Disclaimer: the F7 was purchased directly from the CustomArt, Poland with full retail price. I am not affiliated with the company nor do I receive any kind of incentives or rewards for writing this review.

Introduction: When it comes to the FIBAE line-up, I don’t think that lengthy description is needed given that the previous models such as F2 through F4 have been extremely well received by the audiophile community. Personally owning the F2 and F3 (both universals), I have grown to love CustomArt’s house sound – clear, forwardly positioned vocals, fun bass and never fatiguing signature. When Piotr announced the F7 anniversary model, I jumped right on and hope that they would have maintained the traits I love, SQ-wise, and the F7 does not disappoint!


Build quality and fit: The anniversary model comes in universal only – the blue/lagoon-ish shell is gorgeous and the build quality is perfect as to be expected from CustomArt. The shells, though, are much thicker than those of F2 and F3 – kind of obvious since there are 7 drivers on each side. To my ears, the fit of the F7 is kind of tricky: using the same sized tips on both sides, the ‘tightness’ are not the same. I am not saying that there is any king of sizing inconsistency – I am mentioning this because my ears are not of the exact same shape and this does affect the sound that I perceive which I will talk about later in the review.
TL;DR – perfect build quality as always.



Sound: Piotr describes the sound signature of the F7 as “most natural sounding IEM in Custom Art’s portfolio” and, from my experience with his products, I couldn’t agree more. The overall signature of the F7 is, indeed, natural in a sense that no frequencies overshadow another. The elaborate, the bass is powerful enough to ‘feel’ and is not lacking by any means, the mids are dense and, consistent with the house sound, vocals are bodied and forwardly-placed, and highs are prominent without sibilance.

Bass: Starting with the lows, the F7 definitely has a sub-bass bias over mid and upper bass. The bass extends really low where kick drums are easily felt while the control remains excellent. Rumbles are present and can really draw the focus if the tracks demand. While the bass is strong and fun, it is not stepping anywhere near the basshead territory. Mid and upper bass are not recessed, but they are not accentuated too much so they don’t occupy too much space in the audiovisual landscape and thus allows for other frequencies to cut through clearly. Speed is fast given the quantity and layering is very well executed given that the bass is BA-driven. On that note, bass texture is still not at the same level as the bass from dynamic driver (W900 comes to mind) but for what it does, the F7 renders its bass with grace and power. The bass has dimensions and dynamics -- definitely not your typical one-note bass associated with BAs.

Mids: Midrange, to me, is the area that makes for breaks the IEM. My attention is, most of the times, on the vocalist(s) or instruments that drive the melody such as guitars or piano and the F7 does put those elements under spotlight. I have always loved that CustomArt execute vocals in a way that, does not really matter what the sound signature is (natural or V-shaped), the vocals always cut through with ease. The F7 follows the same path but with extra refinement – Vocals are of sufficient sizes, however, they are exceptionally dense and bodied while remaining not too warm nor too bright and without any sibilance – truly an exceptional balance. I can see, though, that this placement of vocals can be too forward for some: on some tracks (tracks where bass is not the focus – Asian tracks with vocals plus old school instruments such as drums, guitars and bass), vocals can come out as shouty at high volumes.

One quick note: I do notice slight left ear bias in the midrange, especially with vocals, where I feel like the sound pressure on the left side is a little bit stronger that the right which gives a feeling of the vocalist being placed slightly to the left of the stage instead of the center stage. This could be due to the insertion problem I mentioned earlier in the fit section or some slight channel imbalance.

Highs: The highs of the F7 is slightly forward and are really well extended. The higher octaves are easily heard and the presence of highest of highs contributes to the air that suffuses throughout the entire frequency response. The presentation of high frequency is exceptionally balanced – I don’t hear any bias towards lower treble, mid or high treble that to me, that is such a feat that gives the high frequency such a natural timbre. One other thing about the highs that impress me is, again, how the frequencies are presented with such body and authority without being sibilant.


