Link to my review and measurement index thread where one can also find a full review overview, more information about myself as well as my general-ish audio and review manifesto: https://www.head-fi.org/threads/956208/



Moondrop Starfield


Source:

Personal unit.


Miscellaneous:

Decent unboxing experience.

Very nice shell design with bevelled faceplates. I really like them.
Made of metal. Can feel somewhat cold upon insertion.
Beautiful dark blue metallic colour that changes quite a bit and appears different depending on the environmental lighting.
Two vents on the inner side of each shell (only one affects the sound).

Beautiful small storage case with golden accents. I wouldn’t mind if it were just a tiny bit roomier, though.

Very soft, flexible cable with four conductors that are braided below and twisted above the y-splitter. Nicely blue metallic colour just like the shells.
Thankfully 2-pin connectors instead of MMCX.
Nice round y-splitter that is made of metal.
Unfortunately no chin-slider.

One dynamic driver per side.




Sound:

Largest included silicone ear tips.

Tonality:

Neutral with strong, warm, mainly sub-bass-focused boost in the lows.
Basically very similar to Etymotic’s ER2XR but warmer and bassier in the lows while simultaneously maintaining about the same starting point of the lows’ elevation and peak frequency, and ultimately a bit closer to my ER-4S in the highs and upper midrange.

If the lower of the two vents on the inner half of the shell (the upper one has got no effect on the tuning at all) remained free, which is extremely unlikely due to where it is positioned, the Starfield could even be considered as “flat neutral”, but as this is definitely not the case since the vent will be blocked more or less completely by the users’ ears due to the shell design, instead they feature a very nice, strong sub-bass oriented boost in the lows and are tuned generally a lot like the Etymotic ER2XR, with the exception that the Starfield are closer to my ER-4S in the upper midrange/presence range compared to the ER2XR that are just slightly more relaxed here in comparison, and that the Starfield are, while starting identically with their bass boost, ultimately bassier and warmer by 4 to 5 dB than the ER2XR in the very low frequencies.

This results in a generally very pleasant tuning that can be considered generally flat/neutral in the midrange and treble, with an extra dose of warmth in the fundamental range without colouring the lower mids by too much (although there is undeniably more lower midrange warmth compared to Etymotic’s XR dynamic driver equivalent, so it is ultimately a coloured lower midrange response), followed by a bass lift that extends in a very nice slope that peaks in the true very low sub-bass wherefore the Starfield have got a very prominent subwoofer-like character if the recording really reaches as low as the true low sub-bass (that boost is around 14 dB above flat neutral in the lowest sub-bass, and around 7.5 dB in the upper bass).

Frequency Response:


ER-4S-Compensation (blocked lower Vent)


ER-4S-Compensation (free lower Vent)


ProPhile 8-Compensation (blocked lower Vent)


ProPhile 8-Compensation (free lower Vent)


Effect of Blocking the lower Vent

Resolution:

Generally decent for dynamic driver in-ears in this price range although ultimately definitely not the most technical sounding in-ears; somewhat below the ER-2XR in terms of speed, tightness and controlled when pushed closer to the performance limits where the Starfield sound softer and mushier, less separated when compared to the Etymotic.

The bass tends to sound somewhat soft and the general resolution and control decrease with very fast and demanding recordings, however most of the time this is not really a problem. Overall, I would say that the Starfield are about average without any glaring faults in the technical department, and place tuning over ultimate performance. At the price point (where one rarely finds in-ears with such a smooth and even midrange and treble response) and for dynamic driver in-ears, this is absolutely okay, though, and for what they are, I personally like my Starfield without expecting the speed and technical performance of my better in-ears.

Soundstage:

Appears natural and three-dimensional to me. Nothing that really stands out nor suffers – it just sounds like it should.

- - - - - - - - - - - -

Comparisons:

Etymotic ER2XR:

The midrange and treble tuning is highly comparable, with my Starfield even leaning slightly more towards to my ER-4S. In direct comparison, the ER2XR have got the ever so slightly more even response wherefore they sound a smidgen smoother and more realistic, although it is a super close case.
The general response in the lows is similar, with the Starfield basically being the warmer and bassier alternative to the Etymotic ER2XR (up to 5 dB difference in the very low sub-bass).

Both sets aren’t far apart when it comes to resolution although the Etymotic are ultimately a bit ahead, which is especially audible in the lows in very fast and demanding scenarios where the Starfield just sound softer, slower and lose control earlier.

Shure SE215m+SPE:

My Shure are tuned warmer in the lower midrange/fundamental range and have a more prominent upper bass punch whereas my Starfield are boosted even more in the lower bass.
While the Shure have got a dark, downwards-sloping signature from the midrange towards the high treble, the Starfield are neutral. As a result, the SE215m+SPE are a warm, punchy, dark and smooth easy listen whereas the Starfield focus more on midrange and treble neutraliny and linearity with a good bit of increasing boost towards the sub-bass.

The Shure are tighter and faster in the lows while the Starfield are generally just slightly more resolving.

My Shure’s soundstage appears flatter but wider to me while my Starfields’ deeper and thus more three-dimensional.

iBasso IT01 & IT01 v2:

My Starfield are a good bit bassier below 100 Hz but have a greater focus on the true low sub-bass as this is where their peak frequency lies whereas they are quite comparable above that.
The IT01 are less even and neutral in the midrange and treble which results in a less realistic, more plasticky, less smooth response in comparison.

When it comes to technical performance, the iBasso area good bit ahead and more resolving, with a clearly tighter and faster bass.




Conclusion:

Basically just like the Etymotic ER2XR with a highly similar tuning but more warmth and a stronger bass boost. Ultimately a bit below the Etymotic when it comes to technical performance (especially speed and control in the bass in more demanding scenarios). The shallower, more traditional fit and audibly weaker passive noise isolation (that is also a result of the venting) make them a good alternative for the times when one doesn’t want as deep and secure insertion but in-ears that are easier and quicker to insert and take off – which was definitely a major reason for why I even bought them in the first place.


Photos:

Link to my review and measurement index thread where one can also find a full review overview, more information about myself as well as my general-ish audio and review manifesto: https://www.head-fi.org/threads/956208/


ORIVETI AFFINITY II


Source:

Review sample.


Miscellaneous:

Nice unboxing experience.

Comes with a very nice real leather storage case (same as the one the OV800 come with).
Also comes with interchangeable quick-change connectors (3.5 mm TRS, 2.5 mm TRRS, Pentaconn), which should be nice for those who frequently use source devices with different types of outputs (not me); unfortunately no 6.3 mm TRS connector available.

0.78 mm 2-pin connectors.

Silver cable looks and feels nice (braided and twisted connectors) although it’s perhaps just a tad stiffer than I’d like at this price point. I personally prefer the aesthetics of copper, though, so the old first-generation AFFINITY is more to my visual preferences.

The metal 2-pin connectors look and feel excellent. Side- and polarity markers exist.

The y-splitter (made of metal) with its clear plastic surrounding looks somewhat cheap for the price – I definitely prefer the first generation’s design in this area while the silver-black theme of the second is visually more pleasant.
The chin-slider moves neither too easily nor stiffly but is on the firmer side wherefore it shouldn’t move accidentally, which is good.

Unfortunately, while the interchangeable plugs seem a good idea in the first place, they are quite long and therefore create some unnecessary lever action that may wear the source device’s socket over time. Perhaps straight instead of angled connectors would have been shorter, but as they are I definitely find the connectors somewhat too long for primarily portable use.
In addition, while the thread locking is a good idea as it securely locks the connector piece to the cable, the collar doesn’t screw onto the threads completely but leaves a small gap, which, while it doesn’t compromise functionality, is somewhat of a visual no-go at this price point.
On the plus side, build quality and haptics of the plugs are good.




Sound:

I’m not a “cable person” (outside of aesthetics, haptics and potential sound differences with multi-BA in-ears due to different impedance compared to the original cable), so I haven’t performed any tests in this direction.


Conclusion:

Nice aesthetics aside, I think that there are somewhat too many small and bigger issues with the AFFINITY II especially at its price point. As it is, the first generation was the overall better complete package despite offering less features.

Link to my review and measurement index thread where one can also find a full review overview, more information about myself as well as my general-ish audio and review manifesto: https://www.head-fi.org/threads/956208/


ORIVETI OV800


Source:

Review sample.


Miscellaneous:

Supposed to be ORIVETI’s successor to their O800 which were their first BA-only in-ears. Supposedly same basic sound signature that can be boosted in the highs respectively lows by altering the crossover through switches built into the housings.

Really nice unboxing experience that mirrors the one I had with the O400; nicely ample selection of various single-flange silicone ear tips, foam tips and double-flange silicone tips.
I also just noticed that the design on the packaging’s lid resembles the both the in-ears colour as well as multi-BA driver layout and configuration, which is definitely a nice touch.

High quality, premium appearing round storage/carrying case manufactured from genuine leather and with beautiful red stitching and padded interior; however I wouldn’t mind if it were just slightly more spacious and were even better protected against moisture and dust getting in (as the lid does not really close hermetically, which is something that unfortunately most boutique-styled IEM cases that place form/aesthetics over ultimate protection and function have in common, but after all it’s still a better and more protective case than the one from my Campfire Audio Andromeda or Logitech/Ultimate Ears UE900).
In direct comparison, it looks slightly different from the one that came with the O400.

High build quality without any flaws.
Nice dark green, burly wooden faceplates. The shells themselves are made of semi-transparent dark green resin and reveal a look at the drivers and acoustic infrastructure, which is quite nice.
Semi-open port on the faceplates (that, by the way, does not have any measured influence on the frequency response).
What I don’t like is that the two switches to adjust the crossover and therefore alter the bass and treble output are very small and can be only accessed with the supplied cleaning tool; unfortunately there is no additional older for it in the storage case.
The switch labelled “1” adjust the bass output whereas the one labelled “2” adjusts the treble output.
Nozzle ending (nozzle made of metal) not flat but convexly shaped; according to the product page in order to achieve a specific radiation pattern.

Beautiful looking silver cable.
I especially like its visual appearance; the connectors are made from metal and just look astonishing in my eyes, and I prefer their looks (I especially really like the triangular metal chassis near the 3.5 mm connector) over the ones from the O400s’ cable while I, on the other hand, somewhat prefer the dark copper over the silver aesthetics.
Very soft and supple.
Unfortunately the integrated chin-slider very difficult to move/adjust.
2-pin connectors.

