

BATTERY
The X5iii is powered by a 3.8V 3400 mAh Li-polymer battery which provides approximately 10 hours use in ideal conditions using the 3.5mm single-ended output, or around 8 hours if using balanced output. In my tests this was achievable using IEMs with the screen mostly off, and the DAP set to play continuously in FiiO's Pure Music mode (with a lot of the Android system resources disabled). This obviously does not reflect real-world usage, so expect less if you're constantly using the screen, or using apps that may have a higher draw on the battery. For my personal use (single-ended) I can easily get 8 hours out of a fully charged battery with normal use, and this has been sufficient for day to day use.

The X5iii has the ability to quick charge from suitable 9/12v high current charging devices, and this essentially means you can fully charge the X5iii in approximately 1.5 hours from an appropriate charger. Normal charging only takes a little over 3 hours from a 5V/2A charger – which is more than enough for my use. You can also play and charge at the same time if using a portable battery pack.

POWER OUTPUT
FiiO's output specs and recommendations show that the balanced output has actually been throttled back, and is actually lower than the single-ended output, which is somewhat strange. But I appreciate they are trying to cater more to the people who see balanced output as an advantage in terms of lower crosstalk etc – whilst still catering mostly for portable use. I quoted the power output figures in the spec table earlier – but what does this mean in terms of real world conditions? I chose to utilise 4 different IEM / earphone / headphone combinations to see what the specs really meant.

For each test, I used the excellently mastered new track “The Same Asylum As Before” from Steven Wilson's new album “To The Bone” - for no other reason than I've just bought it and have been enjoying getting to know it. For each test, I aimed to get to my average preferred listening level of 65-75dB with peaks well under 85 dB. For this I used my trusty calibrated SPL meter.

First up was FiiO's own 28 ohm, 106 dB/mW sensitivity F9 IEM. Why the F9? Simply because it is an easy load to drive, sounds absolutely excellent, and reflects an average load for everyday use. 45-50/120 on the X5iii was sitting me easily within my preferred sonic range on low gain – so plenty of head-room.

Next up was HiFiMan's flagship RE2000 IEM at 60ohm and 103 dB/mW sensitivity. This represents a load with higher impedance and lower sensitivity, and it did require 55-60/120 to reach the same listening volume. Again though – plenty of head-room, and the RE2000 on the X5iii sounded stunning.

OK – lets go with a harder load. This time an ear-bud – VE's flagship Zen2 is an incredible sounding ear-bud which while relatively sensitive at 108 dB/mW, has a much higher impedance of 320 ohm. This was much harder to measure, and I don't know if I got this completely accurate, but 60-65/120 reached my ideal listening level and again I could detect no issues with the X5iii's amplification sounding weak.

Final test – and this time lets step beyond the likely and try something a lot will consider slightly ridiculous (I don't). The HD800S is 300 ohm and 108 dB/mW. Its my real test as I sometimes like to move around the house with these headphones so for me it is a realistic test. This time 75-80/120 was hitting my ideal listening level with this headphone (again low gain). More importantly, fidelity was really good.

OK Paul – but how do you know you were getting an acceptable level of fidelity from each earphone? Well that is the simple part. I also have FiiO's A5 headphone amp here. It is quite neutral, and can output 150 mW into a 300 ohm load. I've used it before with the HD800S and it has very much impressed me as a portable device. So once I'd found my ideal listening level with each transducer, I simply used test tones to replicate the same volume with the A5, then switched between the two. None of the combos sounded superior with the A5, except perhaps the HD800S where the bass was very slightly different with the A5 included (and this could have been expectation bias). What I will suggest is that the X5iii's power output is actually pretty decent for most portable loads. Just don't expect to drive really power hungry cans – and if you might be, consider the A5 as a very worthy partner.

WIRELESS CAPABILITY / PERFORMANCE
The X5iii comes with both Bluetooth 4.0 and 2.4 Khz Wifi capability. Performance on both seems pretty good. The Wifi receiver is not as good as my iPhone. I'm sitting in my study, the router is around 8-10 meters away, but through two walls. My iPhone SE is showing full bars, the X5iii is about 75%. Connection is solid and stable, and perfectly good for streaming or downloading apps or updates. The iPhone is slightly quicker. So the X5iii is good – but not perfect.

The Bluetooth connectivity is actually better than I expected. I used my FiiL Diva Bluetooth headset. Connection was straight forward – easily recognised and paired. And I can actually install the Android FiiL+ app (although the play store version says it isn't compatible – so I just downloaded and install the apk manually). I can also use all the headset's features including volume and track control, and can easily get past 10m (it starts breaking up about 13m) distance. The X5iii is showing AptX connection with the FiiL, and I have used these outside walking with X5iii in my pocket, complete wireless freedom, and a smile on my face!

UI AND USABILITY
The UI is standard Android and I'm not going to cover all the standard features (battery meters etc), and concentrate instead on FiiO's Pure Music app. You have the choice of retaining full Android functionality or going into an exclusive mode called Pure Music where a lot of the non-essential Android apps are turned off, and FiiOs own app takes over. I am currently using Pure Music V3.3.8.


Home screen	Local music	Folder view

First view of the Pure Music app is a home screen (which you can configure in settings). At the top left is a settings icon (to take you to the Pure Music settings). At the top right is a search icon. In the middle is your now playing graphic. Below are 3 icons (configurable) which will take you to your choice of playlists, local music (accessing music via tagged database or vis folders), DLNA, recently played, most played, or recently added (you can choose 3 options). You can also have lists below these icons – the nice thing is that you decide how you want things to display. Clicking on the now playing graphic (or the note icon beside it) takes you to the main now playing screen.

The main now playing screen shows full sized album art. Tapping on this will cycle a lyrics screen (more on this later), an information screen showing title, album, artist, and format / bit-rate / sample rate, or a V-U meter. Below the album art is a scrubbing slider (or fast forward / rewind). Then below this are the traditional play/pause, next/previous icons (or you can use the physical buttons). At the left of these is the play through choice icon (straight through, shuffle, repeat etc). At the right is a single circle graphic with 3 dots, and this accesses the other features you'd likely to need from a now playing screen – including EQ, marking a track as a favourite as well as accessing the favourites screen, bluetooth, deleting a track, and accessing full information about the track on a single screen. At the very top of the now playing screen are two icons – right is a search icon, and left takes you back to the home screen. Swiping the middle of the album art right advances a track, and left goes back one track. Clicking, holding and moving up or down from the very right edge of the album art adjusts volume. Swiping right from the far left of the album art brings up the current playlist.


Now playing screen	Playlist view	Quick menu

The local music screen gives access to tagged features within the library – including all songs, artist, album, genre and folder access. If you're playing a track while you're accessing this, it appears at the very bottom of the screen along with its controls (and tapping this takes you back to the now playing screen). To the right is a small button with 3 dots. This accesses more features including the ability to sort and also to perform mass operations (for the likes of building playlists). I don't really use this – as I find it easier to build the few playlists I need manually. Navigation is pretty easy, and once you are in a menu, going back is a simple matter of using the back button at the very bottom of the screen.


VU Meter	EQ	Lyric menu

The EQ screen is an interesting one which I do use often, but find frustrating at times. There are presets, and a custom option (but you can customise all the presets, and there is a reset button to return them to their original state). There is a 12 dB swing (-6 / +6) which allows plenty of room for tweaking and 10 bands. The issue is that only 5 sliders are shown on screen at a time, so you have to slide left and right rather than having them all on the screen together. I realise this is a limitation of screen size and I can't find a way to rotate to use landscape. The good news is that the entire 20 Hz – 20 kHz frequency display is shown on the entire screen, so this does help when you've inadvertently hit the wrong slider. Note to FiiO though – a label on each slider would help!


Pure Music settings	Pure Music settings	Pure Music settings

FiiO's Pure Music settings are pretty comprehensive, and I'll show them in 3 screenshots rather than listing them all. The usual features are all covered including playing through folders, gapless, channel balance and gain. There are also some new ones like inclusion of Viper for Android effects which I'll cover shortly. You can also choose your preferred theme (now 3 options), lockscreen, and personalise many of the features. A notable exclusion is replay gain, and the ability to use landscape mode (please FiiO – address this), but otherwise most other settings are addressed pretty well.

Rather than go into depth with any more standard settings, lets look a little closer at some of the other features – some of which I didn't expect, but which are actually quite brilliant.

OTHER FEATURES
The first one I want to cover is something I didn't expect to use, nor actually find useful, When you are in play mode, you can click on the cover art, and bring up a lyrics screen. Tapping on the “search for lyrics” triggers an internet search for the correct lyrics and then saves it as a file. Through another icon/button on the same screen you have access to more tools so you can synchronise the lyrics properly. Its a pretty cool feature, and works well for most mainstream music – and the only thing I wish was easier was to select the sources to be searched.

The next is the Viper effects. These are the set of effects commonly known as Viper for Android, and developed by Euphy Wong – initially for desktop, then later for mobile use. The effects are somewhat similar to some of the enhancements in the Neutron app, or Cowon's BBE. Some are offered free, and others you have to pay for. If you aren't a tweaker, you may find them superfluous. But when the mood takes me, I find the Field Surround and Differential Surround are both really good if you want to widen the sound stage. There are other setting for bass, clarity, volume equalisation – quite a long list really.


Some of the Viper effects	Neutron app running

You also have DAC mode, and coupled with FiiO's driver, I've had no issues connecting from my Windows 10 environment. Unfortunately I'm having a few issues with my Linux build at the moment and all the recent FiiO devices have issues with my desktop when using Linux – but I regard this as more of an issue with my current OS (Mint), and I'm confident when I return to a straight Debian set-up, they'll be solved. I've been using the X5iii with the K5, and no issues with connectivity, nor with selecting the appropriate output. One thing I was pleasantly surprised with was that I could originally connect the X5iii via USB port to my iPhone SE and have the iPhone outputting digitally to the X5iii's DAC. I seem to have lost that functionality with an iOS update – but you may have the ability (either iOS or Android) to use the X5iii as DAC. Its just a matter of trialling it – if it works, then its another nice option.

Gapless – has been a bit hit and miss. FiiO get it working, then sometimes during updates they'll tweak something which causes a reversion to functionality. Usually its fixed again relatively quickly. Currently gapless is 99% of the way there. There is the tiniest of micro-gaps. It doesn't bother me at all but if you are the kind to be completely OCD about having it perfect, you may want to consider something else.

Use of other apps. If FiiO's player isn't to your liking, you can install practically any other music playing app. I've been using Neutron from time to time – mainly because of its wealth of settings, and because I've come to know it pretty well. Its also very stable – sometimes more so than the FiiO Pure Music. But one of the beautiful properties of the X5iii is that at its heart it is an Android player with very good hardware. If you don't like the player – install something you do like as a front end.

I did test streaming with Tidal HQ (even bought a subscription so I could test properly. I was able to configure off-line download to the external memory cards, and it worked pretty well except for one small issue. From time to time it would “hitch” or “stutter” (not often for me – but definitely occurred). I know this issue has also occurred with other players (for example the Cayin i5), so I wonder whether this is a FiiO issue or a Tidal one.

I've also tested the various DAC filters (the X5iii includes sharp roll-off, slow roll-off, short delay sharp roll-off, short delay slow roll-off, and super slow roll-off). I hot swapped between the filters, and to be honest, I cant hear a difference. Could be that my hearing simply isn't sensitive enough. Anyway for me they don't really warrant playing around with. The research I've done into filters (essentially reconstruction filters which play in the ultrasonic regions, and are designed to cope with ringing and possible quantisation noise) suggest that most of them are only going to change things at 1-2 dB max at 15 kHz or higher. Thats beyond my hearing, and due to the frequency and the small change, should be beyond most “normal” people's hearing (and yes that was #sarcasm+jest).

I was unable to test DLNA or DSD over DOP.

STABILITY, SUPPORT, AND KNOWN ISSUES
I'll start first with support, and in my experience FiiO is one of the new breed of companies whose idea of product support is one of collaborative development. They are extremely active in the community, and are always listening to our requests, and trying where possible to implement new features or fix bugs. Unfortunately at times this means that the firmware isn't always stable (which is why the use of other apps is sometimes really important). I've heard a lot of critique about FiiO using its customers as beta testers, and breaking things more often than they fix them. I don't personally have the same experience (most of the time this X5iii has been very stable). It might be worth pointing out that I am more a traditional user though – relying less on streaming, and more on music loaded to the cards.

I have (at various times, and usually with new firmware) experienced crashes with Pure Music, and these can sometimes be quite annoying. I have found that FiiO has been quite responsive in coming up with solutions though, and I'm fairly tolerant as long as the device is still functional.

Included in the known issues are:

Gapless playback has a micro-gap (very small)
There is no replay-gain
Some have reported occasional lagging and stuttering especially with larger files (DSD or extremely high-res). I have not experienced this myself – but all of my files are generally aac256 and I have an entire library on a single 64Gb card
Occasionally – especially when awaking from sleep mode – it can take a couple of seconds for the 2nd micro SD card to be recognised.
Start-up time is fairly slow (around 30 seconds).
Output to 3rd party apps appears to be down-sampled with most (the exception being Neutron). Personally I don't find this being an issue as I know I can't tell the difference anyway. The issue appears to be more the integration of external apps rather than the actual X5iii itself.
Some stuttering with Tidal – appears to be a Tidal issue (have seen similar with the Cayin i5)

SOUND QUALITY & COMPARISONS

The following is what I subjectively hear from the FiiO X5iii. Some of you may find this section a little limited, so I’ll give you some insight into the way I’ve changed my opinion on how to describe the sound with any competently made DAC, DAP or amplifier. The problem with trying to break the sonics down to bass, mids and treble is that DAP / DAC / amp is designed (or should be designed) to be essentially flat across the frequency spectrum. If it has enhanced bass, then isn’t it adding colouration that should come from the headphones or EQ or recording? Likewise, I won’t comment a lot on sound-stage, as this is primarily a by-product of the actual recording, or the transducers you’re using.

So how do I go about describing it? Well my gear isn't great for measuring DAPs but judging by the correspondence from FiiO, and their own measurements, I’m pretty confident the X5iii is very linear in its frequency response. What I will do is comment on overall tonality and resolution, and also expand further when comparing the X5iii to some of the other DAPs I have experience with.

For the record – on most tracks, the volume on X5iii was adjusted to give 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.17556 When I tested side-by-side with other DAPs I used test tones, and an SPL meter to volume match. I used the same track, and had the players set up so I could rapid switch. Testing was performed with LZ's Big Dipper.

X5iii General Tonality

This is actually an easy one – because the X5iii is (for me anyway) quite unique among the DAPs I've heard. I originally thought it was quite warm, but its not so much warm as rich and smooth. But isn't that warm Brooko? Nope – the low end is not enhanced (to me anyway) and there is no added bass response. I've seen others describe the X5iii as warm, or muddy. Or veiled, and I'm afraid thats not what I'm hearing. What I have found instead is that the X5iii actually has an extremely high level of resolution. With a headphone like the HD800S (or indeed any decent reasonably well balanced IEM) all the detail is there, and pretty easy to discern. Where the X5iii differs from some other DAPs I own is that the tonality is silky smooth – no sign of harshness or glare. It's funny too – I've never really noticed the glare on other DAPs before, but when comparing side-by-side, the X5iii just seems to have a really nice tonality.

Resolution / Detail / Clarity
Clarity and resolution is excellent on this DAP, its just not as “in your face” as some of the other DAPs I have. I've gone over my test tracks 100's of times now, and the X5iii is not missing any of the detail or resolution of my other “more linear sounding” DAPs. Its just the presentation of that detail. When playing PF's “Money”, all the nuances from the cash registers are present – they just don't have that artificial edge to them. In “Sultans of Swing” I can still hear the clicks when Withers taps his drumsticks together, but there isn't that extra heat or emphasis. What I hear is more organic, more balanced, more tonally pleasing.

Soundstage / Imaging
Why is this section even here? The perception of sound-stage in a DAP is a result of the music you listen to (the recording) and the transducers you use. The DAP has virtually nothing to do with it, as long as it has decent crosstalk measurements, and there is no DSP involved. I often laugh quietly to myself when I read reviews claiming one DAP has more sound-stage than another. For the record, I volume matched the Cayin i5 and X5iii (same DAC sections), and tested my binaural tracks. Both sounded pretty much the same. And with the HD800S or the Big Dipper IEM, the perceived sound-stage width/depth was the same on both, and only influenced by the actual transducer being used. The one advantage the X5iii has in this area is the ability to use the Viper settings with Pure Music (you can also get similar effects with Neutron's DSP settings). Both can shape the perceived stage (very nicely in fact).

X5iii vs X5 Original

The original X5 was about the size an iPod Classic, but with better internals and a mechanical wheel. In terms of size, the X5 iii is almost exactly the same size as the X5 original. They both have dual micro SDXC slots, both can play most high-res formats (the X5iii can do native DSD decoding which the original X5 can't), both have similar output options (coax, line and headphone outs), and both have similar battery life (X5 original is slightly better at 10-12 hours vs X5iii's 8-10 hours.

The X5iiis advantages come with it's wireless connectivity options, touch screen, separate wheel for volume control, balanced output, more feature options via the Android interface (apps etc) and a better screen resolution. Power output is very similar (single-ended).

Sonically the two are practically identical, and in fact the X5 original is closer to the overall sonic signature of the X5iii than any of FiiO's other players. There is still a slight edge to the upper mid-range and lower treble which seems to be softened on the X5iii.

Gong back to the X5 original has actually been a really good exercise, and I've been surprised (all over again) at how good it sounds. Is the X5iii a big step up? Well, sonically I'd say no – but in virtually every other category – yes. It simply brings a lot more features, while retaining that original silky smooth but balanced signature.

X5iii vs X5ii

The X5 2nd gen (X5ii) again is very close in size to the new X5iii, and shares (once again) remarkably similar physical dimensions (the X5iii is marginally larger and heavier). They again both have dual micro SDXC slots, both can play most high-res formats (both handle DSD this time), both have similar output options (coax, line and headphone outs), and both have similar battery life.

The X5iiis advantages again come with it's wireless connectivity options, touch screen, separate wheel for volume control, balanced output, more feature options via the Android interface (apps etc) and a better screen resolution. Power output is similar (single-ended), although I do need more power on the X5iii to volume match with the Dipper. The X5iii does have one advantage (feature wise) compared to the X5iii and that is working replay gain. Both also have a reasonable search function.

Sonically its amazing how many mis-conceptions disappear when volume matched and quickly switched. These two are a lot closer than I expected. The X5iii is slightly smoother but its definitely not any warmer. The X5ii still sounds slightly more vivid, and actually sounds a little cleaner (again its that very slight smoothing that the X5iii brings).

Once more I'm pleasantly surprised how the X5ii performs, and given that you can now buy a new X5ii on Amazon for only fractionally more than the new X3iii, it is even more a stellar performer than it originally debuted – especially as the fw matured. Of course the advantages of the X5iii still remain with its Android UI, features, and wireless connectivity. Those looking for absolute clarity are possibly better staying with the 2nd generation model. For me though, the combination of features (esp Viper or Neutron) are still worth the extra coin, and the wireless (Bluetooth) is really useful with my FiiL Diva.

X5iii vs X7ii

This one should be interesting. The X7ii is if course the update to FiiO's flagship DAP. Its only been out a couple of months, and already has a big following. The X7ii is larger, mainly due to it's interchangeable amp section. But the design of the X7ii now borrows heavily from the X5iii, and includes dual expansion slots now, the volume wheel, and even the software is essentially identical. The same apps, wireless connectivity (although the X7ii adds access to the 5GHz band), access to balanced output (although the X7ii is more traditional and doubles volume output where the X5iii is weaker) – in fact the X7ii is essentially an X5iii but with different DAC (X5iii's dual AK4490 vs X7ii's ES9028 Pro). The other major difference in terms of hardware features is that the X7ii can utilise the new AM3a amplifier unit, but also any of the previous amplifier modules (including the high power AM5).

Sonically the difference is not huge, but is noticeable, and its a repeat of past comparisons. The Sabre DAC of the X7ii is noticeably more neutral and appears cleaner because of it. The X5iii in comparison has that slightly smoother rich tonality which people will either love (find it musical) or dislike (citing it as warm). This is not a night and day, and really comes down to preference. I can absolutely see the extra value in the X7ii – and especially if you're using the one device to drive a variety of headphones, and likely to utilise the functionality of different amp modules. For me, if I had to choose one at the moment, and my primary portable use is with IEMs or my FiiL Diva, it would be the X5iii simply because I genuinely like the tonality (which surprised me a little), and I also prefer the slightly smaller form factor. But you can't go wrong with either (two thumbs up FiiO).

So what about another Android based DAP – well fortunately I happen to have Cayin's i5 with me.

X5iii vs Cayin i5

In terms of size, the two are very similar with the Cayin being slightly longer. Cayin only supplies one measurement of power output, so I tested both with my HD800S and playing same track at max volume, the i5 was able to supply 10 dB more volume than the X5iii (measured with calibrated gear). One slightly interesting quirk about the i5 is that the screen has to be on to change volume, where the X5iii works as it should. Cayins UI is based on a customised version of Hiby, and things like scanning are very fast (quicker than X5iii). The UI itself can be a bit easier at times to follow than FiiOs and other times more complex (getting to EQ requires more steps), but on the whole both are comparable. The i5 uses an older Android 4 version where the FiiO is Android 5. Wireless performance on both is comparable – however neither have as good wireless connectivity as my iPhone. Bluetooth range and stability is slightly better on the Cayin i5, but both are good for portable use with a headset. I was able to install 3rd party apps like Neutron and Tidal on the i5. Both performed well – with Tidal having the same issues on the i5 as the X5iii (intermittent stuttering). Both can be used as an external DAC, and I had no issues with either (after installing drivers) on a Windows 10 PC. For general ease of use and comparing the default Pure Music (X5iii) to Hiby (i5), my personal preference would be toward the X5iii. The i5 has also (over time) been a little more quirky – at odd times not playing until closing and restarting, displaying wrong album art etc

Sonically the two are very close and I guess this is the result of the same DAC hardware (AK 4490). I spent a lot of time going between the two and when volume matched, I'd say they sound practically identical – I certainly can't tell them apart in a blind test. At first I thought that there might have been a little more extension with the i5, but when I got my wife to help me blind swap I was completely baffled over which was which (more evidence of sighted bias at play). Both sound fantastic with a rich and smooth tonality that I personally find intoxicating.

In terms of overall preference, its a bit of a tough one for me. The price now on both units is pretty close – you can pick up an i5 for $470 so its much closer to the X5iii's 399 RRP. Both have their strong points. I don't tend to need 2 micro SDXC slots (I use aac256 on my portables anyway, so storage is never an issue). For me a balanced connection has more advantage with additional power (and the X5iii's is not configured that way). Both can power my HD800S with headroom to spare and I'd simply use my A5 amp anyway if I needed it. My personal preference goes with the slightly cheaper, slightly less quirky X5iii. Both have their individual personalities, neither is perfect, but the comparison is really close – and I would really be happy with either.

EDIT Nov 2017 - I've been reviewing the i5 over the last couple of weeks, and it has involved active comparisons with the X5iii once again. With the latest i5 firmware there is now a slight difference - the i5 appears to have a very slight shift in tonality - more toward neutrality - a little less warmth. The change is really subtle though. Definitely still more warm than neutral to me.

BALANCED PERFORMANCE

I've tested this. The balanced output actually has slightly less power than the single ended, so no advantages there. So what advantages to balanced output are there? Balanced must be better right? Not really. Balanced will chew the battery quicker, and both outputs would drive practically any IEM into the regions of deafening you. Both are essentially over-kill.

Now lets look at the real differences - those bits that people make claims on. Remember how balanced is always cleaner, darker, more spacious, wider sound-stage .......Lets look at cleaner first. SNR on SE is 115 dB and on balanced is 111 dB. Both are beyond what we can hear - so no difference. Both have THD measurements at 0.003% = beyond our hearing. You'll get a magnitude more distortion from your earphones. Now the important one - crosstalk (channel separation). SE is 73 dB and balanced is 98 dB. That must make a big difference - right?

I'm going to quote something bookmarked a long time ago:
The FCC minimum channel separation/crosstalk spec for FM Stereo used to be 29.7dB...yes, that's right, 29.7. It had to do with how the signal was generated and handled, but 30 - 40dB wasn't hard to achieve, and 50dB wasn't uncommon.

The bulk of what is perceived as stereo separation happens above 20dB with decreasing detectable improvements above 30dB or so. It's almost impossible to detect separation improvements above 40dB. Localization of a phantom image depends less on channel separation and much more on relative intensity and inter-aural time delay of the sound, and human hearing response at different angles.
So....long answer...separation above 40dB doesn't improve sound quality, below 40dB it slowly degrades, the final separation is equal to the device with the least separation in the system. Once degraded by a device, no device following it can restore separation.
As you can see, SE crosstalk at 73 dB and balanced at 98 dB actually means nothing - we can't hear it.

What essentially happens is two things.
People read the specs, and tell themselves balanced must sound better, and thats what they talk themselves into. In a blind volume matched test, they won't tell a difference (unless impedance changes frequency).
Most people don't volume match, and we are terrible at volume matching by ear (which is what a lot of people do). Most balanced circuits output a lot more power by design - therefore they are louder. People saying they hear a difference are often simply listening to one louder than the other. And we know louder is perceived as sounding better. Int his case the X5iii's balanced output is ever so slightly weaker.
There are two other possibilities for differences:
The balanced circuit actually sounds better by design (unlikely given FiiO's expertise)
Impedance mismatch can affect frequency response for multi-BA driver set-ups (rarely happens with dynamics). You'll note the <1 ohm (SE) vs 3 ohm (bal) output.
Either way, if you're buying the X5iii because it has balanced output, and expecting a sonic miracle, you'd be better with EQ.
VALUE

So how do I see the overall value of the X5iii? Quite simply, it reaches that overall performance which has me definitely recommending it at its current price point. In FiiO's current range (X1ii, X3iii, X5iii and X7ii), it sits as the best overall value DAP (features for price) – especially if you are mainly using it for portable use and easier to drive earphones or headphones. I also have not encountered any DAP (and admittedly my experience with other brands is not extensive) which has more features and better sound (subjective) for the price.

FIIO X5iii – SUMMARY

My apologies, once again an overly long review, and my intention in future is to try and be more concise. Also my thanks to FiiO (especially Sunny and Shadow) for their support with my questions, for supplying the review sample, and for including me in some of their testing programmes).

The X5iii is a very well presented DAP with good build and some really good hardware design features (volume wheel, recessed SDXC trays), and just a few minor (IMO) fails (position of the on/off button, limited RAM). It feels great in the hand, has good implementation of both Bluetooth and Wireless, and the touchscreen seems quite responsive. It has the ability to store on 2 external sdxc cards. Power output is more than sufficient for IEMs and portable devices, and I've found its output perfectly OK with both my HD600 and HD800S. It also has a balanced output option – although this has slightly weaker output than its single ended output.

In terms of UI and features, the X5iii is pretty much up with most modern DAPs and includes a couple of extras (Viper DSP settings & also a lyrics search) which I wasn't expecting to find. The UI is easy to follow and relatively stable, although like most Android devices I've seen, as its good days and bad. For my personal use, I've had the occasional crash – but overall the fw has been relatively stable (YMMV depending on usage).

Sonically (and this is subjective) the X5iii has a rich and smooth tonality which I know many will call “warmish”. It has no issues with resolution or clarity, and I personally love the overall signature from the AK4490 DAC.

So far it has ticked all my personal boxes in what I look for in a DAP, and at the price of $399 I personally find that in terms of tonality, features, usability and performance – it is one of the “best in class” in terms of overall value.

4 stars from me. Possible improvements would include better button layout, a balanced output with increased power, more ram and more on-board storage.

Again – thanks to FiiO for providing me with the X5iii for review.

Hi. The review at one point mentioned that I5 outputs 10db more power than X5iii via single-ended. The problem is that Fiio advertised that X5iii outputs around 250mW compared to I5 which outputs only 190mW. So does that mean that I5 is actually much more powerful than X5iii?

Picture are default 1200 x 800 resolution - click (photos in tables) to view larger images.

INTRODUCTION

The search for the holy grail, for our personal end-game earphones. For many it will be a “pipe dream” – there is always something better. For others it can be simply a matter of gaining enough experience to really understand what our own personal triggers are, and then getting as close as possible within an affordable budget. For the lucky ones, what awaits is the chance to forget about the excitement of new gear, and enjoy the much more fulfilling (for me anyway) experience of reconnecting with music you know, and discovering new music you’ve not had the pleasure of hearing. For me, ultimately its always been about the music. The HD800S has been the full sized headphone which delivered my affordable end-game for at home listening. Combined with my iDSD and whatever source I choose to use, it never ceases to envelope me in the music, and forget about the medium I’m listening through. Finding the perfect IEM has been somewhat harder.

One of the issues with finding our “affordable end-game” is that often we are in the mood for subtle change in presentation. It could be that you want more bass to really “jam out”, or you’d like to have the mid-range heightened so you are closer to the vocalist, or the treble softened if the recording is a little hot. The problem is that to satisfy this we either have to be adept at using EQ (its not hard once you learn), have reasonably deep pockets (for multiple earphones), or be prepared to use hardware EQ like bass boost or tone controls. Strangely I don’t have the same wants with my full sized set-up, but I can understand those who like variety with their portables.

There have been many tunable earphones released over the last few years. RHA, RockJaw and then Trinity were all early adopters. Some products were pretty well presented with some very good tuning options. Others unfortunately left me scratching my head a little. Then FLC arrived with their ground breaking FLC8S triple hybrid. Suddenly you could have more control of your IEM – albeit with limitations. RHA and Trinity designs were good but somewhat limited in their application. The FLC8S was really versatile, but changing the filters could be an exercise. And then recently a small Chinese company LZ (Lao Zhong) HiFi Audio appeared with a new tunable hybrid coming in at under $200. I reviewed it recently, and found it to have some extremely good tuning options – but still wasn’t quite there in terms of the overall package (including fit and comfort). This year they released a new model – their “Big Dipper”, and at a price point of US 620 (no tuning options) to $860 (3 switches giving 6 options), this 7 BA IEM certainly was taking things to a different price point, but also a different level. But was it any good? Read on to see my thoughts on this new earphone from LZ.

ABOUT LZ

LZ Hi-Fi Audio is a difficult company to get to know. Check their website – virtually nothing to give insight to the company. Facebook – and its similar. I was extremely lucky, in that I had Head-Fi's own duyu (Frank) who was able to get me a little inside knowledge.

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 products appeared on Head-Fi 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.

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.

I also thought that this might be interesting for those who are both already fans of LZ HiFi and also potential fans – a series of photos of their operation. I always find it pretty cool to think of the care that goes into truly hand-made products. Special thanks to both LZ for allowing me to display them, and also duyu for sourcing them for me. Click the photos for larger images.

DISCLAIMER

The LZ Big Dipper that I’m reviewing today is the $860 3 switch option, and 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. 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 LZ HiFi.

I have now had the LZ Big Dipper for 3 weeks. The retail price at time of review for the 3 switch option is USD 860 (Penon Audio).

Update - these were so good I ended up buying a pair direct from LZ. They are now one of my most used IEMs. They are outstanding.

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

I'm a 50 year old music lover. I don't say audiophile – I just love my music. Over the last couple of years, I have slowly changed from cheaper listening set-ups to my current set-up. I vary my listening from portables (mostly now from the FiiO X5iii, X7ii and iPhone SE) to my desk-top's set-up (PC > USB > iFi iDSD). My main full sized headphones at the time of writing are the Sennheiser HD800S, Sennheiser HD600 & HD630VB, and AKG K553. Most of my portable listening is done with IEMs, and it has mainly been with my own personally owned IEMs - the Jays q-Jays, Alclair Curve2 and Adel U6. A full list of the gear I have owned (past and present is listed in my Head-Fi profile).

I have very eclectic music tastes listening to a variety from classical/opera and jazz, to grunge and general rock. I listen to a lot of blues, jazz, folk music, classic rock, indie and alternative rock. I am particularly fond of female vocals. I generally tend toward cans that are relatively neutral/balanced, but I do have a fondness for clarity, and suspect I might have slight ‘treble-head’ preferences. I am not overly treble sensitive, and in the past have really enjoyed headphones like the K701, SR325i, and of course the T1 and DT880. I have a specific sensitivity to the 2-3 kHz frequency area (most humans do) but my sensitivity is particularly strong, and I tend to like a relatively flat mid-range with slight elevation in the upper-mids around this area.

I have extensively tested myself (ABX) and I find aac256 or higher to be completely transparent. I do use exclusively red-book 16/44.1 if space is not an issue. All of my music is legally purchased (mostly CD – the rest FLAC purchased on-line). I tend to be skeptical about audiophile ‘claims’, don’t generally believe in burn-in, have never heard a difference with different cables (unless it was volume or impedance related), and would rather test myself blind on perceived differences. I am not a ‘golden eared listener’. I suffer from mild tinnitus, and at 50, my hearing is less than perfect (it only extends to around 14 kHz nowadays). My usual listening level is around 65-75 dB.

For the purposes of this review - I used the LZ Big Dipper from various sources at my disposal – both straight from the headphone-out socket, and also with further amplification. In the time I have spent with the LZ-BD, I have personally noticed no change to the overall sonic presentation (break-in), although I note that LZ recommends it (I'm not sure why).

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 full package (courtesy Penon Audio)	Aluminum case (courtesy greg7575)

To cut down on postage, and because I live out in the wop-wops (New Zealand is after all just a group of 3 islands in the South Pacific), LZ simply sent me the small carry case (including some tips) and the IEMs. So I haven't actually had a chance to review the full package – but I have included a couple of photos shamelessly taken from other sources so you know what you can expect. The first four photos aren't mine, and credit instead goes to Penon Audio and our own greg7575.


First look at the dipper and carry case (courtesy greg7575)	Closer look at Greg's set-up (courtesy greg7575)

What you appear to get is an aluminum case which is sort of a miniature version of the one the Beyer T1 headphones used to come in. The case actually looks pretty nice from what I've seen, and befits a flagship. Inside it you get the accessories shown (and listed below). In the courier parcel I received was just the round carry case, selection of tips, and of course the Big Dipper and cable.


The Dipper contents I was sent	Tips which were included

The round storage case is moderately large, and realistically won't be used as a carry case – unless in a larger jacket pocket or carry bag. It is 80mm in diameter, 35mm in height, with a lift-off lid, and internally lined with a soft felt like padded material. The case works well and is ideal for safe storage on a desk top, or protection when on the go.

The total accessory package appears to include:

3 pairs of black silicone single flange tips
3 pairs of black silicone “Sony Hybrid” type
1 3.5 to 6.3mm adapter
1 round metallic carry case
LZ instruction manual
1 pair of LZ-Big Dipper IEMs
1 x 3.5 mm single ended to 2 pin earphone cable
1 x large aluminum storage case


Carry case ….	…. Which fits the Dipper nicely

I think the only thing I'd personally like to see is maybe an airline adapter (because the isolation on these is excellent), and the inclusion of some foam tips (preferably Comply, but even Crystal would be good). Otherwise, a good start.

TECHNICAL SPECIFICATIONS
(From LZ's packaging / website)

Model	Big Dipper
Approx price	$620 - 860 USD (depends on tuning options)
Type	7 x BA drivers IEM
Drivers	7 Balanced Armature
Freq Range	15Hz – 25kHz
Impedance	25Ω
Sensitivity	115 dB/mW
Cable Type	1.3m, SPC 6N 8 core (2 pin 0.78mm)
Jack	3.5mm gold plated single ended, straight
Weight (Cable only)	25g
Weight (IEMs only)	9g
Casing material	UV Curable Resin

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.

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.

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.

I’ll go through the full range of tuning options later in the review, but as you can see from the frequency response chart, the driver matching is very good. The Dipper appears to have an extremely well balanced frequency response with good extension from sub-bass through to lower treble. It has a classical / traditional mid-bass hump, a little recession in the lower mids, and rise through to upper mid-range which is necessary (IMO anyway) for cohesion. The treble is very well extended and there is a peak at around 9 kHz.

The other thing which is easy to see (once you make the connection) is the frequency plot’s relation to its name. The Big Dipper (or Ursa Major constellation – also commonly known as the “Big Bear”) is a constellation of 7 major stars (refers to the 7BA set-up) which when viewed on the correct angle somewhat reflects the frequency response plot you can see in the graphs.

BUILD AND DESIGN


External face of the shell	Side view

The LZ Big Dipper has what I would call a half circular shape – and one which is very akin to fully customised moulds. The body is made (by hand) using UC Curable Resin. It is 26mm across at its widest point, approx 20mm high and the main body is approximately 12mm deep. There are no sharp surfaces anywhere on the IEM, everything is well rounded, and beautifully form fitting. The shell on my pair has a carbon fibre look to the outer face plate, and is slightly translucent, allowing viewing of some of the BAs and their crossovers.


Rear view and tuning switches	Internal face

The internal side is well rounded with gentle ridges and valleys designed to perfectly fit with the main contours of your ear. The nozzle is set toward the front, and has a slight angle up and forward (which aids the fit even more perfectly). It starts with a gentle flare of around 5mm in height away from the body, and this further extends by another 5mm being the nozzle itself. The nozzle is 6mm in diameter, is mesh covered, and has an excellent lip which greatly aids possible tip choices.

On the rear side of the Dipper is a serial number, and also (if you've taken the tunable option) a series of switches. Mine has 3 small micro switches marker 1,2,3 and the top marked “On”. The switches are pretty small and to successfully engage them, you may need to use a pen or paper clip.


Beautifully formed to fit the ear	2 pin 0.78mm connectors

At the top of the Dipper shell is a recessed 2 pin (0.78mm) socket. The socket is firm and fits well with the cable. The cable is a braided 4 wire on each side (ear-piece to y-split) then braided 8 wire to the jack. The wire is silver plated 6N copper wire, and the sheath is a very flexible plastic compound. Whilst the cable is somewhat on the bulky side, it is also very pliable, and the added weight actually helps it hang properly without the need for over-ear loops. There is a short relief at the ear-phones, none at the y-split (which looks to be just a plastic or resin tube), but good relief at the 3.5mm gold plated jack. I'm not to worried abut the relief at the y-split, as it is essentially just a split of the cable and unlikely to see any wear (and also the cable just looks and feels really strong). At the y-split is a very good and well designed rubber cinch. And at the jack end is a simply Velcro cable tie (affixed to the cable). It works pretty well, but long term I may remove it. I do get some minor cable noise (microphonics), however once the cinch is in place, and cable secured under clothes, this is eliminated completely.


Y-split and cinch	3.5mm SE jack and cable tie

Internally the LZ Bid Dipper uses a 7 BA set-up, configured 1 low/sub, 2mid-low, 2 mid and 2 high. I'm pretty sure they are Knowles. LZ does use crossovers, and I think that for the models including the switches, they are also configuring where the crossovers occur for the overall tuning.

All in all, I would say that the design and build quality is excellent (absolutely no issues), and looks very durable.

FIT / COMFORT / ISOLATION
Isolation is extremely good with the Dipper but ultimately will depend on the tips you use and how good the seal is. I've already used these on a couple of flights, and can definitely say that with a pair of Comply Comfort (Ts series), they were brilliant – eliminating most cabin noise and easily achieving the same sort of isolation as well fitting Shure IEMs.


Worn over ear – housing is extremely comfortable	Comply Ts and Shure Olives

Turning to fit and comfort, and these thoughts are more subjective, and will vary from person to person, my experience has been one of complete satisfaction. As I mentioned earlier, the Dipper has been designed very similar to a custom IEM, and it shows with the overall fit. Saying these are ergonomic is a bit of an understatement. For me they are a perfect fit, fit flush with my outer ear, and basically disappear within a few minutes 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, the super-smooth finish, and the gentle moulding around the contours of the ear all contribute to an extremely positive experience. The LZ Big Dipper is designed to only be used cable over ear.


Spiral Dots and Ostry Tuning tips	Sony Isolation and Spinfit tips

The LZ-BD has an excellent lip on the nozzle, and because of this you can have a reasonable variety of tip choices. I tried Spiral Dots, Spin-fits, Ostry tuning tips (which gave me quite a good seal), and Sony Isolation tips, and all fit pretty well. I did find foam tips tended to give me a little more overall comfort and better seal – but that is principally because I have one wider ear canal (left) than the other – so often getting perfect fit for me can be problematic. Because the BD isn't a vented design, I did find that if I got a full seal with a silicone tip (eg Sony Isolation) it could cause some pressure issues – so I stuck with Comply Ts series foams.

So the general build is extremely good, and the shape is (for me anyway) perfect. What about the filter options if you go for the tunable model?

FILTER / TUNING SYSTEM

This always a tough one – as there are so 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 its tonality and lose sight of its performance against the other options. Hopefully this summary will allow people to dial into their preferred curve early – and then experiment from there.

The filter system is controlled by a series of switches on the rear of the Dipper shell. Depending on the model you bought, it will come with no, 1, 2 or all 3 switches. The switches are simply on-off, and if looking into the three option model, control:

lower mid-range, mid bass and sub-bass
lower mid-range and upper mids
lower and upper treble

As I understand it, the switches control the crossovers – which in turn gives you fundamental shifts in the overall tuning. They are very tiny, and I found best way to move them was with either a fine-tipped pen, paper clip – or for me, A FiiO tray popper (for their DAPs).

Looking at the bass switch first, it raises everything from sub-bass to approximately 1.5 kHz, but in different increments. Sub and mid-bass are raised by approximately 5-6 dB fairly evenly from 20 Hz to around 300 Hz, and from that point it diminishes down to about 2-3 dB at 1 kHz and tapers off after that. It definitely gives a nice bass boost – but it is quite evenly applied. I like – but would imagine that some bass lovers will possibly get more satisfaction from a hardware or software targeted EQ boost.


Bass adjustment	Mid-range adjustment	Treble adjustment

The mid-range switch is quit subtle and is the switch with more changes to shape than quantity. With the switch off, there is quite a sharp rise from 1.5-2.5 kHz. Turning the mid-range switch on slightly rises the lower mid-range by 2-3 dB at 1 kHz, goes slightly higher (not much more than 1 dB) at just over 2 kHz, and softens the peak. It really doesn't touch the lower treble or sub/mid-bass at all. The effects are definitely audible, but very subtle.

The treble switch really doesn't have any effect except above 5 kHz, where it raises everything by around 3-5 dB including the already existing 9 kHz peak. Treble heads will possibly really like this switch (depending on their other choices), but I found that I didn't want any more treble than what was there originally, and kept this one turned off.

Because the biggest change over all comes from the bass switch, I'd imagine this may be the best switch to target for those who cannot afford the 3 switch option. I have shown below all possible options. I found the switches really quite good, although my personal preference would have been to have more control (split) with sub and mid-bass, and possible an option of lowering both treble and mid-range below their current “off” designations though. This is probably nit-picking because I find the bass on, mid off and treble off combo extremely good, and as a default tuning (if there was only one), I find it a very well balanced signature overall.

I've shown below all 8 possible combinations / filter choices – click for larger images


All switches off	-bass, - mids, + treble	-bass, + mids, - treble	-bass, + mids, + treble


+bass, - mids, - treble	+bass, - mids, + treble	+bass, + mids, - treble	All switches on

SOUND QUALITY

The following is what I hear from the LZ Big Dipper. YMMV – and probably will (also because we are talking about an earphone with many tuning options) – 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 X5iii (single ended) no EQ, bass filter on, and both mid and treble filter off, and Comply Ts Comfort tips. I used the FiiO X5iii simply because it gives me a transparent window to the music with low impedance, and more than enough power. There was no DSP engaged.


My trusty FiiO X5iii	New FiiO X7ii was equally impressive

For the record – on most tracks, the volume on X5iii was around the 40/120 level which was giving me an average SPL around 65-75 dB. I did lift this to 45/120 at times especially with male based vocal tracks. Tracks used were across a variety of genres – and can be viewed in this list http://www.head-fi.org/a/brookos-test-tracks.17556

Relativities

Sub-bass – has good extension and even at my lower listening levels the rumble is clearly audible, but is not really visceral (I often find BA bass does not have the same impact as dynamic). Does not dominate at all with tracks like Lorde's Royals, but does give enough thump to give a sense of impact without overshadowing vocals, and there is no bleed (or masking) into the lower mid-range. Balanced and quick rather than slamming.
Mid-bass – has a natural mid-bass hump – providing good impact, and sitting nicely balanced with the actual sub-bass. Mid-bass is elevated over lower mids, but roughly equal with upper mids with this filter combination.
Lower mid-range – there is a recession compared to sub and mid-bass, and also the upper mid-range, but does not sound overly recessed or distant (there is a sense of distance there though). Male vocals do not quite have the same presence as female vocals (and I sometimes have an urge to turn the volume up slightly), but they do have enough body to be enjoyable.
Upper mid-range – elevated compared to lower mid-range, and there is a rise from 1 kHz to a first peak at just over 2 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.
Lower treble has very good extension, and really is quite sustained 2 kHz through to 10kHz with just some minor dips in the 6, 8 and 10 kHz areas. But it isn't over-emphasised with this filter combination, remaining at about the same amplitude as the upper mid-range and bass. This presents a lot of clarity and detail, but without any sign of harshness.
Upper treble – rolls off with this filter combination, but I don't feel as though I am missing anything. It could be simply my measuring equipment – it tends to struggle with accuracy over 10 kHz

Resolution / Detail / Clarity

Clarity is excellent – its something BA's tend to do extremely well, and the Dipper is fantastic in this area. Cymbals are crystal clear and show good decay without over-doing things with too much upper harmonics in the 7 kHz area. Tracks like Pink Floyd's “Money” display a tremendous amount of detail without any sign of smearing.
Breaking Benjamin's “Diary of Jayne” is a really good track because there is plenty of high-hat action, but over the top are the vocals and a lot of guitar. The Dipper handles it all with ease, and there is never any sign of confusion or missing / masked micro detail.
Seether's live version of “Immortality” from their “One Cold Night” live album was a good track for checking the ability of cymbal decay to come through clearly despite the amount of acoustic guitar presence, and the ensuing mix in this track alone was simply addictive.
Overall I feel as though I'm hearing everything in the recordings – and this is even at my lower listening levels. Older rock recordings are pleasantly easy to get every nuance. The balance is really good.

Sound-stage and Imaging

Directional queues are excellent – very clean and clear, and presentation of stage is just outside the periphery of my head space with binaural tracks. The LZ Dipper is nicely expansive and does present a bigger stage than their LZ-A4.
Separation of instruments and imaging is fantastic, and I would say it is one of the strengths of this earphone.
One of the more spherically presented sound-stages I've had with an IEM – with virtually no L/R dominance, and good sense of depth.
The applause section of “Dante's Prayer” was extremely well presented with a realistic of flow around me. Does not quite come to the level of the RE2000, but at half the price it is in the same league. Impressive.
“Let it Rain” had a wonderfully three-dimensional sense of spatial presentation – it is the way the track was miked. There was a slight hint of sibilance with Amanda's vocal – and I know its present in the recording – so not unexpected. What was great is that the sibilance was not overly highlighted, and the overall detail was still in abundance.

Sonic Strengths

Overall tonal balance and clarity – while retaining a smoothness in the lower treble
Imaging, separation and sense of space in the staging.
Both sub and mid-bass have good impact with the filter turned on (enough for me anyway) but do not dominate otherwise
Very good portrayal of both male and female vocals, although male vocals are not as full or rich as their female counterparts.
Very detailed at low listening levels
Extremely good transition between lower and upper mid-range

Sonic Weaknesses

A little sense of distance with male vocals particularly, leading me to tend to push volume up a little.
Inability of filter combos to flatten out amplitude frequency response – basically to bring the 1 kHz area a little closer to bass and treble peaks.