Technicalities: The F7 impresses with its exceptional balance across the frequency range but how does it perform when it comes to technicalities? The first minute of listen did not give that ‘wow’ factor – the F7 does not try to impress by pushing details at you nor surrounding you with ridiculously big soundstage. Resolution-wise, the F7 is not the most resolving IEM out there (offerings like Empire Ears Zeus and Vision Ear VE8 come to mind). Don’t get me wrong, I am definitely NOT saying that it is not resolving since it is definitely not the case and resolution is relative (as I will elaborate more in the comparison section). However, once you let the F7 sit in for a little while, it will start to show its prowess – spatial cues rendering is top-notch – you can really pinpoint where each note originates from thanks to its 3D soundstage and excellent imaging ability. This is not a stage that totally surrounds you with a wall of sound (think FAudio major) or with depth and strong bass (think Empire Ears X line-up) like most of the V-shape IEMs. Instead, the F7 offers soundstage that is more natural – it gives the feeling of being in an semi-open space as opposed to being in a concert hall. I used the word ‘semi’ here because it is definitely not the most open sounding IEM but I have heard a lot of this really ‘open’ sounding products that sacrifice the integrity of the stage for the sheer size and openness. I would say that the F7 strikes a great balance between openness while maintaining the coherence of the stage. Speaking of coherence, the presentation of the entire frequency range sounds coherent – as if the F7 is driven by a single driver. Natural timbre is maintained across the frequency range and not one part of the spectrum stands out as outlier – remarkable feat for 7-driver IEMs. Note size is average; however, it is the density and power of each note that stands out. Note edge is distinct – each note has its own boundary and does not bleed over not does it blur out the overall presentation and this gives the feeling of space and separation. For me, personally, this ability really grows on me the longer I listen to the F7 as I kept discovering the little spatial details (Oh, I did not know that this note comes from behind my head!) from even the tracks that I have been listening to repeatedly. Kudos to the CustomArt team


Select Comparisons

CustomArt FIBAE3: I did a number of sessions of A/B-ing the F3 and the F7 because my initial impression of the F7 is that it is like the F3 on steroids. I would stand behind that statement but with come elaborations. I feel like the F7 has a similar overall frequency response to the F3 ina sense that they are both quite a W-shape IEMs. Starting from the bass, both IEMs have sub-bass focus. The difference comes to the power and layering where the F7 hits harder and extends slightly lower – kick drums sound more physical. The upper bass of the F3 feels more bloated next to the F7 – there is more definition that results from the more resolved note edge on the F7. The mids share similar forwardness but the F7 is much more bodied which can make the F3 sounds hollow. The F3 has bigger note size and more diffuse note edge while, again, the F7 is more defined and is much denser – this gives vocals throaty quality. Comparison of the highs follow the same trend – notes are clearer on the F7 and are more controlled. With its more defined notes, the F7 offers better separation and significantly improved imaging. Timbre is better and more natural (organic) on the F7 as well due to its denser notes while the sheer sized is more confined. One thing that contributes to the slightly plastic timbre of the F3 is that even though the notes are big and on a brighter (leaner) side of the scale, the transient is quite slow. F7 have that problem handled and now the timbre is much more natural. F3 is ‘open’ sounding, but the stage feels small coming from the F7.

CustomArt FIBAE2: The F2 is what started it all for me – I fell in love with it and then bought the F3 and later the F7. My beloved CustomArt house sound started with the F2 – nice and bodied bass, forward vocals and present but not offensive highs. Back when I got the F2, its ability to render spatial cues blew my mind. I was watching a movie with the F2 and on many occasion I though someone walked into my room – turned out it was the room in the movie. Wow. F2 gives this feeling of being in a live-performance and being surrounded by the performers. Comparing the F2 to the F7, I found that the F7 improves the good traits from the F2 and brings them onto new heights by enhancing the technicalities such as resolution and separation. Switching from the F7 back to the F2 feels like putting a resolution filter on – I am not saying that the F2 is not resolving – it is just not as resolving as the F7 and there is a ‘blur’ factor coming directly from the F7. Maybe this is also because of the more lifted mid-bass on the F2 that slightly bleeds and blur out the entire presentation (again, the word ‘blur’ is relative). Vocals are more forward on the F7 and highs have significantly better extension. As with the F3, the stage dimensions are more extended on all three directions on the F7.