8 BA drivers per side, three acoustic ways, triple-bore design.




Sound:

Largest included black single-flange silicone ear tips (same type as those that were already installed).

Tonality:

Reference flat midrange with prominent upper and midbass punch coupled with some lower fundamental range warmth without spilling into the lower midrange/higher fundamental range and a treble approach that picks up on the flat neutral midrange tuning but adds just a bit of a mild lift at the very top in the upper highs/beginning super treble. Therefore one could consider the OV800 as widely flat neutral but with a punchy/impactful loudness compensation in the actual bass and a hint of loudness compensation in the high treble.

The OV800s’ tuning comes very close to being perfectly flat neutral in the midrange and treble with a mild clarity lift at the upper end, yet they are ultimately just missing the last few percent of perfect realism in their treble timbre when judged by Etymotic and InEar ProPhile 8 smoothness and linearity standards, and closely listening to sine sweeps reveals why: while the mids and highs are flat neutral with a studio-reference approach and don’t show any real elevations or dips (except for a mild lift at 10 kHz), there is ultimately a bit of unevenness around 4 kHz, 6 kHz, 8 kHz and 10 kHz (the latter is a mild lift, though, so not really any unevenness per se) wherefore there is sometimes just a small hint of artificiality and metallicness to the high notes’ timbre wherefore the OV800 end up sounding just a bit less realistic and even than my Etymotic ER-4S and InEar ProPhile 8 in the highs, although they are, to my ears, more realistically and evenly tuned up there when compared to my Ultimate Ears Reference Monitors (and considerably more realistic than my Campfire Audio Andromeda) and in the end about comparable in treble timbre realism to the NocturnaL Audio ATLANTIS which are definitely in-ears that I cannot fault for anything in their high notes’ timbre either, although they definitely have a different (more relaxed; UERM/UERR/ProPhile 8-like direction) approach in comparison to the flat neutral ORIVETI.

What’s especially nice to hear is that the entire midrange (along with most of the treble) closely follows the diffuse-field target wherefore the ORIVETI are among the very few in-ears that actually ortray an absolutely flat, realistic and correct midrange tonality and timbre without subduing or lifting the presence range as most other in-ears do; therefore they remind me highly of my beloved Etymotic ER-4S and most other Etymotic in-ears in the midrange, which is definitely a good thing. Here, the OV800 are simply just correct and accurate.

The bass’ lift starts around 300 Hz, climbs quickly and reaches its climax around 80 Hz with about 7 dB in quantity; it stays around this level throughout the entire lows without any real roll-off in the sub-bass, although subjectively the focus is somewhat more on the mid- than sub-bass because of the lows losing some definition below 30 Hz.
As it is, the bass is definitely quite punchy and impactful and carries some warmth in the low fundamental range while nicely staying out of the upper fundamental range and lower midrange wherefore there is no midrange colouration. Theoretically, if I hadn’t known ORIVETI’s O400, I would say that the integration of the OV800s’ lows’ lift were clean and perfect, but since the O400 are just so outstandingly well tuned in the lows and have the by far best integrated sub-bass lift that I have ever heard wherefore they have become my favourite recreational listening in-ears, I have to say that while the OV800s’ lows are better implemented than most competitors’ that have got more lower midrange colouration, they are ultimately just not as clean and naturally smooth integrated sounding as the (perfect) O400.

Therefore, the generally smooth tuning is perfect in the midrange, close to perfect in the treble (although a step below Etymotic/ProPhile 8 realism), and while on its own nearing very good in the bass beat by ORIVETI’s own and exceptionally good O400.

All above was the description of the OV800 in the default “down” switch position as it is the tuning that I personally prefer; the effect of both switches can be seen in the graph further below.
Enabling the bass switch adds a bit more than 2 dB of extra boost below 100 Hz while also adding slightly more warmth in the lower fundamental range, and it can be definitely heard that the sound becomes bassier and more impactful, punchier and warmer.
Dialling in the treble boost adds a bit more than 2 dB of extra brightness around 6 kHz andlifts the area between 10 kHz and 20 kHz by up to 4 dB. The sound immediately becomes brighter and splashier without losing too much timbral realism, although while the sound doesn’t become sharp or artificial, high notes gain a slight bit of metallicness in their timbre due to the 6 kHz lift. Except for the 6 kHz brightness that is more present on the OV800, enabling the treble boost brings their upper and super treble response actually fairly close to the O400s’ treble tuning.

Frequency Response:

ER-4S-Compensation (both Switches off)

ER-4S-Compensation (both Switches on)

Effect of both Switches

Resolution:

On its own, the resolution is good to really good and an audible step up from most $400 range models in direct comparison (it is highly doubtful that anyone would really miss anything), but compared to other highly resolving flagsip level in-ears in this price range such as my InEar ProPhile 8 and the NocturnaL Audio ATLANTIS, the OV800 are ultimately just lacking somewhat behind and cannot fully compete when compared head to head, though it should be noticed that the difference isn’t overly large in this performance range. Therefore I would say that the technical performance is respectful and good on its own but not completely where I would personally like it to be for multi-BA in-ear standards in this price range if I were looking for new in-ears for myself.

The bass has got a somewhat “rumbly” character to it that is somewhat heading into a “dynamic driver-like” direction while still being clearly distinguishable as a Balanced Armature implementation – not unlike my Campfire Audio Andromedas’ presentation, although ultimately not fully the same as the Andromeda are softer and rumblier in comparison. Due to this, the bass becomes more tactile without appearing soft yet, but unfortunately at the cost of becoming somewhat blunted on fast tracks.
Unfortunately the lows’ definition decreases towards the sub-bass and is of lower quality compared to the midbass and upper bass; the O400, while being comparable in midbass quality, have got a more resolving and audibly better defined sub-bass than the OV800. That said, the OV800s’ comparatively weakest department is the bass that is just somewhat less clean and detailed than the midrange and treble; activating the bass switch leads to more speed and control being lost in the lows that also start to sound even more strained.

Fortunately it is a different story with the midrange and treble – while not fully reaching ProPhile 8 or ATLANTIS levels of separation and resolution in demanding passages, the midrange is definitely a highlight and sounds very clean, even stands out a bit over the rest, and is detailed, layered and well-separated; perhaps this area is even a bit more resolving on the OV800 than on my Ultimate Ears Reference Monitors (or somewhere around that level).

The same as for the midrange applies to the highs that are just as clean and well-separated in complex passages and around UERM levels of quality.

Soundstage:

To my ears, the soundstage is three-dimensional and nicely open and large.
While the sheer size doesn’t fully reach the dimensions that I perceive on my Andromeda, I perceive the OV800s’ stage as a good bit larger than my ProPhile 8s’ and also as somewhat larger than the O400s’.
Overall, it appears a bit more oval than round to my ears

The imaging is very clean with sharply separated single instruments and a clean rendering of “empty space” between individual instruments or tonal elements, even in fast, dense, complex and demanding scenarios. Ultimately the NocturnaL Audio ATLANTIS render an even slightly cleaner soundstage due to the OV800s’ less defined bass, but they come very close.

- - - - - - - - - - - -

Comparisons:

Unless stated otherwise, all of the switches were in the “off” position during the comparisons.

NocturnaL Audio ATLANTIS:

The ATLANTIS are tuned considerably warmer in the fundamental range/lower midrange in comparison and follow a midrange and middle treble tuning that is close to that of my Ultimate Ears Reference Monitors and therefore a more “relaxed” take on “neutral” compared to the “flat studio neutral”, Etymotic-like approach that the ORIVETI are after with the OV800. As a result, the ATLANTIS have got an audibly more distant, more relaxed presence range and middle treble tuning in comparison.
The NocturnaL Audio in-ears are, however, slightly brighter in the upper highs. As for realism/timbre, both are about equally good in the treble, but just with a different approach (flat neutral on the ORIVETI and relaxed neutral on the ATLANTIS). Super treble extension goes to the OV800.

The ATLANTIS have got the superior quality, tighter bass with the OV800 sounding softer in comparison, with audibly inferior definition and details.
Likewise, the midrange resolution is slightly higher on the ATLANTIS that resolve a bit better and feature the higher transparency, although the difference is less pronounced than when compared to the lows.

To my ears, the ATLANTIS’ soundstage is even larger and more spacious (even more width and slightly more spatial depth) and a little more precise when it comes to imaging.

Campfire Audio Andromeda:

When it comes to tuning, the Andromeda are clearly more artificial sounding – their lower midrange and fundamental range is much warmer, followed by a clearly recessed, relaxed upper midrange/presence range and lower treble, and topped off with a sharply elevated and bright upper treble with a roll-off towards super treble; the OV800 are definitely tuned considerably more realistically while still maintaining a strong bass punch that however doesn’t interfere with the lower mids nearly as much as the Campfire Audios’ lift in the lows.

In comparison, the OV800 feature the considerably more transparent midrange while details/actual resolution (outside of tuning) are rather close, though still ahead on the ORIVETI in busy situations.
Treble details/separation in the highs is an area where the Andromeda are ultimately ahead, though.
The bass softer and “rumbles” more on the Andromeda (which can definitely be a fun factor) but while the control is comparable; on fast and dense, complex recordings, though, this leads to a looser, less focused presentation in the lows whereas the OV800s’ bass remains somewhat cleaner in those situations and renders somewhat more details in the lows.
The OV800 have generally got somewhat more control and handle fast, busy and complex situations better/with higher authority whereas the Andromeda start to lose control (mainly because of their softer, rumblier bass); it’s definitely a different sort of presentation.

The Andromeda have got the larger, more open soundstage and as a result more openness to my ears; instrument separation is comparable and even somewhat ahead on the OV800 (mainly noticeable in fast and complex passages).