AMPLIFICATION REQUIREMENTS

The LZ Big Dipper is not a hard IEM to drive with its 25ohm impedance and 115 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 third of its volume for a comfortable 65-75dB and going to 50% volume was simply to loud for me on most tracks (pushing into the 80-85dB range).


iPhone SE and IMS Hybrid	X5iii and FiiO A5

But I went back and forth (volume matching with test tones and fixed volumes using a few different combos – iPhone SE & IMS portable valve amp, X3ii & E17K, and X5iii & A5, and did not notice any appreciable difference between amped and straight out of a DAP. My advice would be to further amp if you prefer it – but its definitely not needed. One of the interesting things was using the A5, and you could really push the sub-bass with its targeted bass boost. Not my “cup of tea”, but I could see some enjoying it. I did really enjoy the IMS Hybrid (digital out from iPhone to the IMS DAC and amp), and I'm looking forward to trying the new Q1ii when it is eventually released.

EQ / BALANCED PERFORMANCE

I'm still waiting for my balanced 2 pin cable, so might add to this section once it arrives. My interest here is more in trying to see how differing impedance would affect frequency response.

As far as EQ goes, that is ultimately what the tuning filters are there for, but I did use hardware EQ in the form of the E17K and A5 bass boost and both times the LZ Big Dipper responded well with no clipping issues. There seems to be no real issues with EQ if applied properly, but for me personally its not something I need with the tuning options I've settled with.

COMPARISON WITH OTHER IEMS

A hard one to try and compare – mainly because of the filters (there are not a lot in this price range). So for this one I looked simply to show the overall performance compared to some IEMs in a similar price bracket.

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 my old work-horse combo – the FiiO X3ii and E17K. 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 75dB.

I chose to compare Dunu's DK-3001 (~$500), HiFiMan's RE800 (~$700), 64 Audio's U6 and U10 ($900 and $1300 respectively), and finally HiFiMan's USD 2000 RE2000 – simply because I could.

LZ Big Dipper (~USD 860) vs Dunu DK-3001 (~USD 500)


LZ Big Dipper and Dunu Dk-3001	Frequency comparisons

Dunu's DK-3001 sonically would be one of the best IEMs I've heard this year, and especially when price is taken into account. Putting it up against the Big Dipper was an interesting exercise, as there were many similarities, but also many differences. Physically, both are incredibly well built, with the Dunu having a slight edge on permanent materials, but the Dipper having a landslide win on ergonomics and comfort. The DK-3001 has a pretty good accessory package and that includes the SE and balanced cable options. But the Dipper has the tuning options, and the cable which is included is definitely quality. Overall on build, fit and overall design, the Dipper is definitely worth the extra outlay IMO.

Moving to sonics, we're comparing the Dippers 7BA set-up vs Dunu's quad hybrid design. And the two are incredibly close with the mid-range and lower treble sounding practically the same. The big (or not so big) difference is in the bass, where despite the graph telling me the Dipper's bass should be more pronounced, the dynamic driver of the DK-3001 does seem to give a similar overall amount of bass (to my ears anyway). The DK-3001 sounds a little fuller and more robust, where the Dipper is quicker and more refined. Staging and imaging is definitely superior on the Dipper, and the upper mid-range and lower treble does actually seem a little more refined too – despite being so similar on the graph.

Ultimately this one is a really hard one to call, because both sound fantastic. My preference would be for the Dipper though, simply because they both sound fantastic, but the Dipper is night and day more comfortable.

LZ Big Dipper (~USD 860) vs HiFiMan RE-800 (~USD 699)


LZ Big Dipper and HiFiMan RE800	Frequency comparisons

The RE800 is one of those IEMs where HiFiMan got just about everything right and stumbled at the last hurdle. And its really apparent when you compare the RE800 with the Dipper. In build quality, the two will end up being very close, especially with the change to a replaceable cable in the final RE800 iteration. The Dipper does feel more sturdy to me though, but I'd say they are pretty evenly matched with fit and comfort.

Sonically the RE800 is actually closer to what I would call true reference (as long as you ignore the 7 kHz spike). Its flatter (leaner) overall, and the transition from lower mid-range to upper-mids is delightful. The Dipper comparatively (in the configuration I have) has more pronounced bass, but a lot smoother and more articulate upper mid-range and lower treble. If the 7 kHz peak in the RE800 is taken away, then these two are pretty close in overall performance. But the fact that I can mimic the RE800s bass response with the Dipper (if I so chose), and that I don't have to EQ an obvious fault (RE800 treble peak), leave me with the obvious choice. For me the Dipper is simply the better overall option.

LZ Big Dipper (~USD 860) vs 64 Audio U6 with ADEL G1 (~USD 899)[/SIZE]


LZ Big Dipper and 64 Audio U6	Frequency comparisons

This is a good comparison – 6 BA vs 7 BA. Both tunable using different methods (the U6 via different ADEL modules. In terms of build, fit and comfort – both are pretty good, but I'd give the nod slightly to the Dipper in terms of overall build quality and also ergonomic fit. The tunable options are pretty good on both – and you can change both bass and mid-range with different ADEL modules. The downside of course is cost of the modules themselves being add-ons. ADEL does give the benefit of reduced pneumatic pressure and does actively help with my permanent tinnitus.

Sonically (in the configurations I've chosen), the Dipper does have more bass presence, but on both, it is nicely balanced with the rest of the frequency, so I think the matching is pretty good. The main change is in the mid-range, where the U6 is a lot flatter and closer to a reference tuning, where the Dipper is a little more vivid and fun. Both have excellent detail. Imaging is also very closely matched, but with the ADEL modules, the U6 has a natural advantage in openness and stage size. The U6 does have a 7 kHz peak but its nicely balanced with the rest of the signature, so not an issue like the RE800. This one is very tough to call, as I both really like both. If I was forced to make a call, I may slightly lean toward the Dipper due to the tuning versatility (no need to carry modules with me), and the slightly better ergonomics – but its hard to compare it with the benefits that ADEL brings to me personally. I'm calling this one a tie. Both are excellent IEMs and although slightly differently tuned, both are very easy to get used to. Both could easily be end-game at around the $900 budget.

LZ Big Dipper (~USD 860) vs 64 Audio U10 with ADEL G1 (~USD 899)[/SIZE]


LZ Big Dipper and 64 Audio U10	Frequency comparisons

This is going to be largely a repeat of the U6 comparison – as the U6 and U10 are very close in overall design. The U10 is of course much more expensive and has 10 drivers to the Dipper's 7. I won't go over things like ergonomics again as it would simply be a repeat of the U6 observations.

Sonically the U10 and Dipper are again similar, great treble extension, very well balanced between bass, mids and treble – and again the main change is that the U10 is more reference (flatter) while the Dipper tends to be a little more v shaped, and a little more vivid. It is also more euphonic for female vocals (which make up a large part of my library). I can't deny that the U10 has steadily grown on me over time though, and nowadays I find myself listening more to it than my U6. The Dipper isn't embarrassed at all in this company, and I know some will find it superior to the U10 (those liking a little more colour). Again – both could be considered end-game, and at the Dipper's price point, it would win on pure value. This would be another toss up if someone asked me to choose, and I could see myself possible going with the U10 purely for the ADEL module. But if my budget was being stretched, I'd take the Dipper (in fact I'd probably take it over the Andromeda as well).

LZ Big Dipper (~USD 860) vs HiFiMan RE2000 (~USD 2000)[/SIZE]


LZ Big Dipper and HiFiMan RE2000	Frequency comparisons

Whilst the RE2000 has the better specification regarding permanent materials, the actual build quality on both IEMs is extremely good. Aesthetically the RE2000 probably has the edge in terms of looks – but for actual fit and ergonomics, the Dipper wins on both fit and comfort. The RE2000's power requirements is higher due to its lower sensitivity and higher impedance.

Sonically these two are somewhat similar. Both have a similar transition from sub and mid bass to lower mids and even somewhat similar in upper mid-range. The Dipper has a little more bump at 2 kHz, but it is minor. Both have very similar treble disposition and extension. In direct comparison, the difference is not so much in terms of tonality – but in terms of presentation. The Dipper is a little more clinical, reference, and cleanly defined – where the RE2000 is smoother, bass has a little more richness, and that term musicality comes to mind. The RE2000 has a more romantic, less clinical overall presentation – the sort that allows you to easily get lost in the music. The Dipper can do the same but its only in direct comparison that you listen to the Dipper and go “wow the RE2000 does this with a richness that I actually like a little better”. The Dipper is an IEM I could easily live with as end-game, as long as I'm not directly comparing. Sonically I like the RE2000 more – but the question is whether the difference is worth more than double the price.

VALUE

So how do I see the overall value of the Big Dipper? Quite simply, it reaches that performance which has me definitely recommending it at its current price point. Although many will find this on the expensive side of things, its versatility and base tuning are extremely well thought out. Add to that the practically perfect ergonomics and you have an overall package which (for me anyway) is absolutely worth the asking price. In fact I'm already wondering what I can sell amongst the products I actually own – as I'm tempted to buy it – despite the fact that I can hang onto this sample. The reason is easy. I want to own this one. The more I listen, the more I realise that if I had to call any single IEM as my end-game, and forsake all others, the Big Dipper would easily sit in the top three.

LZ BIG DIPPER – SUMMARY

Before I start, I really want to thank LZ and duyu again for allowing me to review this wonderful little IEM. I fear I will be contacting you again soon to see about buying this pair. I'm going to be using it a lot I think, and right now I'd be uncomfortable with the thought of parting with it. If thats not recommendation enough – I don't know what is.

The Big Dipper is an incredibly well designed and well built 7 driver BA IEM, and I know a lot of thought has gone into the overall build quality and ergonomics. It fits like a custom IEM, and is easily one of the most comfortable IEMs I've ever worn.

Sonically the Big Dipper could be described as a well balanced, but slightly V or U shaped signature, with an excellent sense of stage, imaging, and resolution. The tuning switches are quite well implemented and my only wish (maybe a future model LZ?) would be to see if they could bring up the lower mid-range just a little (ie flatten the overall signature) without ruining the balance and overall extension.

In terms of value, I personally think the Big Dipper hits a sweet spot for those who may be considering an end-game IEM but not having the funds to chase some of the TOTL offerings out there. I know on my budget, the Dipper represents the same sort of “bargain” (and I use that term loosely) that my purchase of the HD800S represented. There may be better out there – but the Dipper would be able to satisfy my requirements enough so that I wouldn't be asking “what else”.

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

Great review!

Picture are default 1200 x 800 resolution - click to view larger images.

INTRODUCTION

I posted my RE2000 review just a few weeks ago, and the follow up to that review was always going to be it's sibling – the RE800. When Mark contacted me and asked if I'd be interested in reviewing both the RE2000 and RE800 I went into it knowing I couldn't afford the RE2000 but hoping that the RE800 might hit a sweet spot between sound and affordability. I'd loved the RE400/600? earphone which was included with the HiFiMan SuperMini when I reviewed it, and was expecting that the RE800 might sit somewhere between it and the new flagship RE2000. And after reviewing the RE2000 and hearing how wonderfully tuned, and how responsive the new Topography driver was, I was looking forward to putting it though its paces.

ABOUT HIFIMAN

HifiMan Audio was founded in late 2005 by Dr Fang Bian when he was resident in New York. He started Head-Direct, and in 2007 began use of the HifiMan brand. They started initially with in-ear earphones, branched out into building hi-res portable players, and this was followed by planar magnetic headphones. As the business grew, so did the need to expand, so in 2010 Dr Bian started two small factories in China, and moved the HQ to Tianjin China in 2011. They are now a well recognised brand globally – particularly in the field of portable or personal audio products.

I found most of these short facts from a couple of interviews with Dr Bian posted on line, and among the interviews were a couple of direct quotes which I found fascinating and illuminating:

I started listening to a lot of music when I was in high school. I used a Walkman and Discman all the time because I had nothing else available to me. They were designed more for convenience than great sound. I wanted both- convenience and great sound so that set the stage for my dream to build the best sounding personal audio products.

Starting with me, everyone is passionate about what we are doing at HiFiMAN. We may not always do everything perfectly from the beginning but we try hard to get it right in the end and our track record is pretty good. Most of all, I want our customers to know how much we appreciate them. Their support and feedback is invaluable.[/SIZE]

DISCLAIMER

The HifiMan RE800 that I’m reviewing today was provided to me as a review sample. After I finish with the review, I will arrange a tour through NZ and maybe Australia. At the completion of the tour, I will either return the IEM to HifiMan, or they may allow me to hang onto it for further review comparisons. Either way – they retain ownership.

I have made it clear to HifiMan that I still regard any product they send me as their sole property and available for return any time at their request. But I thank them for the ability to review and possibly continue use of the RE800 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 HifiMan themselves.

I have now had the HifiMan RE800 for just over 3 weeks. The retail price at time of review is USD 699.

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

I'm a 50 year old music lover. I don't say audiophile – I just love my music. Over the last couple of years, I have slowly changed from cheaper listening set-ups to my current set-up. I vary my listening from portables (mostly now from the FiiO X5iii, and iPhone SE) to my desk-top's set-up (PC > USB > iFi iDSD). My main full sized headphones at the time of writing are the Sennheiser HD800S, Sennheiser HD600 & HD630VB, and AKG K553. Most of my portable listening is done with IEMs, and lately it has mainly been with the Jays q-Jays, Alclair Curve2 and Adel U6. A full list of the gear I have owned (past and present is listed in my Head-Fi profile).

I have very eclectic music tastes listening to a variety from classical/opera and jazz, to grunge and general rock. I listen to a lot of blues, jazz, folk music, classic rock, indie and alternative rock. I am particularly fond of female vocals. I generally tend toward cans that are relatively neutral/balanced, but I do have a fondness for clarity, and suspect I might have slight ‘treble-head’ preferences. I am not treble sensitive (at all), and in the past have really enjoyed headphones like the K701, SR325i, and of course the T1 and DT880. I have a specific sensitivity to the 2-3 kHz frequency area (most humans do) but my sensitivity is particularly strong, and I tend to like a relatively flat mid-range with slight elevation in the upper-mids around this area.

I have extensively tested myself (ABX) and I find aac256 or higher to be completely transparent. I do use exclusively red-book 16/44.1 if space is not an issue. All of my music is legally purchased (mostly CD – the rest FLAC purchased on-line). I tend to be sceptical about audiophile ‘claims’, don’t generally believe in burn-in, have never heard a difference with different cables (unless it was volume or impedance related), and would rather test myself blind on perceived differences. I am not a ‘golden eared listener’. I suffer from mild tinnitus, and at 50, my hearing is less than perfect (it only extends to around 14 kHz nowadays). My usual listening level is around 65-75 dB.

For the purposes of this review - I used the HifiMan RE800 from various sources at my disposal – both straight from the headphone-out socket, and also amplified. In the time I have spent with the HifiMan RE800, 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 REVIEW

PACKAGING AND ACCESSORIES


Front of the retail box	Rear of the retail box

The RE800 arrived in a large retail box (253 x 183 x 70mm) – which consists of a full printed sleeve over a “jewellery type” hinged lid box. The outer sleeve is nicely done in grey with a carbon type pattern, clean white (and easy to read) text, with a picture of the RE800 on the front (as well as a sticker stating that they are electroplated with a fine 24K gold finish). The rear has specifications and contact details.

The inner box is what looks like a wooden/mdf case with a grey contact paper (the sort you cover kids school books with) over the top. It actually doesn't look too bad – but nowhere near the black leatherette that the RE2000 had. In the center is a printed square with the HifiMan logo, the RE800 model number, and their slogan “Innovating the Art of Listening”. The inner box is closed with a polished stainless hasp.


The inner box	First look inside

Opening the box reveals the RE800 and a rather plain looking generic clamshell zip-up carry case fitted into a foam top layer via cut-outs. Opening the case reveals silicone tips, a pair of formed ear guides, and 2 packs of Comply foam tips. In a compartment under the case are contact and warranty cards, and a very informative full colour booklet on the RE2000.


The full package	Excellent full colour guide

The accessories include:

2 pairs of black silicone triple flange tips
1 pair of grey silicone “flat” dual flange tips
1 pair of black silicone “flat” dual flange tips
1 pair of grey silicone single flange tips
1 pair of medium T400 genuine Comply tips
1 pair of large T400 genuine Comply tips
1 pair black flexi ear-guides
1 black soft shell storage case
Maintenance and warranty card.
Full colour booklet/manual


Tip selection	Storage case

The storage case is moderately large, and is not really jeans friendly, but would be ideal for use as a carry case in a larger jacket pocket, loose trousers or carry bag. It is 80mm in diameter, 35mm in height, with a zippered lid, and internally lined with a soft canvas like material. The case looks fairly generic, but should do the job for transport, and should provide a nice mix of portability and reasonably safe storage / protection when on the go.

All in all, the included accessories are fair, but not outstanding for this price point.

TECHNICAL SPECIFICATIONS
(From HifiMan’s packaging / website)

Model	HifiMan RE800
Approx price	$699 USD
Type	Single Dynamic IEM
Driver	9.2 mm Dynamic with Topology coating
Freq Range	20Hz – 20kHz
Impedance	60Ω
Sensitivity	105 dB
Cable Type	1.3m, non replaceable
Cable Materials	Silver coated crystalline copper
Jack	3.5mm gold plated single ended, right angled
Weight	27g
Casing material	Brass with electroplated 24K gold finish

FREQUENCY GRAPH

The graphs below 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.

My sonic impressions of the RE800 – written well before I measured, and amended afterwards with frequency information:

Bass is quite linear, definitely not overly emphasised and tends to sit behind the mid-range a little. Extension is reasonable into sub-bass, and there is audible rumble but it is somewhat subdued. The bass that is presented is quite natural in tonality though.
Lower mid-range is nicely in line with the bass, but recessed compared to upper mid-range. Male vocals are nicely presented with good sense of timbre.
Upper mid-range is emphasised, but it's a really nice gradual rise to between 3-4 kHz and gives female vocals a nice sense of euphony.
Lower treble extension is extremely good, but there is a really large peak at 7 kHz – some 10 dB above the highest mid-range peak and more than 20 dB above the lower mid-range. As a result, the lower treble is quite splashy and brash – especially with cymbals. Softening this peak produces a much better signature in my opinion.
Overall a really nice signature apart from that single peak. It's just too sharp and can get quite harsh/brittle depending on the recording and listening volume. More on this later.
Channel matching is excellent (much like the RE2000) – among the best I've seen throughout the entire spectrum.

BUILD AND DESIGN


Rear view of the shell	Side view

At first glance the RE800 looks quite elegant, shiny, and pretty well built. The outer shell is an all gold electroplated (over brass) two piece shell shaped similar to their RE400 and RE600, and is what I would call a tear-drop or water-drop design. The seam or join where the two pieces meet is visible when looked at closely, but is also very smooth and placed together well.

The interesting thing about the actual housing itself though is some of the research which went into the material to use. HiFiMan went through a very extensive prototyping development stage, and came down to three options – bronze, copper and brass. Bronze proved too hard for forming, and copper was too soft. Brass proved to be the ideal middle ground, and also had the right tonal properties. Now we know that brass is also prone to oxidisation, and this is probably the reason for the additional use of the 24K gold electroplating to finish the shells.


Front view and nozzle	HiFiMan logo and very faint L/R markings

The RE800 is a small IEM with an end to end length/width of just 17mm (from the rear to the front of the nozzle), and a circumference of just 11mm at its widest point. Any edges are nicely rounded, and there are no sharp corners which could end up touching your ear. The nozzle is 6mm in diameter, mesh covered and has an extremely generous lip.

The perfectly symmetrical tear-drop shape means that the RE800 can either be used cable up or cable down, and the shape lends well to a relatively deep insertion.


Y-split	Right angle jack

There are virtually no markings anywhere on the RE800 – except for a small HiFiMan logo on the very base, and also an extremely tiny L/R indicator on each cable exit. To actually work out which ear-piece is which (and remember the two basically look identical), you have to squint to actually try and see the markings. Its just not a good design. Even a little bump on the left or right exit would have made tactile identification possible.

Speaking of the exit, it is simply a hollow tube extending perpendicularly from the main body. The cable is routed through this hollow tube, and there is no strain relief. Given that this is a fixed cable, and this is potentially a point on the IEM where stress could cause cable damage, its simply unfathomable that this was not addressed before release. And especially so when you consider some critique HiFiMan have had on their RE400 and RE600 designs in the past, and also considering this is a $700 earphone. This is a design flaw that needs to be addressed.

Edit : Hifiman have since posted that they are introducing a replaceable cable design now using an MMCX connection (https://www.head-fi.org/f/threads/how-do-you-improve-upon-gold.855108/). Nice job HifiMan.


HifiMan's jack (L) vs Dunu's (R)	New connector (photo courtesy of HFM)

The cable is a crystalline copper wire with a silver coating (SPC), and finished with a quite satiny black overwrap which appears to be a PVC base. The main cable appears to be quite sturdy and strong, but north of the Y-split the cable is quite a bit thinner.

At the Y-split there is no relief, but I don't really think its needed because of the design (generally this area hangs down and there is no constant movement). The lower cable is also strong enough, and the Y-split itself is essentially a hollow tube with a tapered base. It is made of the same material as the shells, printed with the model number, and has an excellent cinch.

The jack is 3.5mm, right angled, and has a quite heavy duty housing. The standard stereo plug is gold plated. An interesting thing about the jack is that despite its heavy duty appearance, unscrewing the cylinder shows the use of electrical tape for insulation rather than the more popular heat shrinking. Both do the same job, but the electrical tape sort of clashes with the price point / build expectation.

Internally HiFiMan uses what they call a 9.2mm Topology driver. They have invested a lot of time into researching advanced depositional technology, and the result is a driver with a nano particle coating applied to it's surface. The distribution of the coating has distinct geometrical patterns, and this allows HiFiMan to manipulate or control the wave patterns to achieve a desired audio effect. According to Dr Fang Bian, “different nano materials have differing structures and each of these materials has its own properties”. Therefore by carefully controlling the diaphragm surface structure, you can yield different results in acoustic performance to a degree previously unobtainable with conventional designs. Dr Bian also says that the Topology driver also reduces uncontrolled diaphragm distortions which occur in both BA and standard dynamic drivers.

HiFiMan also claim that no other driver technology allows for such control and precision resulting in clarity, detail and nuance such that it can best the world's most complicated multi driver set-ups, but with none of the coherency and crossover issues.

FIT / COMFORT / ISOLATION

I'll start with the easy one (isolation), and we can then look at fit and comfort. Isolation will be dependent on tip selection and insertion depth. If you get a good seal, isolation is exceptionally good (definitely well above average for a vented dynamic IMO). While it may not reach the absolute high isolation of sealed BA IEMs, I would have no issues trying these in noisier environments, including long haul flights.

Regarding fit and comfort – and these thoughts can be more subjective, although due to the small size and rounded design, I can't see comfort being an issue for anyone. As I stated earlier, these can be used either over ear or cable down, and because of the diminutive size, insertion is fairly deep which means nothing really touching the outer ear – which equals no discomfort.

I'm going to quote from the manual:
“The shape of the housing is a traditional, rounded bulbous shape taking its design from the RE400 and RE600. Rounded, smooth and simple in its harmoniously elegant symmetry. Smooth and curving it rests gently in the ear and should give users a comfortable fit, worn up or down, as best suits their personal preferences.”

This time HiFiMan are entirely correct in their printed summary. The design is both comfortable and fits snugly no matter which way you orient them. Thumbs up from me.


HFM's triple and single flange	Ostry tuning and modded Spinfit

Like the RE2000, the RE800 also has a generous lip on the nozzle, and this means that practically any tips will fit. Because of the deeper fit, I personally found the triple flanges a little lengthy, but Comply tips and foam modded Spin-fits definitely did the trick for me. I also tried Spiral-dots, Sony Isolation tips, Ostry tuning tips and a number of others.


Spiral dot and Comply	Excellent comfort (they are tiny)

The HiFiMan RE800 sits inside my outer ear when worn, and I can easily wear them for extended time periods (they are quite simply non-fatiguing). I can lie down with them, and sleeping with them intact causes no issues.

SOUND QUALITY

The following is what I hear from the RE800. 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 X5iii (single ended) and A5 amp, no EQ, and Comply foam tips. I used the FiiO devices simply because paired they give me a very transparent window to the music with low impedance, and more than enough power. With both, there was no DSP engaged.


The X5iii and A5 test combo	FiiO X5iii solo or X7ii were also more than enough

For the record – on most tracks, the volume pot on the A5 (paired with X5iii) was just under one quarter (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.17556

Relativities

Sub-bass – has good extension and even at my low listening levels some rumble is audible, but somewhat gentle. There is not the same impact as the RE2000. There is also no boosted over-emphasis and sub-bass sits extremely well within the overall frequency mix. There is no bleed into lower mid-range. Quality and timbre of the bass is very good (the Topography driver seems to handle bass really well), and the RE800 sub-bass definitely sounds more “reference” to me than boosted.
Mid-bass – has a small but quite natural mid-bass hump – and impact is sufficient but does not go much beyond that. Lovers of a stronger bass will probably need this area boosted, but as a more reference bass lover, I find it fits perfectly in line with both sub-bass and lower mid-range. Again the term “reference” comes to mind.
Lower mid-range – there is virtually no recession at all compared to bass, and overall this area fits pretty nicely between bass and upper mid-range. Male vocals are excellently portrayed, but there is unfortunately some heat coming from the lower treble area which can cause the lower mid-range to almost feel dry and a little thin. I think the lower mid-range is brilliantly tuned – and for the third time the thought that this is truly a reference tuning is what springs to mind.
Upper mid-range – elevated compared to lower mid-range, and there is a gentle but sustained rise from 1 kHz to a first peak at 3-4 kHz, then a slight drop to 5kHz. The result is a clean and clear vocal range, with some very good cohesion and definite euphony for female vocals to sound sweet and elevated. The RE800 has been a relatively flat and well balanced monitor to this point, and this slow rise gives a nice mid-forward tuning. Again though, the issue stems from the lower treble – and its sad that with a lot of music, a dryness and leanness pervades. Its not the fault of the upper mid-range, but the lower treble.
And now we come to the problem area. Lower treble has very good extension, and really is quite sustained from 6-10 kHz. But there is a massive spike at 7 kHz which is a full 10 dB above the upper mid-range, and a scary 20+ dB above the lower mid-range. We know this area has the ability to heighten presence of cymbals and its not unusual to see it boosted – just not to this extent. When you do, there is an unnatural brittleness introduced, and for any music with presence at this frequency, it feels as if somebody has turned a button called “sizzle” on. It's also an area I know where many people have sibilance issues. On an almost perfect reference signature, I simply can't understand why HiFiMan have done this.
Upper treble – rolls off slowly but naturally – but still has some extension through the upper registers. I can't really comment on the sonic signature of the upper treble, as it is rare for me to hear any nuance at these frequencies.

Resolution / Detail / Clarity

There is no doubt that the RE800 is a very revealing monitor. The reference nature of the bass, coupled with the upper mid-range and lower treble extension will always shine a spotlight on detail. What also helps is the Topography driver. Whatever HiFiMan have developed with this driver is pretty special. Overall resolution is quite incredible with nothing hidden. It is vibrant, clear and articulate (just unfortunately has that sizzle in the upper end). Pink Floyd's “Money” and 10CC's “Art for Art's Sake” both shone with the level of detail presented. This is undoubtedly a cooler, leaner drier signature than the RE2000, but I still like it. Take the annoying etch out (EQ!) and this should prove to be quite the signature.
Cymbal hits have excellent clarity and presence, and this includes decay. The problem though is the brashness or brittleness (which I know is the 7 kHz peak). It's just too much.
Overall I feel as though I'm hearing everything in the recording at my lower listening levels. Turning the volume up can get quite fatiguing though.

Sound-stage, Imaging

Directional queues are very good – clean and clear and very precise.
Presentation of stage is definitely outside the periphery of my head space with binaural tracks. They are expansive but the sense of stage size isn't overdone.
Separation of instruments is also very good, and this seems to be a strong point of the Topography driver. The clear definition of each instrument is quite compelling.
Immersion during the applause section of “Dante's Prayer” was very good, a little more left/right than completely spherical, but circular enough to be thoroughly believable. What wasn't was the heightened harmonics from the clapping sound – again a brittleness which shouldn't be there.
“Let it Rain” is always my next track and it had a wonderful 3D-like sense of spatial presentation – it is the way the track was miked. The issue was an abundance of sibilance with Amanda's vocals – and I know its present in the recording – but this time it is being heightened.

Sonic Strengths

For the most part, overall tonal balance and clarity
Imaging, separation and sense of space in the staging.
Very good portrayal of both male and female vocals, although can be a little on the lean / dry / cool side of things.
Detailed at low listening levels
Transition between lower and upper mid-range is very good.

Sonic Weaknesses

This one is easy – the 7kHz peak. Its just too much, too unnatural, and things like natural decay on cymbals should not be this accentuated. When I listen to tracks with a lot of upper end detail, and cringe at some of the heat or sizzle that simply shouldn't be there, I know its a step too far. Some (like my friend George) are going to find this perfect, and good luck to them (we all have different preferences after all). I can adapt to it – but its still like biting on tin-foil at times. And this is from a treble lover who usually doesn't like anything overly smooth.
At higher volumes the RE800 has the ability to shred the lower treble if you have any music with strong 7 kHz presence.

AMPLIFICATION REQUIREMENTS

The RE800 is an interesting IEM with its 60ohm impedance and 105 dB sensitivity. Looking at the specs, you'd immediately think that this IEM will need extra amplification, and it does need a higher volume from most of my portable devices. To maintain my usual 65-75 dB listening level utilises around 55-60/120 on the X5iii by itself. This equates to almost 50% on my iPhone SE with the same track.

I went back and forth (volume matching with test tones and fixed volume on the A5) comparing the X5iii both amped and unamped, and I couldn't say that there was any change in resolution or dynamics. Both sounded similar. I have been spending a lot of time in the evening with my iPhone SE. Its a very good portable set-up – especially for bed-time listening. Oh BTW – I EQ when using the RE800.


Testing with the IMS HVA, iDSD, FiiO A5 and E17K	But even an iPhone manages quite well

I also with tried with the IMS Hybrid Valve amp and my iDSD but none of them seemed to be adding anything extra (although the tubes on the hybrid did soften that treble just a little). So I'd suggest that amping is not a requirement but for those who enjoy using a stack – definitely it won't hurt anything – and perhaps you'll notice improvements which were lost on me.

I also had my daughter check for hiss, but none was present on any of my sources.

EQ / BALANCED PERFORMANCE

Unfortunately I could not test balanced performance as the cable is fixed and therefore I cannot test. At the price point, and considering they are adding an MMCX connector, I would suggest HiFiMan consider including a balanced cable?


EQ with E17K really helped	Removing some top end and adding some bottom

As far as EQ goes, I've obviously been using it for a while. On the FiiO devices I've simply been dropping the 8 kHz slider by 6 dB. Its enough to take the edge off and brings welcome relief to the etch or brittleness. I also used my X3ii + E17K set-up, and utilised the tone controls to try and adjust the peak down to what I would consider a more reference level. I ended up using -10 treble adjustment, and the change was so good (it also drops mid-range a bit) that I thought I'd measure it so others can see the change. This to me would have been a marked improvement. Adding a little extra bass on occasions also helped. Now you get all of the detail, but none of the pain.

COMPARISON WITH OTHER IEMS

This almost seems a little unfair – as I know the issue with the RE800, but I have to compare default sound with default sound. I chose IEMs purely based on comparable pricing (although included the RE2000 as they are from the same stable, and the Alclair Curve because it is one of my “go to” IEMs).

For my source, I wanted something neutral, but with a good digital control, to make sure I could volume match properly, and still make sure there were no questions about power output. So one again I chose to use my old work-horse combo – the FiiO X3ii and E17K. Neutral – check. Power output OK – check. 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 at my normal 65-75dB.

First up was Alclair's Curve at $250 (chosen because it has a small 7kHz lift but I wanted to show the difference between bump and peak), Jays q-Jays ~$279 Dunu's new DK-3001 at ~$500, Rhapsodio's older ~$555 RTi1 single dynamic, and 64Audio's ~$899 U6 (oh and the RE2000). Hopefully this gives enough insight to anyone interested in this IEM. Here are my very subjective personal thoughts:

HiFiMan RE800 (~USD 699) vs Alclair Curve (~USD 249)


HiFiMan RE800 and Alclair Curve	Frequency comparisons

The Alclair Curve is a dual BA universal from Alclair, and one which has consistently been in my top 5 since I got it. In terms of build materials, the gold electroplated brass casing of the RE800 trumps the hard polycarbonate housing of the Curve – but as far as actual build quality, build design, fit and comfort goes, the two are pretty equal. Both are exceedingly comfortable and “disappear” when worn. The accessories go to the RE800 (slightly), whilst the cable quality goes to the Curve (although both are reasonably good at first glance, and we don't know what the replaceable options on the RE800 will be yet).The RE800 requires more power with its lower sensitivity and higher impedance.

Sonically the Curve against the RE800 is an interesting comparison. They both have very similar bass and lower mid-range. Both also have a rise into the upper mid-range, although the RE800's climb is more sustained to a higher peak. Both have a 7 kHz peak, but the Curve's peak is less than half of that of the RE800, and that is where the issue is. The Curve is beautifully reference with a mid-range and lower treble bump which is nicely complimentary to the bass quantity. The RE800 is beautifully reference with a mid-range bump which compliments the rest of the frequency range, but a lower treble spike which dominates. I actually prefer the bass tonality / texture of HiFiMan's Topography driver over the bass on the Curve – but that's where it ends. The Curve does almost everything else better at almost 1/3 the price.

HiFiMan RE800 (~USD 699) vs Jays q-Jays (~USD 279)


HiFiMan RE800 and Jays q-Jays	Frequency comparisons

Jays q-Jays is another diminutive dual BA universal, and also has a prominent peak in the 7 kHz region. In terms of build materials, I'd rate them evenly. Both are tiny, and both are made of excellent long lasting materials. But again as far as actual build quality, build design, fit and comfort goes, the two are equal (actual overall finish may even go to the q-Jays). Both are extremely comfortable and “disappear” when worn. The accessories go to the q-Jays, as does the cable quality and design (q-Jays is replaceable with an excellent locking mechanism).The RE800 requires more power with its lower sensitivity and higher impedance.

Sonically the q-Jays (like the Curve) is very similar in bass and lower mid-range. The q-Jays are a lot flatter through the upper mid-range (I sometimes bump this up with EQ), and have a peak at 7 kHz which some of my on-line friends tell me can get a little peaky (I don't really notice it). In direct comparison, the RE800 again has that better bass tonality and timbre. If I could get half way between the upper mid-range (drop a bit from the RE800 and add a bit to the q-Jays), both would be improved. But you can again see the difference at 7 kHz where the RE800's “mountain” is more than 10 dB above the q-Jays comparative “mole-hill”. The q-Jays can sometimes appear to flat in the mid-range, but their treble nicely matches the rest of the frequency range. For me – even if I have to EQ both, there is not a compulsion to take the far more expensive RE800 over the better value q-Jays.

HiFiMan RE800 (~USD 699) vs Dunu DK-3001 (~USD 500)


HiFiMan RE2000 and Dunu DK-3001	Frequency comparisons

Here we start getting closer on price. Both are built very sturdily with no real weaknesses. But the tiny RE800 is a lot more comfortable than the somewhat unwieldy DK-3001. Accessories are in favour of the Dunu – especially with both balanced and SE cables included – as well as the extra tips and other accessories. The RE800 requires more power with its lower sensitivity and higher impedance.

Sonically these two are similar in same ways, different in others. The DK-3001 has better bass impact, is a little more mid-forward and also a little smoother as far as lower treble goes. The RE800 might still have edge on bass definition and speed, but it would be marginal. The DK-3001 is a touch more V-shaped, but it s also cleaner, clearer, and less etched.

If judging solely on default signature, I'd take the DK-3001 over the RE800. But as I can EQ, and given the greater comfort with the RE800, then its a pretty even match. If comfort wasn't an issue with the DK-3001, I'd choose it every time over the RE800.

HiFiMan RE2000 (~USD 2000) vs Rhapsodio RTi1(~USD 555)


HiFiMan RE800 and Rhapsodio RTi1	Frequency comparisons

Rhapsodio's RTi1 has yo-yo'd a bit on price lately, but now sits at a quite competitive $555 Build quality is similar in terms of actual materials (longevity), but there is no doubt the RE800 has the slightly better finishing. The RTi1 has the better quality cable, and it is removable. Both were similarly sparse on overall accessories included (considering their respective prices) – perhaps the RE800 edges slightly in front here, but neither offer much above “just enough”. Both are easy to fit and comfortable for longer term wearing. The RE800 requires more power with its lower sensitivity and higher impedance.

Sonically these two have similarities and differences. The Rt1i has much stronger bass and is more of a V shaped monitor. They have extremely similar mid-ranges and transitions through to upper mid-range. Both have their treble peaks, and the peak on the RT1i was one of my critiques when I reviewed them. The RT1i's peak occurs a little earlier and can also be more than a little annoying – despite being smaller than the RE800. Both sound etched and overly hot with some tracks, and for me both require EQ. This is a really hard one to call and comes down to preference. Take the lower treble peaks out of both – and each one shines.

HiFiMan RE800 (~USD 699) vs HiFiMan RE2000 (~USD 2000)


HiFiMan RE800 and RE2000	Frequency comparisons

Build quality on both is similar in terms of materials. Obviously the two are very different sizes, and that makes quite a difference in terms of comfort – with the RE800 being an IEM I can wear without any comfort issues for hours, while the RE2000 does have one annoying hard ridge (fixable by tip and angle of wearing). The RE800 has (for now) the fixed cable system, and the thinner wires from y-split to earphone would concern me slightly if there were any longevity issues (unknown at this stage). Both have similar accessory packages (personally one area I find slightly weak with HiFiMan compared to other offerings). The RE2000 and RE800 have almost the same power requirements.

Sonically these two have somewhat similar bass through to upper mid-range, (the RE800 is a little thinner / leaner and cooler comparatively). The RE800 is also a lot brighter in the lower treble with the 7 kHz peak. Compared to the RE2000, the RE800 tends toward glare, and also enhances sibilance. The RE2000 is rich and smooth and has that effortless quality of letting you simply immerse yourself in the music. Both have questionable overall value – and I guess this depends on your disposable income. But I'd take the RE2000 despite the heftier cost.

HiFiMan RE800 (~USD 699) vs 64 Audio U6 + G1 ADEL module (~USD 899)


HiFiMan RE800 and 64 Audio U6	Frequency comparisons

The U6 is another of my go-to monitors, so please take that into account during this comparison. For this comparison I chose to use the G1 module simply because it elevates the mid-range a little and I prefer a more mid-forward signature.

Build quality (materials) is firmly in the RE800 favour. Its going to last for quite some time with the use of the alloys. Cable quality overall might be questionable on both and you'll note with my U6 that I'm now using the Linum Bax cable (because my 2nd 64Audio cable has broken at the 2 pin connector). I know 64Audio would have replaced it – but this time I wanted a longer lasting solution. Lets hope when HiFiMan move to their replaceable cable that they provide something with quality. Accessories are in the 64Audio camp with the U6 having the ADEL (or Apex) modules and ability to tune. Fit and comfort is shared – both are easy to wear for long periods. The RE800 does again require more power with its lower sensitivity and higher impedance.

Sonically the U6 has the stronger bass overall and has a somewhat warmer tonality. The RE800 is a little leaner and cooler – and also a lot brighter with the more forward mid-range and peaky lower treble. I'd actually prefer it if the mid-range on the U6 was a little more of a natural transition (like the RE800), but it still sounds pretty good. Both earphones have a 7 kHz peak – but again the U6's is far lower, and also has the added warmth from mid and sub-bass to even things out. The U6 is more spacious overall with better width and depth of stage. Despite the higher cost, I'd again take the U6 – even if EQ was an option.

VALUE

The RE800 is a comfortable, well built monitor with a near reference signature, but one very annoying peak. Adding the replaceable cable is going to really help value – but overall I still think it's pitched too high. It may be the gold electroplating pushing things up, and if it is, then at least HiFiMan have some options. Less bling, introduce the replaceable cable, chop the 7 kHz peak, and all of a sudden you have a really good earphone – perhaps even worth around the $600 mark. In its current state though – I simply don't see the value. There are better options out there.

HIFIMAN RE800 – SUMMARY

Its actually quite easy to get used to the RE800 and they have a lot of good points. Sometimes you can even mask that peak – similar to how I mask my tinnitus (the brain is a wonderful filter after all). But in this case, with this earphone, it simply shouldn't be there. Its over-done, and at this price point you expect better. There are a lot of good points though.

The RE800 is generally a well built and presented IEM which has few other flaws. HiFiMan have already said they are making the cable replaceable so that solves one potential issue. If they include a balanced cable as well – then perceived value will go up.

Sonically it is very close to what I would term “reference”, and only hampered by the fact that the mids might be a touch too far forward, and we already know where the treble issues lie, and where they can be solved. With EQ applied, the RE800 is extremely well balanced and really is a delight to listen to. The Topography driver gives a really nice sense of timbre and tonality, and the instrument separation is very good indeed.

But the RRP at USD 699 means that this is getting to the stage where potential buyers will be quite discerning, and for me anyway, they've missed the mark. Three and a half stars for me (although only three will show) – unrealised potential which hopefully they can fix with an update.

Note that with a successful move to a quality removable cable (and including a balanced option), the 7 kHz peak dealt with, and a price around the $600 mark -this would be 5 star IMO.

Again I just want to close with thanking HiFiMan and Mark for arranging the review sample.

Picture are default 1200 x 800 resolution - click (photos in tables) to view larger images.

INTRODUCTION

As music lovers, its not uncommon for a lot of us to have multiple earphones – mainly for those times when we're in the mood for a slightly different sound. Whether it be more bass, a different tonality in the mid-range, more up top, preference for a V shape (fun!) or simply more balance. The problem is that to satisfy this we either have to be adept using EQ (its not hard once you learn), have reasonably deep pockets (for multiple earphones), or be prepared to use hardware EQ like bass boost or tone controls.

For a while now there have been options in the market for earphones which you can tune yourself using a set of changeable filters. Trinity and RHA were early adopters with their tuning filters, and later came FLC with their ground breaking FLC8S triple hybrid. Suddenly you could have more control of your IEM – albeit with limitations. RHA and Trinity designs were good but somewhat limited in their application. The FLC8S is really versatile, but changing the filters can be an exercise.

And then recently a small Chinese company LZ (Lao Zhong) HiFi Audio appeared with a new tunable hybrid coming in at under $200. How would it fare against some of the alternatives from Trinity, and against the more expensive FLC8S. Is the LZ-A4 a worthy competitor? Read on for my take on the LZ-A4.

ABOUT LZ

LZ Hi-Fi Audio is a difficult company to get to know. Check their website – virtually nothing to give insight to the company. Facebook – and its similar. I was extremely lucky, in that I had Head-Fi's own duyu (Frank) who was able to get me a little inside knowledge.

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 products appeared on Head-Fi 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 recently released a tunable flagship model IEM (the Big Dipper) which I'll be reviewing very soon.

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.

I also thought that this might be interesting for those who are both already fans of LZ HiFi and also potential fans – a series of photos of their operation. I always find it pretty cool to think of the care that goes into truly hand-made products. Special thanks to both LZ for allowing me to display them, and also duyu for sourcing them for me. Click the photos for larger images.

DISCLAIMER

The LZ-A4 that I’m reviewing today was provided to me freely as a review sample, but 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. 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 LZ HiFi.

I have now had the LZ-A4 for just under 5 months. The retail price at time of review is USD 195.

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

I'm a 50 year old music lover. I don't say audiophile – I just love my music. Over the last couple of years, I have slowly changed from cheaper listening set-ups to my current set-up. I vary my listening from portables (mostly now from the FiiO X5iii, and iPhone SE) to my desk-top's set-up (PC > USB > iFi iDSD). My main full sized headphones at the time of writing are the Sennheiser HD800S, Sennheiser HD600 & HD630VB, and AKG K553. Most of my portable listening is done with IEMs, and lately it has mainly been with the Jays q-Jays, Alclair Curve2 and Adel U6. A full list of the gear I have owned (past and present is listed in my Head-Fi profile).

I have very eclectic music tastes listening to a variety from classical/opera and jazz, to grunge and general rock. I listen to a lot of blues, jazz, folk music, classic rock, indie and alternative rock. I am particularly fond of female vocals. I generally tend toward cans that are relatively neutral/balanced, but I do have a fondness for clarity, and suspect I might have slight ‘treble-head’ preferences. I am not overly treble sensitive, and in the past have really enjoyed headphones like the K701, SR325i, and of course the T1 and DT880. I have a specific sensitivity to the 2-3 kHz frequency area (most humans do) but my sensitivity is particularly strong, and I tend to like a relatively flat mid-range with slight elevation in the upper-mids around this area.

I have extensively tested myself (ABX) and I find aac256 or higher to be completely transparent. I do use exclusively red-book 16/44.1 if space is not an issue. All of my music is legally purchased (mostly CD – the rest FLAC purchased on-line). I tend to be sceptical about audiophile ‘claims’, don’t generally believe in burn-in, have never heard a difference with different cables (unless it was volume or impedance related), and would rather test myself blind on perceived differences. I am not a ‘golden eared listener’. I suffer from mild tinnitus, and at 50, my hearing is less than perfect (it only extends to around 14 kHz nowadays). My usual listening level is around 65-75 dB.

For the purposes of this review - I used the LZ-A4 from various sources at my disposal – both straight from the headphone-out socket, and also with further amplification. In the time I have spent with the LZ-A4, I have personally 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 REVIEW

PACKAGING AND ACCESSORIES


Front of the retail box	Rear of the retail box

The LZ-A4 arrived in a 145 x 202 x 63mm “book style” retail box. It is black with red highlights and text. On the front is LZ's logo and a simple description. On the rear (in white text) their address in both Chinese and English.


Inside the cover	Bottom layer

Opening the box reveals a foam insert which holds the IEMs and some of the included silicone tips. Under this is a secondary storage area which holds the carry/storage case, a tray for the tuning filters, some further tips, a shirt clip and the documentation.

The carry case has a semi-rigid red outer shell, with a black cloth interior. It has an external measurement of approx 120 x 85 x 40mm – so more suitable for a jacket than a trouser pocket. It has been sized this way so that you can fit the entire filter package inside, but doing this leaves little room for the IEMs. If you take the filter foam insert (with filters embedded) out of the tin, and just pack that in the case, then the LZ-A4 will also fit.


The full package	Filter description from the guide

Also included in the package is a small ~ 90 x 65 x 18mm tin. Inside this (in its own foam insert) are the tuning filters. Including the ones pre-fitted, there are 3 pairs of rear filters, and 6 pairs of front filters. This gives 24 possible tuning options (as you can also have no back filter). I will go more in depth into the filter tunings later in the review. The filter parts are all screw in, and are easy to handle and to attach/detach. They are also colour coded for easy identification.

The total accessory package includes:

10 pairs of silicone single flange tips
1 pair of silicone dual flange tips
1 pair of medium foam tips
1 shirt clip
1 zippered carry case
1 metal tin containing the filters
3 pairs of rear filters
6 pairs of front filters
1 fold-out manual/pamphlet
1 pair of LZ-A4 Triple Hybrid IEMs
1 x 3.5 mm single ended to MMCX earphone cable


Tip selection	Carry case

For the price point, the accessories included are well thought out, and reasonably generous. The only thing I would have preferred would have been more variety in the sizing of the foam tips – but otherwise a very good start

TECHNICAL SPECIFICATIONS
(From LZ's packaging / website)

Model	LZ-A4
Approx price	$195 USD
Type	Triple Hybrid IEM
Drivers	1 x Dynamic and 2 x Knowles Balanced Armature
Freq Range	10Hz – 35kHz
Impedance	16Ω
Sensitivity	110 +/- 1dB
Cable Type	1.3m, replaceable (MMCX)
Jack	3.5mm gold plated single ended, angled
Weight	11g
Casing material	Coated and anodised alloy

FREQUENCY GRAPH

The graphs below 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.


Frequency response and channel matching	Range of bass filters	Range of mid/high filters

As you can see from the above graphs, there is quite a range of different frequency responses you can dial in. We'll go into them in more depth in the filter section. But one thing to note is the versatility.