Verdict: The F7 is my favorite TOTL IEMs yet. With sublime technicalities equipped with toe-tapping musicality without pushing the details at your face, the F7 strikes a balance that I have never heard before on the market and in a good way. Currently, my pair is back at CustomArt for reshelling into customs and I can do more comparisons and update my impressions once I got it back.

Campfire Polaris Review

Disclaimer: This Polaris unit was graciously lent in by a friend who purchased the unit in full price for limited period of time. I am not affiliated with Campfire Audio and the review reflects my honest opinion on the Polaris.

Introduction: Not needed. Campfire Audio is a company that is already known throughout the audiophile community with many well-praised products and the recent hype for the Solaris. The Polaris, released back in 2017, seems to have been forgotten and apparently discontinued (out of stock) on the website. I have got a chance to demo a unit back in 2017 Canjam RMAF and, though for a short listen, was impressed with the tuning though I wished I could get more ear time with it.

Fit: Briefly, the Polaris fits better than the Andromeda to my ears due to longer nozzles – better isolation and more secure fit (with final audio e-type tips).



Overall: The impressions you are about to read are taken from the Polaris played directly from iphone X with stock cable. First thought that came in when I plugged these in was “Wow, these sound really raw”. To elaborate on that, the Polaris does not hold back its punches in any of the frequency regions. To my ears, it does not present the sound in V-shape manner – vocals still come through with dominance. V-shape with the upper-bass/lower-midrange at the bottom of the V perhaps.


Bass: Equipped with a dynamic driver, of course the Polaris delivers impressive bass. The bass, in the overall presentation, is not too dominant nor too forwardly placed – perhaps a little forward when compared directly to the midrange. There is no bass bloom to be seen anywhere – the lower region is undoubtedly sub-bass focused with relatively attenuated mid- and upper-bass. This might suggest the bass being on a drier side of the spectrum, which is true to a certain extent, however, the texture of the bass is very much indicative of dynamic driver – liquidy, smooth and punchy. This is the bass that you can ‘feel’ more than ‘hear’; don’t get me wrong here, you can still definitely hear it but the ‘head-banging’ factor is definitely there. I will note that, as with most dynamic drivers, the quantity of bass is very dependent on the track – if the bass is emphasized in the mix, the Polaris will not hold back. However, if the track is not bass-prominent (i.e. soft instrumental pop/rock), the bass will not be as present even though the bass will still be there though. In other words, this bass is NOT artificial as is the bass from most BA drivers. Lower-end extension is impressive.


Mids: The lower midrange is noticeably dipped, starting from the mid-bass going up the lower midrange, resulting in lack of warmth in vocals and midrange instruments. Male vocals, especially lower-pitched ones, lack the chesty quality – power and emotions do not get through very well. Upper midrange, in the other hand, is accentuated and this quality brings vocals forward, especially female vocals. What I am impressed the most by the Polaris’ midrange is its ability to present music in an ‘unfiltered’ way – the Polaris does not smooth things out too much; i.e, electric guitars retain their crunchy edges. The midrange does not sound ‘veiled’; the mids are clear with decent room between instruments. I do appreciate this tuning though; with the lower midrange sacrificed, it allows for upper midrange to be presented in such clean and ‘in your face’ manner. Vocals are easily separated, almost as an isolated line of notes with coherency still intact, from the mix. If they have the lower midrange pushed up, I do not think that the Polaris would retain this characteristic and coherency could have been lost. Still, with some poorly recorded tracks, the timbre of the mids can come off a little plasticky. Nevertheless, the Polaris’ upper midrange never comes across as sibilant – something that I have seen with IEMs that try to push the upper-midrange for extra clarity. In brief, this is not an organic nor the most natural midrange, but for where it stands, the Polaris executes midrange with authority.


Highs: Lower treble is prominent – cymbals and hi-hats are brought forward. The theme of ‘rawness’ continues here, where the highs are prominent and do demand your attention, but the Polaris does so NOT in an obnoxious manner. Most of the time, I don’t detect any sibilance here. The highs, despite their prominence in the mix, are not very bodied – high notes are forward but their sheer size (how much space each note occupies in the audiovisual landscape) is not very big. Again, this particular characteristic partially contributes to its timbre being a little plasticky at times. Extension is decent at best; I do not hear the highest of highs (like I do with the Zeus or W900) here but at this price point, the Polaris does not lack behind.