InEar ProPhile 8 (both Switches activated):

My ProPhile 8 (both switches activated) are tuned audibly somewhat warmer compared to the OV800 (both switches off) and a bit bassier, whereas the OV800 become bassier once their bass switches are turned on, however they have less fundamental range spillage/warmth in their lower mids wherefore they are less warm and coloured compared to the InEar (that even still have a slightly warmer lower midrange/upper fundamental range with their bass switches deactivated). As a result, the OV800 generally have the “better”/”cleaner”/”tonally more correct” bass implementation no matter what switch position on either in-ears.
The OV800 are generally tuned more “studio reference flat neutral” throughout the entire midrange compared to the InEar that have more of a “natural neutral” voicing in their central frequency band, comparable to that of my Ultimate Ears Reference Monitors. As a result, voices are portrayed slightly closer to the listener on the OV800 (somewhat Etymotic-like but ultimately still with a comparatively slightly more relaxed presence range) and a little further in the back on the ProPhile 8.
The upper treble around 9 kHz is accentuated more on the ProPhile 8 (both switches up) wherefore their upper highs are brighter even when one activates the OV800s’ treble switches. However, despite being sounded brighter in the upper highs, as the ProPhile 8 ultimately have a more linear/even treble response compared to the OV800 whose highs are somewhat less even (I’m hearing some unevenness (not to be confused with peaks/elevations; these areas are still about neutral in quantity) around 4 kHz, 6 kHz, 8 kHz and an elevation at 10 kHz; less so with the treble switch in the “down” position, but the response is ultimately still not as flat and smooth as it could be) in comparison and when performing sine sweeps, wherefore the InEars’ treble timbre is in the end somewhat more accurate and realistic despite being brighter, whereas the OV800 have a slightly artificial touch to their highs. Super treble extension past 14 kHz is superior on the ORIVETI.

The ProPhile 8 have got the somewhat higher resolution, control and transparency in general.
Especially the InEars’ lows are audibly more detailed, controlled, better separated, layered and tighter. With activated bass switches on the ProPhile 8, their attack is softer in comparison to the OV800 with disabled bass switches while the InEar are still better controlled; activating the bass switches on the ORIVETI leads to them sounding softer and more strained in comparisons.

As for imaging, the ProPhile 8 are more precise in comparison whereas the OV800 have got the generally larger appearing soundstage with more depth as well as perceived spatial width and therefore sound more three-simensional, open and spacious (that said, I never really perceived my ProPhile 8 as really “good” when it comes to sheer soundstage sizing for their class/performance range).

ORIVETI O400:

The O400 are tuned comparatively more u-shaped with a greater focus on sub-bass integration and a brighter upper treble and super treble tuning, although the OV800 are about comparably bright in the upper and super highs with their treble switches activated; the OV800 are, on the other hand, generally brighter in the area around 9 kHz and 10 kHz.
In terms of bass tuning, while the O400 have a perfect slope that peaks in the true sub-bass and therefore doesn’t interfere with the rest of the lower-note spectrum (they are overall probably generally the best tuned in-ears in the lows), the OV800 are sounded with a thicker, warmer midbass and upper bass, with an undeniably audibly warmer fundamental range, and while it doesn’t interfere with the lower midrange by too much, it’s clearly audible, especially compared to the O400 whose lows’ boost, in contrast, blends in considerably better with the rest.
When it comes to midrange flatness, the OV800 are superior and reproduce a neutral, Etymotic-like tuning compared to the O400s’ more relaxed, safer upper midrange approach.

On the technical side, the OV800 aren’t as much as a “step up” as one may perhaps think given the price difference – while their midrange transparency/level of details is generally somewhat higher, which also applies to treble details and separation as well as separation in general, they don’t resolve considerably better and are just a small upgrade in this regard; in fact their technical superiority over the O400 is only somewhat noticeable (not just barely, but still not as much as one may think) in very fast, dense and complex passages, and while both are on par in terms of upper bass and midbass quality, the O400 even outperform the OV800 when it comes to sub-bass tightness and layering in general and not just when pushed closer towards the limits.
So the OV800 are definitely capable on their own, but the O400 are generally just so good that I don’t miss anything most of the time unless the music becomes overly busy.

The OV800 portray an imaginary soundstage that I perceive as comparatively more spacious (deeper and especially a bit wider); separation is superior as well in direct comparison with the 8-BA IEMs rendering a cleaner “empty space” between single instruments, but again that’s only really somewhat noticeable with extraordinarily fast recordings where the O400 start to become somewhat hazy/less clean sounding whereas the OV800 don’t yet.

To conclude this to me highly interesting direct comparison: while the OV800 have a “flat studio neutral” midrange tuning that I personally prefer, and while they are ultimately technically somewhat superior (although only really noticeable to me in very fast, dense and complex passages), I ultimately personally definitely prefer the O400 over them – their bass quality and implementation of the very lows’ lift is just simply outstanding and surpasses about everything I have heard so far, and most of the time the technical performance is much more than just sufficient for my needs, so that I pick their much nicer bass implementation (that basically makes most other in-ears for recreational, non-flat-neutral music listening redundant for me (honestly, they have become and still are my go-to benchmark and reference for this purpose)) over the bit of more “confidence” (separation) that the OV800 have in fast and complex passages.




Conclusion:

Excellently flat neutral midrange tuning, very good treble tuning (although a little less smooth when compared to my InEar ProPhile 8 or Etymotic ER-4S) that follows the same neutral approach with a mild lift at the very top, punchy midbass that doesn’t bleed into the lower midrange. The O400 that have the best ever bass to midrange transition to my ears are tuned better in the lows, though, while the OV800 feature the more linear, more neutral midrange and treble.

Clean and resolving and somewhat of an upgrade over the O400 in terms of transparency, although not as much of a difference in resolution as one might imagine; lacks a bit behind the competition in direct comparison while the performance is a step up from the $400 tier and not lacking on its own.
Lower bass quality (definition, details, tightness) should be definitely better, though, and is audibly superior on the O400.

Spacious and detailed soundstage with clean imaging that’s ultimately somewhat behind the ProPhile 8.

Decent/good IEMs but the main problem is that the O400 are simply so outstanding and outperform about anything when it comes to bass tuning implementation while simultaneously delivering very good technical performance across the board.

Although not the “generally technically best” IEMs in my inventory (but nonetheless very good without anything really being left to be desired for me even in very fast, dense and technically demanding situation), the O400 are generally just so good that I consider them my “exit IEMs” (as in “I don’t really need or want anything more than them”) for recreational music listening, wherefore it will be definitely very difficult for any other IEMs regardless of price point to surpass them when it comes to the whole package, especially in terms of lows’ tuning – that said, they have become the “gold standard” and recreational listening reference for me that any other IEMs have to live up to, and from my point of view, the OV800 do not succeed in surpassing them even though their midrange and treble tuning is more neutral compared to the O400s’ more relaxed upper mids and brighter upper treble.

The OV800 are technically confident and offer an upgrade in terms of separation and transparency over the O400 in complex and fast, dense passages whereas the general resolution doesn’t differ as much; the problem is however how exceptionally well the O400 are tuned in the lows so that they make even the OV800 that are objectively tuned better in the lows than my Campfire Audio Andromeda, InEar ProPhile 8 and the NocturnaL Audio Atlantis (transition from bass to fundamental range/midrange; all three are comparatively warmer/more coloured in the lower mids and upper fundamental range) seem too warm and upper-bass-focused.


Photos:

Link to my review and measurement index thread where one can also find a full review overview, more information about myself as well as my general-ish audio and review manifesto: https://www.head-fi.org/threads/956208/


TempoTec Sonata HD Pro


Source:

Purchased at a discount for the purpose of a product review.


Miscellaneous:

Unboxing experience nicer than expected – decent packaging with accessories such as a micro USB to USB-C cable, USB A to USB-C adapter (made of metal just like the cable’s plugs) and a Hi-Res sticker.
A cheap feeling carrying case that is made of metal is included as well – I would have preferred a zipped pouch or hard case, but it’s still better than nothing at all, and nicely padded on the inside.

Nice build quality and finish.
I like the design.
Nice translucent orange volume control buttons.
I don’t like the big DSD logo etching on the back of the device.
Reasonable size.
What I really like is that the female micro USB socket feels solid and that one can use any suitable cable with the DAC.
Short connection cable is supple and looks nice.
Unfortunately there is no LED/operation indicator.

What’s definitely nice is that it automatically detects whether a 3.5 mm plug is inserted or not and accordingly enables/disables the output (doesn’t show up in the Windows sound menu anymore if the headphone jack is plugged out).




Sound:

My ZOTAC ZBOX CI547 nano running Windows 10 Pro 64 Bit is the only source that I’m using.

I’m only using my Sonata HD Pro in 16 Bit 44.1 kHz mode, just like any other DAC that supports the Red Book standard.

Volume Control:

Independent hardware volume control on the HD Pro (12 steps without any muting feature) in addition to the source device’s digital control.
Coarse steps; I would have wished for more than 12, but ultimately the independent control is a definite plus as it allows for finding a desirably quiet listening level even with extremely sensitive in-ears as well as quick volume adjustments while listening to music or watching a film without having to interfere with the Windows software slider.

Tactile activation point neither too stiff nor soft – ultimately somewhat more on the stiffer side.

The last volume setting seems to be saved.

Hiss Performance:

Practically hiss-fee – even less audible hiss than my Apple USB-C to Headphone Jack Adapter (A2155) that is already among the very best devices on the market when it comes to hiss performance with extremely sensitive in-ears (such as my Campfire Audio Andromeda and Ostry KC06A) regardless of price point. Hiss only becomes more audible with extremely sensitive IEMs when used at higher hardware volume control settings.

Even quieter than my RME ADI-2 DAC from its PHONES output and just a hair “hissier” than its IEM output that’s basically hiss-free (just the tiniest, slightest imaginable bit of hiss audible with my Andromeda on some days with very high concentration) – that’s definitely state of the art hiss performance and among the best of the best devices in this regard.

Frequency Response (no Load):



No surprise here – as flat as it is supposed to be, with a slow roll-off filter applied.

Output Impedance (Ultimate Ears Triple.Fi 10 as Load):



Based on the frequency response deviation, the output impedance is calculated to be below only 0.2 Ohms, which is very low and therefore perfectly suitable for all low impedance multi-BA in-ears with a high impedance swing.

Subjective Listening Impressions:

Neutral, clean and audibly transparent with no abnormalities that could be heard. No real surprise since independent objective measurements indicate excellent performance anyway.