The second thing to note is that apart from the blue rear filter, the other rear filters (black, red and none) are very close when measured. I can't say if maybe I got a couple of filters which were coloured wrong, or if there is an issue with my sample pair. Others have said they are getting more change with their own bass filters. I only really notice change with the blue filter vs the others.

And the final thing to notice is that the channel matching is very good. I performed this with no back filter and grey front filter – not because it is my favourite setting, but rather because the grey is the middle filter in terms of change, and if I have no filter on the rear, then there is the smallest chance of a filter being responsible for channel imbalance. No fear of that though – LZ's driver matching is quite excellent.

BUILD AND DESIGN


External face of the shell	Side view

The LZ-A4 has a very interesting shape, and probably the best description I could give is that it looks like a quarter circle, with a central chamber and nozzle. The LZ-A4's main body measures ~20mm across, ~16mm high, and ~16-17mm deep (with no nozzle attached). Adding the filter nozzle extends this to ~21mm. The body is made of a black lightweight metal alloy which is quite sturdy, and looks built to last.

The main body is quite angular and has a few bevelled edges, but because of the size and shape, it sits mainly in non-contact with my ear. All the same, I think that LZ could have done more with their moulding to round the edges a little better. From the external side, you mainly see the flat quarter circle body shape – with a central vent to which the rear filter screws into. There is a small L/R indicator engraved into each ear-piece which is both unobtrusive but also easy to find. At the top of the main body is an MMCX socket. It is extremely solid (takes a real effort to removed the cables).


Internal facing	MMCX socket and connector

The internal side is cone shaped, from the main body – but rather than being smooth, there are a couple of bevelled ridges which really needed to be smooth. At least one of these is engaging with my ears, and after a while becomes uncomfortable for me. The tuning nozzles screw into the tip of the cone, and have a shallow but still reasonable lip, which makes tip selection a little easier. There is a small dynamic driver vent on the internal cone. Each filter is mesh covered, and the nozzle diameter is ~6mm in diameter.


Y-split and cinch	3.5mm SE jack and cable tie

As I mentioned, the cable exit is at the top of the main body, and is MMCX. The cable is a twisted pair and finished with a quite soft and flexible outer coating. The one thing which is immediately apparent with the cable is that it is strong – really strong. Even the thinner section north of the Y-split feels as though you could use it as a fastening wire. The cable is only slightly microphonic, but this is easily managed by wearing over-ear, and using the cinch.

There is no strain relief at the cable exit, and even though the cable has a lot of strength, I think there should still be some. At the Y-split there is no relief either. It is a rigid rubber one piece y-split with a sliding cinch (which works brilliantly) above it.

The jack is 3.5mm, 45 degree angled, and has good strain relief. It is gold plated and also long enough to be considered smart-phone case friendly. Above the jack is a cloth and 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 elegant as Dunu's very similar solution.

Internally the LZ-A4 uses a dual Knowles BA set-up, along with a titanium silver composite diaphragm on the dynamic driver. All in all, I would say that the design and build quality is striking, and looks durable. My only concerns are with the hard angles on the housing, and the lack of strain relief on the cables.

FIT / COMFORT / ISOLATION
Isolation is an interesting topic with the LZ-A4. The back is essentially a vent – to which different rear filters give different bass response. If you go completely filter-less, and block the nozzle – you can clearly hear sound from the back, and if worn with no rear filter, you can hear people around you. But when adding the rear filter, this is mitigated quite well, and I'd say that isolation is about average for a ported or vented hybrid. With music playing at a responsible level, most background noise is masked – and it is only really loud sounds which get through. They'd even be OK for most public transport, but wouldn't be my pick for something like a long haul flight. As per usual – the personal level of isolation you achieve will depend on the tips you use and the seal you achieve.


Worn over ear – housing can be uncomfortable	My modded Spinfits (foam added)

So lets looks at fit and comfort – and these thoughts are more subjective, and will vary from person to person. The LZ-A4 can be worn cable up or cable down, but most will agree that the ergonomic shape was designed primarily for cable over the ear. I don't tend to have too many issues with the actual main body – although over time even those bevelled hard edges can get uncomfortable. Those with smaller ears may escape this purely from the fact that the LZ-A4 may stick out more (keep all surfaces away from their ears). For me though, anything over an hour or so, and they can start becoming slightly uncomfortable. Its a real pity because I like almost everything else about them. Fit/comfort can be mitigated to a certain extent by tips and positioning, and I'm sure a lot will find the comfort personally acceptable – unfortunately I don't. The good news is that LZ's new Big Dipper flagship has no such problems – and is one of the most ergonomic designs I've tried (more on that one in a week or so).


LZ-A4 next to the Big Dipper	Spinfits and Spiral Dots

The LZ-A4 does have a lip on the nozzle, and because of this you can have a reasonable variety of tip choices. I tried Spiral Dots, Spin-fits, Ostry tuning tips (which gave me quite a good seal), and Sony Isolation tips, and all fit pretty well. I did find foam tips tended to give me a little more overall comfort and better seal – bus that is principally because I have one wider ear canal (left) than the other – so often getting perfect fit for me can be problematic. Ultimately for me though, I ended up with a modified pair of Spin-fits (I added foam inners) and this gave a pretty good combination of seal and comfort


Sony Isolation and Ostry Tuning tips	Shure Olives and Crystal foam tips

The LZ-A4 sits almost flush with my outer ear, and after adjustment I can wear them for up to a couple of hours. Lying down with them causes the housing to press against my ear, and this gets uncomfortable pretty fast. I've slept with them once, but woke up after less than an hour with pretty sore ears. YMMV with this.

So the general build is good, but the shape could be improved a little. The first step would be proper rounding of the edges rather than bevelling.

FILTERS

This always a tough one – as there are so 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 its tonality and lose sight of its performance against the other options. Hopefully this summary will allow people to dial into their preferred curve early – and then experiment from there.


Rear filters	Note some of the different internals

The rear filters are 9mm in diameter, and have a threaded screw to fit the rear of the LZ-A4. They are pre-fitted with a rubber washed to maintain a tight seal, and the outer surface has good grip to allow easy handling. The tuning is maintained either through the sizing of the meshed holes, use of acoustic material, or both. The rear filters solely control sub and mid-bass, but will obviously influence perception of other frequencies

The front filters, are also the nozzles. They are 6mm in length (4-5mm exposed when fitted), 6mm in diameter with a mesh over the nozzle and good lip. They also have a threaded screw to fit the front of the LZ-A4, and are also fitted with a rubber washer to maintain seal and integrity. They are pretty easy to change out. Tuning is once again managed through the use of size of the meshed holes, acoustic material, size of the nozzle chamber or combination of the three. The front filters change frequencies from the low mid-range (around 200 Hz – but minimal change here) through to the upper treble – with most change occurring in the upper mid0rang and lower treble from 2 kHz to 9kHz.


Front filters	Again note some of the different internals

The documentation included with the LZ-A4 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. Starting with the bass (rear) filter, to my ears, and on my measurement gear, the black, red and no filter options all sound pretty much identical. The blue is the real difference and has a roll off from around 100Hz – and is more than 10 dB down by you reach 20 Hz. The black and red are actually pretty good though – not overemphasised, with well extended sub-bass. What is really missing with the filters on the LZ-A4 is a bass curve between black and blue (more of a flattish mid-bass hump), and possible for bass lovers, one with more sub bass emphasis. For me though, the black is very acceptable for my tastes with this earphone.

The front filters give a lot more options, and invite a lot more changes. I'm going to start with the combo which I believe is the closest to balanced or reference (its still a shallow V), and that is the pink filter. You'll notice in the graphs that the pink peaks in upper mid-range and lower treble all pretty much match the apex of the bass at 50-100 Hz, with only one slight peak above this at 9 kHz. If we accept this as closest to reference, we can then compare the others to this. For all the below comparisons I have used the black rear filter.


Pink vs Grey	Pink vs Red

The closest to the pink is the grey, and the only real difference is slightly more emphasis at 2 kHz – otherwise they are pretty much identical. I detailed earlier in my profile (bias) that I can be a little sensitive at 2-3 kHz which is why I prefer the pink ever so slightly – but either the pink or grey could be considered closest to reference for the LZ-A4. Both give an excellent transition of mid-range fundamentals to upper mid-range harmonics. Both are well extended into lower treble without too many annoying peaks. Both have enough emphasis at 7 kHz to clearly define cymbals.

The red is also extremely close to both pink and grey – but this time there is a slight lift in both upper mid-range and lower treble. It is pretty uniform, quite subtle, and extremely well managed. The lift is only about 2-3 dB in these areas, but it does add that little bit of emphasis without introducing too much peakiness, and for lovers of a little more air or bite is a great option.


Pink vs Black	Pink vs Green

The black is more similar to the red (than pink or grey) – but this time with a lot more emphasis on the upper mid-range (4-5 dB). Lovers of female vocals with a more euphonic tilt or colouration may well prefer the black – as there is generally more emphasis on vocal presence and also on some instruments (guitar bite for instance). The black probably represents the upper limit of where I am generally comfortable with upper mid-range bumps, and in many ways sounds a little like Fidue's Sirius with this configuration.

Green gives a large bump to the upper mid-range at 2 kHz (almost 10dB) above the pink, and 15 dB above the lower mid-range at 700 Hz. Lower treble is the same as the pink, so this gives a very mid-centric sound. This colouration is probably closest to where a lot of the Trinity IEMs were tuned, and while it can be quite captivating (definitely coloured!), I personally find it slightly over-done, and can trigger a little dissonance with some things like upper register piano notes for me. Still I can see how some people will gravitate to this filter, and it isn't at all out of place in the filter selection.


Pink vs Blue	Tip choice will also affect things

The blue is the combination of green and black – a lot of emphasis on both upper mids and also lower treble. It is bright, somewhat dry and lean, and for me too coloured to consider using. But again it shows the maturity of the overall filter selections LZ have provided, and to me this variety provides one of the most well structured and progressive use of variable filters around – especially at this price point.

The one thing which would make the LZ-A4 close to perfect is better variety in the bass filter system.

SOUND QUALITY

The following is what I hear from the LZ-A4. YMMV – and probably will (also because we are talking about an earphone with many tuning options) – 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 X5iii (single ended) no EQ, black back filter with pink front filter, and modded Spin-fit tips tips. I used the FiiO X5iii simply because it gives me a transparent window to the music with low impedance, and more than enough power. There was no DSP engaged. I used the black/pink combo because it is the closest I can get to reference with the included filters.


My trusty FiiO X5iii	FiiO X1ii solo was also more than enough

For the record – on most tracks, the volume on X5iii was around the 40/120 level 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.17556

Relativities

Sub-bass – has very good extension and even at my low listening levels is clearly audible, with good rumble and sense of presence. Does not dominate with tracks like Lorde's Royals, but does give enough thump without overshadowing vocals, and I'm detecting no bleed (or masking) into the lower mid-range.
Mid-bass – has a natural mid-bass hump – providing very good impact, but sitting ever so slightly back from the actual sub-bass. Mid-bass is a little elevated over lower mids, but roughly equal with upper mids with this filter combination.
Lower mid-range – there is a recession compared to sub and mid-bass, and also the upper mid-range, but does not sound overly recessed or 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 2 kHz and a second at 4kHz. 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.
Lower treble has very good extension, and really is quite sustained 2 kHz through to 10kHz with just some dips in the 5-6 kHz area and again around 8kHz. But it isn't over-emphasised with this filter combination, remaining at about the same amplitude as the upper mid-range. This presents a lot of clarity and detail, but without any sign of harshness.
Upper treble – rolls off with this filter combination, but I don't feel as though I am missing anything. Other filters can give even further extension.

Resolution / Detail / Clarity

I noticed in the discussions in the forums of the LZ-A4 and a few people saying the black/pink combo was just too smooth and not showing enough detail. For me anyway, this is just not true. When I wrote this bit I was listening to Pink Floyd's “Money”, and it is a track with gobs of micro detail which can sometimes get lost or smeared with a warmer earphone. With the LZ-A4 I was really surprised at the level of detail and resolution. Everything is there, yet not over-emphasised or spot-lit in any way.
Portico Quartet's “Ruins” is a good track for checking the balance on drumstick clicks, hi-hat taps and cymbal decay, and no detail is missed even at lower listening levels.(
Cymbal hits have good clarity and overall presence, and this includes decay – there is no real hint of truncation. Pearl Jam's “Elderly Woman ...” was perfect in this regard.(
Overall I feel as though I'm hearing everything in the recording – and this is even at my lower listening levels. Older rock recordings are pleasantly easy to get every nuance. The balance is really good.

Sound-stage and Imaging

Directional queues are very good – clean and clear, and presentation of stage is just on the periphery of my head space with binaural tracks. You can very slightly nudge this outwards by removing the rear filters. The LZ-A4 is nicely expansive but not massively so.
Separation of instruments and imaging is good, and I would it average performance for a hybrid IEM.
Reasonably spherically presented sound-stage – with a slight L/R dominance (more width than depth), but for me a good sense of staging.
The applause section of “Dante's Prayer” was well represented with a good feel of flow around me. Not as good as I have experienced but enough so that the LZ-A4 does not seem flat or two dimensional.
“Let it Rain” had a very 3D-like sense of spatial presentation – it is the way the track was miked. There was a slight hint of sibilance with Amanda's vocal (even at higher volumes) – and I know its present in the recording – so not unexpected. What was great is that the sibilance was reasonably subdued, yet the overall detail was still in abundance.

Sonic Strengths

Overall tonal balance and clarity – while retaining a smooth sonic presentation
Imaging, separation and sense of space in the staging (whilst not going overboard).
Both sub and mid-bass have good impact but do not dominate otherwise
Very good portrayal of both male and female vocals, although male vocals are not as full or rich as their female counterparts.
Very detailed at low listening levels
Extremely good transition between lower and upper mid-range

Sonic Weaknesses

It is actually pretty hard to find one with this filter combination.
Perhaps a very slight thinness or leanness with male vocals – but that is nitpicking given the upside of euphony with female vocals.

AMPLIFICATION REQUIREMENTS

The LZ-A4 is not a hard IEM to drive with its 16ohm impedance and 110 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 third of its volume for a comfortable 65-75dB and even 40-50% with some well recorded Porcupine Tree was simply too loud for me.


Testing with the FiiO A5 and E17K	All the sources I had could also drive the LZ-A4 easily

But I went back and forth (volume matching with test tones and fixed volumes using a few different combos – iPhone SE & IMS portable valve amp, X3ii & E17K, and X5iii & A5, and did not notice any appreciable difference between amped and straight out of a DAP. My advice would be to further amp if you prefer it – but its definitely not needed.

EQ / BALANCED PERFORMANCE

I tested Balanced vs SE performance using an ALO Tinsel cable. Both sounded very good, but switching quickly between the two using an adaptor did not show up any marked improvements to me. Note that this was performed on the X5iii and properly volume matched before hand.


Baslanced with an ALO Tinsel cable	E17K tone controls for EQ testing

As far as EQ goes, that is ultimately what the tuning filters are there for, but I did use hardware EQ in the form of the E17K and A5 bass boost and both times the LZ-A4 responded well with no real clipping issues. Interestingly I was also able to turn the blue front filter to a very similar tonality as the pink – simply by reducing the treble with E17K's tone controls. Either way – there seems to be no real issues with EQ.

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 (Trinity's Delta V2, Atlas, and FLC's FLC8S) as well as a couple of well regarded IEMs in the $200-250 range.

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 my old work-horse combo – the FiiO X3ii and E17K. 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.

LZ-A4 (~USD 195) vs Trinity Delta V2 (~USD 150)


LZ-A4 and Trinity Delta 2	Delta 2 Filters	Frequency comparisons (optimal)

The Trinity Delta V2 is no longer sold by Trinity Audio – but was my favourite of all the Trinity products I reviewed. Starting with build quality – both are built very sturdily from quality materials, and both have good quality replaceable cables. In terms of fit and comfort, the Delta V2 is definitely a little more comfortable – lacking some of the edges that the LZ-A4 possesses. Both have a good variety of accessories appropriate for their respective prices.

The Delta V2 is a dual hybrid, while the LZ-A4 is a triple. Both have a very good filter system, with the Delta having better options for bass control, and the LZ-A4 having better mid-range and treble tuning options. Personally I think having the two separate options for treble and bass and being able to pair them however you like is a definite plus. When directly comparing I used the Delta V2's gunmetal filter vs the LZ-A4's black/pink combo.

The two are sonically very similar – especially in the lower mid-range and bass. The major difference occurs in the upper mids and lower treble where the LZ-A4 is a just the tiniest bit clearer and cleaner, and a little more defined. Both are truly excellent examples of tunable IEM's though, and whilst I haven't heard the Delta for a while, it was east to fall in love with it again. Its a real pity Trinity no longer produces it.

As far as preference goes, this one is a tie. The Delta was cheaper, and definitely had better bass options with the tuning. Its probably more comfortable for larger ears, and due to its girth may be less comfortable for smaller ears. The LZ-A4 is almost the direct opposite. Where they converge though is in the excellent sonics on both IEMs. The LZ-A4 might be slightly better technically (including a slightly better imaging and staging) but then again there is the price difference. A pretty good match up.

LZ-A4 (~USD 195) vs Trinity Atlas (~USD 200)


LZ-A4 and Trinity Atlas	Atlas Filters	Frequency comparisons (optimal)

The Atlas is another earphone Trinity no longer makes. It was the first of Trinity's truly ergonomic designs, and like the Delta, pits a dual hybrid against the triple hybrid LZ-A4. Again starting with build quality – both are very sturdily built from quality materials, and both have good quality replaceable cables. This time though, the tighter fitting MMCX connections on the LZ-A4 give the feeling they are a little more secure – although only time will tell. In terms of fit and comfort, the Atlas is definitely more comfortable – with a proper ergonomic shape which gives me no fatigue at all. Both have a good variety of accessories appropriate for their respective prices.

Like last time, the Atlas has better options for bass control (although it is always with a sub-bass tilt), and the LZ-A4 has the better mid-range and treble tuning options (there is none for the original Atlas). When directly comparing I used the Atlas's gunmetal filter vs the LZ-A4's black/pink combo – as both are relatively close.

In this configuration the two are sonically very close again – and again it is mainly in the lower mid-range and bass. Again this time the difference occurs in the upper mids and lower treble where the Atlas is just a little more forward and also fuller in the vocals. I could probably match some of the difference by switching to the grey filter on the LZ-A4 if I wanted. Both sound very good, and again choosing will depend if you prefer more control over bass or mid-range and treble. For me its an easier choice this time. I like the black filter for the LZ-A4 and really feel no need for changing. But where I appreciate the flexibility in tuning is in the mid-range and top-end. For me, the LZ-A4 better suits my preferences and would ultimately be my choice.
LZ-A4 (~USD 195) vs FLC FLC8S (~USD 329)


LZ-A4 and FLC8S	Some of the FLC8S Filters	Frequency comparisons (optimal)

This time it is two triple hybrids but a vastly different price points. Both again are tunable. This time the build quality goes to the LZ-A4 with its alloy build trumping the plastic/polycarbonate casing of the FLC8S. With the cable too, the LZ-A4 is much better (the FLC8S cable is annoyingly memory prone). Fit and comfort go to the FLC8S with is much more ergonomic build. Accessories again are shared (for their price points) – although the FLC8S does have more filters and also adaptors.

The FLC8S has three different filter locations which can be combined for different tuning options, and actually has 60 options for tuning (if you use some without filters) compared to the LZ-A4's 24. However, the FLC8S filters are very small, fiddly and difficult to swap out compared to the LZ-A4's, and even though there are more options with the FLC8S, the number of viable options is actually probably about the same with both earphones. There are some combos you simply wouldn't use – or at least I wouldn't. The FLC8S definitely has more control over the bass – but again I prefer the LZ-A4's mid-range control options.

If I use the black/grey/gold combo on the FLC8S I can get pretty close to the black/pink on the LZ-A4. Sonically in this configuration, both are very close again, with the main difference that the FLC8S bass is a little more linear, and it's mid-range just the tiniest bit more forward. Despite the tuning options on the FLC8S, I'm still finding the LZ-A4 sounding just a little more natural – or at least it suits my own personal preferences a bit more. Ultimately I'd take the LZ-A4 for my own choice – but the fact that these two are pretty close in overall SQ, and the LZ-A4 being two thirds the price of the FLC8S, should give an idea of how well tuned the options on the LZ-A4 are.

LZ-A4 (~USD 195) vs MEE Pinnacle P1 (~USD 200)


LZ-A4 and MEE Pinnacle P1	Frequency comparisons

The Pinnacle P1 is a single dynamic driver IEM with no tuning options, but it is also one of the most highly regarded IEMs at its price point. Build materials are generally similar on both the P1 and LZ-A4, but in terms of overall build quality, the P1 has the better overall build, better cables, and much better fit and comfort (true ergonomics). The LZ-A4 is not bad – its just the P1 has set such a high standard at this price point. The LZ-A4 is much easier to drive, and is tunable – so these factors must be taken into account. In terms of accessories, they two are fairly evenly matched (LZ-A4 has the filters etc, while P1 has extra cable and adaptors).

Sonically – pitching the black/pink combo against the P1, and its immediately apparent that although they are somewhat similar in bass response, the LZ-A4 has slightly more lower-bass slam while the P1 has just a little bit more mid-bass thump. The P1 also sounds a little warmer, and I think this is the P1's recession from 5-10 kHz, where the LZ-A4 has the two peaks at 7 and 9 kHz respectively. They are both great headphones at this price point – so which would I take if I could only choose one? For me it would be the LZ-A4, and I would be prepared to substitute a little of the comfort and fit for the added emphasis in the upper end. Close though – again, both excellent earphones.

LZ-A4 (~USD 195) vs Alclair Curve (~USD 249)


LZ-A4 and Alclair Curve	Frequency comparisons

This time the LZ-A4 is against one of my favourite IEMs, and one I own (not a review sample). This is the Alclair Curve – a dual BA universal from Alclair,a nd one which has consistently been in my top 5 since I got it. In terms of build materials, the alloy casing of the LZ-A4 trumps the hard polycarbonate housing of the Curve – but as far as actual build quality, build design, fit and comfort goes, the Curve wins all four. The curve is insanely comfortable, and simply disappears when worn. The accessories go to the LZ-A4, whilst the cable quality goes to the Curve (although both are good quality). I do prefer the Curve's 2 pin connectors as well.

Sonically the curve against the LZ-A4 is an interesting comparison. The LZ-A4 wins on sheer bass slam, and has the more forward mid-range. It also has a little more overall richness or fullness compared to the Curve. The Curve sounds a little flatter overall and does have a comparative peak at around 7kHz which people will either like or loathe. Its a common area for a peak though and really brings cymbal details and decay out.

The LZ-A4 actually performs exceedingly well against one of my outright favourites, and I've become more impressed with its sonic abilities as the review has progressed. Ultimately for me – it does not beat the Curve, but it does give it a run for the money, and at 20% lower price, that is impressive.

VALUE

So how do I see the overall value of the LZ-A4? Quite simply, it reaches that performance which has me definitely recommending it at its current price point. For the base tonality and additional tuning options and flexibility it offers, it is really hard to go past. The only two areas I'd like to see LZ improve it is in rounding the corners of the housing properly (no hard edges!), and with a couple of better bass options (or perhaps it might be just my pair). Regardless though – the overall package (IMO) beats that of both Trinity and RHA, and represents better value than the FLC8S. It deserves to be mentioned in the same sentence as IEMs like the P1 when recommending an ~200 USD price point. And that to me is very good value.

LZ-A4 – SUMMARY

I should have really written this review some months 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 – its unprofessional of me.

The LZ-A4 is a real chameleon as far as hybrid IEMs go. It is very well built, with solid choice of materials and a well thought out cable. The tuning system is very easy to use, and provides some excellent upper mid-range and lower treble tuning options which have been well thought out and executed. I think the bass filters still need some work – but that should be an easy fix – especially if LZ would like to eventually introduce an updated version.

The other area that could be worked on is the fit/comfort. We have rounded ears. Hard ridges just don't work. I know LZ understands this because I have their Big Dipper flagship at the moment, and that truly is a masterpiece in fit and comfort!

As far as the SQ of the LZ-A4 goes, it really is quite special. I really like the way they have options for a relatively balanced filter configuration, and also that they have not sacrificed extension at either end of the frequency range. What you have (with the black/pink combo for me) is an IEM with exceptional overall balance whilst retaining an engaging tonality.

For the price of $200 you are getting one heck of an IEM, and an absolute recommendation from me. Fix the comfort and throw in another bass tuning option or two, and you have a 5 star review. For me though – the LZ-A4 is a solid 4 star or 80%.

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

Picture are default 1200 x 800 resolution - click to view larger images.

INTRODUCTION

I've reviewed a couple of HifiMan's DAPs in the past (one of which included an IEM I suspect was modelled on the RE600). I've also heard the HE-6 at a meet and was very impressed with what they had achieved. But beyond that I haven't heard a lot of their line-up. So when Mark contacted me and asked if I'd be interested in reviewing some more of their gear, I jumped at the chance. He originally asked if I wanted to review the Susvara as well as the RE2000 and RE800, but to be honest, I was somewhat hesitant about the idea of reviewing the Susvara – simply because of the hefty price tag. After listening to the RE2000 this week, I'm wondering now if I should have leapt at the chance to review the Susvara as well (unfortunately an opportunity missed).

Most people will recognise by now that I do take price into account when reviewing a product, and I try to be as objective as possible. So how did the RE2000 fare, especially knowing my tendency to look for value for money? Read on as I explore HifiMan's flagship IEM.

ABOUT HIFIMAN

HifiMan Audio was founded in late 2005 by Dr Fang Bian when he was resident in New York. He started Head-Direct, and in 2007 began use of the HifiMan brand. They started initially with in-ear earphones, branched out into building hi-res portable players, and this was followed by planar magnetic headphones. As the business grew, so did the need to expand, so in 2010 Dr Bian started two small factories in China, and moved the HQ to Tianjin China in 2011. They are now a well recognised brand globally – particularly in the field of portable or personal audio products.

I found most of these short facts from a couple of interviews with Dr Bian posted on line, and among the interviews were a couple of direct quotes which I found fascinating and illuminating:

I started listening to a lot of music when I was in high school. I used a Walkman and Discman all the time because I had nothing else available to me. They were designed more for convenience than great sound. I wanted both- convenience and great sound so that set the stage for my dream to build the best sounding personal audio products.

Starting with me, everyone is passionate about what we are doing at HiFiMAN. We may not always do everything perfectly from the beginning but we try hard to get it right in the end and our track record is pretty good. Most of all, I want our customers to know how much we appreciate them. Their support and feedback is invaluable.

DISCLAIMER

The HifiMan RE2000 that I’m reviewing today was provided to me as a review sample. After I finish with the review, I will arrange a tour through NZ and maybe Australia. At the completion of the tour, I will either return the IEM to HifiMan, or they may allow me to hang onto it for further review comparisons. Either way – they retain ownership.

I have made it clear to HifiMan that I still regard any product they send me as their sole property and available for return any time at their request. But I thank them for the ability to review and possibly continue use of the RE2000 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 HifiMan themselves.

I have now had the HifiMan RE2000 for just under 3 weeks. The retail price at time of review is USD 2000.

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

I'm a 50 year old music lover. I don't say audiophile – I just love my music. Over the last couple of years, I have slowly changed from cheaper listening set-ups to my current set-up. I vary my listening from portables (mostly now from the FiiO X5iii, and iPhone SE) to my desk-top's set-up (PC > USB > iFi iDSD). My main full sized headphones at the time of writing are the Sennheiser HD800S, Sennheiser HD600 & HD630VB, and AKG K553. Most of my portable listening is done with IEMs, and lately it has mainly been with the Jays q-Jays, Alclair Curve2 and Adel U6. A full list of the gear I have owned (past and present is listed in my Head-Fi profile).

I have very eclectic music tastes listening to a variety from classical/opera and jazz, to grunge and general rock. I listen to a lot of blues, jazz, folk music, classic rock, indie and alternative rock. I am particularly fond of female vocals. I generally tend toward cans that are relatively neutral/balanced, but I do have a fondness for clarity, and suspect I might have slight ‘treble-head’ preferences. I am not treble sensitive (at all), and in the past have really enjoyed headphones like the K701, SR325i, and of course the T1 and DT880. I have a specific sensitivity to the 2-3 kHz frequency area (most humans do) but my sensitivity is particularly strong, and I tend to like a relatively flat mid-range with slight elevation in the upper-mids around this area.

I have extensively tested myself (ABX) and I find aac256 or higher to be completely transparent. I do use exclusively red-book 16/44.1 if space is not an issue. All of my music is legally purchased (mostly CD – the rest FLAC purchased on-line). I tend to be sceptical about audiophile ‘claims’, don’t generally believe in burn-in, have never heard a difference with different cables (unless it was volume or impedance related), and would rather test myself blind on perceived differences. I am not a ‘golden eared listener’. I suffer from mild tinnitus, and at 50, my hearing is less than perfect (it only extends to around 14 kHz nowadays). My usual listening level is around 65-75 dB.

For the purposes of this review - I used the HifiMan RE2000 from various sources at my disposal – both straight from the headphone-out socket, and also amplified. In the time I have spent with the HifiMan RE2000, I have noticed no change to the overall sonic presentation (break-in). After hearing claims of audible break-in with this IEM – I measured the RE2000 both at the beginning and toward the end of the review (with at least 50+ hours use), and that measurement is also included.

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


Front of the retail box	Rear of the retail box

When the courier box arrived – the first thing I said to my wife was “oh – they must have sent me the Susvara as well! The outer packaging was pretty big, but contained not only the RE2000 but also the RE800 and a cheaper version of their HifiMan Megamini DAP.

The RE2000 arrived in a large retail box (253 x 183 x 70mm) – which consists of a full printed sleeve over a “jewellery type” leatherette encased hinged lid box. The outer sleeve is nicely done in black with a carbon type pattern, clean white (and easy to read) text, with a picture of the RE2000 on the front (as well as a sticker stating that they are electroplated with a fine 24K gold finish). The rear has specifications and contact details.

The inner box has a textured black leatherette outer surface, with a central brushed metal plate with the HifiMan logo, the RE2000 model number, and their slogan “Innovating the Art of Listening”. The inner box is closed with a polished stainless hasp.


The inner box	First look inside

Opening the box reveals two black cardboard boxes – one housing the cable and the other the tips. Nestled between these is the round storage / carry case which when opened gives us our first glimpse of the RE2000. In a compartment under the case are two further pairs of Comply tips, a pair of ear-hooks, contact and warranty cards, and a very informative full colour booklet on the RE2000.


The full package	Excellent full colour guide

The accessories include:

1 pair of black silicone triple flange tips
1 pair of black silicone dual flange tips
1 pair of grey silicone “flat” dual flange tips
1 pair of black silicone “flat” dual flange tips
1 pair of grey silicone single flange tips
1 pair of medium T400 genuine Comply tips
1 pair of large T400 genuine Comply tips
1 pair black flexi ear-guides
1 black alloy storage case
Maintenance and warranty card.
Full colour booklet/manual
1 x 3.5 mm single ended to 2 pin earphone cable
1 pair additional 2 pin connectors


Cable, guides, and spare connectors	Tip selection

The storage case is moderately large, and realistically won't be used as a carry case – unless in a larger jacket pocket or carry bag. It is 80mm in diameter, 35mm in height, with a lift-off lid, and internally lined with a soft felt like padded material. It also has a moulded foam insert if just to be used for storage (without the cable). The case works well and is ideal for safe storage on a desk top, or protection when on the go.


Case and insert	Perfectly sized with insert removed

All in all, the included accessories are fair (maybe on the light side considering the price) – and I would have ideally liked to see inclusion of a secondary (perhaps balanced?) cable, and maybe more tips and adaptors.

TECHNICAL SPECIFICATIONS
(From HifiMan’s packaging / website)

Model	HifiMan RE2000
Approx price	$2000 USD
Type	Single Dynamic IEM
Driver	9.2 mm Dynamic with Topology coating
Freq Range	20Hz – 20kHz
Impedance	60Ω
Sensitivity	103 dB
Cable Type	1.3m, replaceable (dual pin)
Cable Materials	Silver coated crystalline copper
Jack	3.5mm gold plated single ended, right angled
Weight	13.8g (earpieces), 23g (cable), total 36.8g
Casing material	Brass with electroplated 24K gold finish

FREQUENCY GRAPH

The graphs below 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.


Frequency response and channel matching	Measurements after 50+ hours “burn-in”

I have included 2 graphs – which you will see look practically identical. There had been a couple of claims of marked changes after burn-in. Anyone knowing me will understand that whilst I'm open to the possibility of change (eg changing impedance due to cable changes with BA based IEMs), I tend to take claims of burn-in with a fairly large grain of salt. When someone claims the differences are clearly audible – I tend to get my objective hat on. I made sure I measured with around 50+ hours difference in use. Claims of clearly audible changes should show in frequency response (including claims of less treble, smoother tonality etc). Often when I question it, original claimants will say the changes are subtle – and perhaps can't be measured. My answer to that is simply that if the changes are subtle – and our echoic memory is typically very bad – how can someone remember changes when they are often 10's (if not 100's) of hours apart. Quite clearly the changes are not happening on my pair. If you read a review claiming large changes (or any changes) – my personal advice is to be careful of any other claims made. Its my personal view – so please choose to ignore it if you want. Interestingly, I can find no advice or claim from HifiMan that the RE2000 improves or even changes from break in.

My sonic impressions of the RE2000 – written well before I measured:

Bass is one of the strong points of this IEM. It sounds very natural (so a good naturally shaped shallow mid-bass hump), reaches low with excellent extension but is not over-emphasised. There is audible sub-bass rumble.
Lower mid-range is slightly recessed compared to bass and upper mid-range, but at the same time male vocals are well represented.
Upper mid-range is emphasised, and it is a definite colouration (you could call the RE2000 mid-forward), but one I not only appreciate, but absolutely love. I would go so far to say it is one fo the best mid-ranges I have ever heard. Female vocals have a wonderful sense of euphony, and there is wonderful clarity without losing overall tonality
Lower treble extension is phenomenal as well, but it is done without any huge peaks. Cymbal fundamentals are very good – and the decay is very lifelike without being over-emphasised. Because the 5-7 kHz and 9-10 kHz areas have small peaks, anyone who is overly treble sensitive may have issues. Personally I love it – detailed and smooth at the same time.
Overall an extremely well balanced earphone with an upper mid-emphasis, but wonderful sense of spatial imaging (we'll delve more into that later).
Channel matching is excellent – among the best I've seen throughout the entire spectrum.

BUILD AND DESIGN


External face of the shell	Front and side view

The RE2000 is very well built and finished, and definitely worthy of being called HiFiMan's top monitor. The outer shell is a two tone affair and consists of a gold coloured main shell, with a black formed plastic compound plate. The exits which house the sockets for the cables are the same compound.

The interesting thing about the actual housing itself though is some of the research which went into the material to use. HiFiMan went through a very extensive prototyping development stage, and came down to three options – bronze, copper and brass. Bronze proved too hard for forming, and copper was too soft. Brass proved to be the ideal middle ground, and also had the right tonal properties. Now we know that brass is also prone to oxidisation, and this is probably the reason for the additional use of the 24K gold electroplating to finish the shells.


Internal facing	Rear view of shell – note the one sharpish edge

The RE2000 is a moderately large IEM with an end to end width of 15mm, a height of 11mm (shell only) and depth of approx 15mm (excluding nozzle). The interior or internal side is somewhat rectangular, but also nicely rounded with no really sharp corners or angles. The nozzle sits out (non angled) from the front of the main body, protruding approx 5mm in length. It is 6mm in diameter, mesh covered and has an extremely good lip.

The shape is rounded rectangular, and it is ergonomically designed to fit inside the natural trench or hollow from your ear's tragus, to the antihelix.


2 pin cable socket and male connector	Male 2 pin connectors

The exterior or external side has the plastic/rubber compound black “cap”. It is nicely curved to match the IEM shell and has the HiFiMan logo on both earpieces. The front and sides are rounded but due to the natural shape of most people's ears, won't have any issues. The rear join is neither rounded or bevelled and is one of the few design errors made in my opinion (I'll go more into it when discussing comfort).

On the top of the IEM is the socket for the cable. It is angled forward at about 45 degrees, and consists of the same rubber/plastic compound, with a standard 2 pin socket recessed inside. The socket is grooved on one side to match the cable, so there is no way you can attach the cable out of phase. The connection is very solid when attached, and the male connector beautifully and seamlessly attaches with the recessed socket. On the male connector's housing is printed L or R. On the socket's outer housing is a single driver ventilation port.


Y-split and cinch	3.5mm SE jack

The cable is a crystalline copper wire with a silver coating (SPC), and finished with a quite satiny black overwrap which appears to be a PVC base. The main cable appears to be quite sturdy and strong, but north of the Y-split the cable is quite a bit thinner.

There is strain relief at the cable exit, but it is quite small. At the Y-split there is no relief, but I don't really think its needed because of the design. The lower cable is strong enough, and the Y-split itself is essentially a hollow tube with a tapered base. It is made of the same material as the shells, printed with the model number, and has an excellent cinch.

The jack is 3.5mm, right angled, and has a quite heavy duty housing. The standard stereo plug is gold plated. An interesting thing about the jack is that despite its heavy duty appearance, unscrewing the cylinder shows the use of electrical tape for insulation rather than the more popular heat shrinking. Both do the same job, but the electrical tape sort of clashes with the price point / build expectation.

One of the good things about the cable socket is that it is interchangeable with other standard compatible cables. I've had success with both a Rhapsodio cable and also one from LZ's new Dipper. No noticeable sonic changes, but nice to know that for people who like to experiment with cables, those options are available.


HiFiMans jack (L) vs Dunu's (R)	RE2000 with Rhapsodio cable

Internally HiFiMan uses what they call a 9.2mm Topology driver. They have invested a lot of time into researching advanced depositional technology, and the result is a driver with a nano particle coating applied to it's surface. The distribution of the coating has distinct geometrical patterns, and this allows HiFiMan to manipulate or control the wave patterns to achieve a desired audio effect. According to Dr Fang Bian, “different nano materials have differing structures and each of these materials has its own properties”. Therefore by carefully controlling the diaphragm surface structure, you can yield different results in acoustic performance to a degree previously unobtainable with conventional designs. Dr Bian also says that the Topology driver also reduces uncontrolled diaphragm distortions which occur in both BA and standard dynamic drivers.

HiFiman also claim that no other driver technology allows for such control and precision resulting in clarity, detail and nuance such that it can best the world's most complicated multi driver set-ups, but with none of the coherency and crossover issues.

I of course have neither the technological understanding, nor the experience with many other TOTL earphones at higher levels. But I can state categorically that I have not experienced any other IEM with quite the same combined tonality and imaging ability of the RE2000. But more on that later.

FIT / COMFORT / ISOLATION

I'll start with the easy one (isolation), and we can then look at fit and comfort. Isolation will be dependent on tip selection, and if you get a good seal, it is actually quite good (maybe slightly above average for a vented dynamic IMO), but will not ultimately reach the high isolation of sealed BA IEMs. I would even go as far to try these in noisier environments, But perhaps not on long haul flights. Unfortunately to get a great seal (and subsequent isolation) you may have to sacrifice a little comfort …..

So lets looks at fit and comfort – and these thoughts are more subjective. As I stated earlier, for the most part HiFiman have gone with a reasonably ergonomic overall design with virtually no sharp edges – apart from one at the rear. For most people this won't be an issue – as it should sit mostly above people's ears. But I have larger and deeper ears – I'm a big guy at just on 6ft.

I'm going to quote from the manual:
“The shape of the housing is again an example of blending industrial design, comfort and a striking visual. To the sweeping outer curvature juxtaposed against the angularity of the housing body yet seamlessly fitting into the ear. It at first glance looks as though it cannot eb comfortable, its angular and striking looks surely cannot be and yet, they most certainly are. The hard and yet soft satin exterior gently nestles into the listener's ear where it provides excellent fit, comfort and isolation, all to give you the most wonderful of listening experiences.”

Now we know this is marketing speak, and my issue is primarily with two areas of design. Because of the short nozzle – the fit is shallow. This means for me, I have to seat the IEM firmly with the right tip to get a good seal. Doing so (initially) meant the rear of the IEM sitting inside my ear next to the AntiHelix. This brought the sharp edge in contact with my ear. Ouch. I've mitigated it by the use of oversized tips (large Shure Olives) and angling the housing slightly forward. Its comfortable now – but it shouldn't have required this level or adjustment in the first place. Either a longer nozzle, or a beveled rear surface would have solved the issue. IMO this is a design flaw and hopefully one to be fixed in future.


Ostry tuning tips and Spiral Dots	Spinfits and Sony Isolation tips

One great point for the RE2000 though is the generous lip on the nozzle (thank you, thank you, thank you!). This means that practically any tips will fit so there are plenty of options. The included triple flanges provided a good seal and I already know I'd get a good seal also with the Comply tips. I also tried Spiral-dots, Sony Isolation tips, Ostry tuning tips and a number of others. For me the large Olives (I have to stretch the stem over the nozzle to have them fit) work incredibly well with shallow fitting IEMs, and have remained my tip of choise with the RE2000.


My preferred Shure Olives	Good fit – but adjusted to avoid the edge

The HiFiMan RE2000 sits almost flush with my outer ear, and after adjustment I can wear them for a considerable time. Initially I can lie down with them. I've slept with them occasionally, but with mixed results. If they remain seated during sleep (in their original position), I have no issues. If they compress into my outer ear – it will wake me up (the sharp edge). YMMV.

So the general build is good, but the shape could be improved a little. Overall though well thought out design on the whole.

SOUND QUALITY

The following is what I hear from the RE2000. 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 X5iii (single ended) and A5 amp, no EQ, and Shure Olive foam tips. I used the FiiO devices simply because paired they give me a very transparent window to the music with low impedance, and more than enough power. With both, their was no DSP engaged.


My trusty FiiO X5iii + A5	FiiO X5iii solo was also more than enough

For the record – on most tracks, the volume pot on the A5 (paired with X5iii) was just under one quarter (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.17556

Relativities

Sub-bass – has very good extension and even at my low listening levels is audible, but there is no boosted over emphasis and it sits extremely well within the overall frequency mix. There is enough rumble to give presence without overshadowing vocals, and I'm detecting no bleed into lower mid-range. What surprised me is how well the bass compliments the rest of the frequency, and also the degree of separation. This is sub-bass that hits low, but is truly excellent quality
Mid-bass – has a very natural mid-bass hump – not too large (does not dominate) but provides excellent impact. There is more mid-bass than sub-bass, but neither is really emphasised. This reminds me very much of my HD800S – enough to sound tonally natural, give very good overall timbre, and there when its in the mix, but absent when its not. I would not call the RE2000's bass overly warm, but neither is it thin. This is the sort of bass that is simply perfect in its presentation – one of the strengths of this earphone.
Lower mid-range – there is a recession compared to bass, and also the upper mid-range, but what has surprised me is how good male vocals are with the R2000, and also that whilst there is space in the overall imaging, vocals don't sound recessed. Its very rare in a slightly V shaped monitor to find this much body and depth of timbre and tone with both male and female vocals. I don't know how HiFiMan have done it – but it is welcome
Upper mid-range – elevated compared to lower mid-range, and there is a rise from 1 kHz to a sustained first peak at 2-3 kHz. The result is an incredibly clean and clear vocal range, with wonderful overall cohesion and real euphony for female vocals to sound sweet and elevated. The RE2000 is not a flat monitor, and anyone used to the creamy mid-range of the RE600 and other HiFiMan monitors will recognise this type of tuning immediately. The RE2000 is unashamedly mid-forward – and especially for female vocal lovers, it is as close to perfection as I have heard in an IEM.
Lower treble has amazing extension, and really is quite sustained from 5-10 kHz with a slight dip around 8kHz. But it isn't over-emphasised, remaining at about the same amplitude as the upper mid-range. For me this gives an extremely detailed portrayal, but without any sign of harshness. It is smooth, but still utterly compelling.
Upper treble – rolls off slowly but naturally – but still has good extension right through the upper registers. There are not many earphones I've measured which manage this. I can't really comment on the sonic signature of the upper treble, as its rare for me to hear any nuance at these frequencies.

Resolution / Detail / Clarity

I was taken aback the more I listened to the RE2000. This is an earphone with excellent extension but no sharp peaks. Yet it is vibrant, clear and articulate. Older recordings like 10cc's “Art for Art's Sake” are simply amazing even at low volumes, and the most impressive for me was Pink Floyd's “Money”. There is so much micro detail in this track, and often the headphones that display it best are the ones with a cooler, leaner drier signature. Yet the RE2000s is clean , clear, balanced and rich – and everything is there. Every nuance, every detail. I know there is the old cliché about hearing things for the first time. Thats not true in this case – I've heard this sort of detail before. But not this sort of presentation. Unless we're starting to talk full sized headphones!
Cymbal hits have excellent clarity and overall presence, and this includes decay – there is no hint of truncation. I love it when you hear a cymbal trail off, and particularly with jazz fusion (Portico Quartet) the RE2000 was magnificent.(
Overall I feel as though I'm hearing everything in the recording – and this is even at my lower listening levels.

Sound-stage, Imaging

If there was one quality of the RE2000 which I would call simply uncanny , it is the sense of imaging and space. Right from the first listen I was amazed at the overall degree of separation – especially in the bass.
Directional queues are amazing – very precise, and presentation of stage is definitely outside the periphery of my head space with binaural tracks. They are expansive but not massively so.
Coupled with the imaging is the sense of separation of instruments, and this is a strong point of the RE2000. It really si the clear definition of each instrument which makes it so compelling.
Reasonably spherically presented sound-stage – maybe a slight L/R dominance (more width than depth), but for me a good sense of staging.
There are very few IEMs which manage to totally immerse me in the audience with the applause section of “Dante's Prayer”. The RE2000 manages it naturally and easily, I'm there in the audience, and you can't get much better than that with an IEM. Not as expansive as my U6, but sometimes realism is better than sheer size and the RE2000 delivers realism easily.
“Let it Rain” was my next track and it had a very 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 vocal (even at higher volumes) – and I know its present in the recording – so not unexpected. What was great is that the sibilance was actually quite subdued, but the detail still shone through clearly.

Sonic Strengths

Overall tonal balance and clarity – while retaining a very smooth sonic presentation
Imaging, separation and sense of space in the staging.
Both sub and mid-bass have good impact and timbre when required, but do not dominate otherwise. Some of the best bass I've ever heard on a dynamic IEM
Wonderful portrayal of both male and female vocals
Detailed at low listening levels, but not peaky or harsh for me at higher listening levels
Slightly V shaped sound with slight richness or forwardness in upper mid-range area. Transition between lower and upper mid-range is extremely good.
Very subjective – I quite like London Grammar (Hannah Reid's vocal range is quite extraordinary – even if the recording quality of her albums isn't). I checked out her latest album on Tidal, and listening with my usual earphones, wasn't overly impressed (it sounded a bit flat really). Then the RE2000 arrived, and I happened to listen to the album again. I bought the CD the next day. The RE2000 has that ability to get me lost on the music – to feel less like reviewing and more like simply listening.

Sonic Weaknesses

Sonically I simply can't find a weakness. For my preferences this is end-game territory. I would not change a single thing.
Although I wouldn't change anything – there may be some who have sensitivity to lower treble. While its not peaky – it is present – so if you like smooth and warm possible the RE2000 is not for you.

AMPLIFICATION REQUIREMENTS

The RE2000 is an interesting IEM with its 60ohm impedance and 103 dB sensitivity. Looking at the specs, you'd immediately think that this IEM will need extra amplification, and it does need a higher volume from most of my portable devices. To maintain my usual 65-75 dB listening level utilises around 55-60/120 on the X5iii by itself. This equates to almost 50% on my iPhone SE with the same track.

But I went back and forth (volume matching with test tones and fixed volume on the A5) comparing the X5iii both amped and unamped, and I couldn't say that there was any change in resolution or dynamics. Both sounded excellent. And I have been spending a lot of time with my iPhone SE at work during the day. Its a great portable set-up. iPhone and RE2000 – who would have thought?