Technicalities: Decent for the price. The stage of the Polaris is reasonably expanded in both X and Y directions and height is just okay. There is generous amount of space between instruments resulting in great separation. Imaging, however, is just mediocre. Not terrible for the price, but definitely not at top of its class. I do not get the sense of exact location of each instrument on the stage and the construction of the stage is not very holographic (3D) – I do not hear the wall of sound enveloping the stage from all directions. Resolution is decent – not smoothed over nor blurry by any means but definitely not at the TOTL level. Macro details are pushed in front while micro details are not very apparent or present (Please don’t get me wrong, it is NOT BAD by any means as I will elaborate more on this in the comparison section – all things are relative).


Select (available) comparison:

Campfire Andromeda: I know this is not a fair comparison, but since the Andro is such a classic I figured a lot of people would get the idea of hoe the Polaris sounds with this comparison. Starting with the bass, I would say that the overall quantity is similar; the Polaris focuses more on sub-bass where the Andro has slightly more mid-bass. Extension is similar on both. However, the bass texture of the Polaris, thanks to its dynamic driver, takes the cake. It’s more liquid-y with higher dynamic range – all in all, a more engaging bass. The midrange of the Andro is more warmth-infused compare to the Polaris – lower midrange of the Andro is significantly more present, resulting in vocals and midrange instruments sounding much fuller, denser and more bodied. Male vocals sounds chesty, a quality that the Polaris simply lacks. However, coming directly from the Polaris, I feel as if the midrange of the Andro is alightly smoothed over and laid-back whereas the Polaris is more transparent and engaging even though the sheer resolution of the Andro is higher. Upper midrange of the Andro is more in-line with the rests of the frequencies on the Andro where the Polaris pushes the upper midrange forward and thus vocals on the Polaris are more separated from instruments. Moving up to the highs, the timbre definitely goes to the Andro – the highs sounds much more natural whereas the Polaris sounds metallic when compared directly. Extension is much better on the Andro. Staging-wise, the Andro is much more holographic and the stage expands in all three directions – a bigger and more complete stage with significantly more headroom compared to the Polaris. Imaging is better on the Andro where spatial cues are more distinguished and easier to pick out. In brief, Andro is a warmer and has a more complete and mature tuning while the Polaris is more engaging (younger at heart if you will). There are times, when sheer enjoyment, head banging experience, is desired, that I would pick the Polaris over the Andro.

CustomArt FIBAE 2: a more reasonable comparison. The F2 boasts more overall bass quantity than the Polaris. However, texture (again), quality and extension goes to the Polaris – even though I would consider the bass of the F2 to be very good for an all-BA setup, the Polaris has it beaten; DD bass simply is more engaging and there is more rumble and definition without losing control. The midrange is warmer on the F2 and is a more smoothed over. Again, the recessed lower midrange of the Polaris takes out the warmth in comparison to the F2. The highs of the F2 are more bodies and the timbre is better. Extension on both is similar – not very extended but not roll-off either. Resolution is slightly better on the Polaris and the stage is airier with more space between instruments. However, the F2 kills the Polaris when it comes to imaging – every note occupies an exact, definite space on the stage. Not that the Polaris has bad imaging ability, the F2 is just very good and this quality punches way above its price point. To summarize, the Polaris is more engaging with slightly brighter timbre and the F2 is more laid-back and warm with better imaging.

Summary: I don’t know if the Polaris has been discontinued but if it does, I really do regret not getting it while I got the chance. Technicality-wise, the Polaris does not stand out. However, if the fun factor is considered, Polaris is one of the best I have heard. It does not go into the bass-head territory but the sound is extremely dynamic and engaging thanks to the punchy but well-controlled bass, forward though slightly thin midrange, and dominant highs. A coherent amalgamation of these sonic qualities without being peaky nor sibilant – a campfire house sound indeed. Does it get my recommendation? Heck YES!

Cross Lambda Stardust Review

Disclaimer: Crosslambda Stardust was provided to me free of charge for a limited amount of time in exchange for my honest review.