- - - - - - - - - - - -

Compared to my Apple USB-C to Headphone Jack Adapter (A2155):

With the Sonata’s software volume being set to 100% and its hardware volume to 1/12 and, and the Apple’s volume set to 1%, the Sonata’s base volume is lower, which is a definite benefit for me, and since it can be further lowered using the Windows software volume, listening very quietly just barely above the audible threshold is easily possible even with extremely sensitive in-ears.

Sonata ever so slightly “softer”/”smoother” cymbal/high note edge rendering in direct head-to-head comparison with extremely sensitive, low impedance in-ears – Apple “harder”/”sharper” in comparison, which is about the only “big” audible difference in terms of small, subtle differences that one may or may not perceive (pretty much only) in a direct head-to-head comparison (definitely a matter of individual preference, and I slightly prefer the Apple’s “harder” presentation in a critical listening, direct a-/b-comparison scenario whereas I don’t care much at all for concentrated but more recreational music listening), with the only other nuance of differences that I can perceive in this forced direct comparison being the spatial reproduction that appears slightly smaller but with a more “focused” centre image on the Sonata aHD Pro nd a “wider” presentation on the Apple that however results in a slightly “less focused” centre image image presentation when compared to the HD Pro (something that I personally probably prefer on my TempoTec a little over my Apple, but then again only really in a direct “critical” comparison whereas the small difference in spatial reproduction becomes much less obvious with a bit more time between switching between these devices).

Take what you want out of this more “critical listening” focused direct comparison (conducted with very sensitive, low impedance in-ears – as it is true in most cases, there should be no audible differences with inefficient, lower sensitivity full-sized headphones since those minor differences described just above that may be audible in a direct comparison when extremely sensitive low impedance IEMs are used as critical loads are already gone entirely when I use both devices with less sensitive, higher impedance in-ears) – what’s very clear though is that both devices are perfectly clean and audibly transparent, neutral sounding.

Realistically speaking, the Apple USB-C to Headphone Jack Adapter (A2155) already offers nearly top-tier audio performance despite its super low price (after all it is audibly transparent thanks to objectively surpassing CD Red Book standards and) and is only despised by some people because of their anti-Apple and anti cheap audio products bias; so except for being even closer to being entirely hiss-free with extremely sensitive in-ears than the Apple dongle already is when an “empty” audio file is played, it is mainly some additional useful features (additional and independent analogue 12-step volume control and micro USB input; although at the cost of some of the Apple’s features missing (in-line remote control commands and in-line microphone support)) and build quality/appearance as well as accessories that make the Sonata HD Pro a device that is worthy of costing more than the A2155, with both performing excellently when it comes to audio reproduction with critical low impedance, high sensitivity loads (the TempoTec even a little more so despite being priced comparatively very low as well).




Conclusion:

State of the art hiss performance with extremely sensitive in-ears, very low output impedance, and otherwise very good objective acoustic measurements as well. Ability to listen very quietly just above the audible threshold thanks to the incorporation of additional independent analogue volume control (unfortunately only 12 coarse steps, though).
Last but not least, the accessible pricing is very fair as well, and even without keeping the price in mind, the Sonata HD Pro is one of the very few small, portable USB DACs that are able to match or surpass the Apple A2155 USB-C to Headphone Jack Adapter’s objective audio performance.


Photos:

Link to my review and measurement index thread where one can also find a full review overview, more information about myself as well as my general-ish audio and review manifesto: https://www.head-fi.org/threads/956208/


HiFiMan RE400i


Source:

Personal unit.


Miscellaneous:

Plastic packaging appears cheap, but that’s okay.
Ear tip selection doesn’t seem to follow any real pattern – while many different pairs are provided, they sometimes differ considerably in length and properties; it would have been much better and more logical to include three different sizes of tips for each type of tip. Quality and texture is good, though.

Round storage case that is simply just an unbranded case without any logo. Protective, though.

Cable feels and looks cheap; cannot really be described as flexible. Strain relief not good and no chin-slider either. Quite microphonic.
The three-button remote control has a pleasant pressure point. Although the individual keys are not so easy to recognize as such haptically, it's still quite easy to distinguish the two volume keys from the centre key due to the size of the remote control. What I don't like so much is that the remote control is located on the left side. By the way, I also doubt whether the remote control is actually mfi-certified, because on my Apple iPod Nano 7G, the volume buttons remain without function after being pressed twice, no matter for how long, until I remove the in-ears and plug them into the jack socket of my iPod again (that even though I’ve got a genuine pair of RE400i without any defects), and on my Apple USB-C to Headphone Jack Adapter, a short press of the volume up button results in an irreversible maxing out of the volume.

Shells made of metal. Look very nice. Their build quality is good.

One dynamic driver per side.




Sound:

Largest included black dual-flange silicone ear tips.

Tonality:

Fairly neutral leaning somewhat towards the warmer side.
Actually quite comparable to my InEar StageDiver SD-2 but with a brighter/less dark upper treble response.

Mild to moderate warmth in the root with the bass’ maximum quantity reaching around 5 dB in quantity above flat neutral at ca. 100 Hz in the upper bass. Flat extension into the sub-bass.

Ultimately a bit of warmth in the lower mids but not as much as my SD-2.
Flat central midrange with slightly reduced presence range but in the end still correct and neutral timbre.

Treble on the smooth and neutral/slightly darker side with a mild lift in the upper highs that ultimately leads to cymbals not always sounding sounding right but somewhat artificial/metallic. Never sharp or peaky.

Overall smooth, heading into a neutral direction and pleasant. Ultimately not as even as Etymotic’s in-ears but still some of the very best neutral-ish tuned dynamic driver in-ears regardless of price.

Perhaps the highs are brighter with shorter ear tips and/or a shallower insertion.

Frequency Response:


ER-4S-Compensation

To my ears, there is no such elevation in the highs but just a mild lift.


ProPhile 8-Compensation

Resolution:

Decent but nothing that’s outstanding or special.

Somewhat on the softer/slower side without really becoming muddy. Would still be appropriate for the ~100$ original price and is clearly nothing to worry about when purchased at around half of that or below; good value.

- - - - - - - - - - - -

Compared to the Etymotic ER2SE:

Apart from the bass and root, the two are tuned quite comparably neutral, with the ER2SE however still taking the lead in the end due to their higher treble linearity and evenness (my RE400i are a bit more forward in the lower upper and upper highs, with comparatively more metallic, less realistic sounding cymbals compared to the Etymotic).
In the bass and root, the HiFiMan have got an elevation that is stronger than the ER2SEs’ by around 4 dB, which makes them sound bassier and warmer (therefore their tuning would be more comparable to the ER4XRs’).

The HiFiMans’ bass texture is softer compared to the Etymotic, and the ER2SE sound somewhat tighter in the lows, too. The Etys’ bass control is superior.
In terms of resolution, I see the ER2SE one or two leagues above my RE400i – they just sound cleaner and their minute detail resolution is higher, just like their speech intelligibility and note separation in fast and busy parts of the music.

The ER2SEs’ soundstage appears larger than that of my HiFiMan in direct comparison, especially in terms of spatial depth and three-dimensionality, while the spatial width is more or less comparable.
The imaging (instrument placement and separation) and especially the portrayal of “emptiness” around and between instruments is more precise on the ER2SE.




Conclusion:

Smooth, neutral-ish sound that is heading somewhat into the warmer direction.
Rather “typical” dynamic driver technical performance but not muddy yet.
Cable could be better, just like the ear tip selection.


Photos:

Link to my review and measurement index thread where one can also find a full review overview, more information about myself as well as my general-ish audio and review manifesto: https://www.head-fi.org/threads/956208/

---

I only give full stars. My ranking/scoring system does not necessarily follow the norm and is about as follows:

5 stars: The product is very good and received the "highly recommended" award from me.

4 stars: The product is very good and received the "recommended" award from me.

3 stars: The product is good/very good, but not outstanding/special enough to get any of my two awards. ["Thumbs Up"]

2 stars: The product is only about average or even somewhat below that and somewhat flawed/flawed in some areas. [neither "Thumbs Up" nor "Thumbs Down"]

1 star: The product is bad/severely flawed to outright bad. ["Thumbs Down"]

---

EarFun Free 2


Source:

Review sample.


Miscellaneous:

Decently designed packaging/unboxing experience but sparse set of accessories (charging case, charging cable, in-ear phones, three pairs of silicone ear tips).

Additional aptX support, unlike the previous generation; definitely nice at this price point, along with the newly introduced touch and volume control.

Charging case supports USB-C and wireless charging.
Looks nice and is compact. Small LED on the front to indicate the battery status upon pressing the button located on the back or when the lid is opened; unfortunately it doesn’t change its colour/status above 30% of charge, so one only knows when the battery is drained by already 70%.
What’s very nice is that the lid doesn’t fall shut unintentionally but is held in place in any position that it is opened.
The in-ear pieces are securely held in place by magnets.

The ear pieces themselves look neither too generic nor are they especially recognisable, nonetheless they have somewhat more of a unique design when compared to the first generation, and also feel somewhat more premium thanks to ditching the rubber-covered buttons in favour of touch-sensitive plastic surfaces.
Build quality is definitely okay for the price.

While the touch control commands are a very nice addition and while they are thankfully not nearly as sensitive to unwanted activation as on the JadeAudio EW1, the EarFun Free 2 are sometimes even somewhat too insensitive since multi-touch gestures aren’t always recognised at such (which isn’t ideal, but still a much better behaviour than constantly unwanted accidental touch activation as it is the case with the EW1). But ultimately they work and are clearly an improvement over the first generation Frees’ buttons, wherefore I am using the Free 2s’ touch control (whereas I did not use the Frees’ buttons) surprisingly more often than I thought I would.

Very good fit and seal.
Insertion depth is surprisingly rather deep and therefore very securely held in place.

The Free 2 turn on and off automatically when they are taken out of the charging case respectively back in.

The signal stability is very good when used with my Apple iPhone 4 or BlackBerry Classic – no dropouts or the like.

One 6 mm dynamic driver per side.




Sound:

Largest included silicone ear tips.

Bluetooth sources used for listening to music: ZOTAC ZBOX CI547 nano running Windows 10 (SBC), Acer Aspire Ethos 8951G running Windows 7 (SBC), BlackBerry Classic (aptX), Apple iPhone 4 (AAC). (Bluetooth sound quality with the EarFun Free 2: BlackBerry Classic ≳ iPhone >> all of the others.)

Thankfully the Free 2 are nicely close to being hiss-free even in quiet passages.