Testing with the IMS HVA, iDSD and FiiO A5	All the sources I had could also drive the RE2000 easily

I also with tried with the IMS Hybrid Valve amp and my iDSD but none of them seemed to be adding anything to my listening set-up other than some extra bulk. So I'd suggest that amping is not a requirement but for those who enjoy using a stack – definitely it won't hurt anything – and perhaps you'll notice improvements which were lost on me.

I also had my daughter check for hiss, but none was present on any of my sources.

EQ / BALANCED PERFORMANCE

Unfortunately I could not test balanced performance as I don't have a compatible cable. It is the one thing which puzzled me at the price point – why would HiFiMan not include one? From the issue of cost, it would not be a large expense – but it would be a welcome addition to the overall package. DUNU includes an extra on their new DK-3001. Perhaps something to think about HiFiMan?


X5iii and A5's bass boost was quite good	But nirvana reached with -2 treble on E17K

As far as EQ goes, I didn't initially test because I couldn't see how anyone would want to EQ the default tuning. I used the bass boost on the A5 and the RE2000 responded with no signs of distortion or clipping – So I have every confidence you can EQ to your heart's content. When I was doing the comparisons (next section) to other IEMs, I actually tried for the first time EQing the upper mid-range and lower treble back a little with the tone controls on the E17K (a small -2 dB nudge). The results really surprised me, and this actually hit my personal sweet spot. I didn't see this coming – and for me personally this takes the RE2000 from superb to “must have” territory. Personal preference I know – and YMMV depending on your own needs.

COMPARISON WITH OTHER IEMS

Oh boy – what to compare the RE2000 to in order to give you the best idea of its sonic quality and comparative value. Its such a tough one because I don't actively solicit review samples – so I don't have a lot of top tier IEMs at a similar price bracket to compare with.

Well lets start with the source. I wanted something neutral, but with a finely tuned digital control, to make sure I could volume match properly, and still make sure there were no questions about power output. So in the end I chose to use my old work-horse combo – the FiiO X3ii and E17K. Neutral – check. Power output OK – check. 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 slightly higher than my normal 65-75dB, and I averaged most of the time at an actual listening level of around 75-80 dB depending on the recording.

I chose my comparisons carefully. First up was Dunu's new DK-3001 at ~$500, then progressively upward in price from there – including HifiMan's own ~$700 RE800, Rhapsodio's older ~$800 RTi1 single dynamic, 64Audio's ~$900 U6, Fidue's $900 A91 Sirius, LZ's new ~$860 Big Dipper, and 64Audio's ~$1400 U10. Hopefully this gives enough insight to anyone interested in this IEM. Here are my very subjective personal thoughts:

HiFiMan RE2000 (~USD 2000) vs Dunu DK-3001 (~USD 500)


HiFiMan RE2000 and Dunu DK-3001	Frequency comparisons

Starting as usual with build quality – both are built very sturdily built with no real weaknesses. Both also suffer a little on overall design from a truly ergonomic point of view – though in this case I do find the RE2000 a little more comfortable for longer term listening sessions. Accessories are in favour of the Dunu – especially with both balanced and SE cables included – as well as the extra tips and other accessories. The RE2000 is also considerably harder to drive – requiring more volume input to match.

Sonically these two have very similar tonal properties. The RE2000 is a little brighter through the lower treble, while the DK-3001 is a little more mid-forward and also a little smoother as far as lower treble goes. Bass is similar in quantity – but the RE2000's bass just appears a little quicker with a bit more definition.

As far as preference goes – if price was no object – I would take the RE2000 simply because of the extra definition, better imaging and separation, and the slightly more ergonomic fit. But when you take the DK-3001 at one quarter of the price – for a quite similar overall signature, its hard to go past it. For the price point, the DK-3001 is truly one of the best monitors I've heard this year. But if price is no object, then the RE2000 is (for me) an incremental improvement (albeit one at quite a massive price jump).

HiFiMan RE2000 (~USD 2000) vs HiFiMan RE800 (~USD 700)


HiFiMan RE2000 and RE800	Frequency comparisons

Build quality on both is similar in terms of materials. Obviously the two are very different sizes, and that makes quite a difference in terms of comfort – with the RE800 being an IEM I can wear without any comfort issues for hours. The RE800 has a fixed cable system, and for a $700 earphone this is a little unusual (most at this price point would be removable), and the thinner wires from y-split to earphone would concern me slightly if there were any longevity issues (unknown at this stage). Both have similar accessory packages (personally one area I find slightly weak with HiFiMan compared to other offerings). The RE2000 and RE800 have almost the same power requirements.

Sonically these two have similar bass through to upper mid-range, (the RE800 is a little thinner and cooler comparatively). The RE800 is lot brighter in the lower treble with a considerable 7 kHz peak. This peak sits more than 10 dB above the upper mid-range peaks, and 20 dB above the bass line, and for me personally is overdone. Compared to the RE2000, the RE800 tends toward glare, and also enhances sibilance. Some people will still really enjoy this presentation (there were a lot who liked RHA's CL1). For me though, the lwoer treble is simply overdone on the RE800 and I'd take the RE2000 regardless of price point. With EQ though (softening the 7kHZ area), the RE800 definitely is a beautiful sounding IEM.

HiFiMan RE2000 (~USD 2000) vs Rhapsodio RTi1(~USD 800)


HiFiMan RE2000 and Rhapsodio RTi1	Frequency comparisons

Build quality again on both is similar in terms of actual materials (longevity), but there is no doubt the RE2000 has the better finishing and looks more like a higher end IEM aesthetically. The RTi1 has the better quality cable, and incidentally the cable also fits the RE2000. Both were similarly sparse on overall accessories included (considering their respective prices). Both are shallow fitting and have an ergonomic type build. Of the two, the RTi1 is a little more comfortable for long term listening. The RE2000 does require more power with its lower sensitivity and higher impedance.

Sonically these two have similar bass through to lower mid-range, but differ in the upper mid-range and lower treble. The RTi1 has less presence in the upper mid-range, and quite a peak at 6-7 kHz. The two don't sound tonally dissimilar – its just that the RE2000 sound more balanced, richer and smoother. The RTi1 is brighter, thinner, cooler, and can get a little peaky depending on the recording. Like the comparison with the RE800, I'd personally take the RE2000 over the RTi1 (and pay the difference) simply because the RE2000 sits closer to my overall preferences.

HiFiMan RE2000 (~USD 2000) vs 64 Audio U6 + G1 ADEL module (~USD 900)


HiFiMan RE2000 and 64 Audio U6	Frequency comparisons

The U6 is my go-to monitor, so please take that into account during this comparison. For this comparison I chose to use the G1 module simply because it elevates the mid-range a little and I prefer a more mid-forward signature.

Build quality (materials) is firmly in the RE2000 favour. Its going to last for quite some time with the use of the alloys and has a better quality default cable. You'll note with my U6 that I'm now using the Linum Bax cable and thats because my 2nd 64Audio cable has broken at the 2 pin connector. I know 64Audio would have replaced it – but this time I wanted a longer lasting solution. Accessories are in the 64Audio camp with the U6 having the ADEL (or Apex) modules and ability to tune. Fit and comfort is in favour of the U6 – the ergonomic build with no edges is simply more comfortable for me. The RE2000 does again require more power with its lower sensitivity and higher impedance.

Sonically once again we see a similar pattern in the bass – with the U6 very closely aligned to the RE2000 through to the lower mid-range, and the main differences coming in the upper mid-range and lower treble. With the G1 module, the U6 has a bump in the immediate transition to upper-mids, but the U6 has less overall upper mid-range presence, and more of a peak (albeit narrow) at 7kHz which gives clarity and definition to cymbals in particular). Comparatively the RE2000 has a fuller, richer signature but also appears a little brighter up top. TheU6 because of the lesser upper-mid and lower treble emphasis actually sounds the warmer of the two. Both are also very open sounding IEMs with a great sense of staging, width and depth.

Both are extremely good sounding monitors – just with a little difference in overall tonality. The RE2000 conveys a little more emotion, or richness, or musicality to me (I know – horrible subjective terms – but that's what I personally hear). This is one of those (like the DK-3001) where value starts becoming a deciding factor. If money was no object – then ultimately I'd prefer the RE2000. But I am perfectly happy with my U6, and at half the price its difficult to justify the overall value difference in direct comparison.

HiFiMan RE2000 (~USD 2000) vs Fidue Sirius (~USD 900)


HiFiMan RE2000 and Fidue A91 Sirius	Frequency comparisons

If there is a single IEM in this comparison series which can match the RE2000 (and to some extent pass it) in build quality, materials and aesthetics – it's Fidue's A91 Sirius. The Sirius has better overall build quality, better finishing, more accessories, better ergonomics, and better overall fit (for me personally). The Sirius, like the RE2000, has one semi-sharp edge which simply shouldn't be there – but with tip and fit management I find the Sirius can be manipulated into better comfort. Something for HiFiMan to look into is the approach from Fidue with the cables – much better quality and versatuility with the balanced and single ended options. Again the RE2000 required more power with its lower sensitivity and higher impedance.

Sonically these two are quite different. The Sirius has an internal vent which does affect bass quantity – so the bass measurement on the graph probably understates the actual worn level of sub and mid-bass. But the Sirius still sounds (in direct comparison) leaner, thinner and drier. Both have a mid-forward leaning (particularly upper-mids), but the RE2000 has better upper end extension, and for me a warmer, richer and more enjoyable total signature. I really like the Sirius – and in isolation (with a little brain burn-in) it is a signature that could be end-game for a lot of people. However when directly compared to the RE2000 its again that sense of emotion that the RE2000 conveys which would have me again disregarding price, and potentially saving for longer to achieve the much higher priced offering from HiFiMan.
HiFiMan RE2000 (~USD 2000) vs LZ Big Dipper (~USD 860)


HiFiMan RE2000 and LZ Big Dipper	Frequency comparisons

LZ's Big Dipper is a relatively new IEM on the scene, and its point of differentiation is the ability to tune the sound with on/off switches which tune bass, mids and treble for a variety of different tonal combinations. It can be purchased as low as $620 for no switches (set tonality) or up to $860 for three switches. It is a 7 driver BA IEM.

Whilst the RE2000 has the better specification permanent materials, the actual build quality on both IEMs is extremely good. Aesthetically the RE2000 probably has the edge in terms of looks – but for actual fit and ergonomics, LZ's Dipper is quite simply one of the most comfortable IEM's I've ever worn. I can't comment on accessories as the Dipper arrived to me without it's retail packaging. The RE2000's power requirements is again higher its lower sensitivity and higher impedance.

For the sonic comparison I used the +bass +mid -treble settings on the Dipper as thats my own preference (blue on the graph). I also graphed a slightly different setting (white) to show the versatility of the dipper. Sonically these two are somewhat similar. Both have a similar transition from sub and mid bass to lower mids and even somewhat similar in upper mid-range. The Dipper has a little more bump at 2 kHz, but it is minor. Both can have very similar treble disposition – but with the Dipper it comes at a cost of a peak at 9 kHz which I can find slightly sharp (hence I use the lower treble settings). In direct comparison, the difference is not so much in terms of tonality – but in terms of presentation. The Dipper is simply a little more clinical, reference, and cleanly defined – where the RE2000 is smoother, bass has a little more richness, and again that term musicality comes to mind.

The funny thing is that I actually really like both presentations, and preference depends on the mood I'm in. There is no doubt that the RE2000 has a more romantic, less clinical overall presentation – the sort that allows you to easily get lost in the music – but the Dipper can do the same. Its only in direct comparison that you listen to the Dipper and go – wow the RE2000 does this with a richness that I actually like a little better. Like I did with my U6, the Dipper is an IEM I could easily live with as close to end-game, as long as I'm directly comparing. Sonically I like the RE2000 more – but the question is whether the difference is worth more than double the price.

HiFiMan RE2000 (~USD 2000) vs 64 Audio U10 + G1 ADEL module (~USD 1300)


HiFiMan RE2000 and 64 Audio U10	Frequency comparisons

I wanted to pit the RE2000 against the most expensive monitor I had access to – which happens to be the $1300 64 Audio U10. For this comparison I chose again to use the G1 module simply because it elevates the mid-range a little and should bring it marginally closer to the RE2000. I also want to shout out to 64Audio with my thanks. After reviewing the U10 I've asked a few times about returning it, and they seem happy for me to carry on using it for comparison – so for this they have my continued appreciation.

Build quality (materials) is again in the RE2000 favour for the same reasons I outlined with the U6. While the cable on the U10 is still in pristine condition – its more likely to be that I don't use the U10 as much (mainly for comparisons), and I expect at some stage I'll possibly need to replace it. Accessories are again in the 64Audio camp with the U10 having the ADEL (or Apex) modules and ability to tune. Fit and comfort is also in favour of the U10 – the ergonomic build with no edges is simply more comfortable for me. The RE2000 does again require more power with its lower sensitivity and higher impedance.

Like the U6, we see a similar pattern – the bass is very similar– with the U10 very closely aligned to the RE2000 through to the lower mid-range, and the main differences coming in the upper mid-range and lower treble. With the G1 module, the U10 has a bump in the immediate transition to upper-mids, but then a flattening off through the rest of the upper mid-range and lower treble. Both have excellent extension. The RE2000 has a fuller, richer signature but like the U6 also appears a little brighter up top. The U10 because of the higher bass vs lower upper-mid and lower treble emphasis sounds again the warmer of the two. Both are very open sounding IEMs with a great sense of staging, width and depth.

I'm almost reminded of the Dipper in this comparison and over the last 6 months I confess to enjoying the U10's strengths more and more each time I've spent time with it. Preference comes down to how you like your music presentation. The BA's used in the U10 give great clarity and definition, excellent overall balance, and an excellent tonality – if a little on the clinical side of the spectrum. The RE2000 is again richer, fuller and there is something about the overall timbre that just pulls you in. I can't put a finger on it – but its quite intoxicating.

Like the comparison with both the Dipper and U6 – it comes down to what you ultimately are prepared to pay for. The RE2000 has a certain je ne sais quoi which is hard to articulate but continues to draw me in. But each time I compare in one-on-one situations to other IEMs I am equally amazed by what they have to offer. A definite edge sonically to the RE2000 for me – but at the price difference, the overall value might be questionable.

VALUE

Normally I comment on value in the summary, but as there is such a big difference in pricing with some of the monitors I'm comparing, I think maybe I should delve a little more into the subjective question of value. There is no doubt that the RE2000 has sonic abilities I would put at close to end-game territory, and especially if I apply that small EQ I mentioned earlier, the RE2000 (along with the HD800S) would satisfy all my needs if I had to keep just one IEM. But at $2000 its hard to justify the difference from other monitors around the 1K mark. Yes the packaging is fancier, and yes they are gold electroplated, and obviously targeted toward a specific very discerning market. But if we look at what they should have had, the sense of true value is eroded a little. There is no balanced cable, the accessories are a little sparse overall, and the shell (despite their claims) is not truly ergonomic (close though). How to increase value for an updated model? Well for starters I'd look at the materials and shape. Maybe see if something ceramic would give similar casing stability, and this time no sharp edges, and maybe a slightly longer and possible angled nozzle. Throw in some more tip choices, and at least another cable. By shedding the gold – hopefully they could get a new model (RE1800?) down in cost to around the $1500 mark. At this level with better accessories, better fit, and similar sonic abilities – I'd pick it would be (like Campfire's Andromeda) considered class leading. And if you trimmed that upper end by about 2 dB – it'd tick my boxes (just leaving it out there).

HIFIMAN RE2000 – SUMMARY

Despite having these for only 3 weeks, its surprising when you sit down for a formal review how much you will discover in a very short amount of time. I'd have hated to try and compress the review into just a week – there is so much I would have missed.

The RE2000 is a very well built and presented IEM which has very few flaws. The build quality is very sound, and is a step up from most of the other IEMs I've seen from HiFiMan. There has been a lot of thought gone into the overall design (reading the supplied manual is quite illuminating) – but they still have some minor work/tweaks to do on overall fit and ergonomics to get it perfect (IMHO anyway). For a $2000 monitor I did find the accessories “OK” but not stellar. The addition of a balanced cable would probably go a long way to fixing this.

Sonically the RE2000 is extremely well balanced with practically everything I appreciate in a TOTL monitor. Great extension (both ends), a natural sounding bass, coherent transition though the mid-range (with strengths in both male and female vocals), and detail up top without crossing into etch or graininess. But where the RE2000 absolutely shines is in its sense of timbre and tone, the richness of both vocals and bass, and above all its sense of staging, imaging, and above all separation. I have never heard an IEM quite like it, and it comes very close to ticking all my boxes (drop the upper mids and lower treble slightly and it gets there). Whatever the new topography driver is bringing to the table – I can definitely say for me it is really working!

The RRP at around the USD 2000 mark means that this is more than most people will be able to afford, and whilst its hard to put a value on something which gets you close to perfection, I wouldn't ultimately call the RE2000 a “value” proposition. For me, $2000 should buy you perfection, and HiFiMan aren't quite there yet. They are however well along the track, and I applaud their efforts. 80% ranking for me – with most critique at the minor flaws, and the high price.

I just want to close with thanking HiFiMan and Mark for arranging the review sample.

Picture are default 1200 x 800 resolution - click to view larger images.

INTRODUCTION
Sunny from FiiO has had me pretty busy with a string of released products, and I have to admit falling behind a bit (and I apologise for that). Recently I reviewed their F1 and F3 IEMs and found both to be very well tuned for the money. The third in the series reaches a little higher in the price bracket (still sub $100 though), and introduces replaceable cables, a balanced cable option, and early hype suggested these would be something quite well received at the proposed price bracket.

So of course I said yes, and have only fairly recently had the chance to give them a lot of “ear-time” I can say its definitely been worth it. The sub $100 market is fairly crowded for IEMs – but I think FiiO is going to have a pretty popular offering with the F5.

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 spent a lot of time with the community here, and continued to listen to their potential buyers, adopted our ideas, and grew their product range. That product range now includes some extremely proficient DAPs, DACs, amps, and more recently a growing stable of earphones and IEMs.

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 F5 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 F5 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 F5 IEM for around 4 weeks. The retail price at time of review is ~ USD 80.

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

I'm a 50 year old music lover. I don't say audiophile – I just love my music. Over the last couple of years, I have slowly changed from cheaper listening set-ups to my current set-up. I vary my listening from portables (mostly now from the FiiO X5iii, X3ii + E17K and iPhone SE) to my desk-top's set-up (PC > USB > iFi iDSD). My main full sized headphones at the time of writing are the Sennheiser HD800S, Sennheiser HD600 & HD630VB, and AKG K553. Most of my portable listening is done with IEMs, and lately it has mainly been with the Jays q-Jays, Alclair Curve2 and Adel U6 (although I am spending more and more time with a pair of FiiL Diva lately). A full list of the gear I have owned (past and present is listed in my Head-Fi profile).

I have very eclectic music tastes listening to a variety from classical/opera and jazz, to grunge and general rock. I listen to a lot of blues, jazz, folk music, classic rock, indie and alternative rock. I am particularly fond of female vocals. I generally tend toward cans that are relatively neutral/balanced, but I do have a fondness for clarity, and suspect I might have slight ‘treble-head’ preferences. I am not treble sensitive (at all), and in the past have really enjoyed headphones like the K701, SR325i, and of course the T1 and DT880. I have a specific sensitivity to the 2-3 kHz frequency area (most humans do) but my sensitivity is particularly strong, and I tend to like a relatively flat mid-range with slight elevation in the upper-mids around this area.

I have extensively tested myself (ABX) and I find aac256 or higher to be completely transparent. I do use exclusively red-book 16/44.1 if space is not an issue. All of my music is legally purchased (mostly CD – the rest FLAC purchased on-line). I tend to be sceptical about audiophile ‘claims’, don’t generally believe in burn-in, have never heard a difference with different cables, and would rather test myself blind on perceived differences. I am not a ‘golden eared listener’. I suffer from mild tinnitus, and at 50, my hearing is less than perfect (it only extends to around 14 kHz nowadays). My usual listening level is around 65-75 dB.

For the purposes of this review - I used the FiiO F5 straight from the headphone-out socket of many of my portables, but predominantly the X7 (with AM3 amp), X5iii and also my iPhone. I did not generally further amp them (I did test them with my E17K, A5 and IMS HVA), 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 F5, I have noticed no change to the overall sonic presentation (break-in). Time spent now with the F5 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 REVIEW

PACKAGING AND ACCESSORIES


Front of the retail box	Rear of the retail box

The FiiO F5 arrived in an approximately” 110mm x 165mm x 53mm retail box with a picture of the F5on the front cover (along with the Sony HiRes Audio mark), and specifications and package contents on the rear. The retail box is black with the occasional red highlight, and white easy to read text. Inside the retail outer is a black box and lid – simply adorned with the FiiO logo.


Inner box	Inside is the carry case

Removing the lid reveals a black glossy Pelican case (again adorned with the FiiO name/logo) and a cardboard mini box containing the cables. Inside the Pelican case is a foam cut-out with the FiiO F5 safely nestled in the provided grooves. There is also two cardboard plates which house the included tips. The tip selection includes 6 sets of silicone single flange tips. There is also a warranty card and manual.


The full package contents	The “pelican” case

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. FiiO includes two replaceable cables (MMCX) – a 3.5mm standard stereo option (with on-cable controls) and a 2.5mm balanced option.


Included tips	The F5 + SE and balanced cables

All in all, the accessory package is very good at this price point – especially having the two cable options.

TECHNICAL SPECIFICATIONS
(From FiiO's packaging / website)

Model	FiiO F5
Approx price	$70 USD
Type	Single Dynamic Driver
Driver	1 x 13.6mm Titanium DD
Freq Range	20Hz – 40kHz
Impedance	32Ω
Sensitivity	102 dB /mW
Cable	1.2m, replaceable (MMCX) x 2
Jack	3.5mm gold plated straight
Weight	21g with default cable
Casing material	Anodised and galvanised aluminium alloy

FREQUENCY GRAPH

The graphs below 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.


FiiO F5 frequency and channel matching	FiiO F5 vs FiiO's F1 and F3

My sonic impressions of the FiiO F5 – written well before I measured:

Bass is quite linear but also well extended, with a small mid-bass hump. There is audible sub bass rumble but it is in balance with the rest of the signature and does not overpower.
Lower mid-range is reasonably linear, maybe a small recession. Male vocals are well represented and sound quite natural, but are not as pronounced as female vocals.
Upper mid-range is definitely 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 and there is reasonable presence up to about 7 kHz and then a little drop after that. As a result detail is extremely good without being fatiguing in any way. The upper treble also has some extension, but does tend to roll off – however its not at a point that any detail is lost.
Overall a very well balanced earphone with a mid-forward tendency, which shows very good detail without any stridency.
Channel matching is excellent – some of the best I've seen.

BUILD


Internal side of the shell and vents	Side rear view

The FiiO F5, like its sibling the (EX1) appears to be quite well made, but with a variety of materials involved. The interior surface, nozzle and outer arm all appear to be a hard plastic, while the main body is a matt black aluminium alloy. The body is very reminiscent of an ear-bud type shape – but with an angled nozzle designed to take an IEM tip and provide some measure of isolation. The circular part of the body is 15mm in diameter, and designed to fit snugly in your ear with the rear of the F5 shell against your anti-helix, and the front underneath your tragus, with the nozzle angled forward into the ear canal. The nozzles are approximately 5-7mm long, have a generous lip, and have a mesh opening. The depth of the F5 is approx 16mm from the interior face to the outer arm (holding the cable socket).


Top view and sockets	Closer look at the nozzle

There are 3 vents or ports in the internal face of each IEM shell, and a further port adjacent to the arm holding the MMCX connector socket. There is also a L or R indicator on each shell on the internal side.

As I said earlier, the “arm” extends vertically up from the main shell and holds a standard MMCX socket. On my F5, this socket sits very slightly raised from the body – and I am not sure if this is the design, or an error in manufacture. When the cable is mated, there is a small gap – similar to what I have seen from other reviews. I hope that this is a manufacturing fault – as it leads to my one major complaint with the pair I'm reviewing.


MMCX connector	Note the gaps!

When I seat the male MMCX connector – and this occurs with the standard SE cable, the balanced cable, and also other cables I've tried, the connection is firm(i.e. doesn't rattle or stop the transfer of signal), but it is very easy to pull apart. Pressing your fingers on both sides of connector and arm is enough to dislodge it, and I've had times adjusting them in my ear – when suddenly I have the cable “dangling”. I've even had them fall off once when the cable wire got very lightly tangled. Personally I don't think the socket is deep enough, and I also think the locking ridge isn't quite protruded enough. Hopefully it is only my sample.


Single Ended cable – male MMCX	Y Split

The F5 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. The standard cable has a hard rubber / moulded plastic housing for the MMCX connector, but surprisingly no strain relief. I could see over time this being a possible weak point. On the housing is either L or R markings, but the black on black is quite difficult to see. You'll always know which is which though, as the right hand side has a control unit approx 10cm from the cable exit. This unit hangs just about equal with my jaw if worn cable down (so ideal height for the mic).


On cable controls – adjustable iOS and Android	Very good microphone

What makes this unit even more perfect is that there is a slider to convert from Android to iOS – and it works perfectly with both devices. The on-cable controls work brilliantly with my iPhone SE, allowing play/pause (one push), next track (two pushes), and previous track (three pushes). A single long push also activates Siri which is really handy. The volume control rocker also works. The microphone is crystal clear for calls, as is the audio, and the F5 could become my default for use my iPhone, if it didn't have the issues with the MMCX connector. I also tried the F5 with my wife's Galaxy, and everything worked as it should, and the volume controls also worked with the X5iii (but surprisingly not with the X7).

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 nice and skinny for use with smart-phone cases. It is also well relieved.


Case friendly jack and cable tie	Balanced and SE cables

The balanced cable is essentially the same, except with a clear outer jacket and 2.5mm balanced jack. The balanced cable also both looks and feels slightly sturdier – and of course does not have the in-line controls. FiiO claims the balanced set-up not only reduces crosstalk, but also improves signal to noise ratio (by reducing external interference) – which I can understand because measurably this can happen. They also claim that with the balanced cable, the F5 can take advantage of balanced amps which “provide wide-open sound stages as well as impactful yet tightly controlled bass”. Given that just because an amp is balanced, this is not an inherent outcome from balancing and depends more on the implementation, I personally think this is somewhat of a silly statement to make.


MMCX connector from balanced cable	2.5mm balanced jack

Both cables have a very “Dunu like” 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.

So summing up – great build, and good accessories – but a critical fail with my particular set's MMCX connectors.

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 slightly below average for a dynamic driver. The 4 vents seem to allow a little more ambient sound in – although they do passively isolate the release of sound out fairly well. It is still reasonably good for most situations, but as soon as things start getting very noisy (busy street, public transport etc), you're going to find them less than ideal.


Cable down with Dunu locking guides	Swap ear pieces on cable and use cable up

Whilst they are designed to be worn cable down, by simply swapping ear pieces, you can convert easily to over-ear (as shown in the photos). Fit and comfort is exemplary. Overall, the fit is quite shallow. One thing which worked quite well to lock them in place was the stabilisers Dunu used for their Titan 3 and Titan 5 – and these are a good solution for locking them into your ear if you have some fit consistency issues.


Shure Olives and Crystal foams	Spiral Dots and Spinfits

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 F5 has a nice nozzle lip, 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. I could have also used my favoured Shure Olives or Crystal foams – but I found the Sony Isolation tips gave me a good seal, and they are very hard wearing.


Ostry tips and Sony Isolation	Best fit for me were the Sonys (or Trinity Kombis)

The FiiO F5s sit nicely flush with my outer ear, and are comfortable to lie down with. I've slept with them a few times now, and have had no discomfort on waking. So how do they sound?

SOUND QUALITY

The following is what I hear from the FiiO F5. 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 X7 and AM3 combo, no EQ, and Trinity Kombi tips (same design as Sony Isolation). I used the X7 and AM3 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.


I used my iPhone SE a lot daily	But for testing – my X7 + AM3

For the record – on most tracks, the volume level on the X7 (paired with AM3) was around 40-45/120 (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 – has very good extension and even at my low listening levels is audible, but without being dominant. There is clearly evident rumble, but it is nicely balanced and bass guitars are nicely represented without overpowering the rest of the track. It is not a bass heavy IEM by any means.
Mid-bass – very slightly elevated, but taking a gentle slope downward to the eventual lower mid-range. The F5 has what I would call a gentle but very natural sounding mid-bass hump. It provides enough slam for tracks like Feist's “The Bad in Each other” or Amy Winehouse's “You Know I'm No Good” while still allowing the vocals to soar. I can see people liking a warmer and more impactful signature saying the F5 is slightly “bass light” – but IMO and to my tastes, this is more a case of “bass right”
Lower mid-range – relatively linear overall but slightly recessed compared to sub and mid-bass. Vocals are not in any way overly distant though, and Male vocals have a good amount of body.
Upper mid-range – elevated compared to lower mid-range, and there is a very rise from 1 kHz to the first peak at ~2.5 kHz. The result is a quite cohesive transition form lower to upper mids, and a lot of euphony for female vocals. It is a very mid-forward sounding IEM, but lovers of female vocals in particular will love the F5.
Lower treble has a slight peak between 5-7 kHz (about the same size as the upper mid-range hump). This gives a nice emphasis to lower treble detailing, and was especially noticeable on Pink Floyd's “Money” and 10CC's “Art for Arts Sake”. Above 7 kHz there is quite a bit of roll-off which gives a very smooth and non-aggressive upper signature. There is still extension there between 7-10 kHz – its just not emphasised.
Upper treble – continues the overall roll-off of lower treble. Not a lot of noticeable extension. It does measure well past 10kHz – but there is no emphasis – nor is any needed IMO.

Resolution / Detail / Clarity

Clarity overall is actually really good. With “Sultans of Swing”, I can clearly hear drumstick clicks and the other minute detail which makes this such a great track for testing.
Cymbal hits have great clarity and overall presence without being overly spot-lit. Cymbal decay sounds natural with only the slightest amount of truncation.
Guitar bite or edge is fantastic with the F5 – and especially acoustic guitar. I played for years, and the F5 manages to render it really well.

Sound-stage, Imaging

Directional queues are very good – both crystal clear and cleanly defined. Presentation of stage is just outside the periphery of my head space with binaural tracks – so a pretty good projection of both width and depth.
Quite circular sense of sound-staging – with no obviously lateral L/R leaning.
With the applause section of “Dante's Prayer”, the FiiO F5 shows a wonderful sense of immersion (the sound of the audience flowing around me), although this time there is very slightly more width than depth. “Let it Rain” is usually my next track to listen to and it was a stand-out. Guitar was crisp and clear with a good semblance of 3D like experience (the way the track was miked). There was very slight sibilance with Amanda's vocals – and it should be there because its in the recording – but it wasn't overly emphasised.

Strengths

Overall clarity and balance of the signature.
Reasonable sense of stage and imaging
Good cohesion with lower and upper register vocals
A lot of detail, but the dialled back upper treble also lends to a slightly smooth upper overall presentation.
Brilliant with upper mid0-range – and especially for lovers of female vocals who prefer a little euphonic colouration.

Weaknesses

Upper mid-range is elevated past what would be considered balanced and if sensitive at 2-3 kHz may appear mildly peaky
I can't honestly think of too much else – sonically these are gems.

AMPLIFICATION REQUIREMENTS

The FiiO F5 doesn’t need amplification for overall volume – and because its impedance isn't overly low, any source with an output impedance of less than 4 ohms should pair OK.


IMS HVA, FiiO A5 and E17K	The A5 was great for bass boost (fun) rather than amplification

With my iPhone SE around 35-45% volume is more than enough with most tracks, and the FiiOs are generally at around 40-45/120. I tried the F5 with the E17K, A5, and IMS Hybrid Valve and none of them seemed to be adding anything to my listening set-up other than some extra bulk. The IMS valve amp tends to add a little 2nd order harmonic warmth, and was pretty a good pairing for my tastes when paired with the iPhone. The A5's bass boost was also pretty good if I wanted to add an extra bit of fun – but these are colourations that the F5 doesn't really need.

RESPONSE TO EQ?

To be honest, I like the F5 as-is, and any changes for me would be pretty much short term changes. The most enjoyable one was the subtle boost to the bass with the A5 – which warmed the signature and gave a lot more impact.

BALANCED VS SINGLE ENDED


Balanced with the X7 or L3 won't change much	As the graphs show – the freq response is the same

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. So for this test I used the X7 + AM3 and tested balanced vs single ended (volume matching first). I then measured the two. There was no difference perceptible to me once I'd volume matched and the graphs bore this out. Its nice to have the option – but sonically I don't hear any benefits.

COMPARISON WITH OTHER IEMS

These comparisons were all done with the X7, (no EQ) – and volume matched using a calibrated SPL meter and fixed 1kHz test tone first. I could have used a number of different DAPs but I'd been using the X7 a lot, and simply wanted consistency. I wanted to compare against some reasonably well known IEMs in a similar price and signature bracket – so I chose the Meze 12 Classics, TFZ Series 5, Oriveti Basic, Fidue A73 and Dunu Titan 5. Hopefully this gives enough insight to anyone interested in this IEM. Here are my very subjective personal thoughts:

Note – for the purposes of this exercise I am going to ignore the MMCX connection issue with this particular F5, and trust that my unit is an aberration rather than the norm.

FiiO F5 (~USD 70) vs Meze 99 Classic (~USD 79)


FiiO F5 and Meze 99 Classic	Frequency comparisons

The Meze 12 Classic is a cartridge style with a wood body. Build quality is extremely good and because of their size, fit and comfort are very good. The FiiO F5 has pretty good materials in its own build, and it has the benefit of replaceable cables, and the choice of two. It also has the slightly better on-cable controls. Comfort goes to the F5's slightly more ergonomic shape (although both are good), but the 12 Classic is able to isolate better.

Sonically they are extremely similar similar, and although there are small differences (the F5 has more bass & especially sub-bass extension + also more upper mid-range), the added bass and upper mid-range of the F5 almost cancels out to leave the two sounding the same. The Meze 99 sounds slightly leaner and also slightly cleaner overall, while the F5 sounds slightly fuller and also a little warmer. This one comes down to preference – and if FiiO sorts out the connectors, it is probably the better purchase. But for my individual personal preference I'd very slightly lean toward the Meze 12. Both are exceptional earphones sonically for their asking price.

FiiO F5 (~USD 70) vs TFZ Series 5 (~USD 80)


FiiO F5 and TFZ Series 5	Frequency comparisons

The slightly superior build materials used with the FiiO F5 trump the moulded plastic design of the TFZ5, but the overall fit and comfort are at a similar level (both have a very comfortable and ergonomic build). The F5 has the better cable options and of course it has the added benefit of being replaceable. Isolation goes to the TFZ Series 5. The FiiO can be used cable up or down though – another potential plus.

Sonically the two are somewhat similar but with the lighter upper mid-range emphasis and the much lighter lower treble, the TFZ Series 5 actually seems quite bassy and warm in comparison, and for my own preference, the F5 is probably closer to my own preferences. Again both are very good earphones – especially at this price point, but the FiiO F5 offers a slightly better overall package.

FiiO F5 (~USD 70) vs Oriveti Basic (~USD 99)


FiiO F5 and Oriveti Basic	Frequency comparisons

The Oriveti Basic surprised me when I reviewed it recently, and with EQ can really sound quite stunning. In terms of build quality, overall fit and comfort, isolation and even cable quality it definitely sits ahead of the FiiO.

For signature however, the Basic is definitely tuned for a different audience, and its bass is stronger than that of the FiiO F5. When you combine that with the lower mid-range and treble, you get a perfect storm – with the Basic sounding warm, dark and bassy, and the FiiO F5 being comparatively leaner, more detailed and even somewhat more refined. If I am comparing default unequalised signatures, the FiiO F5 wins this easily for me on sonics. If I could get FiiO's F5 signature in the Basic's housing – for me you'd have the perfect sub $100 earphone!

FiiO F5 (~USD 70) vs Fidue A73 (~USD 120-130)


FiiO F5 and Fidue A73	Frequency comparisons

Build materials go slightly toward the FiiO F5 with it's partial alloy body vs the formed plastic of the A73. Ergonomics and fit are evenly matched – both are extremely comfortable to wear. The smooth lipless nozzle on the Fidue means you may be slightly limited on tip options. The FiiO F5 slips ahead on cable options (including the fact that its replaceable). Isolation goes to the Fidue A73.

Sonically the two are quite similar with main differences being the more mid-forward nature of the FiiO F5 versus the elevated lower treble of the A73. Because of this, the FiiO F5 appears both clearer in the mid-range, but also smoother. The A73 still has the zing in its lower treble, and unfortunately it seems to be at a frequency for me that enhances sibilance and also grain. For me this is an easy one – the F5 is simply closer to my preferences.

FiiO F5 (~USD 70) vs Dunu Titan 5 (~USD 130-140)


FiiO F5 and Dunu Titan 5	Frequency comparisons

I've alluded to the relationship between Dunu and FiiO before – we've seen it in the similarities of the FiiO EX1 to the Dunu Titan 1, and also in FiiO's use of very similar cables and also the brilliant Dunu on-cable ties. So why did I choose to compare the F5 to the T5 – and not the cheaper T1? As you can see from the graph, the F5 is essentially a T5 with the secondary peak at 6-7kh softened. In practically every part of the frequency range, it is the same earphone. But lets look at the build first.

Both have very similar shape and size – with the Titan 5 being polished stainless steel, and the F5 the mixture of alloy and plastic. Where the F5 has the encased plastic arm for the MMCX connector, the Titan 5 just has a protruding circular socket. The other difference is the actual connectors. The Titan 5's is actually longer, and the fit far more secure – but the price of that is you cannot use other MMCX replacement cables. With the F5 you can. Fit and comfort are identical. So for build – it really is advantage Titan 5 - as it should be.

Sonically you can see how similar the two are. In fact I can actually wear one Titan 5 earpiece with an F1 earpiece (using a splitter from the source) and they sound perfectly natural together (I had to slightly adjust the volume using an attenuator). The only time I noticed the extra peak was with a passage of music that had a lot of cymbal detail, and the Titan earpiece was slightly more pronounced. So is the Titan 5 worth practically double the price of the FiiO? Under normal circumstances I'd say no. But with the question marks I have over this particular review sample's connector – personally I'd take the Titan 5. If the MMCX connector is a non-issue, then it would be the FiiO all the way.

FiiO F5 – SUMMARY

FiiO has really pulled out a surprise package with the $70 F5 IEM. It is for all intents and purposes a Dunu Titan 5 clone, with slightly cheaper build materials, but includes a couple of cables (including a balanced option).

The FiiO F5 is an exceptional package for $70, and I can't think of many IEMs which will really come close if you like this sort of signature. It has exceptional overall balance, with enough bass to satisfy most music lovers without going over the top, while still retaining detail, tone and timbre – especially if you appreciate a more mid-forward sound.

On the build side of things, some compromises have been made, but they have been smart choices overall. I do think they've missed a couple of obvious ones (the strain relief on some parts of the cable), and the MMCX connectors don't seem to be fully contained in the sockets (I've seen this on other review samples as well). The concern with mine is that the connectors are very easy to take apart – and that is not a good thing.

I do think it is high time that all manufacturers got together and sorted the MMCX connector issue out. Jays use a screw cap method of locking, and so do Fidue on their A91 flagship. If everyone used something similar – we would never have these problems. Perhaps this can be started with companies like Dunu, Fidue and FiiO. Something needs to be done.

If the FiiO F5 had a solid connector, these would be going on my figurative “wall of fame”, and would be definite 5 star for the price. Unfortunately the connectors have a big question mark for long-term life – so for now all I can do is go 3/5. I hope FiiO addresses and fixes this. These really are exceptional in all other categories.

I just want to close with thanking Sunny for arranging the review sample.

Both channels on my F3 are fine (who said one was dying)? That is the correct freq response on my rig.

In your F3 review, you mentioned about channel imbalance and the the right one is slowly dying.

Doh! Yes you’re right I used the right channel. When I get a chance I’ll redo the graph.

Picture are default 1200 x 800 resolution - click to view larger images.

INTRODUCTION

Its often you see a progression from new audio companies – starting with entry level, then slowly building their range, pushing boundaries, and eventually aiming for for their flagship. We've seen Fidue do it – starting with their A60 series, building to the A70 and A80 series, and culminating with their A91. We've seen Dunu do it with their DN-1k, move to the DN-2K and 2002, and now make inroads with the DK-3001 and (coming) DK-4001. And then there are the other companies – who start really strong, and then build a more affordable range (levering some of their higher value development), and hopefully fill out their entire range (including eventual flagships).

When Oriveti entered the market, it was straight into a USD 299 hybrid triple driver IEM – and it really was a great start – easily holding its own against comparable designs in a similar bracket. Recently they announced a new more budget friendly “Oriveti Basic” IEM at USD 99. When Michael contacted me late in 2016 to see if I'd be interested to take it for a test drive, I was very interested to see what they'd come up with. Could the basic compete with a pretty crowded sub $100 market? Read on for my thoughts.

ABOUT ORIVETI

There isn't a lot known about Oriveti. Last time I covered their Primacy triple hybrid, they were intent on keeping the company both low key and very much off the radar. Not much has really changed – except that now they have a website, a Facebook presence, but again very little is apparent about the company. I know they were founded in 2015, and I know that some of the principles involved have been in the audio industry for more than a decade. I also know from personal experience with the original Primacy that they know how to design, build and tune an IEM.

But perhaps easiest is to allow Oriveti to put it in their own words:
ORIVETI is a new and innovative brand providing HiFi quality audio products for daily use by the most discerning listeners.

Founded in 2015, we started from a position of strength with years of engineering and design experience within the earphone/headphone industry.

In this tough and competitive market we feel there is still room for knowledgeable brands with new ideas to emerge. Because we understand the importance of sound, fit, comfort and reliability, we believe ORIVETI is ready to excite and impress listeners across the world.

DISCLAIMER

The Oriveti Basic that I’m reviewing today was provided to me gratis as a review sample. I have made it clear to Oriveti that I still regard any product they send me as their sole property and available for return any time at their request. But I thank them for the ability to continue use of the Oriveti Basic 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 Oriveti themselves.

I have now had the Oriveti Basic since late 2016. The retail price at time of review is USD 99, and can be purchased via their website.

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

I'm a 50 year old music lover. I don't say audiophile – I just love my music. Over the last couple of years, I have slowly changed from cheaper listening set-ups to my current set-up. I vary my listening from portables (mostly now from the FiiO X5iii, X3ii + E17K and iPhone SE) to my desk-top's set-up (PC > USB > iFi iDSD). My main full sized headphones at the time of writing are the Sennheiser HD800S, Sennheiser HD600 & HD630VB, and AKG K553. Most of my portable listening is done with IEMs, and lately it has mainly been with the Jays q-Jays, Alclair Curve2 and Adel U6 (although I am spending more and more time with a pair of FiiL Diva lately). A full list of the gear I have owned (past and present is listed in my Head-Fi profile).

I have very eclectic music tastes listening to a variety from classical/opera and jazz, to grunge and general rock. I listen to a lot of blues, jazz, folk music, classic rock, indie and alternative rock. I am particularly fond of female vocals. I generally tend toward cans that are relatively neutral/balanced, but I do have a fondness for clarity, and suspect I might have slight ‘treble-head’ preferences. I am not treble sensitive (at all), and in the past have really enjoyed headphones like the K701, SR325i, and of course the T1 and DT880. I have a specific sensitivity to the 2-3 kHz frequency area (most humans do) but my sensitivity is particularly strong, and I tend to like a relatively flat mid-range with slight elevation in the upper-mids around this area.

I have extensively tested myself (ABX) and I find aac256 or higher to be completely transparent. I do use exclusively red-book 16/44.1 if space is not an issue. All of my music is legally purchased (mostly CD – the rest FLAC purchased on-line). I tend to be sceptical about audiophile ‘claims’, don’t generally believe in burn-in, have never heard a difference with different cables, and would rather test myself blind on perceived differences. I am not a ‘golden eared listener’. I suffer from mild tinnitus, and at 50, my hearing is less than perfect (it only extends to around 14 kHz nowadays). My usual listening level is around 65-75 dB.

For the purposes of this review - I used the Oriveti Basic straight from the headphone-out socket of most of my portables. I did not generally further amp them (I did test them with my E17K, A5 and IMS HVA), 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 Oriveti Basic, I have noticed no change to the overall sonic presentation (break-in). Time spent now with the Basic would be easily 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 REVIEW

PACKAGING AND ACCESSORIES


Front of the retail box	Rear of the retail box

The Oriveti Basic arrived in an approximately” 152mm x 152mm x 63mm retail box and lid with a picture of the Basic on the front cover, and exploded diagram + specifications and package contents on the rear. I love it when companies go out of their way to show the inner workings of the product you’re considering buying, and it is really nice to see how much information Oriveti has given. The retail box is very similar to (but slightly smaller than) the original Primacy box. Once again my only suggestion with the outer print is that the light grey text on black background is not the always easiest to read, and something with a little more contrast (perhaps closer to white) may have been a little better.


The Oriveti Basic nestled safely in the top tray	Under this is the carry case and accessories

Removing the lid reveals a felt lined foam cut-out with the Oriveti Basic safely nestled in the provided grooves. Removing the top layer reveals another layer underneath with the storage case, selection of tips, ear-hooks, small carabiner and a “quick-guide”. The selection of accessories is not quite as premium as the more expensive Primacy, but is still very generous for an IEM in the sub $100 bracket.

The tip selection includes 6 sets of silicone single flange tips and 2 sets of dual flange.


The full package	Tips, ear guides, case and carabiner

The storage case is a very generous 95mm in diameter and approx 35mm deep. It is circular, zipped, and has an inner pocket and inner band for tidy storage of both earphones and spare accessories. It is semi-rigid with a fine-mesh fabric exterior and provides pretty good protection as well as storage. Because of it's size, its more suited to jacket pocket than pants pocket – but the inclusion of the small caribiner means you can also clip it to jeans or a bag (a nice touch).

All in all, the accessory package seems well thought out for this price point, and the included accessories are pretty good quality.

TECHNICAL SPECIFICATIONS
(From Oriveti's packaging / website)

Model	Oriveti Basic
Approx price	$99 USD
Type	Single Dynamic Driver
Driver	1 x 10mm DD
Freq Range	20Hz – 20kHz
Impedance	16Ω
Sensitivity	108 dB +/- 3dB/mW
Cable	1.2m, replaceable (MMCX)
Jack	3.5mm gold plated straight
Weight	15g with default cable
Casing material	Anodised aluminium alloy

FREQUENCY GRAPH

The graphs below 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.

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.


Oriveti Basic frequency and channel matching	Oriveti Basic vs Oriveti Primacy

My sonic impressions of the Oriveti Basic – written well before I measured:

Bass is elevated (both sub and mid-bass), has good extension, but is definitely emphasised compared to mid-range. There is clearly audible and prominent sub-bass rumble.
Lower mid-range is reasonably linear, but quite recessed compared to mid and low bass. Male vocals are well represented and sound quite natural (unless there is a heavy bass back-beat).
Upper mid-range is only very slightly emphasised, and it is more of a shallow bump than a peak. Female vocals have a hint of euphony, and the bump gives good overall mid-range cohesion.
Lower treble extension is good – but there appears to be some early roll-off above about 7 kHz. Cymbal fundamentals are good – but the decay is slightly truncated (hardly noticeable in most tracks). The upper end is quite crisp overall – without ever slipping into a sense of brittleness or etching
Overall a reasonably well balanced earphone but with a warm and bassy bottom end (which occasionally can overpower or mask the mid-range – depends on the recording)
Channel matching is decent

BUILD


Internal side of the shell and vents	External side of shells

The Oriveti Basic, like its older sibling the Primacy is incredibly well built and finished, and a marvel in ergonomics. The Basic is relatively petite for an ergonomic design. The main body consists of a circular aluminium alloy with matte black finish approx 16mm in diameter. The alloy finish is incredibly well rounded with no hard edges and is well shaped for fit and comfort. On the right hand external side of the earpiece is the name Oriveti, and on the left hand the Oriveti logo. From the body there extends a hard rubber arm which houses the MMCX socket. There is a small R and L indicator on the inside of each earpiece arm but the print is quite hard to see. It doesn't matter though, as the shape always tells you which earpiece is which. The circular body is only about 7-8mm deep and 2 piece (although the seam is virtually unnoticeable).