Introduction: Improvement in sound quality resulting from upgrading the cables is such a controversial topic in the audio world – Some people hear the dramatic difference resulting from swopping cables while others do not. With my relatively limited experience with upgrade cables, I would put myself somewhere in between the two groups of people – I do hear differences that upgrade cables have to offer but I don’t hear it to the extent at which upgrade cables can TOTALLY change the sound signature of the IEMs. For example, if an IEM has too much mid-bass, the leanest-sounding silver cable can slightly alter the signature to a certain degree; However, at the end of the day, that IEM will still be too mid-bassy for me.

IMHO, even though, generally, each upgrade cable offers certain characteristics to the sound, the change in sound is very much dependent on the pairing. For instance, a cable might elevate the bass for a particular IEM but the effect might not be observable on another IEM. Therefore, in the review, I will comment on each pair-up separately.

Stardust + Zeus XIV (vs. Ares II)

Great pair-up. Starting from the bottom end, there is slightly more rumble in the sub-bass region. The bass definitely feels more ‘beefy’ – there is more body to it in the way that the bass can be felt as opposed to just being heard. The catch, here, is that while the bass is slightly elevated, it gains more control as well. Bass definition, i.e. resolution, is slightly better. I would say that it is easier to visualize each bass note as being on its own ‘isolated’ island.

Moving up to the mids, the range that is more affected by this cable swop is definitely the vocals. The positioning of vocals is slightly more forward compared to Ares II. However, vocals gain a significant amount of body in the lower mid region – male vocals, especially, benefit from this. Upper mid retains its body with increased smoothness. Instruments like electric guitars and piano are less affected – their bodies and forwardness are similar to Ares II but they have slightly lost some of the bites and edges in exchange for extra smoothness.

I do not hear any significant change in the treble area coming from Ares II except that the peaks, when paired with Ares II, that cause sibilance are “slightly” smoothed over. Not by much though, since the Zeus’ trebles, paired with the stardust, still sounds slightly peaky and hot after a long listening session.

To be honest, I am not very good at describing soundscape and visual field of IEMs. I can’t really distinguish between different “shapes” of the stage that IEMs construct, i.e-Oval-shaped vs rectangular-shaped. However, I still do have pretty decent ideas regarding the dimension, i.e.-width, height and depth, of the stage. Dimension-wise, I found the stardust to be able to maintain the qualities of the Zeus while slightly increases the depth of the stage, resulting in more 3D staging. Layering improves with the stardust as well as separation, where each note has slightly clearer ‘edge’ and is easier to distinguish.



Stardust + AAW W900 (vs. stock)

This is an interesting pair-up; the W900, to my ears, is strongly affected by cable swap. When I first paired the stardust with W900, I was wowed with the vocal-centric tracks. However, later when I switched to mainstream music, i.e.-pop, instruments-based or electronic music, where bass is one of the most important driving forces, I found this pairing to be lacking in the bass region. It took me by surprise, since I don’t consider W900 to be bass-light. Don’t get me wrong, the bass is definitely still there, but I found myself looking for it most of the time, which shouldn’t really happen as I was supposed to just sit back and enjoy the music rather than having to constantly analyze and tell myself “oh hey, there’s the bass”. With this pairing, the bass does ‘carry’ the music so it does not sound ‘lacking’, but it does not engage nor does it add the welcomed excitement. The note size gets significantly smaller where the bass does not surround or envelope you like it does when paired with stock cable (or even better, with Effect Audio Thor II – my personal favorite pairing so far). On the bright side, definition and resolution of each bass note is definitely better. For faster bass lines, each note is easier to pick out.

As I mentioned earlier, the stardust do wonders to the mids of the W900. To my ears, this cable turns the W900 into a mid-centric-ish IEM. Midrange, especially vocals, gains body and weight. With the stock cable, midrange, IMHO, sounds hollow and diffused. Linearity in the upper treble region gives the upper edge of vocal notes a sense of clarity; however, in doing so, the notes sound big but NOT dense. Swopping the stock with the stardust smooths out this effect and the resulting vocals are dense and solid vocals. The sheer size of vocals may have been reduced, but the additional density is definitely capable of eliminating the hollowness of the vocals. Consequentially, timbre, which is one of the weak traits of the W900, is greatly improved. Positioning of vocals is also brought slightly forward. Instruments are benefited from the stardust as well as they gain body and timbre is, though not to the extent of vocals, improved.