Volume Control:

Volume control through touch gestures (single tap on the left or right faceplate). Followed by a soft and thankfully not too loud beep on the corresponding side.
16 volume steps in total and synced with the playback device’s volume control (not with my Acer laptop though which allows for individual Windows volume control (100 steps) plus the Free 2s’ 16 steps). Finer adjustment steps possible on the source device if supported (supported on my ZOTAC and iPhone but not my BlackBerry).
Quietest possible listening level above mute nicely quiet on my Windows 7 laptop thanks to the individual volume control; still rather acceptable on my Windows 10 desktop and iPhone 4, and unfortunately definitely louder my regular listening level on my BlackBerry. Generally I wouldn’t mind if listening more quietly were possible when used with my iPhone or BlackBerry, and that’s unfortunately a thing that most wireless in-ears suffer from.

The status reports (“connected”, “disconnected”) are unfortunately really loud and cannot be attenuated. Unlike on the first generation Free, they are played through both of the Free 2s’ sides.

Tonality:

W-shaped consumer-oriented tuning with strong accentuation of the low bass and upper treble.

Heavy bass elevation that peaks at 30 Hz in the true sub-bass with a quantity of around 15 dB over the central midrange at 1 kHz.
The upper bass at 100 kHz is already elevated by ca. 10 dB.
The root at 300 Hz is elevated by ca. 5 dB over the central midrange.
The bass elevation starts to climb at around 600 Hz, with already some warmth in the area between 400 Hz and 100 Hz.
So while there is undeniably some lower midrange/fundamental range warmth and bleed, it isn’t excessive. What’s noteworthy is that the Free 2 are slightly less warm in the lower fundamental range than the first generation Free that I had.

Therefore the lower mids have got some warmth but aren’t overly thick (they are a little less elevated compared to the first generation), without any irregularities above that in the central midrange. Above that, one can find a slight relaxation dip in the presence range which is a quite common thing and is responsible for placing voices a little less intimately to the listener. What follows is a moderate peak at 3 kHz that leads the midrange to being ultimately slightly on the brighter and leaner side, but just not coloured enough to appear too unnatural (no t shouty or intrusive) or unpleasant. Nonetheless the midrange timbre therefore appears not entirely right, and is also a slight step back compared the first generation that was tuned with less 3 kHz presence.

No dips follow after that upper midrange peak, but instead the Fun 2 have got two more elevations in the highs, a strong one at 7.75 kHz that starts to climb around 6 kHz and drops a bit after the climax, just to be followed by another, even stronger elevation just barely above 9 kHz.
Above 14 kHz, level rolls off gently.

Unfortunately those two treble peaks are the in-ears biggest flaws, as since the lows are tuned well and the midrange is mostly fine as well, the upper highs are just too bright and therefore not natural sounding at all, with a quite artificial timbre, and also noticeably brighter when compared to the first generation Free whose peak was already bright and strong but still fitted into the exaggerated consumer oriented tuning, whereas the Free 2 exaggerate this peak even more, to the point of the elevation just being annoying; that the treble appears quite soft helps somewhat with making the brightness more tolerable than it would have been with a harder treble character, but ultimately it’s still just too much brightness that also leads to sibilants being accentuated to some degree, which is something that many modern budget in-ears have nicely avoided in their tuning, but not so the EarFun Free 2.
While the Free were tuned well for exaggerated consumer tuning standards, the Free 2 just overdo it in the highs and are therefore quite a bit away from being “refined”.

Frequency Response:


ER-4S-Compensation


ProPhile 8-Compensation

Resolution:

Best sound quality with my BlackBerry that transmits audio with the aptX codec; slightly inferior with my iPhone (slightly higher treble compression and compression in general, sometimes slight artefacts; slightly less defined and softer bass).

Generally quite good for true wireless standards (average-ish for most parts when judged by low-priced wired in-ear standards) and this price range.
Can compete with wired in-ears (not too far from my Shure SE215m+SPE in terms of resolution) and beat models such as my SoundMAGIC E10, but definitely don’t reach the technical performance of really good dynamic driver in-ears such as the Fidue A65, Etymotic ER2XR, Fostex TE-02 or iBasso IT01, and are also behind my Moondrop Starfield.
Therefore, the Free 2s’ technical performance seems to be pretty much identical to the first generation Free.

The bass’ control is surprisingly good given the very strong elevation. While it has got some “typical” dynamic driver softness, it isn’t muddy and feels still rather controlled with more complex tracks.

The midrange resolution is decent for the price and doesn’t show any weakness either.

The highs are reproduced in a quite soft way wherefore one shouldn’t expect the cleanest separation, but in return this helps somewhat with making the strong elevation more acceptable. Nonetheless the definition and transients could and should be better, and sometimes one can also hear slight treble artefacts.

Soundstage:

Quite normal.

Expands a bit wider than the base between my ears and has got a rather decent front projection as well, as it could be expected from a v-shaped tuning like this.
Subjectively, there is about as much depth as much spatial width wherefore the presentation appears circular.

Imaging capabilities are just okay and average for the price range; the soft transients from the highs also carry over to the instrument placement as well as separation, and while the soundstage doesn’t collapse overly with dense, fast and complex material, it is generally on the softer/less precise side, so pin-point imaging should not be expected.




Conclusion:

Definitely improved features and functionality compared to the first generation while maintaining the same low price and a highly comparable, for most parts well-done bass and midrange tuning (for customer tuning standards), but unfortunately with a treble tuning that is flawed and unnatural (brighter upper highs compared to the first generation Free) wherefore it makes the treble timbre and realism appear overly unnatural.
Technical qualities are average for the price and performance range – no real glaring flaws but nothing that’s particularly outstanding either.


Photos:

Link to my review and measurement index thread where one can also find a full review overview, more information about myself as well as my general-ish audio and review manifesto: https://www.head-fi.org/threads/956208/

---

I only give full stars. My ranking/scoring system does not necessarily follow the norm and is about as follows:

5 stars: The product is very good and received the "highly recommended" award from me.

4 stars: The product is very good and received the "recommended" award from me.

3 stars: The product is good/very good, but not outstanding/special enough to get any of my two awards. ["Thumbs Up"]

2 stars: The product is only about average or even somewhat below that and somewhat flawed/flawed in some areas. [neither "Thumbs Up" nor "Thumbs Down"]

1 star: The product is bad/severely flawed to outright bad. ["Thumbs Down"]

---

ORIVETI O400


Source:

Review sample.


Miscellaneous:

ORIVETI’s second BA-only in-ears.

Very nice unboxing experience (except for that the cardboard box was somewhat difficult to open); nicely arranged accessories and a wide range of different ear tip styles (various single-flange silicone tips including AZLA tips, double-flange silicone tips, foam tips and double-flange tips).
High quality, premium appearing round storage/carrying case manufactured from genuine leather and with beautiful red stitching and padded interior; however I wouldn’t mind if it were just slightly more spacious and were even better protected against moisture and dust getting in (as the lid does not really close hermetically, which is something that unfortunately most boutique-styled IEM cases that place form/aesthetics over ultimate protection and function have in common, but after all it’s still a better and more protective case than the one from my Campfire Audio Andromeda or Logitech/Ultimate Ears UE900).

Excellent, flawless build quality.
I really like that one can see the drivers, acoustic tubing, filters, wiring and crossover network through the shells.
Really nice smoke blue translucent colour scheme; can appear a bit purple-ish in some lighting situations.

Beautiful cable; I really like its visual appearance.
Eight conductors that are braided below and above the y-splitter. Premium looking plug, connectors, y-splitter and chin-slider.
Very soft and supple; very high quality.
2-pin connectors.

Four BA drivers per side; four acoustic ways; quad-bore design.




Sound:

Largest included black single-flange silicone ear tips (same type as those that were already installed).

Tonality:

Fairly neutral midrange and treble with nicely integrated sub-bass elevation. Harman-oriented, if you will, but with less strongly boosted bass (therefore more oriented around the Harman over-ear target).

The mids and highs generally follow the diffuse-field target quite well, with somewhat less level around 2 kHz wherefore the presence range is not intrusive but rather somewhat relaxed sounding. Level is back at neutral in quantity at 3 kHz and 4 kHz, with a mild but not narrow dip around 5 kHz, and neutral quantity right above that again towards 9 kHz, with a very mild, rather broad elevation around 7.5 kHz, wherefore the tuning is ultimately very slightly on the v-shaped/mildly loudness-compensated side to my ears. The level around 10 kHz is just a bit in the background again when listening to sine sweeps and therefore ultimately takes just a little bit of sharpness/splashiness from overtones and cymbals without making them sound dark at all, just to come back to neutral again already at 11 kHz and subsequently above that.
Super treble extension is good past 16 kHz.
Listening to sine sweeps generally shows a smooth treble presentation (that, for most parts, sounds fairly natural with music as well), with neither of the dips seeming to be placed in the positions where they are coming in as sudden, narrow or strongly recessed but generally quite mildly recessed, wherefore the highs, while ultimately not 100% flat and linear, sound mostly natural and clear together with the mild 7.5 kHz lift that is overall really just a notch above neutral in quantity, yet at the same time are not offensive or sharp but have a slightly milder character, but one shouldn’t be fooled into thinking that the O400 were inoffensive and forgiving with badly mixed/mastered tracks that have exaggerations in the high frequency range, since ultimately their upper-end neutrality (and “mercilessness”) above 3 kHz is not too far away from Etymotic’s in-ears, but in the end just a bit more “forgiving” in comparison, combined with a milder, more relaxed presence range presentation (“natural neutral/relaxed neutral” on the ORIVETI compared to Etymotic’s “no compromise flat studio neutral” approach in the upper midrange/presence range). If there’s anything to criticise about the highs’ reproduction, it’s that the O400s’ appears ultimately just a notch less authentic and refined compared to Etymotic’s in-ears that sound even more authentic and refined to my ears in terms treble tuning when it comes to my ears; but even though the ORIVETI are ultimately a tad below Etymotic’s products in this area to my ears, they are nonetheless among the best in-ears especially in their price range in this regard.