Nozzles and sockets	Very smooth shell and nozzle has great lip

The beginning of the nozzle is actually a flare outward from the body, with the nozzle proper extending beyond that – which gives about 7mm total length. It extends outward perpendicularly, and this is perhaps one small area of improvement (slightly longer length and angled forward slightly would tend to give better fit). The end of the nozzle is 5mm in diameter, has a mesh encased tip, and a generous lip (thank you for this Oriveti – far too many are going lipless nowadays!). On the main body – just below the rise/flare of the nozzle is a small vent /port for the dynamic driver.


MMCX socket and male connector	(right) default cable fully connected, (left) CA Tinsel cable

At the top of the arm at the rear of each earpiece is a standard MMCX socket. The male MMCX connector on the cable fits very tightly and securely with a hard rubber encasing. On this are also L/R markings – but the nice almost “hidden” feature is that the left hand male MMCX connector housing has 3 raised dots (the right has none) so its easy to tell which is which.

The cable is the same as the one from the Primacy, and for this price range is one of the best I have seen. It has two pairs of spring twined cables below the Y split separating to single pairs above the Y split. The appearance below the Y actually looks like a braid, but in reality it is just the very tight almost spring loaded twining. This is brilliant design because it means that the pairs are unbroken from Jack to connector (the Y is just a simply bit of heat-shrink), so they would be very easy to convert to fully balanced. There is excellent strain relief at the housings and the jack. The Jack has the Oriveti branding on the outer casing, is straight, gold plated, and very case friendly. To complete the cable there is a piece of clear plastic tube for the cinch – and again this is one of the best implementations I’ve seen. It slides relatively easily, but holds without moving, and it feels solid (unlike some of the other options I’ve seen on some far more expensive earphones).


Y split and cinch	Case friendly jack

Overall I can’t fault the build quality nor the design. At this price range you would be hard put to find many IEMs with such a good combination of build, fit, comfort and cable quality.

FIT / COMFORT / ISOLATION

I'll start with the easy one (isolation), and we can then look at fit and comfort. Isolation is dependent on tip selection, and if you get a good seal, it is actually pretty good (about average for a vented dynamic IMO), but will not ultimately reach the high isolation of sealed BA IEMs. It is still reasonably good for a busy street, or some forms of public transport although it wouldn't be my personal choice for long haul flights or trains.


Shure Olive and Spinfits	Spiral Dots and Ostry tips

Fit and comfort is exemplary. As I said earlier, the rounded chassis, smooth finish, and small size make the Basic simply disappear when worn. Whilst they could be worn cable down, they are really designed to be worn over-ear. Ideally a couple more mm length on the nozzle wouldn't go astray, but that is nitpicking. The fit overall is relatively shallow.


Default tips	Trinity Kombi hybrids – my preference this time

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 Basic has a nice nozzle lip, I had no issues fitting any of my tips, and had great success with Ostry’s blue and black tuning tips, Sony Isolation tips (a tight fit but achievable), Spin-fits, and also Spiral Dots. I could have also used my favoured Shure Olives or Crystal foams – but I found the Sony Isolation tips gave me a fantastic seal, and they are very hard wearing.


Almiost every tip I tried fit the nozzle	Fit and comfort were excellent

The Oriveti Basics sit nicely flush with my outer ear, and are comfortable to lie down with. I've slept with them a few times now, and have had no discomfort on waking. We know the overall build is brilliant, as is the design, so how do they sound.

SOUND QUALITY

The following is what I hear from the Oriveti Basic. 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 X3ii + E17K combo, no EQ, and Trinity Kombi tips (same design as Sony Isolation). I used this combo devices simply because paired they give me a very transparent window to the music with low impedance, and more than enough power. There was no EQ engaged.


I used my iPhone SE a lot daily	But for testing - my trusty FiiO X3ii + E17K

For the record – on most tracks, the volume level on the E17K (paired with X3ii) was around 15-16/60 (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 – has extremely good extension and even at my low listening levels is not only audible, but also mildly dominant. There is clearly evident rumble, and bass guitars can be slightly too emphasised for my own personal taste. Overall there is a lot of warmth in the default signature – and the bass response peaks at about 50 Hz according to my measurements
Mid-bass – elevated, but taking a gentle slope downward to the eventual lower mid-range. Because of the initial elevation, it does tend to slightly dominate the lower mid-range, and depending on the recording, there can be occasional masking (otherwise known as bass-bleed). I need to stress though, this is minor.
Lower mid-range – relatively linear but recessed compared to sub and mid-bass. Vocals don't appear overly distant though, and this is pretty good for a bass emphasised earphone. Male vocals have a good amount of body.
Upper mid-range – very slightly elevated compared to lower mid-range, and there is a very gentle rise from 1 kHz to the first peak at 2 kHz. The result is a quite cohesive transition form lower to upper mids, and very slight euphony for female vocals (although some of this can be lost with the bass warmth). There is another rise from 3-5 kHz and this brings some clarity and definition.
Lower treble has a hump between 5-7 kHz (about the same size as the secondary upper mid-range hump). This does attempt to balance out the elevated bass, and I have no doubts some will absolutely love this tuning, however for me the bass still is the dominant frequency range coming through, and can tend (again) to dull some upper end detail. Above 7 kHz there is quite a bit of roll-off which gives a very smooth and non-aggressive upper signature.
Upper treble – continues the overall roll-off of lower treble. Not a lot of noticeable extension.

Resolution / Detail / Clarity

Clarity overall is a mixed bag. You can hear that the dynamic driver has potential, but a lot of minute detail is masked in the warmth from the bass. With Sultans of Swing, I can usually here drumstick clicks but these are muted. Under EQ it is a different story, but we'll get to that later.
Cymbal hits have some clarity and overall presence (as long as its not in a bassy song), but they are subdued compared to what I am used to and the decay is slightly truncated (or perhaps again it is simply the masking).
Those looking for highly detailed monitors won't get it with the Oriveti Basics. But then again, I don't think that is really their target audience.

Sound-stage, Imaging

Directional queues are OK but the bassy nature does tend to diffuse things a little. Its by no means bad, everything is where it should be – just not crystal clear or cleanly defined. Presentation of stage is at the periphery of my head space with binaural tracks – so a decent although not spectacular sense of width and depth.
Somewhat elliptically presented sound-stage – with slightly more L/R than front to back.
With the applause section of “Dante's Prayer”, the Basic shows a good sense of imemrsion (the sound of the audience flowing around me), although again there is more width than depth. “Let it Rain” was my next track and it was pleasant to listen to (some semblance of 3D like experience - the way the track was miked). There was zero sibilance with Amanda's vocals – and it should be there because its in the recording – so again reinforcement of the warm, bassy, and forgiving nature of the Oriveti Basic.

Strengths

Overall smoothness of the signature.
Reasonable sense of stage and imaging
Good cohesion with lower and upper register vocals
Enough balance mixed with the overall warmth, and lovers of a darker, warmer tonality will enjoy the Basic.

Weaknesses

Bass dominance tends to slightly mask other frequencies on bass heavy tracks
Not overly detailed – so not ideal for lower volume listening (I had a tendency to turn them up and regret it later when my tinnitus played up)
Definitely coloured (warm and dark) default sound

AMPLIFICATION REQUIREMENTS

The Oriveti basic doesn’t need amplification for overall volume – and because its impedance isn't overly low, any source with an output impedance of less than 2 ohms should pair OK. Even introducing extra impedance did not seem to affect overall tonality. There was no noticeable hiss.


IMS HVA, FiiO A5 and E17K	E17K was great for EQ rather than amplification

With my iPhone 5S around 25-30% volume is more than enough with most tracks, and the FiiOs are generally at around 28-30/120. I tried the Basic with the E17K, but also with my A5, and IMS Hybrid Valve and none of them seemed to be adding anything to my listening set-up other than some extra bulk. The IMS valve amp tends to add a little 2nd order harmonioc warmth, and was not a good pairing for my tastes. The E17K (however) was fantastic for a different purpose!

RESPONSE TO EQ?
With my testing, I could tell that the dynamic driver Oriveti were using was extremely capable – but for my tastes, I just needed some of that bass removed. The graph was telling me that the bass peak was centered around 50 Hz and is probably about 6-8dB too much for my tastes.


-6 bass on the E17K – what a difference	And how about this compared to the Primacy

I knew that the E17K's bass controls would tend to give me the exact reductions, so I set it to -6 and proceeded to replay many of the test tracks I'd already tried previously. For my preferences, the change was immediate relief, and quiet captivation. The detail was back, but not etched. Bass was still there, but not prominent. This was a smooth signature I could listen to for hours (and indeed I did).

COMPARISON WITH OTHER IEMS

These comparisons were all done with the X3ii + E17K, (no EQ) – and volume matched using a calibrated SPL meter and fixed 1kHz test tone first. I could have used the X5iii but feared that a tonally smooth DAP paired with the warm Oriveti Basic could be simply a little too dark for my personal tastes. I wanted to compare against some reasonably well known IEMs in a similar price bracket – so I chose the Shozy Zero, Dunu Titan 1, Meze 12 Classics, TFZ Series 5, and Brainwavz M100. Hopefully this gives enough insight to anyone interested in this IEM. Here are my very subjective personal thoughts:

Oriveti Basic (~USD 99) vs Shozy Zero (~USD 60)


Oriveti Basic and Shozy Zero	Frequency comparisons

Looking first at build quality, and they are both finished pretty well, but ultimately the Oriveti Basic has better quality materials and a far better cable. I can't really comment on accessories as the Zero is a loaner and I didn't get much with it. The Zero is lightweight and easy to fit, and you hardly know you're wearing them – but even they are trumped by the ergonomics of the Basic. Both are dynamics and isolation is about the same.

Sonically the two are very similar. Both on the warm and bassy side. The zero has a little more upper mid-range and lower treble, but it needs it to balance the slightly heavier bass. The Basic has a little less bass warmth but not as much upper end. So for this match up it really comes down to preference of a slightly flatter (Basic) vs slightly more V shaped (Zero) signature – both undoubtedly on the warm side, and if the better overall build quality is worth another $30-40. Personally I'd shell out the extra – but YMMV.

Oriveti Basic (~USD 99) vs Meze 99 Classic (~USD 79)


Oriveti Basic and Meze 99 Classic	Frequency comparisons

These two are chalk and cheese – but I'm reviewing the Classic shortly – and its in a similar price bracket, so I thought it worthwhile. Like the Zero, the 12 Classic is a cartridge style with a wood body. Build quality is extremely good and because of their size, fit and comfort are very good. But again the Oriveti Basic has the benefit of better materials in the build, and its cable is much better for wearing IMO. Comfort goes again to the Basic (although both are good) and they are about even with isolation.

Sonically they are very different – but this time it is mainly about the bass difference. Both share a similar mid-range, with the Meze being a little more mid-forward, and a lot leaner and cleaner. The Basic is extremely bassy in direct comparison, and ultimately here its down you your personal preference. I like a less bassy and more balanced (even slightly mid-forward signature), so in a direct comparison here, I'd choose the 99 Classic. If I took EQ into account (and used the tone controls with the Basic), then it would likely be a different choice.

Oriveti Basic (~USD 99) vs TFZ Series 5 (~USD 80)


Oriveti Basic and TFZ Series 5	Frequency comparisons

Once again, the superior build materials used with the Oriveti Basic trump the moulded plastic design of the TFZ5, but this time the fit and comfort are at a similar level (both have a very comfortable and ergonomic build). I still find the Basic's cable a lot better, and of course it has the added benefit of being replaceable. Accessories go the Oriveti. Isolation is similar.

Sonically the comparison is much akin to the Meze Classic vs Oriveti Basic. The TFZ Series 5 is V shaped, but lower in the mid and sub bass, and has a bigger upper mid-range peak, and more lower treble extension. The Basic is again warmer, darker and less mid-forward, and it again becomes a question of whether I'd be prepared to EQ. Without it, my personal preference would be for the TFZ S5. But with EQ, once again I'd probably lean toward the Basic.

Oriveti Basic (~USD 99) vs Brainwavz M100 (~USD 90)


Oriveti Basic and Brainwavz M100	Frequency comparisons

This one surprised me because I simply didn't expect them to sound so similar, and the M100 was one of those earphones that quite a few reviewers panned – ironic when you look at the measurements and the similarity to the Oriveti Basic's frequency response. But I'm getting ahead of myself. For the first time we have an earphone with similar build material quality, but the Oriveti Basic still holds its own in terms of design and ergonomics. Accessories are similar (Brainwavz may even be ahead slightly). The M100 has better isolation, but comes at a cost of driver flex.

Sonically the two are quite similar overall – both bassy and warm, and the only difference is slightly in the way the mid-range and lower treble is presented. The M100 does not have as much extension as the Basic, but has a touch more mid-range presence. Neither's default signature is to my preference – but under the same EQ I find that the Oriveti Basic has that little extra bump in the lower treble I prefer. And if you factor in the overall fit – my preference would be for the Basic.

Oriveti Basic (~USD 99) vs Dunu Titan 1 (~USD 95)


Oriveti Basic and Dunu Titan 1	Frequency comparisons

Build materials are evenly matched, as are overall design and even fit. The Oriveti Basic slips slightly ahead on overall ergonomics and also on cable quality (including the fact that its replaceable). Isolation goes to the Basic – the Titan is quite open comparatively.

Sonically the two are chalk and cheese as a whole, but share a similar mid-range. The Titan 1 has very linear bass response (great extension though) and does not have the warmth or darkness of the Basic. Upper mid-range is quite similar, but without the bass warmth, the Titan 1 is a lot cleaner and clearer. But the Titan does have the quite pronounced peak at 7kHz, and people will either like or dislike it. It gives a lot of sharpness and an almost unnatural etch to the upper end. The funny thing is that I've gravitated toward more balanced earphones, I now find too much peak at times annoying – and I never used to. Could I be finally maturing at the ripe old age of 50? Without EQ, I'd probably go with the Titan 1 (but the warmer and darker Basic is appealing in its own way). If I EQ the excess bass out of the Oriveti Basic, it is a signature I could listen to for hours and would be my natural choice.

ORIVETI BASIC – SUMMARY

It always surprises me how little time it takes to get used to an earphone, and brain burn (getting used to a signature) is a very real phenomena. Anyone who knows my tastes will realise the Oriveti Basic simply isn't my ideal signature – but I have to give a grudging respect to Oriveti for what they've done with this earphone. Clearly its aimed at a different (younger) market – perhaps a little more bass oriented.

The Oriveti Basic is beautifully designed and crafted, and the finish, ergonomics and build quality at this price range are best in class. Couple this with a good accessory package, and you're already ½ way toward a winner.

Sonically the Basic is a warm earphone, but it has an excellent mid-range and lower treble – I simply find the excess bass can mask some of the beautiful mid-range (admittedly this is personal taste). If you like a warmer signature which still retains a cohesive mid-range and lower treble, I can think of few better earphones at this price point. And if you're prepared to EQ the bass back a little, the resultant signature is magic.

The RRP at just short of the USD 100 mark puts it in a very competitive price bracket, but the Basic more than holds its own. I really struggled to rate these because if I was marking to my own personal tastes, I'd be thinking around 3.5/5. But that wouldn't be a fair assessment of the overall package. For what they have delivered (for the price), I rank these at a solid 80% and the only deductions really is around the fact that the bass can mask some of that mid-range at times. Even 3-4 dB less sub and mid-bass would have made a world of difference.

I just want to close with thanking Michael for arranging the review sample, and apologise for taking so long with it.

Picture are default 1200 x 800 resolution - click to view larger images.

INTRODUCTION

My first foray into the world of quality sounding IEMs was with Shures range quite a few years ago – starting with the SE425 and culminating with the SE535LE. From there I first experimented with hybrid IEMs – first T-Peos Altone 200 and Dunu's DN-1000 triple drivers, and shortly afterwards Fidues A83 triple. The A83 mesmerised me, and the sound still captivates me when I get them out from time to time. What impressed me was the big sound – the robustness of the bass, but also the way Fidue approached their mid-range. It was something I hadn't encountered before – undoubtedly coloured and mid-forward, but in a really good way. My one issue with the A83 long term was its longevity (build). I had issues with the connectors – but otherwise it was a great IEM.

So when Fidue approached me about reviewing their flagship (Sirius / A91) I was naturally both intrigued and also hopeful. Could Fidue improve on the A83's signature, and also produce a flagship with genuine build quality?

ABOUT FIDUE
Fidue Acoustics is a Chinese earphone company founded by Benny Tan (who has more than 20 years design experience – developing earphones for other global branded companies). The name Fidue is simply an acronym of the principle design points that the company strives to implement in their product range

Fidelity
Inspiration
Durability
Uniqueness
Enjoyment.

From their website “The guiding principle of FIDUE Acoustics is reproducing original sound accurately, and maintaining clarity, dynamics and natural expression.”

Fidue have a full product catalogue including single dynamic driver IEMs in the budget sub $30 range to hybrids – which now include their new TOTL flagship – the Sirius A91. The can be found at Facebook HERE, or their product range viewed at their website HERE.

DISCLAIMER
The Fidue A91 Sirius that I’m reviewing today was provided to me gratis as a review sample. I have made it clear to Fidue that I still regard any product they send me as their sole property and available for return any time at their request. But I thank them for the ability to continue use of the Fidue A91 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 Fidue themselves.

I have now had the Fidue A91 since late 2016. The retail price at time of review is USD 899, and can be purchased via Penon Audio.

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

I'm a 50 year old music lover. I don't say audiophile – I just love my music. Over the last couple of years, I have slowly changed from cheaper listening set-ups to my current set-up. I vary my listening from portables (mostly now from the FiiO X5iii, and iPhone SE) to my desk-top's set-up (PC > USB > iFi iDSD). My main full sized headphones at the time of writing are the Sennheiser HD800S, Sennheiser HD600 & HD630VB, and AKG K553. Most of my portable listening is done with IEMs, and lately it has mainly been with the Jays q-Jays, Alclair Curve2 and Adel U6 (although I am spending more and more time with a pair of FiiL Diva lately). A full list of the gear I have owned (past and present is listed in my Head-Fi profile).

I have very eclectic music tastes listening to a variety from classical/opera and jazz, to grunge and general rock. I listen to a lot of blues, jazz, folk music, classic rock, indie and alternative rock. I am particularly fond of female vocals. I generally tend toward cans that are relatively neutral/balanced, but I do have a fondness for clarity, and suspect I might have slight ‘treble-head’ preferences. I am not treble sensitive (at all), and in the past have really enjoyed headphones like the K701, SR325i, and of course the T1 and DT880. I have a specific sensitivity to the 2-3 kHz frequency area (most humans do) but my sensitivity is particularly strong, and I tend to like a relatively flat mid-range with slight elevation in the upper-mids around this area.

I have extensively tested myself (ABX) and I find aac256 or higher to be completely transparent. I do use exclusively red-book 16/44.1 if space is not an issue. All of my music is legally purchased (mostly CD – the rest FLAC purchased on-line). I tend to be sceptical about audiophile ‘claims’, don’t generally believe in burn-in, have never heard a difference with different cables, and would rather test myself blind on perceived differences. I am not a ‘golden eared listener’. I suffer from mild tinnitus, and at 49, my hearing is less than perfect (it only extends to around 14 kHz nowadays). My usual listening level is around 65-75 dB.

For the purposes of this review - I used the Fidue A91 Sirius straight from the headphone-out socket of most of my portables. I did not generally further amp them (I did test them with my E17K, A5 and IMS HVA), 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 Fidue A91 Sirius, I have noticed no change to the overall sonic presentation (break-in). Time spent now with the A91 Sirius would be easily 200+ 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


Front of the retail box	Rear of the retail box

The Fidue A91 arrived in an approximately” 134mm x 134mm x 71mm retail box. The retail packaging consists of a printed sleeve over a jewellery box style top opening box. The sleeve carries virtually all exterior print, and is fully printed in Fidues normal black and green colouring. On the front is the Fidue logo, and some information about the Sirius configuration. The rear of the sleeve has specification information and a little blurb to explain the reason for the naming convention of the Sirius:

“Sirius is the brightest star in the universe. The ancient Greeks believed that it was the guardian of the road of the soul and an omnipotent hunter”.


The inner box	The A91 Sirius nestled safely in the top tray

The inner box has a textured black outer surface, and simply the words “Fidue Sirius” on the top cover. Opening this reveals the A91 Sirius nestled safely in a foam holder, and a some of the included silicone tips. On the underside of the top tray are further cut-outs, and this houses the modular cable adaptor system. Beneath this is a secondary foam layer – and in this is snuggled the case – which houses the rest of the accessories.


The cable adaptors and manual	Bottom layer with storage case

The accessories include:

4 pairs of black silicone tips (XS/S/M/L)
1 pair of medium T500 genuine Comply tips
3.5mm Female to 6.5mm Male Adapter
Airline adaptor
Anodised aluminium storage case (large)
Cleaning tool and disassembly tool
Maintenance and warranty card.
Fold-out booklet/manual
1 x 2.5 mm balanced to MMCX earphone cable
1 x 2.5 mm balanced to 3.5 mm single ended short adaptor cable
1 x 2.5 mm balanced to 3.5 mm balanced short adaptor cable


The storage case	Accessories inside the storage case

The storage case is pretty large, and realistically won't be used as a carry case – unless in a larger jacket pocket or carry bag. It is 85mm in diameter, 45mm in height, with a lift-off lid, and internally lined with a soft felt like material. It looks pretty classy and is ideal for safe storage on a desk top.


Main cable, standard adaptors, comply tips and tools	The A91 Sirius, cable adaptors and silicone tips

All in all, the accessory package seems well thought out (although a larger tip selection might have been a good idea), and the included accessories are very good quality.

TECHNICAL SPECIFICATIONS
(From Fidue’s packaging / website)

Model	Fidue A91-Sirius
Approx price	$899 USD (Penon Audio)
Type	Five driver hybrid IEM
Driver - Dynamic	1 x 10mm titanium DD
Driver - BA	2 x Knowles dual BA (4 BA)
Freq Range	4Hz – 45 kHz
Impedance	20Ω
Sensitivity	113 dB
Cable	1.3m, replaceable (MMCX)
Jack	2.5mm rhodium plated balanced, straight – with adaptors
Weight	37g with default cable
Casing material	Anodised Steel

FREQUENCY GRAPH

The graphs below 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.

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.


A91 Sirius frequency and channel matching	A91 Sirius – vent unblocked vs vent blocked

Now the interesting thing with measuring the A91 Sirius is that there is a tiny dynamic driver vent just below the nozzle, and there is quite a big difference between having the vent blocked or fully open. I don't have an actual ear mould when measuring – so my main measurements are with the vent complete unimpeded which may not necessarily be the case when worn. In my own personal opinion, I think the unblocked graph is reasonably accurate – but I do think that there is the possibility of little more bass when worn – just enough to give a very slight natural mid-bass hump, and little more extension to the sub-bass.

My sonic impressions of the A91 Sirius – written well before I measured:

Bass performs well (sub and mid-bass), reaches low but is not over-emphasised. There is audible sub-bass rumble, so bass extension appears to be pretty good.
Lower mid-range is not recessed at all, and male vocals are well represented.
Upper mid-range is emphasised, and it is a definite colouration, but one I appreciate. Female vocals have a wonderful sense of euphony, and the bump gives very good clarity without losing overall tonality
Lower treble extension is good – but there appears to be some roll-off above about 7 kHz. Cymbal fundamentals are pretty good – but the decay is ever so slightly truncated (hardly noticeable in most tracks). It does contribute to a clean and clear sound though, and one that is thoroughly enjoyable.
Overall a well balanced earphone with an upper mid-emphasis
Channel matching is excellent

BUILD


Internal side of the shell	Front (internal) and top

The A91 Sirius is incredibly well built and finished, and definitely worthy of being called Fidues top monitor. The outer shell is metallic grey and utilises stainless steel alloy which I assume will contribute to reduction in harmonic resonance. The shape is almost a half circle (some have described it as a wing design), and it is ergonomically designed to fit in the natural half circle hollow inside your ear's tragus, antitragus, and antihelix.


External side of shell	Rear and view of sockets

The A91 Sirius is a large IEM with a width of 28mm, height of 18mm and depth of approx 10mm (excluding nozzle). The interior or internal side is beautifully rounded with “almost” no sharp corners or angles. The nozzle sits out and is gently angled up from the main body, protruding just over 5mm in length. It is just under 6mm in diameter, mesh covered and lipless. Below the nozzle is a small bass port – which does have an effect on bass quantity if blocked. Toward the rear is two somewhat larger “vents” and I put these in quotes as I'm not really sure they are simply just decorative. Covering them does not seem to alter the sound. Above this is either an L or R marking the ear designation.


MMCX socket and male connector	(right) default cable fully connected, (left) CA Tinsel cable

The exterior or external side has the Fidue logo and the “swept triangular” design which was originally seen on the Fidue A83. There is a thin silver line around the outside which contrasts nicely with the grey and gives the A91 a very classy external look. It is definitely an attractive earphone. One thing to note is that while the rest of the IEM is nicely rounded the top decorative plate is flat and there is a bit of an edge. Also at the very front of the IEM the forward apex or triangle, while rounded, is also quite angled, and combined with the flat top does create some potential edges for some people. More on that later.


Y-split and cinch	2.5mm balanced jack

At the top rear is the MMCX socket. It is threaded to further strengthen and maintain connectivity. Anyone with experience of the A83 will know about some of the connection problems Fidue have had in the past with MMCX set-ups, and with the A91 they have come up with a pretty good solution. The male connector has a rotating threaded cap which is used to further secure and protect the connection once it is snapped in place. This also allows the user to tighten it right down and essentially fix an angle for cable exit which can further stabilise the wearing position. The connectors snap together really solidly, and are very difficult to get apart – where is where the included (shaped like a guitar pick) accessory tool comes in. Simply use that to gently lever the two connectors apart once the thread is undone. Fidue's solution is elegant and works incredibly well – I just wish this sort of thing could be standardised across all IEM makers. The other good news with this set-up is that other MMCX cables can also be used – they simply snap in place – albeit at the cost of not having the threaded locking mechanism.

The cable system is heavy duty, modular, and one which will see some people loving it, and others perhaps not so endeared. The main cable is 1.3m long and consists of a very flexible braided 8 core SPC cable which is nylon covered throughout. As such it is extremely strong, and so far for me has been surprisingly hard wearing (I expected some fraying, but so far, so good). It has not been prone to tangling – but is somewhat bulky. So far – hooked over the ear, and worn under and outer layer of clothing, it is quite free of microphonics. The Y-split is the same lightweight metal alloy of the main body, well relieved and has a very good cinch in-built which works really well.


Modular adaptors	3.5mm balanced adaptor connected

The 1.3m cable terminates at a straight, very well built jack – rhodium plated, and with excellent strain relief. Again the body is the same metal alloy. What is different with the A91 is that the main cable terminates with a 4 pole 2.5mm balanced TRSS connector. This makes it a perfect accompaniment for my FiiO X5iii or Luxury & Precision L3. However – what about standard 3.5mm TRS connections, or even other balanced connections like the 3.5mm TRSS Hifiman Supermini? Well that is where the included short cable adaptors come in. They convert the 2.5mm balanced to either 3.5mm balanced or 3.5mm SE so can be used with a wide variety of devices. The cables and plugs are the same excellent quality of the main cable, but they do add an extra bulk and about 16cm overall extra length to the cable. Again, the connections are pretty solid, and my one design wish here would have been a slight recession in the sockets of the extension/converters to allow the cables to fully snap together with no gaps.


The A91 Sirius – aesthetically stunning	And versatile – paired with my iPhone and Bluetooth adaptor

Overall though I can’t fault the overall build quality. Top notch use of materials by Fidue – but there is a minor question in the choice of design for the shell – which we'll cover further in the fit/comfort section

FIT / COMFORT / ISOLATION

I'll start with the easy one (isolation), and we can then look at fit and comfort. Isolation is dependent on tip selection, and if you get a good seal, it is actually pretty good (about average for a vented hybrid IMO), but will not ultimately reach the high isolation of sealed BA IEMs. It would still be reasonably good for a busy street, or some forms of public transport though – although wouldn't be my personal choice for long haul flights.

Now we get to fit and comfort – and these thoughts are more subjective. As I said above, the Fidue A91 Sirius has an ergonomic body shape, with a good length of slightly angled nozzle, and for me personally they are extremely easy to fit – but the nozzle is relatively shallow in-ear. They are designed for over-ear use. Anyone used to ergonomic BA designs should have no issues. They are also quite comfortable for everyday use …… but with a small note. When I first wore the A91 Sirius I would experience some discomfort with a single sharp edge. It wasn't a huge problem – but I knew it was there. The issue for me was simply that I wasn't use to the the sharper angle reacting with my intertragical notch, and because I have bigger ears, I could feel the flat external edge against my skin. The answer was in my choice of tip (Shure Olives), so I could adjust the A91 Sirius so that the pressure there was relieved. It also took some time for my ear to get used to the angle. Nowadays, I can wear the Sirius for hours – and find it very comfortable. But for Fidue – this may be a point worth noting. Neither would be an issue with some rounding of the juncture of the top external plate, and also a less acute angle at the front. Another thing which may help is an extra couple of mm length on the nozzle.


Spinfits and foam tips fit well – others not so good	My preferred Shure Olives

Another little gripe and this isn't a huge one because ultimately large Comply, stretched Shure Olives, and the included silicone tips all seem to stay put quite well, but the lack of lip on the nozzle means that some tips I like to have options with simply can't be used (e.g. Spiral-dots or my Sony Isolation tips). The smooth nozzle means that some tip bores won't hold and this limits my options. In this case, there are no tuning filters – so I really can't see why this is missing. Anyway – it's slightly annoying – but alleviated by the fact that there are fortunately a number of tips that do work. I tried and can get successful seals with Ostry tuning tips and Spinfits (although they sometimes both slipped off the nozzle) and also a larger size of Comply tips. Ultimately I ended up going with my pair of “stretched bore” Shure Olives – which always give me best fit, comfort and seal for shallower fitting earphones.


Part of the issue is the lipless nozzle	But fit for me is still pretty good

The Fidue A91 sit nicely flush with my outer ear, and are comfortable to lie down with. I've slept with them often, and now that I am used to the overall shape, have even slept on occasion for a full 8 hours (music very, very low of course) – and with no discomfort on waking.

So the overall build is brilliant, and the design could be improved slightly, but again extremely good and well thought out.

SOUND QUALITY

The following is what I hear from the Fidue A91 Sirius. 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 X5iii (single ended) and also the X3ii + E17K combo, no EQ, and Shure Olive foam tips. I used the FiiO devices simply because paired they give me a very transparent window to the music with low impedance, and more than enough power. With both, their was no DSP engaged.


My trusty FiiO X3ii + E17K	And the very classy FiiO X5iii

For the record – on most tracks, the volume level on the E17K (paired with X3ii) was around 16/60 (on low gain) which was giving me an average SPL around 65-75 dB. On the X5iii (again low gain), this equated to 29/120 for the same volume. 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 – has good extension and even at my low listening levels is audible, but there is no boosted emphasis and it sits extremely well within the overall frequency mix. There is enough rumble to give presence without overshadowing vocals, and I'm detecting no bleed into lower mid-range. Lovers of elevated lower bass frequencies would need to EQ or play with partially blocking the bass port.
Mid-bass – pretty linear compared to lower mid-range and to my ears sounds quite natural but with no real emphasis. Slightly more mid-bass than sub-bass, but neither is really emphasised. Any mid-bass hump would be very slight. This reminds me very much of original HD800 type mid-bass – enough to sound tonally natural and give very good overall timbre, but again its relatively linear or flat rather than emphasised.
Lower mid-range – no recession compared to bass but quite a bit lower than the upper mid-range peak around 2 kHz (about 10 dB). Vocals don't appear overly distant though, and this is fantastic – especially when you consider the overall cohesion between lower and upper mid-range for vocals. Male vocal in particular have a reasonable amount of body, but there is definitely more emphasis with female vocals.
Upper mid-range – elevated compared to lower mid-range, and there is a rise from 1 kHz to the main peak at 2 kHz. The result is a clean and clear vocal range, with extremely good overall cohesion and some real euphony for female vocals to sound sweet and elevated. This is probably the most coloured part of the entire frequency range – but especially for female vocal lovers, it is a colouration I really like.
Lower treble has less emphasis overall and the only real peak is at 6-7 kHz and this is actually slightly less in amplitude than the upper mid-range. There is simply very good overall detail and clarity – but without too much etch or grain which some other IEMs overdo by trying to hard. Overall this area does not over-emphasis simply because the bass is so linear.
Upper treble – rolls off – but does not affect/detract from the overall signature.

Resolution / Detail / Clarity

Really excellent overall clarity, and this was especially so on older recordings (10cc's Art for Art's Sake) where some of the detail can be lost when bass bleed over shadows. The Fidue A83 simply goes about it's business – but without having to spotlight or overemphasis lower treble.
Cymbal hits have very good clarity and overall presence, and while they also have very good decay – there is a very slight hint of truncation which I don't get from the likes of the Dunu DK-3001 . This really is nit-picking though, and only noticeable if you are critically listening for it
Overall I feel as though I'm hearing everything in the recording – and this is even at my lower listening levels.

Sound-stage, Imaging

Directional queues are extremely good – very precise, and presentation of stage is definitely beyond the periphery of my head space with binaural tracks – so really good sense of width and depth. This (pleasantly) surprised me a little because I expected with the upper mid-bump for this to be less pronounced.
Spherically presented sound-stage – no issues with L/R dominance
There are very few IEMs which manage to totally immerse me in the audience with the applause section of “Dante's Prayer”. The Fidue A91 manages it easily, I'm there in the audience, and you can't get much better than that with an IEM. Easily as immersive as my U6, and I had to actually check to make sure that the Viper settings were disengaged on the X5iii. “Let it Rain” was my next track and it was again brilliant (very 3D like experience - the way the track was miked). There was the slightest hint of sibilance with Amanda's vocal – but again, its the way it is recorded – so not unexpected. What was great is that the sibilance was actually quite subdued, but the detail still shone through clearly.

Strengths

Overall tonal balance and clarity – while retaining a very smooth sonic presentation
very good sense of stage and imaging
Detailed at low listening levels
Reference sound with slight colouration or forwardness in upper mid-range area. Transition between lower and upper mid-range is extremely good.

Weaknesses

While I personally don't find it to be a weakness – some may find the bass to be a little linear. This could also depend on overall fit and anatomy.

AMPLIFICATION REQUIREMENTS

The Fidue A91 Sirius doesn’t need amplification for overall volume – and because its impedance isn't spectacularly low, any source with an output impedance of less than 3 ohms should pair OK. All of my sources are pretty low OI and I had no issues with tonality changes. I don't tend to notice hiss (older ears) – so no real issues for me with the Sirius. The interesting thing with using the X5iii is that despite the balanced output being around 3 ohms (SE is lower), my daughter noticed no hiss – even at maximum volume (no music playing of course!)


Testing with the IMS HVA and FiiO A5	Balanced with the SuperMini

With my iPhone 5S around 25-30% volume is more than enough with most tracks, and the FiiOs are generally at around 28-35/120. As I said, I have tried the A91 Sirius with the E17K, but also with my A5, and IMS Hybrid Valve but none of them seemed to be adding anything to my listening set-up other than some extra bulk. Although I do have to admit that I did quite enjoy the very slight tonality change with the iPhone + IMS valve amp, and using the A5's targeted bass boost was also an easy way to add some coloration if required.

RESPONSE TO EQ?

In my opinion the A91 Sirius sounds beautiful with its default tuning, and I wouldn't personally feel much need (if any) for EQ. However I know that some may like more warmth and more bass impact, and this was easy to check with the X3ii and E17K combo. I used “Art for Art's Sake” again, and simply added +4 bass with the E17K. The resultant tonality was very good, and still did not detract from the clarity. I then took a much warmer recording (Dido's “Girl Who Got Away”, reduced the bass to neutral and added +4 treble. Again the change was immediate but really well presented. The A91 Sirius responds well to EQ, although again I am really happy with its default sonic signature.

BALANCED VS SINGLE ENDED

Having the balanced cable option is nice, but I noticed no real change with the likes of the X7 + AM3 module once I had properly volume matched (using the Fidue A91 cable adaptor for fast switching). Personally I wouldn't be able to tell the two apart in a blind test. For those with DAPs where the balanced sounds better (different circuitry), its nice to have the option though.

COMPARISON WITH OTHER IEMS

These comparisons were all done with the X5iii, (no EQ or DSP) – and volume matched using a calibrated SPL meter and fixed 1kHz test tone first. Choosing the comparisons, I wanted to firstly compare against the former Fidue flagship (A83), and then with IEMs of similar ability and price range. This is always more subjective than objective, and I don't personally have access to a lot of IEMs around the $500+ mark. So I ended up comparing with the $300 Fidue A83, DUNU's new ~$500 DK-3001, Rhapsodio's older ~$800 RTi1 single dynamic, and 64Audio's ~$900 U6 and ~$1400 U10. Hopefully this gives enough insight to anyone interested in this IEM. Here are my very subjective personal thoughts:

Fidue A91 Sirius (~USD 900) vs Fidue A83 (~USD 300-340)


Fidue A91 Sirius and Fidue A83	Frequency comparisons

Starting as usual with build quality – the Fidue A91 Sirius build quality is miles ahead of its older sibling both with materials used, and also the quality of finish. This is also apparent with the accessory range – especially with extra cable choices. Out of the box the smaller A83 might have the better overall fit, but once you get the right fit with the Sirius, I actually prefer it now to the A83 for comfort. And the big weakness with the original A83 (cable connection quality) is now completely fixed with the A91 Sirius. I would still say that the A83 might have slightly better overall isolation.

Overall sound quality firmly is in favour of the Sirius also (as you'd probably expect). The A91 has a much more balanced signature – and when Fidue describe it as “reference”, I can clearly both hear and see that this is the case. The A83 has more of that usual V-shape associated with a lot of hybrids, and the bass is more pronounced – but also boomier. The other big factor with the A83 is that the pronounced peaks also tended toward some grain in both upper mids and lower treble. I loved the clarity when I first reviewed them, but over time, and when comparing to more balanced signatures (DK-3001, Andromeda, and especially the Sirius), I've come to appreciate clarity without the peaks. The Sirius is a definite and definitive upgrade in virtually all areas, and IMO worth the upgrade and additional asking price.

Fidue A91 Sirius (~USD 900) vs Dunu DK-3001 (~USD 470-500)


Fidue A91 Sirius and Dunu DK-3001	Frequency comparisons

Overall build quality is excellent on both, and neither skimp on materials. I would say that the overall finish on the Sirius is perhaps a notch up though. Accessories are on par – both have very good packages. The DK-3001 of course includes 2 cables (balanced and SE) where the Sirius accomplishes this with the adaptors. Dunu DK-3001 With fit and comfort – I have to give this to the Sirius. The smooth and rounded internal faces ultimately trump the DK-3001's slight internal ridges.

Sonically there are some similarities. Both are well balanced earphones in their own way – the DK-3001 having the more traditional shallow mid-bass hump, moderate dip in lower mid-range, and more extension through the lower and upper treble. Both have an upper mid-range emphasis. Where the DK-3001 shines is in its overall signature balance and extension throughout the frequency range. The Sirius accomplishes the same goals through different methods – a little less bass which allows the mid-range and lower treble to be well focussed without needing any further emphasis. I love both earphones for their signatures, and it is actually quite difficult for me to pick a preference on sonics alone. For my own personal preferences I've always appreciated a slightly cleaner and cooler sound - and for me personally the Sirius delivers this slightly better, but I could definitely see opinions being divided.

There is a big difference in overall cost between the two. If the cost wasn't a factor I'd lean towards the Sirius as a personal preference – but both are truly excellent sounding monitors, and if bang for your buck is a factor then the DK-3001 more than holds its own.

Fidue A91 Sirius (~USD 900) vs Rhapsodio RT1i (~USD 800)


Fidue A91 Sirius and Rhapsodio RT1i	Frequency comparisons

Build quality and material is in favour of the Sirius – it is just a far better overall package. The build materials are solid on both, but its the fit and finish on the Sirius which is far more polished. Likewise accessories go to the Sirius. Fit and comfort are are about even. Both have removable high quality cables, but the Sirius comes with the balanced option(s).

Sonically there are a little more differences this time, with the RT1i being a
far more V shaped monitor with a definite upper-mid/lower treble peak centered at 5-6 kHz. Comparatively the RT1i delivers a fun sound which I still very much enjoy, but there is some heat which comes with some definite sizzle (personally I prefer it EQ'd down a little), and vocals have a little more distance. And it doesn't take a lot to correct this, but up against the more balanced and better finished Sirius, for the $100 difference it would be an easy decision for me. The Fidue Sirius is simply a better presented overall proposition.

Fidue A91 Sirius (~USD 900) vs 64 Audio U6 + G1 ADEL module (~USD 900)


Fidue A91 Sirius and 64 Audio U6	Frequency comparisons

This seemed like a pretty fair comparison to me – similar price, similar driver count. For this comparison I chose to use the G1 module simply because it elevates the mid-range a little and should bring it marginally closer to the Sirius signature.

Build quality (materials) is firmly in the Sirius favour. Its going to last for quite some time with the use of the alloys and quality of the cable. You'll note with my U6 that I'm using the Linum Bax cable and thats because my 2nd 64Audio cable has broken at the 2 pin connector. I know 64Audio would have replaced it – but this time I wanted a longer lasting solution. Accessories remain with the Sirius – but the U6 has the ADEL modules and ability to tune. Fit and comfort is slightly in favour of the U6 – the ergonomic build is simply slightly more comfortable for me.

Once again we see a similar pattern – the Sirius has more linear bass and a flatter overall signature, while the U6 has the gentle V and more natural mid-bass hump. With the G1 module, both have a bump in the upper mids, but the U6 has more lower treble extension, and to be fair, needs this to counter the increased bass. Both are incredible monitors, and the main difference is the added warmth of the U6 – which again makes the Sirius a little cooler and cleaner comparatively. Ultimately this will come down to preference as both sound gorgeous. The interesting thing was (using E17K's tone controls as EQ) simply taking the U6's bass down by -4, and already it managed to drop some of the warmth out of the U6 – and get the two much closer. For me personally I still have a slight preference to my U6, but ultimately this comes down to the time I've spent with them and my own personal preference. If I only had the Sirius I would not at all be disappointed.

Fidue A91 Sirius (~USD 900) vs 64 Audio U10 + G1 ADEL module (~USD 1300)


Fidue A91 Sirius and 64 Audio U6	Frequency comparisons

I wanted to pit the Sirius against the most expensive monitor I had access to – which happens to be the $1300 64 Audio U10. For this comparison I chose again to use the G1 module simply because it elevates the mid-range a little and should bring it marginally closer to the Sirius signature.

Build quality (materials) is again in the Sirius favour for the same reasons I outlined with the U6. The Sirius also takes the win for overall finish, quality, and accessories. The U10 wins on comfort, and also it has the benefits of tunability with the ADEL modules, and also has other benefits with the modules (they really do help with lowering my tinnitus issues).

Like the U6, we see a similar pattern – the Sirius has more linear bass and a flatter overall bass signature, while the U10 has the more natural mid-bass hump. With the G1 module, both have a bump in the upper mids, but the U10 has more lower and upper treble extension. Again the main difference is the added warmth of the U10 – which again makes the Sirius a little cooler and cleaner comparatively. I again tried dropping the bass response on the U10 down with the E17Ks tone controls and I was genuinely surprised at how close the two monitors perform. The Sirius still sounds a touch cooler and cleaner, but at -6 bass on the tone controls there is not very much difference between the two (and if anything I really like this new tonality on the U10).

So this goes to show that the Sirius is indeed flagship material, and definitely belongs in the same class with the newer $1K family of monitors becoming more prevalent. Which did I prefer? Well its really too close for me to call – and depends on the value you put on the ADEL system. For me personally its worth it (the price difference) but without having access to the U6 or U10, I could quite easily settle with the Sirius. It genuinely is that good.

FIDUE A91 SIRIUS – SUMMARY

Despite having these for more than 6 months, its surprising when you sit down for a formal review that you still discover new overall strengths in monitors you thought you knew.

The Fidue A91 Sirius is every bit the TOTL reference IEM which Fidue intended it to be, and I've come to appreciate its strengths even more over the last couple of weeks of critical listening.

Starting with build, design and quality of materials used – Fidue has really lifted the bar from their previous A83. Design and finish is up there with the best, and their new locking MMCX connectors are a great solution to some of the issues formerly with the A83. The modular cable system is also somewhat of a novel approach to managing consumers desires for different balanced and SE connectors – and actually works pretty well.

Sonically the Sirius is extremely well balanced with a largely linear frequency response coloured a little with a bump in the upper mid-range (which personally I really like). The result is a very clean and clear tonality, albeit with a slightly cooler or leaner overall lean. And while bass is linear, it is still beautifully presented and definitely present when called upon.

The RRP at around the USD 900 mark means that this is a reasonably large investment in an IEM but if you appreciate this sort of tonality I can honestly not think of a lot which will deliver this sort of total package. Despite the price point, I would still recommend them wholeheartedly – they just sound too good not to. For my part, I'd still love to see them get the ergonomics 100% right and a return to a lipped nozzle (and maybe slightly longer too) which would really complete an otherwise excellent monitor. For me a 4.5/5 or 90% review ranking.

I just want to close with thanking Michael for arranging the review sample, and apologise for taking so long with it.

Picture are default 1200 x 800 resolution - click to view larger images.

INTRODUCTION

Having listened to most of DUNU Topsound's hybrid earphones (DN1000, 2000, 2000J and 2002), and also their Titan series (1, 3 and 5), I've been privileged to experience the evolution of a company's engineers as they search for their own “holy grail” of sonic performance. When they first released the DN-series hybrids, many (myself included) marvelled at the overall package DUNU was able to deliver – in terms of sonics, build quality, and innovation – and especially at the price point they had been targeting. When Vivian approached me to review their new statements series (2002, 3001 and 4001) I was naturally intrigued. I reviewed the 2002 here, and sonically it was brilliant – but unfortunately for me personally the comfort was not all it could be. Now I have the chance to put the higher prices DK-3001 through its paces. Read on to find my thoughts.

ABOUT DUNU-TOPSOUND

I’ve used this before in my other reviews – and I think it serves as a good reminder of who DUNU is, and where they come from.

DUNU Topsound was established in 1994 originally as an OEM supplier to other companies. Since then they have developed their own branded line of high quality earphones, and gone from strength to strength (IMO) with each release. They currently have their manufacturing plant in China and head office in Taiwan. They now have more than 100 employees, and market their product range all over the world.

The name DUNU is simply an acronym of the principle design points that the company strives to implement in their product range:

Delicate
UNique
Utmost

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

“With advanced technology and hi-end equipments, DUNU desires to be able to provide Delicate, Unique ＆ Utmost products for Hi-Fi embracers. Delicate means extremely quality demanding on product process, from every little component to product manufacturing. DUNU has complete production line and equipments, including precise equipments, B&K frequency machine, IMD sputter, CNC machine, anechoic room, etc. Concerning design of product, DUNU also devotes to create unique outer appearance and balance in all sound frequency.

Utmost is not only the expectation on products, but also the pursuit of an Earphone Manufacturer. The founder of DUNU, himself, has years of experience in OEM/ODM earphone products in which many worldwide famous earphone Brands are included. However, in order to create the most enjoyable earphone on his own, DUNU’s president establishes the brand “DUNU” and implants many hi-end equipments and hires talented employees. From then on, DUNU takes the lead in developing the first Chinese made metal earphone, developing 5.8mm Driver unit and produce the very first Chinese Balance Armature Earphone, in 2014 DUNU release China first triple driver Dynamic and Balance Armature Hybrid earphone, All these preparations are to step on the world stage and to challenge renowned earphone brands. The ultimate goal of DUNU is to provide worldwide HI-FI embracers our Delicate, Unique & Utmost earphone products.”