The stardust gives W900’s treble region in general a boost in overall quality. I have read a couple impressions on the treble of W900 being ‘metallic’ sounding, i.e.- not natural sounding, something I totally agree with. With the stardust, treble gains control – the ‘piercing’ quality decreases and the region, as a whole, takes a slight step back in terms of positioning. Extension, however, is maintained.

Staging-wise, I do hear an increase in width while depth is unchanged. As with the Zeus, I do hear improvement in layering and separation where it feels as if each instrument and each note is surrounded by air. However, with the smaller bass quantity, even though the stage becomes more open, I do feel that the stage, as a whole, is not complete or full – I feel as though there are too much of blank space between instruments and the stage, in general, lacks weight.

Overall, this pairing is excellent for vocal-based or acoustic music since the stardust improves the presentation of the treble and, especially, the mids. However, for genre like pop, rock and EDM where bass does more than just accompanying the music, I would not recommend pairing the W900 with the stardust.

Verdict: Crosslambda stardust is a cable that excels in technicalities with overall smooth presentation in the mids and treble. Vocals are given the power and forward presentation it’s due. Effects on sound quality and signature are strongly dependent on the pair-up, as this holds true with almost every upgrade cables. Paring with W900 results in vocals that sounds throatier and more powerful while sacrificing a tiny bit of clarity. This loss this clarity is not observed (well, at least by me) when paired with the Zeus, even though vocals of the Zeus do sound smoother due to the increase in lower mid.

Disclaimer: Empire Ears provided both the ESR and the Bravado with no charge for a period of 10 days as part of their Bravado and ESR tour in exchange for my honest review on one of the models – be it good or ill.

Introduction:

I have been following Empire ears ever since they released their Olympus line-up. In my never-ending search for that one perfect mids/vocals centric IEM, the Athena and the Zeus caught my attention. Due to their pricing, I have kind of looked away from those two models until I finally got a chance to demo them at Canjam RMAF and, RIP to my wallet, I pulled the trigger on the Zeus XIV non-ADEL. Where was just something in the sound that, at the moment I first heard it, eludes Empire Ears house sound and that uniqueness (highly coherent clarity-led sound) which I didn’t hear from other IEMs at the show. I will elaborate more about this later in the review since this is supposed to be an introduction. Anyway, I bought the Zeus, but I can’t justify to use it as my daily driver due to the price. My though was, and still is, ‘it would be nice if Empire makes something with similar house sound prices it in the mid-tier market. From that point on, I have been eagerly looking forward to trying their new X and EP line-ups. Unfortunately, there is no dealers or places where I can try their products in my area. So, when Devon announced the Bravado and ESR tour, I, without any hesitation, signed up and I was fortunate enough to be chosen as one of the participants despite the fact that I have never published, let alone written, a review before. Thank you Devon!

I will almost fully skip the Design/Fit section of the review because these are plain black universals. The reason I wrote ‘almost’ is because I will mention here that despite being relatively thick – both models protrude out from the ear – they fit very securely and isolation is surprisingly great. By great, I mean they surpassed a certain CIEM I own in terms of blocking outside noise as I use all of my IEMs mostly outside - i.e. on the bus or at work. In addition, their fit is very comfortable with the E-type final audio tips provided along with the demo units – not too deep nor too shallow. Both models come with typical Empire specs – partially recessed 2-pin connector with Effect audio Ares Ii with 2.5 mm balanced termination.

Sound:

The ESR, and all of my IEMs at that, is driven by iphone X. Portability at its best. Of the two models, I chose the ESR because I gave it more ear time and I can, IMHO, describe the sound in more detail compared to the Bravado. I will try to be as objective as possible though that is nearly (or totally) impossible as taste and background (the reference set by listening to certain IEMs) definitely do come into play when judging an IEM.