The midrange follows a tuning that could be considered “natural neutral” as the lower mids are completely flat without any hint of warmth thanks to the brilliantly integrated low bass boost, with a subsequently flat central midrange and, compared to Etymotic standards and what I perceive when listening to sine sweeps, an upper midrange/presence range that is recessed moderately enough to place voices a bit further away from the listener, thus making them somewhat less intimate, yet present enough to not making brighter voices and lower voices’ overtones appear as recessed or dark but correct. Thankfully to this, the midrange tuning and timbre is reproduced correctly to my ears even in the presence range.

In my opinion, while the O400s’ midrange and treble are already tuned well and sound natural as well as coherent, the “star of the show” when it comes to tuning is clearly the bass, and I’d go as far to writing that this is the best sub-bass elevation that I have ever heard from any in-ears so far.
Listening to sine sweeps, I hear the bass’ elevation as starting to climb around 500 Hz, and it reaches its climax nicely low around 30 Hz (with a lift of around 7 dB compared to diffuse-field standards), with already a bit of punch in the upper bass around 100 Hz, but the “main action” is definitely happening in the lower midbass and actual sub-bass, with a fantastically implemented elevation that nicely stays out of the fundamental range and therefore really just accentuates the true bass without adding any warmth to the sound or colouring the mids.
Therefore, and as 200 Hz are about in-line with 1 kHz, bleeding of the bass into the midrange is avoided completely and instead it stays nicely out of it with adding just the slightest possible hint of warmth to the low fundamental range.

All in all, one can definitely say that the O400 are tremendously well-tuned in-ears with an extremely good integration of a mild loudness compensation/mild v-shape with the lows’ climax sitting nicely low in the true sub-bass, and in terms of a true sub-bass-only focus, the ORIVETI manage to place the focus on the actual sub-bass even more than the Etymotic ER2XR, my Shure SE846 and my Earsonics ES3.
Due to the way they are tuned, they also sound largely neutral/”natural neutral” most of the time since the moderate bass elevation is placed nicely low and really only shows its presence when the recording/track reaches this low.
On a personal note, I am undeniably still quite impressed by just how well the lows are tuned (as a really nice and quite addictive addition to the rest of the entire frequency range that sounds natural as well).

Frequency Response:


ER-4S-Compensation


ProPhile 8-Compensation

Resolution:

When it comes to technical performance, it can generally said that the O400 are definitely and, if one can say so, quite easily worth the price.

These in-ears’ bass character is really interesting and ultimately just great – the lows have got a somewhat dynamic-driver like body and rumble but BA-like speed and control (there is no muddiness or softness even in demanding and fast passages/tracks) wherefore they reproduce a controlled, tight punch with a clean and fast decay, yet punches feel dynamic and have got some sort of almost tactile vibrations wherefore the bass sounds natural and is highly involving; it just feels “right”.

Speech intelligibility is really high for this price range, and the general resolution and level of transparency in the midrange are high as well.

When it comes to high notes, the O400 don’t disappoint either but feature a high level of details and remain clean sounding even in busy and fast passages of the music.
Especially noteworthy is the generally clean and precise separation across the entire frequency range that is definitely a major contributor to the ORIVETI sounding very controlled, resolving and clean even with fast, dense and busy music.

Soundstage:

The O400s’ imaginary soundstage shows no congestion and sounds quite open and spacious to my ears (not NocturnaL Audio Atlantis/Ultimate Ears Reference Monitors/Campfire Audio Andromeda tier in terms of size and openness, but still very good; it expands further than the space between my ears and is ultimately perceived as somewhat larger than the Etymotic ER2XRs’ soundstage that doesn’t appear small to my ears either but is in fact the largest soundstage among all Etymotic ER series in-ears). Since the in-ears don’t sound flat but manage to layer well, the virtual room sounds three-dimensional and therefore very authentic to me; ultimately the soundstage is just a bit more on the oval than round side to my ears.

Thankfully the imaging is really precise and the ORIVETIs’ soundstage also handles very fast, dense, complex and demanding music material tremendously well without losing much control even when pushed to the limits by the music.
Especially these in-ears’ very clean spatial separation is really noteworthy as their imaging ability is really clean and precise, with the “empty space” between and around instruments/tonal elements being reproduced very accurately without any blur.

- - - - - - - - - - - -

Comparisons:

Etymotic ER2XR:

Both in-ears’ tuning direction is generally quite comparable.

The ER2XR are elevated a bit stronger in the sub-bass and bass in general, and have therefore got a bit more upper bass punch and somewhat more warmth in the low fundamental range in comparison.
The O400 have got the less intimate/more relaxed midrange presentation (voices are less placed less closely to the listener on the O400 and appear closer to the listener/more intimate/direct on the ER2XR) while both in-ears’ midrange timbre is similar.
The ER2XR have got the slightly more even/refined treble tuning to my ears when listening to music and thus sometimes slightly more realistic treble response/high note timbre in direct comparison; the treble tuning is generally comparable with the exception being in the upper highs where the O400 are slightly brighter than the Etymotic in comparison.

The O400 feature the slightly better separation in general.
They have also got the somewhat higher transparency and resolution.
Treble details are about comparable but the ORIVETI are ultimately still a bit ahead here as well, especially in fast passages.
The sub-bass reproduction is cleaner on the O400 whereas the ER-2XRs’ is a bit soft in comparison; the ORIVETI are generally a bit tighter/faster in the lows.

In terms of soundstage size, I hear the O400s’ as appearing a bit wider and generally somewhat larger than the ER2XRs’.
The imaging is somewhat more precise on the ORIVETI that have also got the better instrument separation in comparison.

Earsonics ES3:

Both in-ears’ bass elevation starts about similarly, but the difference is that the ES3, while they also avoid any lower midrange warmth just like the O400, have got the stronger elevation in the upper bass as well as midbass wherefore they are ultimately tuned a bit bassier/punchier than the ORIVETI that really mainly concentrate their elevation on the true sub-bass (that’s also a little stronger elevated on the ES3, although just slightly).
The O400 have got the more linear upper midrange and treble tuning (wherefore they sound more realistic) whereas the ES3 have a more recessed upper midrange and middle treble and a brighter upper treble elevation.

Bass control, tightness and details are higher on the O400.
The same goes for the midrange where the ORIVETI sound more transparent and resolve better.
This is also true for the O400s’ treble whose resolution is higher and features the cleaner note separation.
The note separation is generally cleaner and superior on the O400.

The O400s’ soundstage a bit larger to my ears.
The spatial separation and imaging are also somewhat more precise on the ORIVETI (especially the ability to portray “empty space” around and between tonal elements; their soundstage also remains better controlled in fast and busy passages).

NocturnaL Audio Atlantis:

The Atlantis have got the thicker, warmer lower fundamental range and bass with a punchy upper bass and strong midbass whereas the O400 are tuned without any lower fundamental range warmth and slightly higher quantity in the lowest possible sub-bass, while otherwise the Atlantis are audibly bassier in the low midbass and upper sub-bass in comparison.
The middle treble is a bit brighter on the O400; otherwise their highs are quite comparable although Atlantis have ultimately got the somewhat more refined sounding treble response to my ears.

The Atlantis’ bass is tighter and faster.
Likewise they also feature the generally somewhat higher transparency and resolution and also even somewhat cleaner separation.

The Atlantis’ soundstage appears larger to my ears and also even somewhat more precise imaging.

Shure SE846 (white “Treble” Filters):

Both in-ears’ tuning direction is generally quite comparable.
The SE846 have got somewhat more upper bass quantity in comparison wherefore it’s reproduced punchier; as their bass radiates comparatively more into the lower fundamental range than the O400s’ that are more “sub-bass-only-focused” with pretty much no fundamental range warmth, the Shure have got a bit of warmth in the low fundamental range while the ORIVETI truly limit their elevation in the lows to nothing but the actual low bass.
Both have got comparable lower midbass and sub-bass quantity, while the O400 are actually even slightly more elevated in the true sub-bass which is audible in the rarer cases when the audio material really extends this low.
Both in-ears’ midrange tuning is comparable.
Extension in the super treble is easily won by the ORIVETI as the Shure simply start to roll off far too early and thus lack treble overtones. Maybe as a result of this, but also generally, the O400 have got the more correct midrange and treble timbre to my ears whereas the SE846 appear somewhat artificial, especially with their treble that appears as the decay and reverb were lacking (which is definitely a result of their at best mediocre treble extension).
As for tuning, the O400 are slightly brighter in the upper highs before the super treble where the Shure are more or less lacking.

In terms of technical performance, the Shure have a bass that is generally a bit tighter and features the comparatively higher control as well as details in the lows. Sub-bass control is almost similarly good, but the SE846 are again just slightly ahead here.
The O400 have got the slightly higher speech intelligibility to my ears whereas the SE846 have got ultimately the overall very slightly higher midrange transparency and fine details/”true” resolution in this area in direct comparison (their midrange detail presentation appears minimally more “effortless” to me).
Treble resolution and separation is clearly higher on the O400.
When it comes to separation in general, the ORIVETI are generally audibly better which gives them an audible advantage over the Shure in busy and fast passages as well as dense arrangements, as except for the bass where the Shure have definitely got an advantage in terms of control and quality, the O400 are ahead in the rest of the frequency spectrum when it comes to control and separation, and they therefore just sound generally audibly cleaner.

To my ears, the O400s’ perceived soundstage is larger.
The ORIVETI also feature the cleaner imaging and sharper instrument separation in comparison, and their reproduction of “empty space” around and between tonal elements appears also cleaner as well as more effortless.




Conclusion:

Highly Recommended.

Excellent tuning with a truly fantastic integration of the moderate bass elevation that really only concentrates on the lowest registers and doesn’t add any warmth to the fundamental range, natural and realistic midrange reproduction, as well as cohesive (although ultimately a notch below Etymotic’s in-ears’ treble response) and realistically tuned treble that is ultimately set to be just a notch on the brighter side in the upper highs.
Combined with the technical performance that is excellent in the in-ears price range and even generally very good and highly competitive, with especially the high control and excellent note and instrument separation as well as three-dimensional and therefore authentic soundstage being worthy of note, the O400 represent such a great overall package and even place them clearly among the upper range of my personally favourite IEMs for recreational music listening.


Photos:

Link to my review and measurement index thread where one can also find a full review overview, more information about myself as well as my general-ish audio and review manifesto: https://www.head-fi.org/threads/956208/

---

I only give full stars. My ranking/scoring system does not necessarily follow the norm and is about as follows:

5 stars: The product is very good and received the "highly recommended" award from me.