DUNU’s full product catalogue can be found here - and their products are supplied through their own store front (globally) on Amazon.

DISCLAIMER

The DK-3001 that I’m reviewing today was provided to me gratis as a review sample. I have made it clear to DUNU that I still regard any product they send me as their sole property and available for return any time at their request. But I thank them for the ability to continue use of the DK-3001 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 DUNU themselves.

I have now had the DUNU DK-3001 since late Feb. The retail price at time of review is USD 470.00, and can be purchased via Amazon.

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

I'm a 50 year old music lover. I don't say audiophile – I just love my music. Over the last couple of years, I have slowly changed from cheaper listening set-ups to my current set-up. I vary my listening from portables (mostly now from the FiiO X5iii, and iPhone SE) to my desk-top's set-up (PC > USB > iFi iDSD). My main full sized headphones at the time of writing are the Sennheiser HD800S, Sennheiser HD600 & HD630VB, and AKG K553. Most of my portable listening is done with IEMs, and lately it has mainly been with the Jays q-Jays, Alclair Curve2 and Adel U6 (although I am spending more and more time with a pair of FiiL Diva lately). A full list of the gear I have owned (past and present is listed in my Head-Fi profile).

I have very eclectic music tastes listening to a variety from classical/opera and jazz, to grunge and general rock. I listen to a lot of blues, jazz, folk music, classic rock, indie and alternative rock. I am particularly fond of female vocals. I generally tend toward cans that are relatively neutral/balanced, but I do have a fondness for clarity, and suspect I might have slight ‘treble-head’ preferences. I am not treble sensitive (at all), and in the past have really enjoyed headphones like the K701, SR325i, and of course the T1 and DT880. I have a specific sensitivity to the 2-3 kHz frequency area (most humans do) but my sensitivity is particularly strong, and I tend to like a relatively flat mid-range with slight elevation in the upper-mids around this area.

I have extensively tested myself (ABX) and I find aac256 or higher to be completely transparent. I do use exclusively red-book 16/44.1 if space is not an issue. All of my music is legally purchased (mostly CD – the rest FLAC purchased on-line). I tend to be sceptical about audiophile ‘claims’, don’t generally believe in burn-in, have never heard a difference with different cables, and would rather test myself blind on perceived differences. I am not a ‘golden eared listener’. I suffer from mild tinnitus, and at 49, my hearing is less than perfect (it only extends to around 14 kHz nowadays). My usual listening level is around 65-75 dB.

For the purposes of this review - I used the DUNU DK-3001 straight from the headphone-out socket of most of my portables. I did not generally further amp them (I did test them with my E17K, E11K, IMS HVA and iDSD), 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 DK-3001, I have noticed no change to the overall sonic presentation (break-in). Time spent now with the DK-3001 would be easily 100+ 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


Front of the retail box	Rear of the retail box	Inner box	The DK-3001

The DUNU DK-3001 arrived in an approximately 142mm x 177mm x 56mm retail box. The retail packaging consists of a printed sleeve over a book style reinforced board box. The sleeve carries virtually all exterior print, is printed, with a clean white background, with black and red text. On the front is the DUNU logo, the “Hi-Res” certified logo, a high res picture of the DK3001, and a little information on the earphones (which I won't repeat now as we'll go into more detail below). The rear of the sleeve has accessory and specification information.

The inner box has a coarse textured black outer surface, and simply the word “DUNU” on the top cover. Opening this reveals the DK-3001 nestled safely in a foam holder, and a black pelican style case.


All accessories	Warranty, clip and adaptors	Carry / storage case

The carry case is the same as the one used with the DN-2002, but different from the original 2 piece aluminium one from the 2000 and 2000J. The outer dimensions are almost the same, and come to just under 120 x 85 x 40mm externally (including lip, clasp and hinges, but inside gives up a little space, and is actually smaller than the original 2000 series aluminium case. This one is a hard gloss plastic outer, but with good interior protection from a rigid rubber base and foam in the lid. It has more than enough room for the 3001 with some space for accessories and is pretty well built for protection. Because of the size of the carry case, it isn’t really pocket-able (trousers or jeans), but it would be ideal for a bag or casual jacket pocket. I might be a bit strange – but I'm actually liking this case better (hinged lid, less likely to show scratches)


Tips included	Balanced and SE cables	DK-3001 in case

The actual range of accessories is well thought out and includes:

3 pairs of grey silicone tips (S/M/L)
4 pairs of white silicone tips (S/M/L + 1 M pair installed)
4 pairs of Spin-fit silicone tips
1 pair of medium T500 genuine Comply tips
3.5mm Female to 6.5mm Male Adapter
Airline adaptor
Pelican type carry case
1 Shirt Clip
Maintenance and warranty card.
1 x 3.5 mm to MMCX earphone cable
1 x 2.5 mm balanced to MMCX earphone cable

TECHNICAL SPECIFICATIONS
(From DUNU’s packaging / website)

Because people may want to compare – I've also included the specifications from DUNU's DN-2002 earphones.

Model	DN-2002	DK-3001
Approx price	$340 USD (Amazon)	$470 USD (Amazon)
Type	Quad driver hybrid IEM	Quad driver hybrid IEM
Driver - Dynamic	2 x 10mm titanium DD	1 x 13mm titanium DD
Driver - BA	1 x Knowles dual BA (2 BA)	3 x Knowles BA
Freq Range	10Hz – 40 kHz	5Hz – 40 kHz
Impedance	10Ω	13Ω
Sensitivity	106 ±2dB	110 ±2dB
Cable	1.2m, replaceable (MMCX)	1.2m, replaceable (MMCX) x 2 (1 is balanced 2.5mm)
Jack	3.5mm gold plated, 90 deg	3.5mm gold plated, 90 deg (SE) 2.5mm gold plated, 90 deg (Bal)
Weight	24g	31g
Casing material	316L Stainless Steel	316L Stainless Steel

FREQUENCY GRAPH

The graphs below 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.

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. Although I do not have an Andromeda to compare directly, I did measure one when I had the tour model for review. I've also included this below as the two have some similarities.


DK-3001 frequency and channel matching	DK-3001 vs CA Andromeda

My sonic impressions of the DK-3001 – written well before I measured:

Has good balance and extension at both ends of the spectrum
Bass performs well (sub and mid-bass), reaches low but is not over-emphasised
Mid-range is not overly recessed, more of a very mild V – well matched to bass amplitude
Upper mid-range is emphasised, and I guess you would say that this is a colouration, but one I like very much. Female vocals have a wonderful sense of euphony
Lower treble extension is excellent – great clarity without any hint of etching os sibilance
Overall an extremely well balanced earphone with an upper mid-emphasis
Channel matching is excellent

The first time I heard the DK-3001, the first earphone I thought of was the Andromeda – albeit the Andro is cleaner and a little more balanced. The extension on both and balance through lower treble is where they are similar

BUILD

The DUNU DK-3001, like the entire range of DUNU products I’ve reviewed previously, is incredibly well built and finished. The outer shell is black and utilises 316 stainless steel which DUNU says reduces harmonic resonances. This time the body is more akin to their Titan series shaping, and consists of a circular main shell, with angled nozzle, and horizontal cable exit tube.


External face	Front view (side)	Internal face

The main body is round, has a diameter of approx. 15mm, and is approx 11mm in depth at its widest point. There is a slight ridge on the internal side, and this has L or R printed on each ear piece. Above this is the bass port or vent for the dynamic driver. On the external side, there is a gradual narrowing of the outer body which culminates in a smaller 10mm diameter circle which simply shows the DUNU logo. There is also a small port adjacent to the logo.


Internal face (from rear)	Nozzle angle(side)	MMCX connector

The nozzle extends forward at an angle of about 45 deg, has a diameter of just over 5mm, and is mesh covered. It does not have a lip, but there is good length from the body (around 7mm at its shortest point).

The cable is connected to the main housing by a horizontally mounted short metal tube. The connector is MMCX and even after a few months of use, the fit is very good, and still going strong.

The cable has a very satiny smooth PVC outer sheath which exhibits very low micro-phonics (none when worn cable over-ear), and which just doesn’t seem to tangle. The right side cable has a red ring at the base of the male connector, so you always know which side is which (nice!). The top of the cable is a formable ear guide (around 10cm) which is very malleable, and easy to bend to your preferred shape. This is then connected to a softer rubber strain relief.


Connector and mem wire	Y-split and cinch	Jacks (SE and bal)

The Y split is rigid, metal, sturdy and very practical. Dunu’s design choice with the Y split is one I’ve always liked. There is enough weight in it to keep the cable pulling down slightly, but yet it’s not overly heavy or bulky. The top section of it also detaches to become the chin slider. The design is simple, elegant, and works incredibly well. There is ample strain relief at the southern end of the Y split, and the 1.2m cable terminates at a right angled, very well built jack – gold plated, and with excellent strain relief. There are two cables included and both are virtually the same quality – with one being terminated for 2.5mm balanced use.

The usual 'on-cable' cinch (or rubber cable tidy) is still included – the same as used on most of their 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.

I can’t really fault the overall build quality. Once again top notch use of materials by DUNU – but there is a questionable choice of design for the shell – which we'll cover further in the fit/comfort section

FIT / COMFORT / ISOLATION

I'll start with the easy one (isolation), and we can then look at fit and comfort. Isolation is dependent on tip selection, and if you get a good seal, it is actually pretty good (about average for a vented hybrid IMO), but will not ultimately reach the high isolation of sealed BA IEMs. It would still be reasonably good for a busy street, or some forms of public transport though – although wouldn't be my personal choice for long haul flights.

Now we get to fit and comfort – and these thoughts are more subjective. As I said above, the DK-3001 has a circular body, with a very good length of angled nozzle, and for me personally they are extremely easy to fit – but the nozzle is relatively shallow in-ear. They are designed for over-ear use. Anyone used to ergonomic BA designs should have no issues. They are also quite comfortable for everyday use …… to a point. The issue for me is the internal ridge. For listening sessions of a couple of hours, I have no real problems. If it is longer, the ridge slowly starts to become noticeable. Now this may just be me – but my point is that the ridge doesn't need to be there. If you look at the best ergonomic designs, they are smooth, rounded, and have no edges. DUNU are so close to getting this right, and indeed the comfort on the DK-3001 is far better than any of the their previous DN range. But its the small things which can make the difference between very good and great. This is one of those “small things”.


Spinfit and Sony Isolation tips	Ostry tuning and Crystal foam tips	Shure Olives (my pref)	Fit - shallow but seal well

Another little gripe and this isn't a huge one because ultimately large Comply, stretched Shure Olives, and the included Spin-Fit tips all seem to stay put quite well, but the lack of lip on the nozzle means that some tips I like to have options with simply can't be used (e.g. spiral dots). The smooth nozzle means that some tip bores won't hold and this limits my options. In this case, there are no tuning filters – so I really can't see why this is missing. Anyway – it's slightly annoying – but alleviated by the fact that there are fortunately a number of tips that do work. I tried and can get successful seals with Ostry tuning tips (although they sometimes slipped off the nozzle), the included Spinfits and also the Comply tips. Ultimately I ended up going with my pair of “stretched bore” Shure Olives – which always give me best fit, comfort and seal for shallower fitting earphones.

The DK-3001 sit nicely flush with my outer ear, and are comfortable to lie down with. I've slept with them often, and the only issue has been some slight discomfort on waking (that internal ridge).

So where the build is brilliant, unfortunately for me the design is close, but still not 100% right yet. It is a vast improvement over the DN series, and kudos to DUNU for taking a large step in the right direction. This is one issue their engineers should definitely continue to look at in the future.

SOUND QUALITY

The following is what I hear from the DUNU DK-3001. 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 X5iii and also the X3ii + E17K combo, no EQ, and Shure Olive foam tips. I used the FiiO devices simply because paired they give me a very transparent window to the music with low impedance, and more than enough power. With both, their was no DSP engaged.

For the record – on most tracks, the volume level on the E17K (paired with X3ii) was around 15/60 (on low gain) which was giving me an average SPL around 65-75 dB. On the X5iii (again low gain), this equated to 27/120 for the same volume. 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 – has very good extension and even at my low listening levels is clearly audible, but there is no boosted emphasis and it sits extremely well within the overall frequency mix. There is enough rumble to give presence without overshadowing vocals, and I'm detecting no bleed into lower mid-range.
Mid-bass – slightly elevated compared to lower mid-range and sounds extremely natural. This reminds me very much of HD600 type mid-bass – enough to sound tonally natural and give great overall timbre – but stops short of sounding loose an uncontrolled.
Lower mid-range – very slight recession compared to bass (about 8 dB) and quite a bit lower than the upper mid-range peak between 2-3 kHz (about 12-13 dB). Vocals don't appear overly distant though, and this is fantastic – especially when you consider the overall cohesion between lower and upper mid-range for vocals. Male vocal in particular have a reasonable amount of body.
Upper mid-range – elevated compared to lower mid-range, and there is a rise from 1 kHz to the main peak at between 2-3 kHz. The result is a clean and clear vocal range, with extremely good overall cohesion and some real euphony for female vocals to sound sweet and elevated. This is probably the most coloured part of the entire frequency range – but especially for female vocal lovers, it is a colouration I personally adore.
Lower treble has a minor peaks and troughs from 5-10 kHz but no real peakiness. What is there instead is simply excellent extension providing fantastic detail and clarity – but without the etchiness which some other IEMs overdo by trying to hard.
Upper treble – some extension though to about 12-13khz, then rolls off – but does not affect/detract from the overall signature.

Resolution / Detail / Clarity

Fantastic overall clarity, and this was especially so on some recordings (Floyd's Money) where some of the detail can be lost when lower treble does not extend well, or bass bleed over shadows. The DK-3001 simply soars – but without being spot-lit or having one or two parts of the frequency emphasised. This reminded me a lot of the Andromeda.
Cymbal hits have wonderful presence, and they also display excellent decay – the kind that you can hear fade out. The realism is brilliant.
Overall I feel as though I'm hearing everything in the recording – and this is even a lower listening levels.

Sound-stage, Imaging

Directional queues are very good, and presentation of stage is just beyond the periphery of my head space with binaural tracks – so an good sense of width and depth.
Spherically presented sound-stage – no issues with L/R dominance
Magical sense of immersion with the applause section of “Dante's Prayer”. I'm there in the audience, and you an't get much ebtter than that. Not as immersive perhaps as the U6 – but its up there. “Let it Rain” was next up and it was brilliant (very 3D like experience - the way the track was miked). There was a hint of sibilance with Amanda's vocal – but again, its the way it is recorded – so not unexpected. What was great is that the sibilance was actually quite subdued, but the detail still shone through clearly.

Strengths

Extension at both ends while still retaining overall balance
Detailed but still smooth - a trait that few manufacturers get right
Still detailed at low listening levels

Weaknesses

If you're overly sensitive to peaks in the 2-3 kHz area, you may find it a bit too coloured – but to be honest I regard it more as a strength than a weakness.

AMPLIFICATION REQUIREMENTS

The DK-3001 doesn’t need amplification for overall volume – but because of its relatively low impedance, if you have a source with an output impedance of anything over 1 ohm, you may want to consider an amp to correct the output impedance mismatch (and possible hiss usual with a highly sensitive IEM). All of my sources are pretty low OI and I had no issues with tonality changes. I don't tend to notice hiss (older ears) – so no real issues for me with the DK-3001.


A variety of amps but no real gains	Sounded great with the X5iii or an iPhone!

With my iPhone 5S around 20-25% volume is more than enough with most tracks, and the FiiOs are generally at around 25-30/120. As I said, I have tried the DK-3001 with the E17K, but also with my A5, E11K, and IMS Hybrid Valve but none of them seemed to be adding anything to my listening set-up other than some extra bulk.

RESPONSE TO EQ?

While the DK-3001 responds well to EQ (I simply tried raising and lowering both bass and treble with the E17K), I can't honestly see why anyone would want to EQ these. They are as close to perfect for my tastes as I have heard.

BALANCED VS SINGLE ENDED

Having the balanced cable option is nice, but I noticed no real change with the likes of the X7 + AM3 module once I had properly volume matched (using the Fidue A91 cable adaptor for fast switching). Personally I wouldn't be able to tell the two apart in a blind test. For those with DAPs where the balanced sounds better (different circuitry), its nice to have the option though.

COMPARISON WITH OTHER IEMS

These comparisons were all done with the X5iii, (no EQ or DSP) – and volume matched using a calibrated SPL meter and fixed 1kHz test tone first. It was a hard one to decide as I don't have access to a lot of IEMs around the $500 mark. So I ended up comparing with my own personal favourite (Alclair Curve $250), DUNU's own DN-2000J and 2002 (both hybrids), and my 64Audio U6 with Adel B1 module. Hopefully this gives enough insight to anyone interested in this IEM. Here are my very subjective personal thoughts:

DK-3001 (USD 470) vs Alclair Curve (USD 250)


DK-3001 and Alclair Curve	Frequency comparisons

Starting as usual with build quality – it's very good on both earphones, but the DK-3001 goes ahead on materials used, and edges further ahead with the accessory package, extra cable and tips selection. For comfort – the Curve hits back. Its easily one of the most comfortable and ergonomic earphones I own – and I'd put it up any day against any IEM for overall comfort. Curve is also better with isolation.

Overall sound quality is pretty close. The bass and lower mid-range is similar on both, with the DK-3001 sounding a little slower but also a little deeper and has more impact. The Curve has a little better overall balance, and still remains one of the closest I've heard to the Andromeda on a budget. But the DK-3001 actually sounds a little more natural to me for male vocals (especially Pearl Jam). In contrast you do notice the colouration with female vocals – although this isn't a bad thing. Treble extension is fantastic on both, and I'd be hard put to list a preference. Overall this comparison is a tough one – because the Curve at $250 is still one of the best bargains on the market today (IMHO). The DK-3001 is simply slightly tonally different – but still with excellent SQ. What clinches it for me though is the price and comfort of the Curve.

DK-3001 (USD 470) vs DN-2000J (USD 305)


DK-3001 and DN-2000J	Frequency comparisons

The 2000J has similar overall build quality and accessories – but the clincher is the option to go balanced and the fact that the DK-3001 has removable cables. For comfort – they are similar to me – and I wouldn't say one is a clear winner over the other. Both are relatively comfortable for short to medium term listening, and for me personally, become slightly irritating for longer sessions (oh for an ergonomic shape ……).

Sonically there are a lot of similarities. The DK-3001 is slightly warmer, with a little more sub-bass extension, and the DN-2000J has a slightly less forward upper mid-range, but more lower treble emphasis (brighter and leaner). Both are extremely good with female vocals. The DK-3001 is the more natural sounding of the two earphones. As much as I love the 2000J's brighter tonality – in this case despite the price difference the DK-3001 is clearly the superior sounding earphone, and I'd be willing to outlay the higher price for the difference in SQ.

DK-3001 (USD 470) vs DN-2002 (USD 340)


DK-3001 and DN-2002	Frequency comparisons

Build quality overall is again of a similar standard, but the difference with the DK-3001 is with the slightly more ergonomic form factor and better rounding of edges. With the 2002, I always know I'm wearing it. Accessories are similarly good with both. Both have removable cables, but the 3001 comes with the balanced option and also fits other standard cables.

Sonically there are a little more differences this time, with the 2002 being a little flatter overall, and losing out just a bit on sub-bass extension. The DK-3001's more forward vocals are the first thing you notice in comparison, and this is then accompanied by the excellent lower treble extension. Tonally I've always thought the 2002 was a pretty natural sounding IEM – but I much prefer the DK-3001's overall presentation. Like the DN-2000J presentation, the DK-3001 simply offers better overall signature for my tastes, and combined with the comfort factor, for me represents the better overall value (despite the higher price).

DK-3001 (USD 470) vs 64Audio U6 + ADEL B1/G1 (USD 600 – KS price)


DK-3001 and 64Audio U6	Frequency comparisons

People may be rolling their eyes with this one, as really they are quite different in driver configuration, price point (U6 is normally $900), and overall technology. But to me the comparison is apt – as the KS price I paid puts the two in similar brackets.

Build quality (materials) is firmly in the DK-3001's favour. Its going to last for quite some time, and DUNU has a reliable reputation for overall build longevity. Accessories remain with the DK-3001 – but I would still rather have the U6's ADEL modules and ability to tune. Fit is firmly in favour of the U6 – the ergonomic build is simply miles ahead on overall comfort.

Both have similar overall bass quantity and quality, and even lower mid-range. The difference is of course in the upper mid-range, where the DK-3001 is more mid-forward (more coloured), and the U6 with B1 is more balanced overall. Both have fantastic treble extension. The U6 is definitely the more open sounding of the two, and also has superior overall isolation.

But the funny thing is that comparing the DK-3001 to the U6 with B1, and I actually prefer the tonality of the DUNU overall. If I swap out the G1 module (with accompanying bump in lower mids) then the playing field is much closer. But it is still the DK-3001 with the better tonality overall for my preferences. If I could keep the DUNU's sound, add an ADEL module, and put it in an ergonomic shell – I'd be in seventh heaven. The DK-3001 can definitely compare with higher tier IEMs IMO.

DUNU DK-3001 – SUMMARY

So here we are at the summary, and before I get to where the rubber meets the road, I'd like to take the opportunity once again to thank Vivian and here team for the chance to put the DK-3001 through its paces.

I'll put it simply – in my experience this is the best IEM DUNU has released to date (obviously I have not heard the 4001 yet). In terms of build quality and accessories you get what we have have come to expect from DUNU – excellent materials, very good innovation, and generosity in terms of overall accessories.

The 3001 is also ergonomically superior to previous offerings, and I find it particularly pleasing they are starting to focus on this area. They aren't quite “there” with this yet – but they are on the right track. A little less “angles”, a little more internal smoothness, and they really will have a winner in terms of fit.

But the amazing thing with the DK-3001 is their achievements sonically. The DK-3001 isn't just good – its the sort of earphone you start comparing to all time greats like the Andromeda. Probably the greatest complement I could give it is that it sounds almost like an HD600 – it just has that sort of tonality. The mid-range peaks a little earlier, and this definitely means it is more mid-forward, but it has the naturalness of tone and timbre that simply ticks all of my boxes.

The RRP looks to be around the USD 470-500 mark and at this price the DK-3001 is not a cheap IEM. Despite the price point, I would still recommend them wholeheartedly – they just sound too good not to. For my part, I'd still love to see them get the ergonomics 100% right – but they are already an improvement over DUNU's other models, and for this I thank them. Fix this and they are easily (for me anyway) a 5/5 proposition. So for me a 4.5/5 or 90% review ranking.

Picture are default 1200 x 800 resolution - click to view larger images.

INTRODUCTION

This one came out of the blue. A company I'd never heard of, and an IEM I didn't know existed. The inquiry was from Baptiste Sanchez (their CEO) after a recommendation from Nic Flinkenflogel – and naturally I was intrigued.

The ODS-1 is a hybrid IEM in 3 different subtle options – the Classic, Legacy and Eclipse. All run at $360 on aëdle's website. I think what hooked me is the style/flair/elegance. I should elaborate a little. I'm a huge Rugby Union fan. Our national team (the All Blacks) is regarded as being the best in the World (not bad for a nation of a little over 4m people). The All Blacks is also regarded as being one of the greatest international sports teams of all times. For a number of years – we had one “Achilles heel” team on the international stage – France. They could be very ordinary against weaker opposition, but in the big matches (against the All Blacks), they would rise to the occasion. And while the red blooded Kiwi rugby fan was left battered wondering how they could play like they did, the one true rugby fan simply marvelled at their pace, their flair, their panache.

When you talk about the French generally, you can't help talking about their passion and style. So take a journey with me, and we'll see how the ODS-1 fares.

ABOUT AËDLE
aëdle was founded in 2011 by Baptiste Sancho. The company was originally conceived by Baptiste and his first partner Raphaël at KEIO Japan. The dream was to combine a minimalist but refined design with outstanding audio performance. This resulted in their first headphone (the VK-1), and the same main parameters are continued with their inner ear monitors – the ODS-1 series.

The combination and use of “noble” materials is at the heart of aëdle’s creative process. They believe that the key to create unique pieces that transcend time lies in the mastery of details. This includes the use of real leather and highly machined metals. Refined and elegant – the two words that come to mind the first time I handled the product. Flair indeed!

DISCLAIMER
The ODS-1 IEM was provided to me free of charge or obligation as a review sample. I thank Baptiste and aëdle for the opportunity to review this earphone. I am not otherwise affiliated with aëdle in any way, nor do I make any financial gain from my contributions, and this is my honest opinion of the aëdle ODS-1.

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

I'm a 50 year old music lover. I don't say audiophile – I just love my music. Over the last couple of years, I have slowly changed from cheaper listening set-ups to my current set-up. I vary my listening from portables (mostly now from the FiiO X5iii, X3ii, and iPhone SE) to my desk-top's set-up (PC > USB > iFi iDSD). My main full sized headphones at the time of writing are the Sennheiser HD800S, Sennheiser HD600 & HD630VB, and AKG K553. Most of my portable listening is done with IEMs, and lately it has mainly been with the Jays q-Jays, Alclair Curve2 and Adel U6 (although I am spending more and more time with a pair of FiiL Diva lately). A full list of the gear I have owned (past and present is listed in my Head-Fi profile).

I have very eclectic music tastes listening to a variety from classical/opera and jazz, to grunge and general rock. I listen to a lot of blues, jazz, folk music, classic rock, indie and alternative rock. I am particularly fond of female vocals. I generally tend toward cans that are relatively neutral/balanced, but I do have a fondness for clarity, and suspect I might have slight ‘treble-head’ preferences. I am not treble sensitive (at all), and in the past have really enjoyed headphones like the K701, SR325i, and of course the T1 and DT880. I have a specific sensitivity to the 2-3 kHz frequency area (most humans do) but my sensitivity is particularly strong, and I tend to like a relatively flat mid-range with slight elevation in the upper-mids around this area.

I have extensively tested myself (ABX) and I find aac256 or higher to be completely transparent. I do use exclusively red-book 16/44.1 if space is not an issue. All of my music is legally purchased (mostly CD – the rest FLAC purchased on-line). I tend to be sceptical about audiophile ‘claims’, don’t generally believe in burn-in, have never heard a difference with different cables, and would rather test myself blind on perceived differences. I am not a ‘golden eared listener’. I suffer from mild tinnitus, and at 49, my hearing is less than perfect (it only extends to around 14 kHz nowadays). My usual listening level is around 65-75 dB.

For this review – I've used the aëdle ODS-1 out of most sources I have around me – from the higher end X5iii and X7 to the more budget X1ii. I haven't used extra amping – as during my testing (we'll cover that later), I didn't find they needed or even benefited from additional amping. In the time I have spent with the ODS-1, I have noticed no change to the overall sonic presentation (burn-in), but am aware that I am becoming more used to the signature as I use them more often (brain 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


Front of the retail box	Rear of the retail box	Inside flap and window	Inner box

The packaging for the ODS-1 has to be seen to be believed. The box measures approx 250 x 100 x 100 mm, and my first thought was that it looked like a display box for a ½ bottle of champagne. The colour is sort of a creamy off-white, and the text is a very dark brown. The front face is very simple – just a name and short description, along with the aëdle logo. The front face also opens (book-like_ to review the ODS-1 behind a clear plastic screen, and the inside flap giving further information on the configuration. The rear of the box has a list of the accessories, and a little more description of some of the tech included in the design.


Bottom tray	All the accessories	Tip selection and airline adaptor

The box top and bottom can be removed to real an inner black lidless box. This has several layers of soft foam, and houses the ODS-1, and the accessories – which include:

The ODS-1 earphones
Detachable MMCX cable with microphone and remote
Foam tips (S/M/L)
Silicone tips (S/M/L)
Airline adaptor
Travel pouch
aëdle registration card (with serial number), metal business/contact card, and small manual booklet.

The booklet is brilliant, multilingual (English, French, German and Chinese) and has all the information you could possibly need, including specifications and instructions.


The padded carry pouch	The interior of the pouch	The ODS-1

The pouch is soft padded cloth with a generous real nappa/soft leather top (which has magnets sown in to help close it). The pouch is well padded and will provide some protection, but it is more for storage and ease of carrying rather than full protection. Its ideal for trousers (if a little large – approx 110 x 100mm), and even better for a jacket pocket. Personally I really appreciate the design – its very different to what I would normally use, but it is both functional and looks fantastic.

So overall – reasonable accessories, well presented, and definitely some design flair and panache at first look (IMHO anyway).

TECHNICAL SPECIFICATIONS
(From aëdle)

	aëdle ODS-1
Cost	Approx USD 360.00
Type	Hybrid inner ear monitor (1 x DD, 1 x BA)
Driver Types	Dynamic 10mm, and single Balanced Armature
Frequency Range	20Hz – 20 kHz
Impedance	32 ohms
Sensitivity	109 dB / 1mW
Jack	3.5mm gold plated – straight – 4-pole
Cable	1.25m fixed OFC with on-cable controls
Weight	24g
IEM shell	Machined aluminium with two tone coating finish

FREQUENCY GRAPH
The graphs below 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.

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.

What I’m hearing from the aëdle ODS-1:

Elevated mid-bass with a hump about 8-10 dB above what I would subjectively call “natural”, and very good extension (slight roll-off into sub-bass).
Sub-bass is extremely robust with a lot of rumble with tracks where sub-bass is emphasised.
Typically V shaped recession in mid-range because of the sub & mid-bass emphasis and elevation in upper mid-range.
Upper mid-range has a rise in the presence area (1-2 kHz) and gives a clear vocal presence. It is around 8 dB above the fundamental range at 1 kHz.
Lower treble extension is impressive with good resolution (somewhat marred by the bass bleed into other frequencies)
Channel matching is excellent and among the best I have measured.
Overall it is a slightly V shaped monitor with emphasised bass giving it a warm and dark tonality, but a very impressive mid-range

BUILD QUALITY / DESIGN

External
The aëdle ODS-1 outer body is a two piece aluminium, with the external side having a polished silver coating, and the internal having a polished black coating. The outer shell is perfectly round with just under 20mm diameter at its widest point, and the main body being approx 8-9mm in thickness.


Internal face is black - filters coloured red and blue	Very short nozzles with no lip

At the top of the IEM is a recessed MMCX connector, and when I first got the aëdle ODS-1 I didn't actually realise the cables were detachable until about a week later! The aëdle cable is a perfect fit, but most of the other alternate cables I tried were unable to fit – mainly because of the width of the socket recession. I was however able to fit a DUNU “trial” cable from the 2002's – so I understand the socket should be standard.

The nozzle extends forward and slightly upward, but is only around 4.5mm in length, lipless, and because of the design, makes the fit extremely shallow (more on that later). The nozzle is a shade over 4mm in diameter and does have a wax filter in place.


Polished silver coating on the outside	Recessed sockets - very smooth outer body

There are no other marking (including L/R designation) anywhere on the ODS-1 body, and I could not find a ventilation relief for the dynamic driver (there is some slight driver flex on insertion if you are able to get a good seal). The nozzles do have red (right) and blue (left) colouration on the wax filters - so this is an easy way to recognise which is which.

The cable
The cable is detachable. The male MMCX connector sits on an aluminium sheath which perfectly matches the silver shell of the ODS-1. This in turn is permanently connected to a formed earpiece finished in stitched Italian leather, and then connected to another aluminium sheath – this time with L / R designators. There is good rubber strain relief at the cable.


MMCX connector	Leather earhooks and strain relief	Seamless connection!

The cable is approx 1.25m from the exit of the ear guides to the join with the jack. It is OFC copper and encased in a a polyurethane outer coating which is both very smooth and quite supple. The cable is an attractive brownish gold colour with a faint herring bone pattern. The y-split sits around 38 cm below the ear-guides which puts it just below my sternum when worn. There is good relief at both ends of the y-split and also at the 3.5mm straight 4 pole gold plated jack. Both y-split and jack casing are the same aluminium with polished silver casing as the ODS-1 body. There is no cable cinch – but none is required as the ear-guides help the cable sit naturally anyway.


The jack	On cable controls	One cable which did fit - aftermarket from DUNU

In-line microphone / controls
The cable has an in-line microphone and control unit extending from the right ear-piece approx 110mm from the formed ear-guides. This unit hangs just under my jaw when worn over ear (so ideal height for the mic for me). The three button control unit has a central button for track controls (allowing play/pause (one push), next track (two pushes), and previous track (three pushes). The other two buttons are volume control buttons. All controls work brilliantly with my iPhone SE, AND with my wife's Android Galaxy (S3 – she's an old fashioned girl), and also my FiiO X5iii (brilliant!). The microphone has excellent quality – and I had no issues with phone calls or activating Siri when using my iPhone.

Internals
The ODS-1 is a hybrid design with a full range 10mm dynamic driver accompanied by a single balanced armature. The dynamic driver has a titanium diaphragm and neodymium magnet. There is no cross-over, and according to the documentation the configuration is designed for the DD to handle the lower registers (sub-bass, mid-bass and lower mids), while progressively yielding to the BA (positioned forward) for upper mid-range and treble. However they are achieving this, I can attest to the fact that the mid-range and extension are both pretty good with this earphone. I've included an exploded diagram of the internal below – courtesy of aëdle

FIT / COMFORT / ISOLATION
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. I initially tried both the included large silicone tips and large foam tips, and I was unable to maintain a constant seal (a combination of my difficult ears and the extremely shallow fit). I then switched to my after-market tips.


Triple flange + default Crystal	Ostry and Spin-fit	Trinity Kombi and Shure Olive

One of the flaws with the ODS-1 design (IMO) is the very short nozzle, and lack of nozzle lip. When combined with the relatively large size, the fit is always going to be very shallow – meaning that you may need to go a size larger than you normally would to achieve a decent seal. I tried a lot of tips in my search for the ideal fit – and this included:

Spiral dots – slipped off the nozzle
Ostry tuning tips – slipped off the nozzle
Spin-Fits – fit the nozzle but couldn't get seal
Sony Isolation / Trinity Kombi tips – fit the nozzle but couldn't get seal
Crystal foam tips – would not stay on nozzle – I did not have the narrower stem size
Comply tips – didn't have any on me that would fit
No-name triple flanges – fit but uncomfortable

Eventually I used a pair of large Shure Olives. I had to stretch a bit to get them on the nozzle – but finally success with perfect fit and seal. So just slight word of caution – you may need to play with tips to get an ideal fit. A note for aëdle though – I would suggest your next design include a longer nozzle and even a shallow lip – simply to make the IEM more compatible with a wider range of tip choices.


External side	From the side	Internal side

aëdle designed the ODS-1 to be worn cable over ear, and the comfort was extremely good with the Shure Olives. There were no hard edges and the IEM sits well within my outer ear and are extremely easy to sleep in. The ear guides are quite comfortable for me – even when wearing glasses, but it may be something that is personal. Early on with my testing, the guides could become slightly uncomfortable – but this was only my ears getting used to them. I was able to use an alternative DUNU cable, and this was also a pretty good alternative if the ear-guides became uncomfortable.

Isolation with the ODS-1 is about average for me and do a reasonably good job of passive isolation. However I wouldn't be using these for long haul air transport. A lot will depend on the level of seal you get. I found them pretty good for travelling in a car.

SOUND QUALITY
The following is what I hear from the aëdle ODS-1. 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 X5iii as source, and my Shure Olive tips. The reason I chose to go with the X5iii was simply because it has become my default player and although it has a smooth sound signature, it is essentially neutral (nothing emphasised).


Most testing was with X5iii	X7 with various amp modules	Most day to day use with iPhone SE

For the record – on most tracks, the volume level on the X5iii was around 23-25 on low gain which was giving me an average SPL around 65-70 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 – has good extension but is emphasised and sits around 14 dB above the 1 kHz mid-range fundamental. The peak is about 50Hz but there is only around 4dB drop off down to 20 Hz, so the ODS-1 has extremely good lower range. There is a lot of rumble with sub-bass emphasised tracks – too much for me, and when playing Lorde's “Royals” it simply overwhelmed the track for me. Relative to the rest of the freq range, sub-bass is elevated slightly above mid-bass and a lot above lower mid-range, and has even above the the upper mid-range and lower treble peaks. Unfortunately for me this means a lot of bleed into the mid-range, and an overall unbalanced signature.
Mid-bass – still elevated but is slightly recessed against sub-bass, and quite elevated compared to lower mid-range. If all of the mid and sub-bass was dropped by about 10 dB you would end up with a quiet nicely balanced and natural sounding monitor. Unfortunately as it is, there is some bleed into the mids – which is a real pity, as the mid-range on the ODS-1 is quite phenomenal.
Lower mid-range – recessed compared to bass and upper mid-range. Vocals don't appear overly distant though, and this is fantastic – especially when you consider the overall cohesion between lower and upper mid-range for vocals. Male vocal in particular have a lot of body – its just a pity that with the elevated bass, there is simply too much warmth in the overall signature.
Upper mid-range – elevated compared to lower mid-range, and there is a slight rise from lower mid-range to the first peak at about 1.5 kHz. The result is a clean and clear vocal range, with extremely good overall balance and enough euphony for female vocals to sound sweet and elevated.
Lower treble has a peak at 9 kHz which is about even with the lower mid-range peak. This gives a very good sense of overall clarity, and is very good for cymbal decay and overall presence.
Upper treble – reasonably good extension though to about 12-13khz, then rolls off – but does not affect/detract from the overall signature.

Resolution / Detail / Clarity

Actually has good clarity when listening to non-bassy tracks. A lot of micro detail present, but does not become harsh or grating. Actually a very smooth but detailed listen. As soon as you get to a track with some bass though, the resolution disappears somewhat in the abundant bass warmth.
Cymbal hits have subdued presence (unless the bass is dialed back), and although they can display good decay, a lot is lost in the overall warmth.
A monitor capable of good resolution however this is largely hidden because of the overall warmth of the lower end.

Sound-stage, Imaging

Directional queues are reasonably good, and presentation of stage is just at the periphery of my head space with binaural tracks – so an average to good sense of width and depth.
Spherically presented sound-stage – no issues with L/R dominance
Average sense of immersion with the applause section of “Dante's Prayer” (mainly because of the bass warmth). When I later replayed this with bass EQ'd down, the immersion was much improved. “Let it Rain” was next up and this time an absolute winner because the track can be a little bright and lend toward sibilance at times. There was a fantastic sense of 3 dimensional sound (the way the track was miked).

Strengths

The entire frequency range from about 500 Hz through to 20 kHz is the real strength with the ODS-1, and if you dial the bass back, the mid-range is among the best I've heard.
Detailed but smooth - a trait that not many manufacturers get right

Weaknesses

The bass quantity. The actual frequency curve (shape) is fine, there is just way too much bass. The pity is that with a drop of around 10 dB, the ODS-1 becomes a real shining star. An opportunity lost.

AMPLIFICATION REQUIREMENTS
The ODS-1 with its relatively benign impedance (32 ohms) and higher sensitivity (109 dB/ mW SPL) is pretty easy to run straight out of your average source. With the FiiO X5iii I tended to stay around 25/120 depending on the track recording quality. With my iPhone SE – this translated to 25-30% volume.

I tried the ODS-1 with the E17K, and there was no increase in dynamic presentation or elevation of detail to my older and somewhat insensitive ears. Even using different DAPs with varying levels of power (X7 with various amp modules) didn’t really make any noticeable difference. So I think I’m pretty safe in saying that the ODS-1 doesn’t need, nor benefits from, any additional amplification.

EQUALISATION
Glad you asked! For this, I simply used the E17K with the X5iii, and engaged the bass reduction tone control. Its a quick and dirty way of applying EQ, but all I wanted to do was cut the bass back – and apply a -6 or -8 cut immediately allowed the mid-range to soar, and brought back balance. If this was the default signature, I'd be seriously over the moon with this IEM. I went back to Lorde's Royals again, and the rumble was still there – but in balance. And oh – female vocals – absolutely amazing. This is the sort of IEM I could listen to for hours. Captivating, balanced, detailed yet smooth.

Anyway – if you have the ODS-1, and are finding the bass a little (or a lot) over the top, give it an even cut by 6-8 dB from 20-150 Hz and then taper it down from there. The results are quite simply stunning.

COMPARISONS
Boy – tough one. Mainly because I already know the outcome, and I feel comparing the ODS-1 with others in its price range is a little tough with its current default tuning. But its only fair that I compare apples with apples – so here goes. I mainly stuck to the price point with the following comparisons.

As always, I first volume matched with a 1 kHz test tone and SPL meter. I had a fast switch set-up in place with a splitter and volume attenuator for the volume matching. This section is very subjective, as it is sighted, the change between IEMs took about 5 seconds, and I knew exactly which one I was listening to. But it is my honest thoughts on where the ODS-1 sits for my own personal tastes. Source used was first the X5iii solo, and then afterwards the EQ'd ODS-1 with bass reduction via the E17K.

aëdle ODS-1 ($360) vs Earsonics ES2 ($299)


ODS-1 and ES2	Frequency comparison

The ODS-1 has the superior build materials, but both are well built. The ODS-1 has the on-cable controls. The ES2 has the ability to easily swap cable to accommodate one. Accessories provided are similar – with the ODS-1 carry pouch being a little more luxurious.

Both have quite short nozzles, and necessitate a relatively shallow fit. Both have very good overall comfort.

Sonically both are have very similar transition from lower to upper mid-range, and although the ES2 has an earlier lower treble peak, the tuning from 1kHz up is more similar than different. The ODS-1 has more body in its lower mid-range. The major difference, as you can clearly see, is the bass quantity – which on the ES2 is quite balanced with the overall signature, but with the ODS-1 is excessive, and tends to dominate. The ES2 is quite a natural monitor – smooth and with a hint of warmth. The ODS-1 in comparison is overly warm and thumpy – and it is very apparent when comparing how much the bass is obscuring the beautiful mid-range.

When you take into account the price – there really is no comparison here. For my preferences the ES2 is simply superior sonically. However – using the E17K and dropping the bass back 6-8 dB, and suddenly the playing field is much more even

aëdle ODS-1 ($360) vs Oriveti Primacy ($299)


ODS-1 and Primacy	Frequency comparison

Both have very good build – but the materials used on the ODS-1 again are slightly superior. The ODS-1 again has the advantage of the on-cable controls, but the Primacy has the benefit of more standard connectors, and also has the better overall accessory package.

Again, short nozzles on both, and the fit is shallow but very comfortable – very little in this so far.

Sonically again it is somewhat chalk and cheese. The Primacy has a very slight mid-bass hump, and excellent extension throughout its frequency curve. It is well balanced, delivers extremely good levels of detail, but does have quite a big peak at 7kHz which may be troublesome to some people. Again the ODS-1 has more body throughout the lower mid-range, but it is very thick and overly warm when compared directly.

At the price points, I would prefer the Primacy's default signature – BUT, after EQ applied, I actually would lean slightly toward the adjusted sonics of the ODS-1. The extra body, and slightly more bass after EQ balances the default signature is perfect – where the Primacy is ever so slightly on the dry side.

aëdle ODS-1 ($360) vs FLC8S ($355)


ODS-1 and FLC8S	Frequency comparison

Build quality and materials is superior on the ODS-1 (and this includes the cable controls, and quality). The FLC8S of course has the tunability and more accessories.

Again both earphones provide very good comfort and a slightly shallow fit – although the FLC8S definitely has more nozzle length and far better tip rolling options.

Sonically the FLC8S is a chameleon – you can choose your signature, but I wanted to show in the graph something with a similar mid-rang, and the bassiest option the FLC8S filters allow. That means the red sub-bass filter, no mid-bass filter, and I used the gold mid/high frequency filter. As you can see, this results in a very much sub-bass oriented signature with the bass quite elevated compared to mid-range. Its not a filter combination I would personally gravitate towards, although I can see the appeal for some. It results in a clean clear overall signature but with a warm and impactful bottom end. The difference with the ODS-1 default signature is once again there is simply too much bass on the ODS-1 (in my humble opinion), and it ends up choking the beautiful mid-range.

Once again – I would take the FLC8S over the ODS-1 if I was relying on default signature. Where it changes is again if you EQ the bass down to a more balanced level. Doing so actually results in better overall coherency and a more natural tonality than I can achieve with the FLC8S tuning options. Again for me – if the ODS-1 was tuned differently, it would be a winner. The nice thing is that you can change it if you have the right tools (EQ or amp with tone controls).

aëdle ODS-1 ($360) vs Alclair Curve ($249)


ODS-1 and Curve	Frequency comparison

This one is here simply because the Curve is one of my favourite IEMs at any price. Its dual driver, and although its dual BA vs hybrid, I still consider the comparison valid. The Curve is around 2/3 of the ODS-1 price.

Build materials go to the ODS-1, and the accessory package is pretty even. Fit and comfort go to the Curve. Its ergonomic design is like what I imagine a custom would be like. Both have relatively shallow overall fit, but the ergonomics on the Curve also gives superior isolation. Again it is the standard cable config vs the more limited option with the ODS-1, but the benefit of on-cable controls.

The mid-range on these two are very closely matched – the Curve just has less bass, and slightly different lower treble emphasis. Where the Curve has superb balance, the ODS-1 has the bleed. And this is one of the few times with the ODS-1 after EQ is applied, that I could choose either – but ultimately would stick with the Curve (for my personal preference).

AËDLE ODS-1 - SUMMARY

I've enjoyed my time with the ODS-1, and if anything its shown me how good the unrealised potential of an IEM can be – even when the execution may be a little shy of the mark.

The ODS-1 has an extremely good build, with quality materials, and a simply yet functional design. For future iterations, aëdle probably needs to think about lengthening the nozzle to give more potential variability with fit and tip use, because in its current form, it is a very shallow fit, and limited with tip choices. Despite this though, I've had no issues with comfort, and the style is (to me anyway) unmistakably French simplicity, style and flair.

The on-cable controls are very good, functional for both Android and iOS, and I applaud them for this. They are great for use on the go. As far as the cable connection goes, if it was possible to allow the connection of other standard cables, or even release a balanced cable themselves, this may add to the perception of overall value.

Sonically the ODS-1 has a wonderful mid-range, and good extension in the lower treble. The personal issue I have is with the volume of sub and mid-bass, which unfortunately intrudes into the mid-range, and obscures some of the wonderful clarity and detail which the ODS-1 possesses. Applying some EQ (bass reduction) results in a far more balanced signature, and if this EQ'd signature was the default, I'd definitely be interested. For those who like a warmer, bassier signature, the ODS-1's default signature still has a fantastic mid-range, and could be right for your preferences.

I guess the issue I have overall with the ODS-1 is when you look at the current price ($360) and compare it to some others in a similar price bracket. The issues with the shallow fit and nozzle length, as well as the overly warm signature, mean that the ODS-1 may struggle as a value proposition against other IEMs.

Still a 3 star from me, and I will definitely be watching aëdle's development. If they can come out with a model based on the ODS-1, but with a more linear / balanced signature, I predict we could see something really special.

Once again thanks to aëdle and Baptiste for sending me an evaluation sample.

Leather earhooks....I gotta get me some of that

For larger views of any of the photos (1200 x 800) - please click on the individual images

INTRODUCTION
This is the 2^nd pair of IEMs sent to me for evaluation recently by FiiO. You can find my thoughts on their F1 IEM here, and the F1 did genuinely surprise me with its tonality and overall sonic signature for a very budget price. The F3 comes in at a price slightly more expensive – but still firmly in a budget price bracket (only USD $25).

As I alluded to in my F1 review, it's nice to get an unexpected surprise when reviewing a cheaper headphone or earphone. When Sunny initially approached me about reviewing their F1 and F3 IEMs, my initial reaction was “OK its FiiO but I really don't have time to do an in-depth on another budget offering”. I'm glad I took the chance though because I would have been tempted to say no (my external work-load has been very heavy lately) to another company. But FiiO have supported my reviewing since day 1. I simply don't turn them away. This is again one of those times when the voyage of discovery was well worth it

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 spent a lot of time with the community here, and continued to listen to their potential buyers, adopted our ideas, and grew their product range. That product range now includes some extremely proficient DAPs, DACs, amps, and recently some earphones and IEMs.