Bass: My biggest surprise when I first played music through the ESR is definitely the bass. The description of Empire’s website , “the Empire Studio Reference (ESR) was tuned specifically for discerning producers and engineers that require a non-colored, linear in-ear monitor for reference use”, would suggest that the ESR it neutral. By ‘neutral’ I often imagine that the bass would be somewhat anemic, and for that, I would be wrong. To me, the bass of the ESR is definitely north of neutral and by a significant margin. It is NOT that I know what neutral bass sounds like (as I have never heard stuff like Etymotic er4sr or the UERR/UERM), but I will justify this statement later when I compare the ESR to a couple of IEMs I own. Extension down at the sub-bass region is finely executed – there is enough rumble to ‘feel’ without really having to pay attention and search for it. However, sub-bass is NOT too present to the point that it smears out the resolution. As I said before, I could ‘feel’ it but that’s about it – the subs are not overwhelming my any means. Mid-bass, however, is boosted and is positioned in the front of the stage. For this reason, I would even go and describe the ESR as a ‘fun-sounding’ IEM. The first second I put on the ESR, I was asking myself if I put on the Bravado my mistake – the timbre is still BA but of high quality (controlled and resolving). The decay is not typical BA-quick although it is still not as ‘natural/smooth’ as DD bass. The mid and upper bass do not bleed into the mids despite the forward placement.


Mids: Now, how do I describe the mids of the ESR? Lower mids? Checked. Upper mids? Checked. Clarity? Checked. Warmth? Checked. This is the mids that don’t really lack elements that make up good midrange, if that makes any sense. Vocals are bodied and display power – the sheer size of vocals is not big, but they are sufficiently dense. Although the positioning of vocals is clearly behind instruments (midrange instrumnets, bass and treble), they are not buried in the mix thanks to presence of high mids which adds the sense of clarity to vocals. However, due to the highly boosted treble, as I will mention in detail later, vocals, both male and female, suffer sibilance from ‘sssssss’ and ‘sshhhhh’ where these sounds will just jump right at you. Vocals, although clear and present, are not very emotional due to their positioning – The ESR lacks the sense of intimacy in the vocal range and the lower midrange is not forward enough to give the ‘throaty’ feels to male vocals. Also, the density of vocals is very dependent on the recording, where I perceived some vocals as warm and some (mostly vocals in EDM tracks) as thin sounding.



Highs: PIERCINGLY SHARP. If there is one area that prevents me from picking up the ESR as the driver for the day, it would be the treble region. Lower to mid-treble is hugely emphasized – cymbals are bodies and brought in front of stage – in front of the bass. Right. In. Your. Face. Personally, with well recorded tracks, this brings energy and ‘liveliness’ to the music for short listens, completing that fun ‘V-shape’ profile. However, after a while (minutes), this could easily get fatiguing and I would have to rest my ears every now and then. Timbre here is good; trebles don't sound artificial or metallic. I just wish the quantity is significantly smaller.


Technical Ability: One thing that jumps to mind when listening to the ESR is how well it images the stage. Thanks to the very black background, it is very easy to pinpoint the location of each notes on the stage. Bass and mids are also very nicely separated due to minimal bleeding, and separation within each frequency range, especially in the mids, are executed very well – there is space between notes so each one is easily picked out. Treble, despite its prominence in the presentation, does not really contribute to the excellence in imaging. It clarifies the presentation, no doubt; However, the body and fuzziness at the edge of treble notes result in an ‘alright’ imaging ability in the treble region. Resolution, in general, is high – I would say the sheer resolution does step on the realm of TOTL, even though I would not say it’s on the top of the summit (comparisons to follow). Width of the stage is also one of the aspect that deserves praise, although height and depth are not far behind either.

Select (Available) Comparisons:

Empire Ears Zeus XIV: Both the ESR and the Zeus share a similar house sound – slightly bright timbre with exceptional clarity. How they present music, however, differ; the Zeus has vocals-centric signature where the vocal is placed in front of everything while the ESR focuses more on its bass and treble. Bass extension goes to the ESR where sub-bass is more present. Mid- and upper-bass are also more present and engaging on the ESR. Lower region of the Zeus is by no means anemic, but its quantity suggests that it’s there to sufficiently do the job and complete the signature. Texture wise, they are very similar in that the decay is not too fast and there is a slight hint of DD bass smoothness. Going up the frequency range, the mids differ in how they present vocals relative to instruments. The ESR has the vocal placed considerably behind instruments while the vocals of the Zeus is in front of everything. Both construct average size vocals. Nonetheless, the density of Zeus’ vocals is much greater in a sense that you can feel more ‘power’ and ‘emotion’ from the singer, especially male, in comparison to the ESR. The ESR, though there is warmth imbued in the vocal range, does not possess the authority the Zeus does. Lower mid in warmer on the ESR and is more detailed (microdetails) on the Zeus. Also, as mention earlier, the ESR display sibilance at the upper edge of vocals notes. The Zeus has the same characteristic but to a much lesser degree – the resulting timbre is slightly more organic and ‘correct’. The highs of the Zeus is behind the midrange. In contrary, the ESR places the highs in front of the mids and slightly in front of the bass. I would describe the texture of the Zeus’ treble as having a similar overall signature to the ESR WITHOUT the sibilance and sharpness. In addition, the resolution of the treble is better on the Zeus – in the audiovisual sense, I can easily visualize the exact location of each treble note while the picture is kind of fuzzy at the note edge with the ESR. Technicality-wise, overall imaging is pinpoint for both models and overall resolution still goes to the Zeus although not by much. Separation is also similar – both models add enough space between instruments that they can be easily distinguished but not too much where the stage does not feel ‘hollow’. The ESR construct a wider stage but the Zeus present the stage in more 3D manner. Taking the price difference into consideration, ESR exceeds my expectation in terms of technicality and presents a great value for the money.


Campfire Andromeda: Now, this is more of a ‘fair flight’ since both models retail at similar price point. I will say this right from the start – technicality-wise, the ESR wins hands down. Resolution, separation, layering and imaging go to the ESR. Extension on both ends is similar for both models. However, there are a couple aspects that make me favor the Andromeda as my daily driver. Starting from the bass, the Andromeda has bass that very ‘BA’ – fast decay, tight, controlled and sub-bass-focused. On the other hand, the bass of the ESR is more DD-like in a sense that there is considerably more mid-bass and transition between notes is more seemless – more ‘liquidy’. Moving up to the midrange, the Andromeda presents a more forward, more bodied instruments and more emotional vocals. The mids are ‘thicker’ on the Andromeda – lower and upper mids are more in line where the upper mid of the ESR is palces in front of the lower mid. There is more ‘crunch’ in vocals of the Andromeda while the vocals of the ESR is smoother in the lower octave I sore sibilant in the upper octave. This is where I much prefer the Andromeda over the ESR; for me, the timbre of the Andromeda’s mids sound more ‘correct’ in a sense that it’s not overly smooth nor overly bright yet there is enough power and details to convey the emotions through vocals (although the mid-head inside me would have liked it to be JUST slightly more forward). There is warmth in the vocals of the ESR but perhaps a little too much in the lower mid region. There is brightness in the vocals of the ESR but perhaps a little too much in the upper region. These factors cause the vocals of the ESR to be, to my ears, a little unbalanced, laid back, and not as powerful in comparison the Andromeda. Moving up the frequency range, the Andromeda takes the cake. Although the Andromeda is slight bright, it is NEVER fatiguing. The highs cut through the mix with authority and great airiness, however, they don’t steal the show not do they draw too much attention. On the contrary, treble is the first thing I noticed when I first plugged the ESR into my ears – there is this HUGE peak in the lower-mid treble region that totally dominates the stage. As I mentioned earlier, this peak is the reason I can’t do long listening session with the ESR. Overall, as a daily driver, I much prefer the Andromeda over the ESR due to the overall presentation and coherence. Did I mention that the Andromeda is one of, if most the most, coherent IEM I’ve ever listened to? I would describe the presentation of the Andromeda as W-shape while the ESR exhibits more of a V-shape response.


Summary:

I can’t say that the ESR does its job as a reference monitor as I have not listened to anything that is truly reference nor have I been in the actual studio. However, the ESR stands out in terms of technicality – be it imaging, resolution, clarity and layering. Do I recommend the ESR? I can’t say I recommend it wholeheartedly as I find it too sharp for personal listening. However, everybody hears things differently. Some people might be sensitive to different peaks than others. For example, AAW W900 maybe fatiguing in the treble region to some people but I find it extended, smooth and linear. Thus, I would suggest trying it out rather than going in blind. If treble is no trouble, what Empire Ears achieve on the ESR would be really impressive; it would be hard to find another monitor that performs near TOTL level at this price point.