4 stars: The product is very good and received the "recommended" award from me.

3 stars: The product is good/very good, but not outstanding/special enough to get any of my two awards. ["Thumbs Up"]

2 stars: The product is only about average or even somewhat below that and somewhat flawed/flawed in some areas. [neither "Thumbs Up" nor "Thumbs Down"]

1 star: The product is bad/severely flawed to outright bad. ["Thumbs Down"]

---

InEar StageDiver SD-2


Source:

Personal unit.


Miscellaneous:

Poor unboxing experience – plain plastic bag with carrying case, in-ears, two cleaning wipes, 6.35 to 3.5 mm adapter, three pairs of silicone tips.
It seems like InEar later switches to a more appealing and proper packaging, though.

Perfect shell design that provides an excellent fit, seal and ergonomics.
Build quality is high.
I quite like the glossy black shells.

The storage/carrying case is very good as it isn’t overly large and provides excellent protection along with being softly padded with silicone on the inside.

Replaceable cable with 2-pin connectors.
I really like the silver cable’s aesthetics (InEar seemingly later switched to a black cable instead).
Twisted conductors; soft and supple.

Two BA drivers per side, two-way design, single-bore construction.




Sound:

Largest included ear tips.

Tonality:

Warm-neutral.

The lows are elevated by around 5 dB by diffuse-field standards, which means that the SD-2 have got about 2 dB stronger bass quantity when compared to my Ultimate Ears Reference Monitors, and around 5 dB when compared to my Etymotic ER-4S.
It extends flat into the real sub-bass without any roll-off.
As the climax is already reached in the area of the lower fundamental range, with the elevation already taking place in the lower midrange, the SD-2 definitely have a somewhat warm tilt in the lows and also lower midrange – definitely comparable to my HiFiMan RE400i, although they are ultimately less warm in the lower mids but equally so in the midbass and lower fundamental range.

The midrange appears natural in tone but is nonetheless on the ultimately warmer side of neutral, with en emphasis on lower voices’ body.
The level takes a slight step back in the upper mids/presence range, although my SD-2 are ultimately still less relaxed here compared to my InEar ProPhile 8 wherefore they reproduce voices more intimately/closer to the listener than the ProPhile 8 that are more recessed in the presence range for a less “flat studio neutral” but more “natural neutral” tuning, whereas they are ultimately flatter in the lows and less relaxed in the highs than the SD-2.

The treble is generally and evenly in the background and features a remarkable level of evenness (no sudden dips or peaks) that is rather rarely reached, and as a result the upper-end presentation has got a high sense of realism and naturalness that comes very close to that of Etymotic’s in-ears. It comes back with a sort of “peak” just a little below 10 kHz, but one couldn’t actually call it such as it still remains below neutral in quantity.
Extension past 16 kHz is also surprisingly (exceptionally) good without any audible roll-off before 16 kHz.

Frequency Response:


ER-4S-Compensation


ProPhile 8-Compensation

Resolution:

Very decent but cannot fully keep up with many of the better triple- and quad-BA in-ears (as well as some dual-BA models) around the same price (e.g. Fischer Amps FA-3E, Logitech/Ultimate Ears UE900, Westone W4R, Audio Technica ATH-IM03, Pai Audio MR3, Noble Audio SAVANNA or Jays q-JAYS (2nd generation)) in all areas, while it is ultimately somewhat above that of my Shure SE425.

The “problem” is definitely the SD-2s’ back-venting of the BA woofer – while it leads to a more visceral, body-oriented, dynamic driver-like presentation, the softer and slower implementation of the InEars’ back-venting leads to fast and complex bass attacks as well as transients sounding too soft for Balanced Armature standards, which is especially noticeable with fast and demanding tracks where the SD-2 cannot fully keep up and sound somewhat smeared.
While the control and speed are ultimately still slightly superior to some dynamic driver implementations, most of the Balanced Armature competitors are simply ahead in terms of bass technicalities and speed.

Then again, also thanks to the even tuning, the driver/crossover implementation sounds coherent, and the sound is generally natural and even, although just not with the speed, tightness and control that I’m used to and demand from multi-BA in-ears in this price range.

Otherwise, apart from to rather slow and soft woofer implementation, the general level of resolution is good to decent, but the slightly darker than neutral tuning ultimately emphasises the rather soft perception of transients to some degree.
To be fair, though, medium-paced music doesn’t stress the woofer or in-ears in general and they remain clean sounding as long as no sheer speed and technicalities are required.

Soundstage:

What’s quite remarkable, especially in this price range for multi-BA in-ears, is the SD-2s’ large, three-dimensional and lifelike soundstage reproduction that I previously only heard from several more expensive and/or custom-moulded multi-BA IEMs (with only very few exceptions that however ultimately don’t fully reach the InEars’ soundstage quality), and it’s definitely their core strength apart from the tonal evenness.

As such, the soundstage isn’t only very large and three-dimensional (wherefore layering and the perception of spatial depth are excellently reproduced as well), but also quite precise.
Instruments and single layer levels are easy to differentiate and also separated quite precisely wherefore this leads to a highly realistic presentation.
Spatial control/imaging precision is on a fairly high technical level as well, although a bit of blur occurs once the lows on the track are too technically demanding and/or fast, since then the rather soft and slow implementation of the back-venter BA woofer also starts to show up when it comes to instrument separation.

Ultimately one shouldn’t fully expect the spatial precision and size of in-ears such as my Ultimate Ears Reference Monitors or NocturnaL Audio Atlantis, nonetheless the SD-2 are quite a unicorn when it comes to the three-dimensional soundstage reproduction among comparably priced multi-BA in-ears.




Conclusion:

Warm-neutral tuning with a very even and realistic, mildly relaxed treble presentation and convincing three-dimensional soundstage packed into highly ergonomic shells.
While the general level of resolution is decent, the bass and transients are however somewhat too much on the softer and slower side for Balanced Armature standards, wherefore the SD-2 are just a tiny bit shy of getting the “Recommended” award.


Photos:

Link to my review and measurement index thread where one can also find a full review overview, more information about myself as well as my general-ish audio and review manifesto: https://www.head-fi.org/threads/956208/

---

I only give full stars. My ranking/scoring system does not necessarily follow the norm and is about as follows:

5 stars: The product is very good and received the "highly recommended" award from me.

4 stars: The product is very good and received the "recommended" award from me.

3 stars: The product is good/very good, but not outstanding/special enough to get any of my two awards. ["Thumbs Up"]

2 stars: The product is only about average or even somewhat below that and somewhat flawed/flawed in some areas. [neither "Thumbs Up" nor "Thumbs Down"]

1 star: The product is bad/severely flawed to outright bad. ["Thumbs Down"]

---

Etymotic ER3XR


Source:

Review sample.


Miscellaneous:

Just like on the ER2XR as well as ER4XR, “XR” stands for “Extended Response”, indicating a moderately boosted bass compared to the flatter tuned SE (respectively SR) models.

The ER3 series IEMs are basically similar to the ER4 series, but with lower impedance and higher sensitivity (hence slightly different (darker) frequency response in stock form), different/less accessories (small instead of large carrying/storage case, shorter cable), manufactured at a different facility, don’t come with the new ER4 series’ “certificate of performance”, and, in theory, have less strict quality control/driver matching compared to the ER4 series, although even Etymotic stated that most ER3 units would easily pass ER4 series standards, but unlike on the more expensive, more pro-user targeted ER4 series, they couldn’t guarantee for this (at least in case of the ER3SE and ER3XR that I have on hand, I can say that these two would definitely and flawlessly pass ER4 series quality control and driver matching standards).

Come with the same accessories as the ER3SE and ER2 series (same small pouch case as that of my ER-4S and the ER3 series, one pair of green replacement filters along with a filter removal tool made of metal, one shirt clip, one pair of cylindrical foam tips, and last but not lest two pairs of differently sized silicone tips – that’s definitely a bit disappointing compared to the new ER4 series’ ampler amount of accessories, but overall still okay).

Small shells that are made of metal and similar to those of the ER4 series, however matte/satin black instead of stainless steel blue.
Build quality seems to be very good.
It’s nice that each shell has the serial number as well as model number on it in white (the same is true for the ER2 and new ER4 series in-ears).

Removable cables with non-rotating (small notch that prevents that) MMCX connectors.
Y-splitter that’s made of metal, too.
A chin-slider is present.
Cable shorter than the one that comes with the ER4 series in-ears and with straight instead of twisted conductors above the y-splitters.
Side indicators unfortunately only small and difficult to see in dimly lit environments – coloured indicators would have been better.
Fairly supple and flexible cable.
Rather high microphonics when worn down, but that can be fixed by guiding the cable over the ears and using the chin-slider (or alternatively using the included shirt clip).

One Balanced Armature driver per side.




Sound:

Largest included triple-flange silicone tips, modified so that they create a seal in my large ear canals while still maintaining the original ear tip length (achieved by cutting off the smallest flange and putting it onto the nozzle first, followed by the remaining double-flange rest of the tip).

Tonality:

Gentle bass elevation with fairly diffuse-field-oriented (but slightly milder) midrange and treble neutrality.
Basically just like the ER4XR, albeit ultimately slightly warmer in the fundamental range and slightly darker in the treble.

Flat and neutral midrange and treble along with a bass elevation that starts in the middle root around 600 Hz and climbs gradually towards the midbass and sub-bass where the highest quantity with about 4.5 dB higher level compared to the ER4SR is reached. Therefore the lows carry a mild warmth without really adding any colouration to the midrange yet.

Performing sine sweeps and listening to music, the midrange and treble sound very flat and even to me, which is something that is rare and achieved by only very few in-ears wherefore the ER3XR, just like the ER2 and ER4 series models, also sound highly realistic. Solely the 7 kHz area features a moderate recession to my ears, but this is something that is not really audible when listening to music.
Compared to absolutely uncompromised flat neutral, the highs are generally slightly but evenly in the background by around 2.5 dB, which is why the ER3XR sound a little darker and more relaxed/less “uncompromised lifeless neutral” in the highs when compared to the ER4SR or my ER-4S.