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 F3 IEM was provided to me free of charge or obligation as a review sample. I thank FiiO for their generosity. I own and have paid for the E7, E9, E11, E11K, X1, and X5 in the past. I am not otherwise affiliated with FiiO in any way, nor do I make any financial gain from my contributions, and this is my subjective opinion of the FiiO F3 IEM.

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

I'm a 49 year old music lover. I don't say audiophile – I just love my music. Over the last couple of years, I have slowly changed from cheaper listening set-ups to my current set-up. I vary my listening from portables (including the FiiO X5ii, X3ii, X7, LP5, L3, and iPhone SE) to my desk-top's set-up (PC > USB > iFi iDSD). I also use a portable set-up at work – usually either X3ii/X7/L3 > HP, or PC > E17K > HP. My main full sized headphones at the time of writing are the Sennheiser HD800S, Sennheiser HD600 & HD630VB, and AKG K553. Most of my portable listening is done with IEMs, and lately it has mainly been with the Jays q-Jays, Alclair Curve2 and Adel U6 (although I am spending more and more time with a pair of FiiL Diva lately). A full list of the gear I have owned (past and present is listed in my Head-Fi profile).

I have very eclectic music tastes listening to a variety from classical/opera and jazz, to grunge and general rock. I listen to a lot of blues, jazz, folk music, classic rock, indie and alternative rock. I am particularly fond of female vocals. I generally tend toward cans that are relatively neutral/balanced, but I do have a fondness for clarity, and suspect I might have slight ‘treble-head’ preferences. I am not treble sensitive (at all), and in the past have really enjoyed headphones like the K701, SR325i, and of course the T1 and DT880. I have a specific sensitivity to the 2-3 kHz frequency area (most humans do) but my sensitivity is particularly strong, and I tend to like a relatively flat mid-range with slight elevation in the upper-mids around this area.

I have extensively tested myself (ABX) and I find aac256 or higher to be completely transparent. I do use exclusively red-book 16/44.1 if space is not an issue. All of my music is legally purchased (mostly CD – the rest FLAC purchased on-line). I tend to be sceptical about audiophile ‘claims’, don’t generally believe in burn-in, have never heard a difference with different cables, and would rather test myself blind on perceived differences. I am not a ‘golden eared listener’. I suffer from mild tinnitus, and at 49, my hearing is less than perfect (it only extends to around 14 kHz nowadays). My usual listening level is around 65-75 dB.

For this review – I've used the FiiO F3 out of most sources I have around me – from the higher end X5iii and X7 to the more budget X1ii. For the majority of the review though, I've simply used the X1ii and my iPhone SE, as its likely to be the common smart-phone and lower end DAPs which are paired with the F3. I haven't used extra amping – as during my testing (we'll cover that later), I didn't find they needed or even benefited from additional amping. In the time I have spent with the F3, I have noticed no change to the overall sonic presentation (burn-in), but am aware that I am becoming more used to the signature as I use them more often (brain 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


Retail box front	Retail box rear	Retail box profile

The FiiO F3 (like the F1) arrived in a compact white retail box measuring 97 x 168 x 42mm. The box is a simple but elegant white, with a picture of the F3 on the front cover, and specifications and features on the rear.

Opening the box reveals a pull out tab, and this slides out the inner box, protected by a frosted plastic cover. Under this, nestled in a foam cut-out is the FiiO F3. Adjacent to the foam holder is an internal box which reveals a really nice carry case (containing the tip selection and ear guides).


Inner box	Compartment for the case	All accessories

Also included is a warranty document and replaceable outer covers to change the physical appearance of the F3. These come in red, black and blue, and are simply snapped into place. They are very easy to apply, and look pretty good cosmetically.

The carry case is small, zippered, and semi-hard covered. It measures approx 75 x 85 x 35mm and is an ideal size for portable use. The outside shell is quite rigid and has an attractive carbon fibre pattern on top and bottom. Inside is a simply cloth internal covering with a mesh pocket. The quality and protection though is extremely good – I wish I had a dozen of these!


Earguides, covers and tips	The case is a nice fit	and very strudy

The tip selection is simple, but remember we are talking about an IEM I've already seen on line priced between $15-$20. You get 4 pairs of silicone tips, and that’s pretty much it – but at this price point I really wouldn't expect anything else – especially considering the quality of the case. Also included are two generic ear loops.

TECHNICAL SPECIFICATIONS
(From FiiO)

	FiiO F3
Cost	Approx USD 25.00
Type	Single dynamic inner ear monitor
Driver Type	Dynamic 11mm
Frequency Range	15Hz – 20 kHz
Impedance	40 ohms
Sensitivity	98 dB / mW
Jack	3.5mm gold plated – right angled
Cable	1.3m fixed OFC with Polyurethane outer coating
Weight	19.6g
IEM shell	Industrial grade polycarbonate

FREQUENCY GRAPH
The graphs below 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.

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.

What I’m hearing from the FiiO F3:

Reasonably natural sounding mid-bass with a slight hump, and pretty good extension (some natural roll-off into sub-bass). Sub-bass is reasonably robust, but still balanced with the rest of the overall signature (most importantly does not exceed the level of amplitude of the upper mid-range – so not overdone)
Relatively flattish lower mid-range which is slightly recessed relative to bass and upper mid-range.
Upper mid-range has a rise in the presence area (2 kHz) and gives a clear and clean vocal presence. It is around slightly less than 10 dB above the fundamental range at 1 kHz.
(Note – there is channel imbalance in my pair – but I understand the left channel represents the true tuning). Lower treble is present, well balanced, and has a soft peak at 6-7 kHz which really does aid cymbal presence and decay.
Overall it is a slightly V shaped monitor with shallow peaks in the sub-bass and upper mid-range and lower treble areas. There is more emphasis on detail and clarity than the F3.

Apart from the obvious issue with one channel above 5 kHz (which is unfortunately quite noticeable), the rest of the channel matching is exceptional – especially from a $25 monitor! Note that the right channel is slowly dying - so it does appear this sample is defective, but I was able to review before it gives up the ghost

BUILD QUALITY / DESIGN
External


Red cover (left), and no cover (right)	Beautifully shaped inner face	The cable arm and nozzle

The FiiO F3 body appears to be a two piece industrial grade polycarbonate (very hard plastic) design which is squarish in shape with rounded corners. The internal face is nicely smoothed and rounded, and IMO is more comfortable than the cheaper F1. The body is just slightly larger than the F1 at 14-15mm across at it's widest point and a depth of about 15mm. The polycarbonate is slightly translucent and you can see the dynamic driver inside.


Slightly translucent and you can just see the vent	Black cover an no cover	Blue and red covers

If worn cable up, the nozzle extends slightly forward, so I think the F3 is designed more to be cable up (over ear) than cable down. The nozzle is approx 6-7mm in length with a generous lip (great for tips) and approx 5-6mm in diameter. There is a small dynamic driver vent adjacent to the nozzle exit. There is an arm which runs perpendicular to the IEM body – and houses the cable exit. This is capped with a rubber strain relief. There are L/R markings on this arm – but they are very difficult to see. The easiest way to remember left from right is that the control unit sits on the right hand side of the cable.

The cable
The cable is permanently fixed to the FiiO F3. It is OFC with a Polyurethane outer coating. The cable is an attractive black with very thin red highlighting. It is also very smooth, very supple, and exhibits reasonably low microphonics. FiiO chose the coating because it is lightweight, durable, and highly elastic. As soon as I saw the cable – my immediate thought was “Dunu” - more on this in a second.

The cable has an in-line microphone and control unit extending from the right ear-piece approx 125mm from the cable exit. This unit hangs just under my jaw when worn over ear (so ideal height for the mic for me). The three button control unit has a central button for track controls (allowing play/pause (one push), next track (two pushes), and previous track (three pushes). The other two buttons are volume control buttons. Unfortunately they do not work with my iPhone, but they do work perfectly with my wife's Android Galaxy (S3 – she's an old fashioned girl) – and also with FiiO's newer DAPs – the X1ii and X5iii (they surprisingly won't on the X7). The microphone is surprisingly good quality – I had no issues with phone calls or activating Siri when using my iPhone.


Control unit and mic (great with X1ii and X5iii)	The cinch - probably my least liked feature	The Y split

The Y split is located around half way down my chest, and just above this is the small cinch. Its really good for FiiO to include this – but they've gone with one which is permanently fixed on one side, but detachable on the other. It's not a bad design – allowing you to cinch above or below the mic/control unit. But because of the detachable side, it doesn't stay attached – the slightest pull and it releases. The first thing I would do following the end of the review would be to be fix it permanently to the other side of the cable as well. There is no strain relief on the y-split, but given the quality of the cable, the cost of the IEMs and the fact that the y-split is a semi-rigid rubber, I think omitting relief isn't a deal breaker.

The cable terminates at a 4 pole right angled gold plated 3.5mm jack with very good strain relief. The jack casing is relatively smart-phone case friendly (for my case anyway). Just above the jack – and able to be slid up or down the cable is a very familiar rubber cable tie. When not in use it sits unobtrusively close to the plug (I never notice it). When you’ve finished listening to the F2, simply carefully coil the cable and use the tie. Simple, elegant, brilliant.

So lets address the “elephant in the room”. The cable, the jack and especially the cable tie are all extremely familiar to me. Why? Because they are based on Dunu's designs – so I'd suggest they've had a big hand in the overall design of the F3 (which is a good thing).

Internals
The driver is different from the F1 being both larger and utilising a different technology. The F3 uses a graphene driver diaphragm which is just 0.335nm in thickness. They used graphene due to its strength and conductivity. Paired with this is a copper clad aluminium voice coil, and in tandem the two are designed to combine and deliver a “clean, rich, and transparent sound” according to FiiO's documentation.

FIT / COMFORT / ISOLATION
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. I initially tried the included large silicone tips, and I was unable to maintain a constant seal (my difficult ears). I then switched to my after-market tips.


Shure Olives and Ostry tuning tips	Trinity Kombi tips and Spiral Dots	SpinFits and Crystal foams

The FiiO F3 easily fits most standard tip choices including Ostry tuning tips, Spin-fits, Spiral Dots, Comply foams and Sony Isolation / Trinity Kombi tips. I have a specially stretched pair of Shure Olives which tend to fit most earphones I'm reviewing, give me excellent comfort and seal – so I used them for the review.

FiiO designed these to be worn cable up (hence the 45 degree forward angled nozzle), and the comfort was extremely good with the Shure Olives. There were no hard edges this time (definite design improvement over the F1, FiiO). The F3 sits well within my outer ear and are easy to sleep in.

Isolation with the F3 is about average for me and do a reasonably good job of passive isolation. However I wouldn't be using these for long haul transport.

SOUND QUALITY
The following is what I hear from the FiiO F3. 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 X3ii + E17K as source, and my Shure Olive tips. The reason I chose to go with the X3ii & E17K was simply because I know them so well (my go-to combo for reviewing over a few years now).

For the record – on most tracks, the volume level on the E17K was around 20 which was giving me an average SPL around 65-70 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 – generally reasonably well extended, with normal minor roll-off associated with most dynamic drivers. The sub-bass is a little more emphasised than mid-bass and the curve peaks around the 50Hz mark. Relative to the rest of the freq range, sub-bass is elevated above mid-bass and lower mid-range, and has roughly equal SPL as upper mid-range. There is sufficient rumble present to represent lower notes well – but it doesn’t feel overly muddy or too bassy.
Mid-bass – still has a mild hump (necessary to sound natural) but is slightly recessed against sub-bass, and slightly elevated compared to lower mid-range. It is in effect a very gentle mid-bass bump, but also nicely distributed. The result is a very natural sounding bass response – and there is no noticeable bleed into the mid-range. Both mid and sub-bass are elevated compared to lower mid-range.
Lower mid-range – recessed compared to bass and upper mid-range. There is a slight sense of distance with vocals in general, but although they aren't as forward on the F2, they do have more overall balance and cohesion (better for both male and female vocals).
Upper mid-range – elevated compared to lower mid-range, and there is a slight rise from lower mid-range to the first peak at about 2 kHz (then continuation through to around 4 kHz). The result is a clean and clear vocal range, with extremely good overall balance and enough euphony for female vocals to sound sweet and elevated.
Lower treble has a peak at 6-7 kHz which is about 5 dB above the nadir of both bass and lower mid-range. This gives a very good sense of overall clarity, and is excellent for cymbal decay and overall presence.
Upper treble – pretty much rolled off post 10 kHz – but does not affect/detract from the overall signature.

Resolution / Detail / Clarity

Very good with a lot of micro detail present, but does not become harsh or grating.
Cymbal hits have good initial presence, and a great sense of decay. I really wish the review pair didn't have the imbalance at 6-7 kHz, because this was one of the best parts of the overall signature. FiiO did a really good job here.
A clean and clear monitor with good resolution and excellent sense of overall balance.

Sound-stage, Imaging

Directional queues are very good, and presentation of stage is just outside the periphery of my head space with binaural tracks – so very good sense of width and depth (especially considering the price).
Spherically presented sound-stage with above average impression of overall depth
Very good sense of immersion with the applause section of “Dante's Prayer” (somewhat marred by the channel imbalance) – but sounded pretty natural. “Let it Rain” was next up and again that sense of 3 dimensional sound was quite apparent. There were some mild signs of sibilance but nothing to onerous – and I know that this is in the recording rather than a fault of the F3.

Strengths

Good overall bass response and the sub-bass is tastefully done without dominating.
Very good presentation of vocals overall – and equally strong with male or female vocals.
Warmish overall tone, but nicely balanced with the lower treble peak
Excellent balance throughout, and the extension through the lower treble was exactly what the F1 was missing IMO.

Weaknesses

For the price, I'm honestly struggling to find any real deficiencies. The only one I really have is the channel balance issues – and I have to assume this is just my pair.

AMPLIFICATION REQUIREMENTS
The FiiO F3 with its relatively benign impedance (40 ohm) and higher sensitivity is pretty easy to run straight out of your average source. With the FiiO X1ii I tended to stay around 25-30/100 depending on the track recording quality. With my iPhone SE – this translated to 35-40% volume.


Brilliant with the X1ii	Great with the iPhone (sadly no volume control)	Extra amplification not required from the E17K

I tried the F3 with the E17K, and there was no increase in dynamic presentation or elevation of detail to my older and somewhat insensitive ears. Even using DAPs with a lot more power (X7, X5iii) didn’t really make any noticeable difference. So I think I’m pretty safe in saying that the F3 doesn’t need, nor benefits from, any additional amplification.

EQUALISATION
Personally I wouldn't change a lot. I did give it a little -4 nudge on the bass (with the E17K) which did suit my tastes just a little more, but really speaking I can see most people enjoying these with their default signature.

COMPARISONS
Again, like the F1 this is not a price point I've really got a lot of experience with, so please excuse my lack of popular comparative IEMs. I have to work with what I have though, and seeing as I used the same for the F1, I stuck with comparing FiiO's own F1, RockJaw's Arcana 2 and Brainwavz's Jive and XF200.

As always, I first volume matched with a 1 kHz test tone and SPL meter. I had a fast switch set-up in place with a splitter and volume attenuator for the volume matching. This section is very subjective, as it is sighted, the change between IEMs took about 5 seconds, and I knew exactly which one I was listening to. But it is my honest thoughts on where the F3 sits for my own personal tastes. Source used was the E17K / X3ii combo – with no EQ (simply because it is still the source I know best).

FiiO F3 ($25) vs FiiO F1 ($15)


Frequency comparison	FiiO F3 vs FiiO F1

Both have similar builds, fit, and accessories – with the main difference being the changeable face-plates and inclusion of the ear-hooks on the F3. For me the F3 fits a little better because of the slightly smoother internal face and properly oriented nozzle angles (I always wear my IEMs cable over ear).

Sonically both are on the slightly V shaped side of neutral with warmish sounding bass which is more centred toward sun-bass than mid-bass. The F3 has less upper mid-range peak which really helps the balance between male and female vocals. It also has much better treble extension, and consequently better presentation of detail. Both are really good earphones for the price. For my personal preference the F3 is worth the extra outlay.

FiiO F3 ($25) vs Brainwavz Jive ($28)


Frequency comparison	FiiO F3 vs Brainwavz Jive

The Jive wins on overall build materials – but I like the cable on the F3 a lot more. Accessories are about even. Fit is good on both – but this time the F3's better internal face shape makes them slightly more comfortable than the Jive.

Sonically the Jive is very V shaped comparatively – with a lot more sub-bass, and more upper mid-range presence, but also a quite comparatively recessed lower mid-range. Lower treble extension is close on both. If you were looking at the strengths of each, you'd be saying fun and lively vs clear and balanced. Personally I preferred the more balanced approach of the F3.

FiiO F3 ($25) vs Brainwavz XF200 ($25)


Frequency comparison	FiiO F3 vs Brainwavz XF200

The XF200 is technically more of a sports earphone – but they sit close to the same price range (so why not). The build, fit and ergonomics are all subjectively better on the F3. The XF200 can appear slightly blocky (I like the naturally formed ear-loops though). The F3 feels sturdier though, and once again the FiiO (Dunu) cable is an improvement.

Sonically the XF200 is quite similar to the Jive. More of a V shape with extra sub-bass, comparatively recessed mid-range, and more emphasis on the upper mids and lower treble. The F3 is again more balanced with better vocal presence. And again my preference here would be the FiiO.

FiiO F3 ($25) vs RockJaw Arcana V2 ($40)


Frequency comparison	FiiO F3 vs RockJaw Arcana 2

These two have surprisingly similar frequency shapes – but the Arcana (like the Jive and XF200) is simply more emphasised throughout.

Build and fit are pretty good on both, but again the better ergonomics on the F3 deliver more comfort. And once again the FiiO/Dunu cable stands apart. Overall on build, I'd give the nod to the F3. Accessories go to the Rockjaw (tips) but to the F3 for its case.

The Arcana still is a warm and lively earphone, and although I don't usually gravitate to this type of signature, there is something about the mid-range which can still captivate. That sub-bass is still a bit over the top though and I think that is where FiiO got it right with the F3. The bass has enough oomph to satisfy, without over-doing it, and then having to over compensate. Once again the F3 is my preference, and this time the balance overall is a lot better – especially for longer term listening.

FiiO F3 - SUMMARY

Its been a pretty cool journey reviewing FiiO's two new IEMs, and again a pleasant surprise at how good audio quality can get for sub USD 25.00.

The F3 is a really good earphone. Build is primarily plastic, but they are light-weight, and appear to be reasonably sturdy. The cable is the stand-out – good overall quality, and when you pair that with the case, there is more on the positive side of the slate than the negative. Fit is excellent for me, and comfort is extremely good (the correct angle on the nozzle really helps compared with the F1).

Sonically the F3 has good channel matching over most of the spectrum, and it is a real pity that my review sample had the imbalance at 6-7 kHz, as it is both noticeable and did detract from my listening pleasure. The imbalance is slowly getting worse, and I think the right hand driver is probably going to die early. But I know FiiO, and their service is really good. If this was a paid for pair, I'd simply have to return them for an immediate replacement.

As far as the overall signature goes, I think FiiO really nailed this one. My personal preference would be for a little less sub-bass, but that would be an easy tweak with EQ. And I think most people will like the warmish tonality the extra sub-bass brings. The F3 is very well balanced, clean and clear through the vocals, and has fantastic cohesion between lower and upper mid-range. One of its strengths is the bump at 6-7 kHz which delivers clarity and air without overdoing it and becoming brittle or sharp.

When you factor in the low price of $25 and then look at the sonic package they have delivered at this price, FiiO should be justly proud of this earphone. It would easily become an immediate recommendation at this price point. My only wish would have been to hear one without the imbalance.

Once again thanks to FiiO for sending me an evaluation sample.

I bought me a pair of Fiio F3 off Amazon after reading this, I needed some IEM's, they only had 3 left in stock but I got one just in time

DD I only wish in your reviews you would discuss noise canellation because it is important to me that my IEM's block out car traffic noise outside my apartment window when I have my window open, even if they don't I am keeping them since they are so cheap anyway, but yeah I need something to block out noise good someday.

What tips are you using. If you're not getting a good seal, passive isolation will suffer. Personally I found they were about average as far as isolation goes. My tip of choice is the large Shure Olives. You need to stretch them a bit to go over the nozzle - but they work really well.

Received my F3 today from an authorised reseller in India and guess what the right earpiece driver was almost dead with hardly any sound coming out of it. Moreover, though the package was sealed well, the IEM was scratched and the gold plating on the jack was faded. As an added bonus, all accessories were missing. Initiated the return right away. Sad, it had to end this way!!

For larger views of any of the photos (1200 x 800) - please click on the individual images

INTRODUCTION

Every so often as a reviewer you get a surprise – something not quite expected. Sometimes its disappointment – when a much hyped new product simply doesn't live up to its billing. Other times its quiet wonder and amazement – especially when something arrives that you thought would be just another product – and it turns out to be something quite special. When Sunny approached me about reviewing their F1 and F3 IEMs, my initial reaction was “OK its FiiO but I really don't have time to do an in-depth on another budget offering”. I'm glad it was FiiO because I would have been tempted to say no (my external work-load has been very heavy lately) to another company. But FiiO have supported my reviewing since day 1. I simply don't turn them away. This is one of those times when the voyage of discovery was also one of delight.

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 spent a lot of time with the community here, and continued to listen to their potential buyers, adopted our ideas, and grew their product range. That product range now includes some extremely proficient DAPs, DACs, amps, and recently some earphones and IEMs.

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 F1 IEM was provided to me free of charge or obligation as a review sample. I thank FiiO for their generosity. I own and have paid for the E7, E9, E11, E11K, X1, and X5 in the past. I am not otherwise affiliated with FiiO in any way, nor do I make any financial gain from my contributions, and this is my subjective opinion of the FiiO F1 IEM.

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

I'm a 49 year old music lover. I don't say audiophile – I just love my music. Over the last couple of years, I have slowly changed from cheaper listening set-ups to my current set-up. I vary my listening from portables (including the FiiO X5ii, X3ii, X7, LP5, L3, and iPhone SE) to my desk-top's set-up (PC > USB > iFi iDSD). I also use a portable set-up at work – usually either X3ii/X7/L3 > HP, or PC > E17K > HP. My main full sized headphones at the time of writing are the Sennheiser HD800S, Sennheiser HD600 & HD630VB, and AKG K553. Most of my portable listening is done with IEMs, and lately it has mainly been with the Jays q-Jays, Alclair Curve2 and Adel U6 (although I am spending more and more time with a pair of FiiL Diva lately). A full list of the gear I have owned (past and present is listed in my Head-Fi profile).

I have very eclectic music tastes listening to a variety from classical/opera and jazz, to grunge and general rock. I listen to a lot of blues, jazz, folk music, classic rock, indie and alternative rock. I am particularly fond of female vocals. I generally tend toward cans that are relatively neutral/balanced, but I do have a fondness for clarity, and suspect I might have slight ‘treble-head’ preferences. I am not treble sensitive (at all), and in the past have really enjoyed headphones like the K701, SR325i, and of course the T1 and DT880. I have a specific sensitivity to the 2-3 kHz frequency area (most humans do) but my sensitivity is particularly strong, and I tend to like a relatively flat mid-range with slight elevation in the upper-mids around this area.

I have extensively tested myself (ABX) and I find aac256 or higher to be completely transparent. I do use exclusively red-book 16/44.1 if space is not an issue. All of my music is legally purchased (mostly CD – the rest FLAC purchased on-line). I tend to be sceptical about audiophile ‘claims’, don’t generally believe in burn-in, have never heard a difference with different cables, and would rather test myself blind on perceived differences. I am not a ‘golden eared listener’. I suffer from mild tinnitus, and at 49, my hearing is less than perfect (it only extends to around 14 kHz nowadays). My usual listening level is around 65-75 dB.

For this review – I've used the FiiO F1 out of most sources I have around me – from the higher end X5iii and X7 to the more budget X1ii. For the majority of the review though, I've simply used the X1ii and my iPhone SE, as its likely to be the common smart-phone and lower end DAPs which are paired with the F1. I haven't used extra amping – as during my testing (we'll cover that later), I didn't find they needed or even benefited from additional amping. In the time I have spent with the F1, I have noticed no change to the overall sonic presentation (burn-in), but am aware that I am becoming more used to the signature as I use them more often (brain 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 FiiO F1 arrived in a compact white retail box measuring 97 x 168 x 42mm. The box is a simple but elegant white, with a picture of the F1 on the front cover, and specifications and features on the rear.


Front of the retail case	Rear of the retail case	In profile

Opening the box reveals a pull out tab, and this slides out the inner box, protected by a frosted plastic cover. Under this, nestled in a foam cut-out is the FiiO F1. Adjacent to the foam holder is an internal box which reveals a really nice carry case (containing the tip selection). Also included is a warranty document.


Inner sleeve	First look at the F1	F1 and accessories

The carry case is small, zippered, and semi-hard covered. It measures approx 75 x 85 x 35mm and is an ideal size for portable use. The outside shell is quite rigid and has an attractive carbon fibre pattern on top and bottom. Inside is a simply cloth internal covering with a mesh pocket. The quality and protection though is extremely good – I wish I had a dozen of these!


Tips and case	The (IMO) excellent case	Nice fit and still compact

The tip selection is simple, but remember we are talking about an IEM I've already seen on line priced between $15-$20. You get 4 pairs of silicone tips, and that’s pretty much it – but at this price point I really wouldn't expect anything else – especially considering the quality of the case.

TECHNICAL SPECIFICATIONS
(From FiiO)

	FiiO F1
Cost	Approx USD 15-20.00
Type	Single dynamic inner ear monitor
Driver Type	Dynamic 9.2mm
Frequency Range	20Hz – 20 kHz
Impedance	16 ohms
Sensitivity	97 dB / mW
Jack	3.5mm gold plated – right angled
Cable	1.3m fixed OFC with Polyurethane outer coating
Weight	18.6g
IEM shell	Industrial grade polycarbonate

FREQUENCY GRAPH
The graphs below 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.

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.

What I’m hearing from the FiiO F1:

Reasonably natural sounding mid-bass with a slight hump, and pretty good extension (some natural roll-off into sub-bass). Sub-bass is reasonably robust, but still balanced with the rest of the overall signature
Relatively flattish lower mid-range, maybe the slightest recession or distance in vocals, but it is minor, and adds to the impression of staging size
Upper mid-range has a rise in the presence area (2 kHz) and gives a clear and clean vocal presence. It is around 10dB above the fundamental range at 1 kHz.
Lower treble is present but subdued compared to upper mid-range. Lower treble rolls off early and there is not a lot of presence from about 7 kHz onward.
Upper treble is quite rolled off
Overall it is a very slightly V shaped monitor with shallow peaks in the sub-bass and upper mid-range areas. It does feel more balanced than anything though – and the overall impression is quite vocal / mid-range oriented, and very smooth.

One thing to note is the extremely good matching of left and right channels. This is amazing from a $20 monitor! Well done FiiO.

BUILD QUALITY / DESIGN
External


Inner face and angle of the nozzle	Nozzles and vent	From the rear

The FiiO F1 body is two piece industrial grade polycarbonate (very hard plastic) which is squarish in shape with rounded corners. The plastic is very slightly translucent. The body is pretty small too – just 13mm across at it's widest point with a depth of about 12mm.. it looks kind of blockish, but is surprisingly comfortable to wear. The internal surfaces are pretty well rounded. If worn cable down, the nozzle extends slightly forward. It is approx 6-7mm in length with a generous lip (great for tips) and approx 5mm in diameter. There is a small dynamic driver vent adjacent to the nozzle exit. There is an approx 10mm arm which runs perpendicular to the IEM body – and houses the cable exit. This is capped with a rubber strain relief. There are L/R markings on the strain relief – but they are very difficult to see. The easiest way to remember left from right is that the control unit sits on the right hand side of the cable.

The cable
The cable is permanently fixed to the FiiO F1. It is OFC with a Polyurethane outer coating. The cable is an attractive black with very thin red highlighting. It is also very smooth, very supple, and exhibits reasonably low microphonics. FiiO chose the coating because it is lightweight, durable, and highly elastic. As soon as I saw the cable – my immediate thought was “Dunu” - more on this in a second.


Very faint L/R marking	Very good strain relief	The 3 button remote/mic

The cable has an in-line microphone and control unit extending from the right ear-piece approx 125mm from the cable exit. This unit hangs just under my jaw when worn over ear (so ideal height for the mic for me). The three button control unit has a central button for track controls (allowing play/pause (one push), next track (two pushes), and previous track (three pushes). The other two buttons are volume control buttons. Unfortunately they do not work with my iPhone, but they do work perfectly with my wife's Android Galaxy (S3 – she's an old fashioned girl) – and also with FiiO's newer DAPs – the X1ii and X5iii (they surprisingly won't on the X7). The microphone is surprisingly good quality – I had no issues with phone calls or activating Siri when using my iPhone.


The cinch (not a big fan)	Y-split	Looks familiar? Dunu style jack and cable tie

The Y split is located around half way down my chest, and just above this is the small cinch. Its really good for FiiO to include this – but they've gone with one which is permanently fixed on one side, but detachable on the other. It's not a bad design – allowing you to cinch above or below the mic/control unit. But because of the detachable side, it doesn't stay attached – the slightest pull and it releases. The first thing I do following the end of the review is going to be fixing it permanently to the other side of the cable as well. There is no strain relief on the y-split, but given the quality of the cable, the cost of the IEMs and the fact that the y-split is a semi-rigid rubber, I think omitting relief isn't a deal breaker.

The cable terminates at a 4 pole right angled gold plated 3.5mm jack with very good strain relief. The jack casing is relatively smart-phone case friendly (for my case anyway). Just above the jack – and able to be slid up or down the cable is a very familiar rubber cable tie. When not in use it sits unobtrusively close to the plug (I never notice it). When you’ve finished listening to the F1, simply carefully coil the cable and use the tie. Simple, elegant, brilliant.

So lets address the “elephant in the room”. The cable, the jack and especially the cable tie are all extremely familiar to me. Why? Because they are based on Dunu's designs – so I'd suggest they've had a big hand in the overall design of the F1 (which is a good thing).

Internals
FiiO makes special mention of this in their documentation, so I thought I should too. The driver utilises an ultra-lightweight polyester diaphragm – which FiiO chose because of its “relaxed tonality” which they've observed “works well with modern pop music”. Paired with this is a copper clad aluminium voice coil which has very good detail retrieval. Combined, the two are supposed to deliver a detailed, but fatigue free listening experience.

FIT / COMFORT / ISOLATION
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. I initially tried the included large silicone tips, and I was unable to maintain a constant seal (my difficult ears). I then switched to my after-market tips.


Spinfit and Ostry tips	Crystal foam and Trinity Kombi (Sony Isolation)	Shure Olive and Spiral Dot

The FiiO F1 easily fits most standard tip choices including Ostry tuning tips, Spin-fits, Spiral Dots, Comply foams and Sony Isolation / Trinity Kombi tips. I have a specially stretched pair of Shure Olives which tend to fit most earphones I'm reviewing, give me excellent comfort and seal – so I used them for the review.

I think FiiO probably designed these to be worn cable down (hence the 45 degree forward angled nozzle), but I was able to successfully wear them “cable over ear”, and the comfort was still pretty good with the Shure Olives. There was one slightly hard edge – but with a little management (fiddling) this soon disappeared. The Fi is one of those IEMs which because of its size tends to disappear when worn. They sit well within my outer ear and are easy to sleep in.

Isolation with the F1 is about average for me and do a good job of passive isolation. However I wouldn't be using these for long haul transport.

SOUND QUALITY
The following is what I hear from the FiiO F1. 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 X3ii + E17K as source, and my Shure Olive tips. The reason I chose to go with the X3ii and E17K is simply because I know the combo so well.

For the record – on most tracks, the volume level on the X1ii was around 20 which was giving me an average SPL around 65-70 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 – generally reasonably well extended, with normal minor roll-off associated with most dynamic drivers. The sub-bass is a little more emphasised than mid-bass and the curve peaks around the 50Hz mark. Relative to the rest of the freq range, sub-bass is elevated above mid-bass and lower mid-range, and has roughly equal SPL as upper mid-range. There is sufficient rumble present to represent lower notes well – but it doesn’t feel overly muddy or too bassy.
Mid-bass – still has a mild hump (necessary to sound natural) but is slightly recessed against sub-bass, and slightly elevated compared to lower mid-range. It is in effect a very gentle mid-bass bump, but also nicely distributed. The result is a very natural sounding bass response – and there is no noticeable bleed into the mid-range. Both mid and sub-bass are elevated compared to lower mid-range.
Lower mid-range – recessed compared to bass and upper mid-range. There is a slight sense of distance with male vocals – more-so than with female vocals. I have found myself upping the volume slightly – particularly with male dominated rock tracks. Pearl Jam actually sounded pretty good – although Eddie’s vocals could have used just a little more richness or fullness.
Upper mid-range – elevated compared to lower mid-range, and there is a reasonably significant rise from lower mid-range to the peak at about 2 kHz. The result is a clean and clear vocal range, with good presence to lend a very good sense of euphony to female vocals. The upper mid-range on the F1 is one of the best qualities of this IEM for my particular tastes. Even though the rise at 2kHz is about 10dB above the fundamental lower mid-range, it does not sound too strident – mainly due to the comparatively recessed lower treble.
Lower treble – present through to about 6-7 kHz and then drops away quite dramatically. This leaves a quite mid-forward but smooth overall signature. The only issue I have with the F1 for my tastes is that they are quite subdued, and could use a little bump (IMO) at around 6-7 kHz. Cymbals are still present – but subdued, and there is not a lot of air, or great sense of decay.
Upper treble – not really present .

Resolution / Detail / Clarity

Reasonable with micro detail, and still has ability to resolve many finer details well, but they are often subdued.
Cymbal hits have reasonable initial presence, but decay is somewhat lost due to the recession of the upper treble (especially around the 7 kHz mark).
A relative clean and clear monitor with average resolution but overall portrayal is decidedly on the smooth and warm side (mainly through lack of lower treble than over-done bass).

Sound-stage, Imaging

Directional queues are decent, and presentation of stage is just on the periphery of my head space with binaural tracks – so good sense of width and depth.
Spherically presented sound-stage with above average impression of overall depth
Absolutely compelling sense of immersion with the applause section of “Dante's Prayer” – and sounded very natural. “Let it Rain” was next up and because of the lack of lower treble emphasis, there was no sense of sibilance. I thoroughly enjoyed the F1 with Amanda Marshall’s album – and it was the smooth easy-going signature which really ticked my boxes here.

Strengths

Good overall bass response and the sub-bass is tastefully done without dominating. I think FiiO’s target range (younger generation modern music lovers) will love the default tuning.
Decent (if a little distant) with male vocals, better with female vocals, lending a slight air of euphony and sweetness.
Overall smooth and effortless with good vocal presence. Will suit those who like their music presentation with a warm, rich and smooth overall presentation.
People who like to listen a little louder may find the F1 ideal – without raising too much listening fatigue.

Weaknesses

Lower treble is under-done a little, and anyone looking for a very detailed listening experience may need to look elsewhere. Cymbals in particular lose their natural decay.
Vocal fundamentals can tend to sound a little recessed – mainly with some male / lower mid-range oriented music
Not the best at low volumes – detail tends to get a little lost.

AMPLIFICATION REQUIREMENTS
The FiiO F1 with its relatively low impedance and higher sensitivity is extremely easy to run straight out of your average source. With the FiiO X1ii I tended to stay around 20-25/100 depending on the track recording quality. With my iPhone SE – this translated to 25-30% volume.


Great with my iPhone SE (but no vol control)	Really good with FiiO's X1ii - and controls work fully	No real amplification improvements to these ears

I tried the F1 with the E17K, and there was no increase in dynamic presentation or elevation of detail to my older and somewhat insensitive ears. Even using DAPs with a lot more power (X7, X5iii, Cayin i5) didn’t really make a huge noticeable difference. So I think I’m pretty safe in saying that the F1 doesn’t need, nor benefits from, any additional amplification.

EQUALISATION
You've may have guessed at what I think could change on the FiiO F1 (at least for my tastes). Yep – elevation in the lower and upper treble. No sense in being too shy with this one, so using the EQ on the X1ii, I raised both the 8k and 16k sliders by 6dB and for my preferences this was an improvement overall. After that it was a matter of simply tweaking the 400k, 1k and 3k sliders by small degrees to get the overall vocal presentation to my liking. The good news is that there is definitely enough lower treble presence to coax some extra life via EQ.

COMPARISONS
This is not a price point I've really got a lot of experience with, so please excuse my lack of popular comparative IEMs. I have to work with what I have though – so for this comparison it is FiiO's own F3, RockJaw's Arcana 2 and Brainwavz's Jive and XF200.

As always, I first volume matched with a 1 kHz test tone and SPL meter. I had a fast switch set-up in place with a splitter and volume attenuator for the volume matching. This section is very subjective, as it is sighted, the change between IEMs took about 5 seconds, and I knew exactly which one I was listening to. But it is my honest thoughts on where the F1 sits for my own personal tastes. Source used was the E17K / X3ii combo – with no EQ (simply because it is still the source I know best).

FiiO F1 ($15) vs FiiO F3 ($25)


Frequency response	F1 vs F3

Both have similar builds, fit, and accessories – with the main difference being the changeable face-plates and inclusion of the ear-hooks. For me the F3 fits a little better because of the slightly smoother internal face.

Sonically both are on the slightly V shaped side of neutral with warmish sounding bass which is more centred toward sun-bass than mid-bass. The F1 has more of an upper mid-range peak which really helps vocals stand out. But after that it drops off pretty sharply. The F3 has less mid-range dominance, and more lower treble presence. Both are really good earphones for the price. For my personal preference the F3 is worth the extra outlay.

FiiO F1 ($15) vs Brainwavz Jive ($28)


Frequency response	F1 vs Jive

The Jive wins on overall build quality – but I like the cable on the F1 a lot more. Accessories are about even. Fit is good on both – but the Jive's diminutive size makes them slightly more comfortable.

Sonically the Jive is very V shaped comparatively – with a lot more sub-bass, a lot more treble extension, but also a quite comparatively recessed lower mid-range. If you were looking at the strengths of each, you'd be saying fun and lively vs clear and smooth. Personally I preferred the more balanced approach of the F1.

FiiO F1 ($15) vs Brainwavz XF200 ($25)


Frequency response	F1 vs XF200

The XF200 is technically more of a sports earphone – but they sit close to the same price range (so why not). The build, fit and ergonomics are all subjectively better on the F1. The XF200 can appear slightly blocky (I like the naturally formed ear-loops though). The F1 just feels sturdier though, and once again the FiiO (Dunu) cable is an improvement.

Sonically the XF200 is quite similar to the Jive. More of a V shape with extra sub-bass, comparatively recessed mid-range, and more emphasis on the upper mids and lower treble. The F1 is again smoother and more balanced – its just a bit shy on the lower treble. Again my preference here would be the FiiO.

FiiO F1 ($15) vs RockJaw Arcana V2 ($40)


Frequency response	F1 vs Arcana

I chose this one simply because the Arcana V2 impressed me when I first heard it. Like the FiiO it was a warm and smooth sounding earphone – but with a good sense of lower treble detail.

Build and fit are pretty good on both – but again the FiiO/Dunu cable stands apart. Overall on build, I'd give the slight nod to the F1. Accessories go to the Rockjaw (tips) but to the F1 for its case.

The Arcana still is a warm and lively earphone, and although I don't usually gravitate to this type of signature, there is something about the mid-range which can still captivate. That sub-bass is still a bit over the top though and I think that is where FiiO got it right with the F1. The bass has enough oomph to satisfy, without over-doing it, and then having to over compensate. Once again the F1 is my preference (but I wish they had just a little more presence around 6-7 kHz)

FiiO F1 - SUMMARY

Its not often I get to review something in this price range, and when I do it can sometimes be a pleasant surprise at how good audio quality can get for the price of a decent cup of coffee and a fresh baked snack.

The F1 has its good points and its not so good. Build is primarily plastic, but they are light-weight, and appear to be reasonably sturdy. The cable is the stand-out – good overall quality, and when you pair that with the case, there is more on the positive side of the slate than the negative. Fit is pretty good. Because of the angle of the nozzles (I suspect they are more for wearing cable down), it's not 100% comfortable – but good enough over-ear for causal use.

Sonically the F1 has good channel matching, is relatively well balanced, very clear through the vocals, and has nice cohesion between lower and upper mid-range. Its weakness is the roll-off in both lower and upper treble. This is clearly intentional and results in a smooth but clear IEM which will no doubt appeal to many people.

If I was going purely on build and sound, then the F1 would be a nice 3/5 in the budget stakes. But when you factor in the low price of $15 (how do they do it?), it becomes a 100% easy recommendation. I really enjoyed it. Well done FiiO. Recommended as a budget option.

Once again thanks to FiiO for sending me an evaluation sample.

For larger views of any of the photos (1200 x 800) - please click on the individual images

INTRODUCTION

Choosing an amp or amp/DAC can be bewildering given the many options and price points available. Add to that the many subjective opinions from reviews about what adding a new amp or amp/DAC can bring to the table in terms of clarity! details! soundstage! As I’ve gained a lot more experience, and (more importantly) tested more, I’ve come to realise that many of the differences I thought I’d previously heard are pretty subtle, and mostly occur because I wasn’t volume matching while comparing different amps or sources. And the more experienced I've become – and the more aware of how outside influences can affect my overall opinion, the more I've come to find that the things we don't place the most importance on – power output, features, gain control, battery life, inputs/outputs etc – can be a lot more important than the perceived SQ. In fact with most devices nowadays, SQ should be a given.

And that brings me to the product I’m reviewing today – RHA's new L1 DAC/amp. I’ve now had the L1 for a couple of weeks and have been using that time to put it through its paces. Read on for my thoughts on how it performs

ABOUT RHA
Reid Heath Acoustics (RHA) is a Scottish based headphone company. Their core values (from their on-line presence) are described as follows:
“We stand for true-to-life audio reproduction and lasting quality. With these values at our core, we work to deliver the most accurate, comfortable and unobtrusive listening experience possible. Every RHA product combines high quality materials, precision engineering and our fundamental commitment to design.”

Most people will know RHA for their range of in-ear monitors. To my knowledge this is the first actual DAC/amp they've launched, and at $549.95 is sits at a pretty interesting section of the market – up against other heavy-weights like iFi Audio's iDSD and Chord's Mojo.

In the last couple of weeks I have spent as much time as possible listening to the L1 with both RHA's own earphones, and also several of my own – both full-sized headphones and my own IEMs. Toward the end of the review I have compared the L1 to both my iDSD and also the much cheaper FiiO E17K.
RHA on Facebook
RHA Website

DISCLAIMER
I was provided the RHA L1 (as part of a tour) from RHA. I am in no way affiliated with RHA - and this review is my honest opinion of the CL1. The tour unit was returned at completion of the review. I'd like to especially thank Iain and Niketa for their brilliant communication and allowing me to be part of this.

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

I'm a 49 year old music lover. I don't say audiophile – I just love my music. Over the last couple of years, I have slowly changed from cheaper listening set-ups to my current set-up. I vary my listening from portables (including the FiiO X5ii, X3ii, X7, LP5, L3, and iPhone SE) to my desk-top's set-up (PC > USB > iFi iDSD). I also use a portable set-up at work – usually either X3ii/X7/L3 > HP, or PC > E17K > HP. My main full sized headphones at the time of writing are the Sennheiser HD800S, Beyerdynamic T1, Sennheiser HD600 & HD630VB, and AKG K553. Most of my portable listening is done with IEMs, and lately it has mainly been with the Jays q-Jays, Alclair Curve2 and Adel U6. A full list of the gear I have owned (past and present is listed in my Head-Fi profile).

I have very eclectic music tastes listening to a variety from classical/opera and jazz, to grunge and general rock. I listen to a lot of blues, jazz, folk music, classic rock, indie and alternative rock. I am particularly fond of female vocals. I generally tend toward cans that are relatively neutral/balanced, but I do have a fondness for clarity, and suspect I might have slight ‘treble-head’ preferences. I am not treble sensitive (at all), and in the past have really enjoyed headphones like the K701, SR325i, and of course the T1 and DT880. I have a specific sensitivity to the 2-3 kHz frequency area (most humans do) but my sensitivity is particularly strong, and I tend to like a relatively flat mid-range with slight elevation in the upper-mids around this area.

I have extensively tested myself (ABX) and I find aac256 or higher to be completely transparent. I do use exclusively red-book 16/44.1 if space is not an issue. All of my music is legally purchased (mostly CD – the rest FLAC purchased on-line). I tend to be sceptical about audiophile ‘claims’, don’t generally believe in burn-in, have never heard a difference with different cables, and would rather test myself blind on perceived differences. I am not a ‘golden eared listener’. I suffer from mild tinnitus, and at 49, my hearing is less than perfect (it only extends to around 14 kHz nowadays). My usual listening level is around 65-75 dB.

For the purposes of this review – I've used the RHA L1 as amp only (with various sources), DAC/amp – paired with other DAPs and also my iPhone SE as transport, and also as a desktop set-up (my home PC runs Linux). 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.

FURTHER NOTES
Volume matching was done with a calibrated SPL meter and test tones (1 kHz) when required for comparison. Frequency response measurements were taken using a relatively cheap Startech USB soundcard, which while measuring decently on loopback (0.012% THD and 0.024% THD+N) tends to be the limiting factor measuring THD, THD+N and IMD – as I seem to be limited by the Startech’s performance. So I am taking RHA’s distortion published measurements as truth, and this time not measuring myself. When I did measure, they are below the threshold of audibility anyway.

WHAT I WOULD LOOK FOR IN A PORTABLE DAC/AMP
I thought I’d list (before I start with the review) what I would look for in a portable DAC/amp. This is useful to remember when looking at my reasoning for 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
Easy installation of DAC drivers and
Value for money

PORTABLE AMP/DACs I HAVE EXPERIENCE WITH
Previous = Fiio E7, Beyerdynamic A200p
Current = Fiio E17K, Q1, Cozoy Aegis, iFi Micro iDSD, IMS HVA

THE REVIEW

PACKAGING AND ACCESSORIES


Outer sleeve front	and rear

The RHA L1 arrived in a reasonably large, but attractive black retail box measuring 147 x 200 x 74mm. There is a lot of information on the outer sleeve (which is IMO very well laid out) – including:

Front face = picture of the CL1, Sony Hi-Res logo, and note that there is dedicated channel processors
Rear = information on design, materials and features
Sides = information on warranty (3 year!), contents and the L1's specifications


Inside the inner box	Manual, colour booklet and guarantee/warranty

Removing the outer sleeve reveals a book style lidded box, with a black and white depiction of the L1. Opening this discloses a nice full colour booklet about the L1, and the first look at the L1 itself nestled in its foam cut-out. Below this are compartments for the accessories – which include:

Silicone stacking bands
A cleaning / stacking cloth
USB micro-B to micro-B cable
USB A – micro-B cable
Manual and warranty card


Colour booklet and manual	Accessories - cleaning/stacking cloth, bands and cables

The cables seem to be generic but pretty sturdy – nothing flash. I'm a little disappointed that there isn't a converter cable for the balanced mini-XLR to a more common 2.5mm TRRS. The manual is multilingual, very informative and includes full information on specs and how to properly use the L1

TECHNICAL SPECIFICATIONS
(From RHA)

	RHA L1
Cost	~ USD 550 (RHA website)
Type	Fully balanced portable DAC and amp
Output impedance	2.2 ohms
Max output into 16 ohm	300 mW
Max output into 300 ohm	28 mW
Suggested H/P Impedance	8-600 ohms
THD+N	<0.0018%
SNR (dynamic range)	111 dB
Freq response	20 Hz – 100 kHz
Gain	1x, 1.8x 2.5x
Supported PCM	44.1 – 384 kHz, 16/24/32 bit.
Supported DSD	DSD 64, DSD128, DSD256 (quad DSD)
Inputs	3.5mm line in, USB A, USB micro-B, mini-TOSLINK optical
Outputs	3.5mm line out, 3.5mm headphone out, 4-pin mini XLR balanced
Battery life / charge time	10 hours continuous / 4 hours charge
Battery used	4000 mAh
Dimensions	118x73x20mm
Weight	233g

BUILD / DESIGN


Beautifully curved outer shell	Protective cover over the tone and gain controls

The RHA L1 is an interesting shape. The body consists of a single sheet of machined aluminium alloy bent around to form a rectangular shell. The top, bottom, and sides are a hard rubber/silicone. The headphone outputs sit at the top of the device, as does the pot/volume control. The USB inputs/outputs and optical/line-in/out sit at the bottom. In the middle is a set of 3 dials – housing the hardware controls (bass, treble, and gain), and these are encased with a protective over-plate. Reading through the documentation, RHA says that the build/design was inspired by home audio equipment, and it shows in the use of the knobs for the EQ and gain – and also a somehow classic look with the alloy outer jacket.

The main body is designed to fit your hand (and assuming right handed), your fingers will curl around the rounded edge, with thumb in easy reach of the side controls, and index finger has easy access to the volume control.


RHA L1 in profile	The volume pot (quite sensitive)

At the top left is the balanced 4 pin mini-XLR socket. It is gold plated for both protection and transmission. At the top right is the single ended 3.5mm headphone out socket – again gold plated. Between these sits the volume pot. It is quite long, bevelled to make it non-slip, and recessed from the body to save accidentally jogging it. This is pretty essential, because the pot itself has 5 major settings – 0 (off) to 5 (max) with each quarter turn giving a full numeric increment. Between each bass number are guides for 2 settings in-between. With the somewhat easy to drive AKG K553, and using my PC as digital source, a single partial increment can go from easy listening to very loud in a moment. This is pretty sensitive. Between the mini-XLR and volume control is an LED light which denotes status (off, on, charging, low power and depleted).


Top - headphone out (single ended and balanced) + volume pot	Line out, line in and USB inputs

At the bottom is the inputs/outputs. From left to right is the line-out, USB-A socket, USB micro-B socket, and line-in/optical in socket. Below the micro-B socket is a 3-way switch to select the input / output. The 3.5mm sockets are again gold plated.

On the right hand side are the controls for treble, bass and gain. The treble and bass controls range from -3 to +9, with each increment representing ~1 dB change. The gain wheel has 4 settings – low, med, high – and a charge icon (which basically turns the L1 into a storage bank for charging other devices). The controls have a nice click for each setting and will not move inadvertently if bumped. The treble and bass controls can be used even in DAC mode.


Underside view	Balanced mini-XLR connection

Overall the external build quality is pretty much faultless. It feels really good in the hand – solid and dependable. It is also perfect for stacking – with its flat back – and as far as size goes is almost the same dimensions as the new FiiO X5iii – and slightly wider than my iPhone SE. For any X7 owners – the X7 is similar width and depth – but about 1 cm longer. The only caveat I have is the sensitivity of the volume pot.

Internally, the L1 uses a pair of Sabre ES9018K2M DACs – one for each channel. There are in turn boosted by a pair of class A/B amplifiers (unfortunately they aren't mentioned in the documentation, and I don't think RHA would be too appreciative of me taking a look-see under the hood). The DACs are capable of DSD support up to quad DSD, and up to 32 bit/384 kHz PCM audio. The specifications list a very low 0.0018% THD+N (and basically this means that any distortion is inaudible), a dynamic range (SNR) of 111dB, and reasonable output power of 28 mW into 300 ohms.

HEAT AND POWER
So far I’ve noticed just a slow heat build-up with the L1 (only really gets to lukewarm). Even after a couple of hours (driving my HD800S), it’s still no issues to handle.

RHA rates the target headphone impedance as 8-600 ohm, and I was surprised that for my 600ohm T1, there was no issues at all reaching and exceeding listenable volumes. Using my HD800S (300 ohm), and the volume pot at 1-2 clicks below 2/5, I was right at my normal listening volume of 65-70 dB with Emma Ruth Rundle's album “Some Heavy Ocean” (L1 acting as DAC to my main desktop). Advancing to 2/5 on the same track drove the dB meter to 75+ dB, and pushing to the full 5/5 was reaching 90dB peaks. This was all on low gain – so with the HD800S on high gain and reasonably modern music, high gain would net peaks just under 100 dB.


Surprisingly good with the T1 & bass controls helped with lower end	HD800S were sublime with the L1 - and fantastic when paired with the PC & JRiver MC

At the other end of the scale RHA suggests compatibility with earphones as low as 8 ohms. With their 2.2 ohm output impedance (and following the traditional 1/8 rule for damping), I would have thought 16 ohms would be a safer bet. Fortunately I have the 8 ohm DN-2000J on hand and was able to test those. I was pretty close to the lower limit of the pot to get to a quiet enough listening level, and the sound was quite different on the DN-2000J out of the L1 than using my X5iii, or X5ii + A5 (it was a little darker – not as airy as the 2000J usually is). I wonder if this has to do with the damping factor? Anyway – my personal recommendation is that whilst the L1 can easily be paired with 8 ohm earphones, perhaps something with slightly higher impedance may be ideal.


Higher impedance U6 matched well & treble boost was a great feature	RHA's CL1 in balanced mode - paired with X5iii

The one thing I was finding though (with the HD800S, T1 and HD600) was that the L1 does seem better suited toward full sized headphones. There is simply more play on the pot overall. With IEMs it can be a little sensitive. If you have variable output from your transport though – this can easily be mitigated.

FEATURES / USABILITY
The L1 is really simple to use. Headphones go at the top – either balanced mini XLR or 3.5mm single ended. Source is connected at the bottom, Switch set to source being used. Select your volume and away you go – very simple.

Gain
The gain wheel selector is the bottom most side knob on the L1 and allows you to select 3 levels of gain. I measured these under loopback, and they represent:

Low = 1x or +0dB
Med = 1.8 times or approx +5 dB (per my measurements)
High = 2.5 times or approx +7.5 dB (per my measurements)

Measured in DAC mode - showing frequency response and gain.

The only thing I would have probably liked to see here is a little more usability with the gain. Given that the difference between 1-5 on the pot is actually around 25-30 dB, adding a mere 5-8 dB gets dwarfed a little by the actual pot changes.

Tone Controls – Bass / Treble
This IMO is the killer feature on the L1. I'm a bit of an EQ buff. So many times I've been sent a pair of IEMs to review and found that with some minor changes they can actually be transformed. A lot of the time I just want a quick rough and ready fix to a problem – and using the E17K for so long, I've become used to using it's tone controls to adjust a frequency curve to a better level. Each tone control (bass and treble) comes with a 12 dB range of options -3dB to +9dB. See graph below.


Bass controls - measured as pass-though (amp only)	and treble controls

And its amazing what you can do with the EQ when combining the two. You can create a U/V shape, or give the mids a bump – simply by dialing it in. I've included graphs from my CL1 review (further down this page) where I wanted to tone the treble back (a lot), and the bass back (a little) to basically flatten the frequency curve. You an see that this is quite effective – and the only thing I would have really liked would have been if there was equal opportunity to reduce as there is to add. RHA – when you read this, if there is an L2 at some stage, and you still use the tone controls, consider 2 dB increments both ways : -10 -8 -6 -4 -2 0 +2 +4 +6 +8 +10. That would have been just about perfect IMO.


Curve versatility - max to min, and min to max	You could also reate a mid-range bump, or a large U/V shape

As a DAC (PC)
Usage as a DAC couldn't be easier. No additional drivers needed with Linux. The L1 was correctly identified and it was simply a matter of selecting it. With Windows it was simply a matter of downloading and installing the driver from RHA. After that – select the L1 as the output device and then select your bit-rate and resolution. I ran through PCM resolutions from 16/44.1 through to 32/384 (up-sampling) and there were no issues. Likewise I tested DSD playback (using Foobar2000 in Windows) – and no issues with playback (it was only DSD64). I did the same with Linux, using jRiver's Media Center for Linux. It allows me to up-sample without jumping through hoops. PCM at 384 kHz worked with no problem – but under Linux I could only get to 2xDSD (I can get to 4x on the iDSD). It may simply be an issue with my set-up, and unfortunately haven't had time to further trouble shoot it. Sadly I didn't get the chance to use optical from my PC as I no longer have an optical out port I can test with.

Via Line-In
Again no issues playing audio from my X5iii to the L1. Audio was clean and clear, and for those looking for a straight amplifier, the set-up worked really well. The beauty of course is the access to the tone controls as well as the extra amplification.


iPhone SE, the L1 and the CL1 in balanced mode	This was a nice pairing - but needed the EQ

iPhone SE
This worked perfectly. Using a lightning cable to micro USB, the iPhone recognised the L1, handed off audio to it, and basically played without a hitch. The only downside was that it drained the battery pretty quickly on the SE (in 2-3 hours), so something to watch if you're planning on using it with a smart-phone.

Use as a battery bank
This was something I didn't see coming, but works pretty well. There is a setting on the gain switch (a lightning bolt), and when selected, it basically feeds power from the on-board L1 battery to the paired device. This feature was unexpected, but would be pretty handy if you needed your phone but were caught short of a recharge point.

BATTERY LIFE
RHA rates the play time on a full charge at around 10 hours, recharge at around 4 hours, and for my use I’d suggest that time is pretty accurate. Whilst I did not get time to specifically measure the full battery life, the L1 was good for a day's audio, and the I'd charge it at night while it was doubling as a DAC for my desktop.

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 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. 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 L1 perform sonically – as a separate DAC and as a DAC/amp combo?

Performance
The first thing I did was to check the linearity of the L1. To do this I used a calibrated sound card (calibrated to measure completely flat), ARTA and a loopback. At first glance the L1 measures pretty flat – with a small drop off between 10-20 kHz (only a couple of dB). This could be my equipment, but the E17K measures flat on the same equipment so I suspect this could be an intentional roll-off with the DAC section, and maybe a result of filtering. When I had measured the amp section only (check earlier graphs) it was measuring dead flat with no EQ engaged. So the L1 does have good linearity.

I’ve stopped measuring distortion (THD / IMD) as I need better measuring equipment to get to the levels RHA is able to measure. I think we can trust the published distortion measurements

So what does this tell us? Simply that the L1 supplies reasonably linear, and very clean output. Purely subjectively, it sounds pretty neutral and to my ears, ever so slightly on the warm side of neutral. It does have a very clean background and a good sense of space.

Balanced vs Single Ended
I'll start this bit by readily admitting I'm pretty stupid. The lateness of this particular review is because I had to rewrite some of it. I initially couldn't get the balanced output working, and even went through some suggestions from RHA's staff (they were pretty helpful). In the end I twigged onto two things – (1) I needed to make sure the new sMMCX connectors were seated properly on the balanced cables, and (2) the balanced connection only works when used as a DAC/amp – rather than straight amp (duh!). Like I said – particularly silly.


RHA CL1 recorded from the DAC - balanced vs SE - note same volume and curve!	Applying EQ to adjust the bass and treble down - better but limited.

The good news is that I could finally test the balanced output with the CL1. The balanced output is provided by the mini-XLR output (and RHA a nice touch would be an adaptor – maybe to 2.5mm). Anyway – I went back and forth with the CL1 balanced, single-ended and back again. The weird part was that I didn't have to touch the volume (normally balanced has a higher power output – more volume). As I went back and forth, I honestly couldn't tell any real difference. So being the objective gentlemen I am, I plugged the L1 in as DAC on the PC and measured the output with the CL1. Two things stood out. Firstly – the volume was the same – measurably the same. Secondly the frequency response was identical. The comments floating around about the balanced output improving the CL1's frequency response simply can't be true. There is no change to frequency response between SE and balanced. Maybe my ears are simply not good enough to hear the other differences some people associate with balanced output – but to me they sound pretty much the same in the limited time I've had with the L1 and CL1. The interesting thing was also checking the set-up with the E17K, and after volume matching – same curve.


Adding E17K - frequemcy curve very consistent!	The better EQ from the E17K

COMPARISONS
For this section I chose to to compare FiiO's E17K as it has similar features but is a cheaper option, and the iFi Micro iDSD as being more on par. The FiiO E17K currently is listed on Amazon at USD 100.00, and the iFI Micro iDSD at $399 (older model).

Warning – completely subjective evaluation ahead!

RHA L1 (USD $550) vs FiiO E17K (USD $100)
Both have very good build quality, although the L1 simply looks like the more refined unit – where the E17K is more utilitarian. In terms of hardware, the L1 had the superior hardware on paper, although they both have similar SNR. L1 also has lower overall noise – but given both devices noise floors are below audibility, this is somewhat of a moot point. The E17K has ~ half the headphone output impedance – making it more suitable for IEMs. In terms of battery and size, the E17K is more portable, and its 15 hour battery life makes it a winner.

L1 supports higher resolutions, and is more powerful. E17K has better gain control and also has balance control. And then of course there is the cost – although if you were using the E17K as a desktop rig, ultimately you'd want to pair it with an amp like the K5 (effectively doubling the price)

Sonically (after a lot of back and forth), the E17K sounds a little flatter, more neutral – while the L1 imparts a little more warmth. Both have a very clean and clear background.

So which moves me more and why? Well I like the E17K's tone controls a little more, and it is extremely portable, and sounds pretty good – BUT – it really depends on the use. With IEMs I'd take the E17K because they really don't need much power, and the E17K wins hands down on portability and has a comparable if not better feature set. If I'm driving my HD800S though (or other full sized headphone) – then the tables are turned (and this includes if I was using the L1 solely as a desktop device). The L1 simply has a fantastic synergy with the HD800S and has an effortless way of pulling me into the music. Interestingly I get this more when used as a DAC/amp rather than as an amp only.

RHA L1 (USD $550) vs iFi Micro iDSD (USD $399)
I’ll get this out of the way first up. I love my iDSD – it is a fantastic piece of equipment with massive versatility in power output, and a very good DAC in the Burr Brown.

Both are larger and more transportable than portable – although this time the L1 is the smaller unit (by some considerable amount). Both have a great array of inputs and outputs. Both can be used to charge other devices. The iDSD has far more power, and a much better gain system – so it can be used for the most sensitive IEM or very hard to drive cans (even up to the HE6).

Both cover the full range of resolutions (up to quad DSD). The L1 has the tone controls. The iDSD has Xbass control and the 3D speaker preset, and can be used as a preamp to active speakers.

As a purely desktop device, the iDSD has the better overall feature set, and ability to drive more variability in loads. But …...

There is a definite difference between the Burr Brown and Sabre set-up. This time the iDSD is the warmer set-up, and my preference is leaning toward the L1 quite heavily. Again it is simply pulling me in (with the HD800S) – sonically it is a beautiful pairing. Fantastic sense of spatial awareness and depth. I've been extremely happy with the iDSD for the last couple of years – and then RHA comes and delivers the L1, and I'm suddenly second guessing myself again.

For my current headphones (and acknowledging I have just sold my T1) – despite the extra cost, and iDSD being more suited to desktop use – right now I'd really consider taking the L1.

VALUE & CONCLUSION

I’ve now had the L1 for a couple of weeks and in that time I've grown to like it more and more. Unfortunately it simply doesn't suit my current needs – too big for my needs for portability, and doesn't have all the features I need for desktop use. But I'm still tempted to hand over the cash and get one. And that should be all you need to know about the L1.

It combines a stellar build with a great feature set – which is crowned by the inclusion of the tone controls. Power output (for its size) is very good – and seems to easily handle my HD600 and HD800S.

It also has both balanced and single ended output available – and the balanced is true balanced (separate DACs, separate amps).

Tonally it is very linear as a stand alone amp, and seems to have slight measurable roll-off when used as a DAC. It is very slightly on the warm side of neutral – but just a hint. It also has a very black background (low noise floor), and is able to convey a great sense of detail and spaciousness with the HD800S. That pairing alone has me really regretting having to send the L1 to its next tour recipient.

However – it still has some slight flaws, or ways it could be improved IMO. For starters the pot could have a little less sensitivity, and the gain control have a little more kick (FiiO's tiny E17K for example is 0 dB +6 dB +12 dB). A lower output impedance would allow more versatility with sensitive low impedance IEMs, and the tone controls could have more room for deduction of the original signal (would have helped with their CL1).

The price at $550 is getting up there – but it still hasn't deterred me, and I'm sitting here doing the final edit with the HD800S on my head, L1 connected to the PC, and listening to Jocelyn and Chris Arndt – and thinking “what would I have to sell to appease my lovely wife”. That's pretty dangerous for me at the moment, and hopefully the madness passes in a few more days.

Congratulations RHA – the L1 is my pick of the 3 (CL750, CL1 and L1). I think it will sell pretty well.


The new FiiO X5iii proved a pretty good transport	Really didn't want to see the L1 go - a genuinely likeable product!

ADDENDUM
Remember earlier I described my list of requirements for a portable DAC/amp – lets go through them and see how the L1 fared ….

Genuine portability – yes, but still a little bulky
Good battery life – 10 hours is about average
Clean, neutral signature - definitely
Easy to use - definitely
Low output impedance – lowish, could be better (sub 1 ohm ideal)
Reasonable output power – should be able to drive IEMs and earphones up to 300 ohms – yes, but the pot could be a little less sensitive
Good gain control – it is good – just needs more refinement
Hardware EQ if possible – yes and its brilliant
Easy installation of DAC drivers – yes definitely
Value for money – although it is getting up there, I still don't think it's over-priced

4/5 from me. The few minor improvements I suggested would take it to a full 5. Thanks again to Iain and Niketa for giving me the chance to spend some time with the L1. A thoroughly enjoyable experience!

Thanks Kazz - I didn't notice any EMI with the iPhone - but I don't usually use it for browsing the net and I tend not to stream. Good point though - I should have tested more thoroughly for it.

Hello, may I ask you a question about the balanced connector, how it is defined which pin is right and left and two individual ground? Thanks.

It was just a loaner for the tour (I no longer have it). I'd suggest emailing RHA, and I'm sure they will be able to help with your question

For larger views of any of the photos (1200 x 800) - please click on the individual images

[size=24.57px]INTRODUCTION[/size]
I was first introduced to RHA (or Reid Heath Acoustics) during a review tour for the RHA T10i, and later the RHA T20. I was very impressed with the build and fit on both earphones, but less impressed with the T10i signature (too bassy IMO), and pleasantly surprised with their T20 – which I still regard as a very good earphone in its price range. So when their new CL range was announced late in 2016, I was very keen to review, and especially so when there had been a little bit of controversy around early impressions of their earphones. Call me nosy – but when this happens, I just really need to get a listen. I also wanted to measure the CL range, as its easier to really discover truth when you can compare what you hear with what you are able to measure. So join me in a small voyage of discovery as we put the CL1 through its paces. You can see my review of the CL1 here.

ABOUT RHA
Reid Heath Acoustics (RHA) is a Scottish based headphone company. Their core values (from their on-line presence) are described as follows:
“We stand for true-to-life audio reproduction and lasting quality. With these values at our core, we work to deliver the most accurate, comfortable and unobtrusive listening experience possible. Every RHA product combines high quality materials, precision engineering and our fundamental commitment to design.”

Their current product catalogues ranges from the budget oriented MA350 (~ USD 30) to the current flagship CL1 (~ USD 450).

In the last couple of weeks I have spent as much time as possible listening to the CL750, CL1 and also their L1 DAC/amp. Sadly I don't have a chance to directly compare to the original T10i or T20 (they were part of an earlier tour), but toward the end of the review I have compared the CL1 to some other IEMs in similar price brackets.

In the time I've spent with the CL1, I’d estimate that I’ve logged around 10-15 hours actual listening time.
RHA on Facebook
RHA's website

DISCLAIMER
I was provided the RHA CL1 (as part of a tour) from RHA. I am in no way affiliated with RHA - and this review is my subjective opinion of the CL1. The tour unit was returned at completion of the review. I'd like to especially thank Iain and Niketa for their brilliant communication and allowing me to be part of this.

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

I'm a 49 year old music lover. I don't say audiophile – I just love my music. Over the last couple of years, I have slowly changed from cheaper listening set-ups to my current set-up. I vary my listening from portables (including the FiiO X5ii, X3ii, X7, LP5, L3, and iPhone SE) to my desk-top's set-up (PC > USB > iFi iDSD). I also use a portable set-up at work – usually either X3ii/X7/L3 > HP, or PC > E17K > HP. My main full sized headphones at the time of writing are the Sennheiser HD800S, Beyerdynamic T1, Sennheiser HD600 & HD630VB, and AKG K553. Most of my portable listening is done with IEMs, and lately it has mainly been with the Jays q-Jays, Alclair Curve2 and Adel U6. A full list of the gear I have owned (past and present is listed in my Head-Fi profile).

I have very eclectic music tastes listening to a variety from classical/opera and jazz, to grunge and general rock. I listen to a lot of blues, jazz, folk music, classic rock, indie and alternative rock. I am particularly fond of female vocals. I generally tend toward cans that are relatively neutral/balanced, but I do have a fondness for clarity, and suspect I might have slight ‘treble-head’ preferences. I am not treble sensitive (at all), and in the past have really enjoyed headphones like the K701, SR325i, and of course the T1 and DT880. I have a specific sensitivity to the 2-3 kHz frequency area (most humans do) but my sensitivity is particularly strong, and I tend to like a relatively flat mid-range with slight elevation in the upper-mids around this area.

I have extensively tested myself (ABX) and I find aac256 or higher to be completely transparent. I do use exclusively red-book 16/44.1 if space is not an issue. All of my music is legally purchased (mostly CD – the rest FLAC purchased on-line). I tend to be sceptical about audiophile ‘claims’, don’t generally believe in burn-in, have never heard a difference with different cables, and would rather test myself blind on perceived differences. I am not a ‘golden eared listener’. I suffer from mild tinnitus, and at 49, my hearing is less than perfect (it only extends to around 14 kHz nowadays). My usual listening level is around 65-75 dB.

For the purposes of this review - I used the RHA CL1 mostly with my iPhone SE as transport to RHA's L1 DAC/amp but also from most other sources I had at my disposal including my trusty X3ii/E17K combo. I'm again a little on the fence with the CL1 and amplification at this stage. At 150 ohms and 89 dB sensitivity, it really will need extra amplification (especially with weaker sources), however even my iPhone SE at 60% volume was able to drive them fairly respectably – more on that later. In the time I have spent with the CL1, I have noticed no change to the overall sonic presentation (burn-in), but am aware that I am becoming more used to the signature as I use them more often (brain 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


Retail sleeve - front	Retail sleeve - rear	Retail sleeve in profile

The RHA CL1 arrived in a reasonably large, but attractive black retail box measuring 143 x 200 x 74mm. There is a lot of information on the outer sleeve (which is IMO very well laid out) – including:

Front face = picture of the CL1, Sony Hi-Res logo, and instruction that an amplifier would be required (nice touch)
Rear = information on design, materials and frequency
Sides = information on warranty (3 year!) and contents
Bottom = CL1 specifications

Removing the outer sleeve reveals a book style lidded box, and opening this discloses a nice full colour booklet about the CL1, and the first look at the CL1 itself nestled in its foam cut-out. Below this are compartments for carry case, tips, tray, manual, and for the cables (2) to sit.


Sleeve and inner box	Colour promo booklet and first look at CL1	The beautiful ceramic casings on the CL1

The carry case is a largish padded zippered case measuring approximately 130mm x 85mm x 25-30mm (at its deepest point & depending what you include when packed) – so while it’s not pants pocket friendly, it does pocket very well inside a light jacket. It is well padded, with generous inner pockets and a mesh/canvas-like outer covering. The case is large enough to hold the tips in their steel display tray.


Compartments for accessories	The colour booklet	Manual, cleaning cloth and warranty

The tip selection is generous, and along with the storage tray includes 2 pairs of dual flange silicone, 6 pairs of single flange silicone, and 3 pairs of Comply Tsx-200 foam tips. The mounting tray is stainless steel and from past experience, works really well as a storage medium. There is also a small plastic shirt clip, cleaning cloth, 3.5-6.3mm adaptor, and the two removable cables (one single ended and one balanced). As I was first recipient on tour, I've shown pictures of both how the tips come, and how they are mounted on the tray. Fellow members in the tour – feel free to use these photos if you wish.


All the accessories	Carry case and tips - as they are packed for buyers	Tips in the stainless steel tip holder

The manual is multilingual, very informative and includes a frequency graph (which incidentally corresponds very closely with my own – nice to know my rig is recording things nicely).

TECHNICAL SPECIFICATIONS
(From RHA)

	RHA CL1
Cost	USD 449.95 (RHA website)
Type	Dual transducer dynamic IEM with ceramic plate driver
Driver Type	Dynamic + ultra wide band ceramic (CL) driver
Frequency Range	16Hz – 45 kHz
Impedance	150 ohms
Sensitivity	89 dB
Jack	3.5mm gold plated – straight (SE) mini XLR gold plated - balanced
Cables	1.35m replaceable SE OFC with TPE outer coating 1.35m balanced silver core with TPE outer coating
Weight	14g (without cables)
IEM shell	ZrO2 injection moulded ceramic

FREQUENCY GRAPH
The graphs below 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.

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. My graphs have similarity to the ones shown in RHA's manual – but there are differences, especially in lower and upper treble..


Frequency graph and channel matching	RHA's graph from their included manual	CSD plot - clearly showing the big treble ridges

What I’m hearing from the CL1:

Elevated sub-bass, more akin to the default tuning in the RHA T10 and T20. There is a 10 dB difference between sub-bass and mid-range, and it is fairly noticeable. Very good extension.
Relatively flattish lower mid-range, which is recessed, but mainly due to the elevation of both sub-bass and lower treble.
Upper mid-range has a slow rise in the presence area (2-3 kHz) and gives a clear and clean vocal presence.
There is a very sharp and clear lower treble which I suspect will be be too hot for most (it is too sharp for me – there is a definite emphasis between 7-10 kHz, so if you are sensitive to brightness, will be problematic. A point of interest is the peaks measure around 25 dB above the fundamental vocal range at 1 kHz. Even RHA's graph shows similar.
Upper treble extension is very good – but surprisingly the CL750 measures better (sounds better too IMO)
Overall it is a very V/U shaped monitor with an extremely bright upper end.

Channel matching was reasonably good throughout most of the spectrum – but the differences shown above 3 kHz were consistent despite multiple measurements.

BUILD QUALITY / DESIGN

External
The RHA CL1 has a two piece injection moulded ceramic body which has an ergonomic shape similar in design to the RHA T10/T20. The shells main body is a approximately 18mm in length, 12-3mm in height, and 10 mm in depth (18mm if counting the nozzle length).


Outer face	Connectors and nozzles	Beautifully smooth inner faces

On the exterior of the IEM body, “RHA” is engraved on each earpiece and next to this is a small mesh covered port – I’m assuming this is to vent the dynamic driver. On the internal facing “CL1” is engraved, along with the L/R indicators. Both internal and external faces are incredibly smooth and there are no sharp edges when worn.

The nozzle proper is only 5mm in length, but in reality because of the shape of the housing extends closer to 7-8mm. It measures just over 5mm in diameter and takes a standard Comply Tx200 tip. There is a generous and well designed lip which securely holds the ear-tips.


From the rear	Socket and sMMCX connector	The CL1 is definitely a stunning earphone aesthetically

The cable is attached to the housing using a proprietary sMMCX locking method which is supposed to enhance both durability and contact efficiency. Basically it seems to be an extra sleeve over the base of the connector which firmly fits the MMCX connector to the socket. There is also a small tab so that the connector only fits one way. They do not seem to “snap” into place as firmly as other connectors – and so far I have found no other connector which actually fits (which is a pity – as I would have liked to try this balanced. Unfortunately the only balanced cable fits the L1 DAC/amp – and unfortunately either the cable or the L1 has a fault – and I cannot get the balanced connection working).

The cables
The cables are replaceable, and use the proprietary sMMCX connection. They both use formable ear-guides which have been patented by RHA and are similar to those used on the T10 and T20. They are very flexible, with a soft and malleable protective outer sheath. I’m not sure what materials are involved, but they are one of the best example of formable ear guides I’ve encountered – and for me, are very comfortable. The CL1 is designed to be worn over the ear only (my preferred method). The formable guides end with a strange 20mm plastic/rubber section which joins to the cable proper. I’m assuming this is simply to accommodate the join between the formable guides and the cable – but it does look a little strange and ungainly.


Single ended ear guides and connector	Y split and cinch	3.5mm jack

Both cables consist of twisted pairs from earpiece to y-split, which are then combined to larger twisted pairs between y-split and jack. The twisted pairs are covered with a TPE outer coating, and the whole cable is very flexible, and only slightly micro-phonic when worn over ear. The slight noise disappears entirely when cinched. The Y split location is very low on my chest (only about 2 inches above my belly-button) – which feels strange, and I would have listed as a con if not for the excellent inclusion of a very good slide-able cinch to keep everything in place. The y-split is made of stainless and has the serial number engraved in it, as well Lewis Heath's (RHA’s Product Director) signature. It is light enough not to notice, but heavy enough to keep the ear-loops nicely in place.

All points of the cable have excellent strain relief. Overall the cable has excellent build quality throughout, and I couldn't really see the need for swapping it with anything else – although I personally would prefer something with a little less bulk. The inability to swap with other cables I have (for aesthetic reasons) is somewhat annoying.


Balanced ear guides and connector	Balanced Y split and cinch	Balanced mini XLR plug

The single ended (default) is OFC and terminates in a straight 3.5mm gold plated jack. The casing is stainless steel and it has a premium look and feel. The jack has a screw in section at the base – allowing the adaptor to be applied. This extra spacing also makes the plug smart-phone case friendly (if your device has sufficient power).

The balanced cable is a silver core (Ag4x) and is fully balanced (each channel – left, right, positive, negative). It is essentially the same overall design as the single-ended, with outer same coating, same Y-split, strain relief and formable ear guides. It is terminated in a mini XLR jack which is again gold plated with a stainless steel body. The only thing I would have liked to have seen with this termination choice would have been an adaptor. I have DAPs with a common 2.5mm balanced connection – and it would have been nice to test and measure the cable. Sadly I am unable to do it.

Internals / Design
The review wouldn't be complete without mentioning what RHA has achieved with the internals of the CL1. The housing is injection moulded ZrO2 ceramic. Because of the material used, the housing is extremely high density, but also very light weight. This results in a very comfortable to wear, but also very durable earphone. It is also very low resonant – so that distortion should be kept to a very low level – if not eliminated almost entirely. The actual moulding part is a complex 7 stage process – clearly RHA has identified this as important to the overall design and necessary for the sonic performance of this earphone.

The dual transducer design of the CL1 combines RHA's CL dynamic driver (in their words “producing accurate tones below 8 kHz) with a new ceramic second layer diaphragm which effectively extends lower treble and upper treble above 8 kHz. A crossover is used at 8kHz to seamlessly combine the targeted frequencies of the combined drivers. The dynamic driver has a high impedance because of the high flux density of the voice coil array (which is just a mere six microns) – and it is this which allows the very high precision, detail and accuracy.

FIT / COMFORT / ISOLATION
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. I initially tried the included large silicone tips, and I was unable to maintain a constant seal. I then switched to the included Comply Tsx200s and got an immediate seal and fantastic comfort and isolation.


Default silicone single and dual flange tips	Sony Isolation/Trinity Kombi & Spin-Fits	Comply and Ostry tuning tips

The CL1 also fits Ostry tuning tips, Spin-fits, Spiral Dots and Sony Isolation / Trinity Kombi tips perfectly. Whilst I stuck with the Comply for this review – I did find that the other fore-mentioned tips all gave reasonably good seals.

Although the CL1 has a relatively shallow and non-angled nozzle, I personally find the overall fit to be fantastic. Comfort for me is excellent – the CL1 (like the CL750) is one of those designs which simply disappear when worn. They sit well within my outer ear (inside the external ear cavity), and are extremely easy to sleep in.


Spiral dots and included Tsx200	My preferred tip were the included Comply	Fit is fantastic and very comfortable

Isolation with the CL1 is better than average for me (not quite near Shure’s or Alclair’s almost perfect isolation – but very effective), and they would be good enough for public transport (despite the vent). With no music playing, you can just hear outside sound – but with music playing, isolation is definitely respectable.

There has been no driver flex present.

SOUND QUALITY
The following is what I hear from the RHA CL1. 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 X5ii + A5 as source, and the included Comply tips. The reason I chose to go with the X5ii + A5 combo was merely to ensure that there was more than enough power on tap for the CL1.


Default pairing - X5ii and A5	The new FiiO X5iii	iPhone and RHA L1

For the record – on most tracks, the volume level on the A5 was around 9 o'clock on the pot (using 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.

Frequency Relativity

Sub-bass – very well extended, with extremely little roll-off (excellent for a dynamic driver) and there is reasonable level of rumble present, but it is doesn't appear over done for the most part. Sub-bass shows a peak to the curve at around 40-50 Hz and is raised quite a bit compared to mid-bass. Personally I would have preferred the sub-bass to be a little more balanced with mid-bass, but I know others will like the default bass presentation as it is.
Mid-bass – less presence compared to sub-bass but it sounds pretty natural. Distribution is very good and the overall result is quite pleasant. However due to the apparent recession of the mid-range, on some tracks I have found myself reaching for more volume, and this then elevates the bass response above my personal liking. There is no noticeable bleed into the mid-range. Both mid and sub-bass are elevated compared to lower mid-range.
Lower mid-range – very recessed compared to bass and extremely recessed compared to upper mid-range and lower treble. Its not all bad though – just quite distant – and I've found myself upping the volume with some tracks (which brings some issues with both bass and treble). Because of the elevated lower treble, and recessed lower mid-range, I have found that male vocals can sound quite thin. My go-to Pearl Jam – lacked body on the vocals.
Upper mid-range – elevated compared to lower mid-range, and it is slow rise from lower mid-range to the first peak at about 3 kHz. The result is a clean and clear vocal range, with good presence to lend a sense of euphony to female vocals. The upper mid-range on the CL1 is one of the better qualities of this IEM, and under EQ can be extremely pleasant.
Lower treble – elevated (massively). There is a peak at between 5-6 kHz, and it is considerably higher than the upper-mid peak. From this point there are further climbs of 8-10 dB between 7-9 kHz. The problem with the lower treble is the size of the peaks +25 dB above the recessed mid-range at 1 kHz. So while you do get a lot of clarity, there is also a sharpness / sizzle which seems to be always present. For me, even tracks like Pearl Jams “Elderly Woman Behind the Counter in a Small Town” becomes very sibilant (and it is not a sibilant track). Cymbal decay is actually better than the CL750 (it is audible) but it is also too sharp, and I've found myself constantly wincing on tracks which have any semblance of higher energy. For tracks recorded on the brighter side – forget it, the CL1 with its default tuning can tune a listening experience to a nightmare.
Upper treble – difficult to notice because of the massive intensity of the lower treble (under 10 kHz)

Resolution / Detail / Clarity

Good with micro detail, and able to resolve most finer details well.
Cymbal hits have good presence, and also good sense of decay. This is unfortunately mitigated by the overly crisp sizzle (tish sound – hard to describe) which is always present – but heightened by any sound occurring above about 5 kHz
A very clean and clear monitor with good resolution but overall portrayal is unnaturally (and extremely) on the bright side.

Sound-stage, Imaging

Extremely precise directional queues, and just outside the periphery of my head space with binaural tracks – so very good sense of width and depth.
Spherically presented stage – with very good presentation of both width and depth
Compelling sense of immersion with the applause section of “Dante's Prayer” - but it did sound unnatural (again that sizzle which is simply the lower treble emphasis). I use “Let it Rain” as my sibilance test and also because it is quiet an immersive track from a 3D perspective (the way it is recorded). I had to stop 20 seconds into the track. The sibilance (it is normally present in the track anyway) was heightened to a point which made it unlistenable for any length of time.

Strengths

Good overall bass response – and with slight reduction (4-5 dB) suits my tastes quite nicely
Reasonable presentation (if a trifle thin in tonality/texture) with male vocals, better with female vocals. The thin-ness of the male vocals may be due to the over-abundance of harmonics paired with the recession of fundamentals in the mid-range.
Pretty good with dynamic music – and able to show very good contrast between bass and upper mid-range (e.g. cello and violin). You really need to EQ the lower treble down on the violin though.
Pretty good with acoustic music and gives strings good sense of realism and tone when plucked, and nice edge to electric guitar when strummed. The only caveat again is the sharpness in some notes (a real guitar does not sound this accentuated)
Good with female vocals, lending a slight air of euphony and sweetness. Somewhat spoiled at times by the over-abundance of harmonics compared to fundamentals.

Weaknesses

Lower treble is extremely over-done relative to the rest of the frequency range. Anyone with a sensitivity toward brightness, or a preference to a richer mellower tonality should avoid.
Vocal fundamentals can tend to sound a little recessed
Not good at moderate to high volumes – lower treble gets extremely unpleasant. This is not helped by the vocal recession (which actually prompts trying to turn the CL1 volume up)
This would be one of the least flagship sounding flagships I've heard. Most have a nice sense of overall balance. This is unfortunately missing on the CL1

AMPLIFICATION REQUIREMENTS
The CL1 with its lower sensitivity and higher impedance really needs to be amplified. But it can sound pretty good straight from a smart-phone of DAP as long as they aren't power limited. From my iPhone SE with general pop/rock songs, around 50-60% volume was sufficient to get to a pretty good listening level.


iPhone with IMS HVA	iPhone with RHA L1

With the X3ii I needed 60-70/120 (low gain) depending on the track, and it was similar on the X5ii. The X5iii was around 55-65. So while amplification is recommended, if you have a DAP or source which is powerful enough, you should net some pretty good results. To be honest I didn't notice a lot of difference between the different amplified and unamplified sources I tried – mainly tonality with the amp sections. One of my favourite combos was the IMS HVA and iPhone SE as transport. The other was the X3ii and E17K – see below for reasons.

EQUALISATION
You've probably already guessed at what I think needs changing on the CL1. Yep – tame those treble peaks (and for my personal preference – drop the bass to bring the vocals more into balance) and it should be a very nice sounding IEM. I knew this was going to need quite a bit of reduction so I concentrated on using the tone controls on both RHA's L1 and also the E17K.

So with the iPhone SE as transport, and RHA's L1. I took the treble down to -3, and bass down -1 using the tone controls. The result was definite improvement, but still not enough. I knew from measuring the L1 that this had only dropped the upper treble by about 2.5 dB. Time to use something with a little more ability to lower those peaks.


E17K - swiss army knife for simple but effective EQ	EQ difference with L1	EQ difference with E17K - result was sublime

This time with my go-to, the X3ii and E17K, and engaging -8 treble and -4 bass (the E17K was on 27/60 volume). The result was (to my ears) absolutely brilliant – and if this was the default signature, I really do think it's appeal would be a lot more universal. Really an amazing transformation.

My final test was with the new X5iii, using EQ I dropped the 8 kHz down all the way, 16 kHz down most of the way (so as to provide more reduction in the 9-10 kHz area) and 4 kHz slider down slightly. Again a good improvement – although I think that overall the best difference was with the X3ii and E17K combo.

COMPARISONS
This was going to be a hard one because of its price bracket, and because the default tuning is polarising. I could name any number of lower priced IEMs which perform better than the default tuning of the CL1 but it would not be giving you a lot of information. So I chose instead to look at IEMs regardless of p;rice which show a similarly bright signature – as it would give more information to perspective buyers. For this test, I chose Rhapsodio's RTi1, Earsonic's ES3, DUNU's DN2000J, and RHA's own CL750. I've also shown a comparative graph of Campfire's Andromeda and Orion – which I personally consider to be (at two different price points) some of the most well balanced and extended monitors around. Both are also reference points when targeting treble extension IMO. Unfortunately I do not have the Andromeda or Orion for direct comparison.

With the comparisons, I first volume matched with a 1 kHz test tone and SPL meter. I had a fast switch set-up in place with a splitter and volume attenuator for the volume matching. This section is very subjective, as it is sighted, the change between IEMs took about 5-10 seconds, and I knew exactly which one I was listening to. But it is my honest thoughts on where the CL1 sits for my own personal tastes. Source used was the E17K / X3ii combo – with no EQ.

CL1 ($450) vs Dunu DN2000J ($285)


RHA CL1 vs DUNU DN2000J	Comparative frequency response plots

Both have similarly good build (as far as materials go), and accessories. The CL1 has the better overall materials (ceramic) and is far more comfortable and fits much better. The CL1 also includes detachable cables and the option to go balanced. The CL1 is reasonably difficult to drive whilst the DN-2000J is easily driven out of practically any audio device.

Sonically both are on the V shaped side of neutral, but where the DN2000J is mildly so, you can see the excessive difference with the CL1. Where the DN-2000J is a moderately bright sounding IEM with similar treble peak locations, the lower treble and bass are far more benign and in line with the vocals. So the DN-2000J remains clear and clean – but more importantly somewhat balanced. The CL1 in comparison is excessively coloured and massively bright. EQing out the peaks with the E17K effectively gets a monitor sounding a lot closer to the DN-2000J's natural frequency response, so you can see how good the CL1 potentially becomes.

CL1 ($450) vs Earsonics ES3 ($399)


RHA CL1 vs Earsonics ES3	Comparative frequency response plots

The CL1 clearly has the better build quality overall, and better accessories. I actually prefer the lower bulk of the ES3's more generic cable, but that is simply personal preference. Both have extremely good fit and comfort. Again the CL1 is reasonably difficult to drive whilst the ES3 is easily driven out of practically any audio device.

Sonically the ES3 is slightly U shaped with elevated sub-bass and lower treble, but the difference of course is the flatness of the mid-bass and lower mid-range on the ES3 (vs CL1's more traditional hump), and the extent of the treble on the CL1. The ES3 is a very clean and clear monitor with emphasis on sub-bass and lower treble – so there is a certain warmth in the very low end but a clean, clear, and slightly cold upper end. The CL1 on the other hand has a more natural sounding bass, comparatively heavily recessed mid-range, and extremely bright upper end. Both are quite coloured (you would call neither neutral or natural). But the CL1's treble is massive compared with the ES3 – and not in a good way.

CL1 ($450) vs Rhapsodio RTi1 ($600-800)


RHA CL1 vs Rhapsodio RTi1	Comparative frequency response plots

This one is here simply to show the similarity between the two monitors, and also because at first listen, I was immediately reminded of the RTi1. Both have very good build. The RTi1 has the better cabling system IMO – being more traditional two pin. Both are comfortable – but I'd actually take the overall fit of the CL1 over the RTi1 – for me personally it fits better.

Sonically the two are very similar. The difference is in the volume of lower treble – especially between 6-10 kHz. Where the RTi1 has a little heat – but for me is OK without EQ, the CL1 has a lot more lower treble (10 dB+) - it is both noticeable and detracts a lot from the signature. If you were prepared to EQ the CL1, you can get a better overall signature from it – but if you are not an EQer, the more expensive RTi1 will give a better overall sonic signature.

CL1 ($450) vs CL750 ($140)


RHA CL1 vs RHA CL750	Comparative frequency response plots

I won't go into a lot of detail with this comparison. Both are from RHA, and although the CL1 is their flagship, there are a number of areas which I consider the CL750 to be the better earphone. Build is very good on both – but I must confess that I'm not a fan of the proprietary MMCX cable connection system. Otherwise, the CL1 has the ceramic casing, the additional driver membrane layer, and the more ergonomic fit – but they mean nothing if the overall experience is not enhanced by the use of these.

Tonally, while both are V shaped, the CL1 is more so – exhibiting too much sub- bass and way too much lower treble to be enjoyable without a heavy dose of EQ (and definitely not for a flagship). The CL1 is too hot and makes practically every track I've listened to sibilant and harsh to the point of removing enjoyment. Next to the CL1, the CL750 is a blindingly good bargain.

Showing difference to “reference” - CL1 ($550) vs CA Andromeda ($1100) & CA Orion ($350)


Campfire's Andromeda	Campfire's Orion	Comparative frequency response plots

I won't talk about anything except frequency response in this section (although build quality is truly very good on all 3). I don't have the Orion or Andromeda for side-by-side comparison, so instead will rely on the graphs.

A reference monitor (to me) should have well extended bass, a slight mid-bass hump (this sounds more natural to us), a slow rise from lower-mids to upper-mids (from vocal fundamentals to vocal harmonics – again sounds more natural), and good extension into the lower treble without getting to peaky. Sometimes there will be emphasis at around 7 kHz, and as long as this isn't overly accentuated, can give a nice lift to detail levels – particularly with cymbal fundamentals.

The Andromeda and Orion are excellent examples of balance and reference tuning. I will simply let the graphs speak for themselves. The intended tuning of the CL1 and the issues it introduces can be clearly seen.

RHA CL1 - SUMMARY

I love it when you see companies pushing the boundaries. Sometimes they get it spectacularly right, sometimes spectacularly wrong, and sometimes they have almost everything right – so that their next release will be the perfect one. Ultimately I think RHA are definitely on the right track with the CL750, but missed the mark with their flagship CL1. There is (IMO) too much sub-bass and way too much lower mid-range and upper-treble to be classed as a flagship.

As far as build quality goes – it is top notch. No flaws or obvious design faults. Fit and comfort both excellent. RHA really knows how to ace this area of design. Accessories are great – and when you consider the price range for the materials used – it could actually be very good value.

Sonically the CL1 still has the basis of a potentially excellently tuned IEM. If you use the EQ to slightly tone the bass down, and heavily reduce the upper end, it is a wonderful sounding monitor. The problem is that without this, the signature is ear-piercing. At lower volume this does not manifest as badly – but at lower volumes, the recessed mid-range disappears. As soon as you raise the volume, then the ear-shredding treble takes over. I like a brighter signature – but this is clearly over done.

The problem is how to rate them. They get top marks for build, accessories, and even for design (the science behind what they are doing is a step in the right direction). The tuning is just horribly wrong IMO. If I give the CL1 a 2.5, then it appears as a negative - but this does not tell the full story. The CL1 (after heavy EQ to negate the peaks) is an excellent monitor, and combine that with the build quality and price point – then if you are prepared to EQ, they actually are a bargain. But if you are relying on default signature – then it is impossible for me to recommend them. On the basis that you would EQ, I'll give them 3/5. If Head-Fi's rating showed 2.5 as a neutral review rather than negative – then it would be a 2.5/5.

Once again thanks to RHA for including me as part of the tour.

FINAL COMMENTS
I know I will likely get a comment from someone regarding the balanced connection. Fortunately I finally figured out what was up with the L1 as I was doing the final edit. It turns out that on this particular L1 - if you use unit s both DAC and amp, the balanced connection works. If you just use the line-in (ie as pass through), it doesn't seem to want to go. But at least I could both measure and compare the L1 balanced and single ended with the CL1. One of the first things that puzzled me is that usually balanced will yield more volume. To my ear - there was no real change - so I measured it. Sure enough - no change in frequency or in volume between the balanced and single ended connections.


Single ended vs balanced using RHA L1 DAC/amp	RHA L1 DAC/amp compared to FiiO's E17K

Next step was to make sure that my gear was measuring properly - with a source I know well - so I used the E17K and remeasured. The reason the E17K shows slightly higher peaks is that it's DAC is extremely linear - with hardly any roll-off. So I think I can say quite confidently that nay talk of the balanced connection taming the treble simply aren't true.

I'm guessing they did - could be this pair - but a few have mentioned similar tuning. I think what they've done with the extension is pretty promising - they just need to balance the end result. I'd suggest giving their team a chance to comment. It could be what they were aiming for - but personally I think some changes and it could be a far more versatile IEM. I guess I often see the cup half full .....

My set was pretty bad and I was talking buot the odd treble before your graphs. I think it is the tuning.
Company care and service was great for you. I still have 2 mails related to tech and a coupon that have not been returned for 5 and 3 weeks.

Thanks Chris - it looks like the tuning was deliberate then. Did you manage to EQ it to a better signature?