Frequency Response:


ER-4S-Compensation

The ER3XR were measured with the non-modified triple-flange ear tips in both graphs as I did not save the other measurements and didn’t bother to re-measure them. Due to the resulting slightly different insertion depth into the coupler, the graphs shows a bit less upper treble quantity than the ER3XR would actually have.


ProPhile 8-Compensation

Resolution:

One could assume that the ER3XR are inferior to the ER4 series in-ears, while in fact they are not and actually perform equally well.

The ER3XR also offer very good speech intelligibility and are capable of rendering small details very well wherefore they sound transparent and are among the very best single-BA in-ears that I know.
Separation of single notes in the high frequency range is precise.
The bass is fast as well as tight; solely fast and complex passages lead to it becoming slightly less clean sounding while separation remains intact and while it doesn’t appear soft yet.

While the resolution, transparency and headroom of some more expensive multi-BA in-ears isn’t reached by the ER3XR, they are nonetheless among the most capable single-BA models on the market and generally don’t need to fear most good multi-BA in-ears in the 500$ range either.

Soundstage:

The ER3XRs’ soundstage is neither the smallest nor the largest, but represents average dimensions and appears a little wider than deep to my ears, yet has a good amount of spatial depth and is well-layered. This makes the imaginary soundstage appear realistic and, in particular, coherent to the listener.

The placement of instruments (imaging) is very precise and spatial smear/blur is avoided, although the ER3SE perform even a tad better in a direct comparison.

- - - - - - - - - - - -

Comparisons:

Etymotic ER4XR:

The tonal differences between the ER3XR and ER4XR are less pronounced than between the ER3SE and ER4SR (at least when it comes to the units that I have on hand), which is why the ER3XR and ER4XR could be described as almost identical since the tonal differences between the two in-ears are about as small as the channel matching differences between in-ears of most other manufacturers are (and hereby I’m not referring to clearly mismatched models but rather in-ears that measure with a really, really tight channel matching).
That said, in the mid- and low bass, both in-ears’ tuning is the same. Only in the upper bass and fundamental range, the ER3XR have got a little more warmth and impact in comparison.
The ER3XR are only slightly less present in the presence area/upper mids than the ER4XR.
Solely around 6 and 7 kHz, there is a “more obvious” difference between the two: the ER3XR are a bit more relaxed here.
In the upper highs, the ER3XR are again a little more relaxed which can be heard in the reproduction of cymbals, although only slightly.

As a result, I consider the ER3XR the “better” alternative to the ER4XR due to their virtually similar resolution performance and only small tonal differences – solely for users who intend to use the in-ears for actual music production, the higher price for the ER4XR could still be worth it in the end because of their ultimately ever so slightly higher flatness/accuracy in the fundamental range and upper frequencies, provided that what one is looking for is a set of in-ears with a compensation for the viscerally perceived mechanical vibrations in the lows, which the XR models somewhat compensate for with their mild bass elevation compared to the SR/S/SE models that are tuned for an uncompromised flat neutral bass output without any tuning compensation for the lack of perceived mechanical vibrations that are absent on headphones and in-ears when compared to speakers in a room, but in the end that’s definitely a matter of personal perception/preference and how easily one’s brain can adapt to that “lack” when using headphones/in-ears (mine does easily).
So, to summarise, the ER3XR, compared to the ER4XR, are slightly warmer in the fundamental range, and slightly darker in the treble, but otherwise similarly tuned.
When it comes to details and resolution, both in-ears perform on an equal level – the absolutely only difference in a direct comparison is that the ER3XR appear minimally softer in bass, but this impression disappears when one lowers their lower fundamental range and upper bass slightly, which brings them exactly to ER4XR levels in this area.

Both in-ears’ imaging is equally precise and realistic, with equally good layering and separation of the imaginary events.
The ER4XR seem to have slightly more perceived spatial width, but this impression comes only from their slightly louder upper treble compared to the ER3XR.




Conclusion:

Highly Recommended.

Generally great sounding and superbly tuned (smooth neutral, even and very realistic with mild bass elevation) single-BA in-ears with high technical capabilities.
I even consider the ER3XR the better/more reasonable alternative to the ER4XR as long as one doesn’t need the slightly higher midrange and treble accuracy (in stock form), more/better accessories and cable, and individually hand-matched drivers that are accompanied by a channel matching/performance certificate.


Photos:

Link to my review and measurement index thread where one can also find a full review overview, more information about myself as well as my general-ish audio and review manifesto: https://www.head-fi.org/threads/956208/

---

I only give full stars. My ranking/scoring system does not necessarily follow the norm and is about as follows:

5 stars: The product is very good and received the "highly recommended" award from me.

4 stars: The product is very good and received the "recommended" award from me.

3 stars: The product is good/very good, but not outstanding/special enough to get any of my two awards. ["Thumbs Up"]

2 stars: The product is only about average or even somewhat below that and somewhat flawed/flawed in some areas. [neither "Thumbs Up" nor "Thumbs Down"]

1 star: The product is bad/severely flawed to outright bad. ["Thumbs Down"]

---

[Review removed upon request.]

Link to my review and measurement index thread where one can also find a full review overview, more information about myself as well as my general-ish audio and review manifesto: https://www.head-fi.org/threads/956208/

---

I only give full stars. My ranking/scoring system does not necessarily follow the norm and is about as follows:

5 stars: The product is very good and received the "highly recommended" award from me.

4 stars: The product is very good and received the "recommended" award from me.

3 stars: The product is good/very good, but not outstanding/special enough to get any of my two awards. ["Thumbs Up"]

2 stars: The product is only about average or even somewhat below that and somewhat flawed/flawed in some areas. [neither "Thumbs Up" nor "Thumbs Down"

1 star: The product is bad/severely flawed to outright bad. ["Thumbs Down"]

---

Brainwavz Hex


Source:

Review sample.


Miscellaneous:

Available in two different designs.

Rather sparse unboxing experience – compact cardboard packaging without many visual details, nonetheless clean.
Brainwavz’ well-known and fairly nice black and red zipped carrying case is included.
Six pairs of silicone tips in three different sizes plus some Comply Foam tips.
Cable clip and Velcro cable tie.

Very large shells.
The visual design neither attracts me nor puts me off – it’s okay. I really like the hexagonal faceplate design, though.
I like that the inner shells are solid black whereas the faceplates are translucent – however, both aren’t equally clear.
Build quality is rather decent, although subjectively not on the level of that of my Knowledge Zenith AS06 or AS10, and the shells feel sturdy.
What’s fairly unusual for multi-BA in-ears (although not exclusive to the Hex) is that there is a vent hole in each shell.

Really good fit and ergonomics.

Removable cable with MMCX connectors.
The cable consists of seemingly twisted conductors that were rubber-coated/-sleeved – therefore, it’s a fairly typical cable and also comparable to Brainwavz’ other in-ears’ cables, and while seemingly reliable and tough, unfortunately also quite springy and not really flexible.
A chin-slider is present but somewhat difficult to adjust.

Three Balanced Armature drivers per side.




Sound:

Largest included silicone ear tips.

Tonality:

Warm to dark, rather relaxed tonality.

The treble is generally and evenly on the somewhat darker side of neutral, although not muffled. The upper highs (cymbals), however, take a step into the inoffensive direction.
There is some of a broad rebound around 6 kHz, but not really above neutral. Still adds a bit of metallicness, though.
The upper treble (cymbals) is definitely on the relaxed side and reproduced inoffensively, close to the point of being a bit too muffled – more present upper highs and no 6 kHz lift would have been better.
Super treble extension past 10 kHz okay but not spectacular.
As a result, the treble timbre is ultimately not always fully natural due to the 6 kHz rebound and rather dark upper treble but definitely without any glaring flaws (doesn’t sound unnatural but lacks the “final touch” - ultimately it’s still clearly better than if the treble had any audible unevenness, were wonky or had unnaturally placed or overly strong peaks).

The lower mids are on the somewhat warmer side, but not by much.
The upper midrange is on the somewhat darker side.
The Hex have got generally inoffensive mids that show a tilt towards the darker side but are mostly correct in the lower and central midrange.

The fundamental range around 300 Hz is on the warmer side which adds a bit of pleasant warmth to the sound but can also lead to an impression of muffled lower mids. This elevation is however only around 5.5 dB compared to in-ears with a flat-neutral bass (e.g. my Etymotic ER-4S or the ER4SR), so it’s ultimately still rather close to being neutral to balanced/moderate in quantity.
The elevation’s climax is reached around 180 Hz, stays flat at that level down to around 80 Hz and rolls slightly off towards 20 Hz. The result is a warmth- and upper bass impact-driven bass instead of an “impelling” bass from the lowest registers.

Even though there are no glaring flaws in the Hex’ relaxed tuning, around the same price point and below, there are single- and multi-BA in-ears with a balanced to relaxed tuning that I would take over them, such as the Apple Dual-Driver In-Ears, Brainwavz B100, Rose Mini2, LYPERTEK BEVI 2, SoundMAGIC PL50, Sony XBA-C10 and Ultimate Ears UE600vi, or Knowledge Zenith AS06 or Pai Audio MR2 for multi-BA in-ears with a bassy, warm and v-shaped sound.

Frequency Response:


ER-4S-Compensation


ProPhile 8-Compensation

Resolution:

Central midrange resolution and speech intelligibility are decent to good, but outperformed by other models in this price range.
Lower midrange details are subjectively a bit behind.
The upper midrange sounds a bit veiled.

Treble details are actually rather decent too, but the separation is on the softer side, lacking the precision of other models and competitors.

As for the bass, its definition doesn’t really impress and it is also a bit too soft for Balanced Armature standards – it’s quite “dynamic driver-like” in its body and presentation.

While they are overall still okay for multi-BA in-ears in this price range, unfortunately the general detail level and resolution is ultimately definitely a good bit away from being impressive and the Hex are outperformed by other single- and multi-driver in-ears (such as the ones mentioned earlier above) in terms of resolution – generally, one would expect better from a multi-BA implementation, even at this comparatively competitive price point.

Soundstage:

Somewhat wider than “average” (may extend just a little further than the base between my ears). With some spatial depth as well, although the soundstage is generally definitely much more wide/oval than circular.

Imaging precision is okay to decent but not pinpoint precise (one can sense a bit of “spatial smear/blur” in the “empty space” between and around instruments).




Conclusion:

Okay but nothing special. No glaring flaws but one could expect a better technical performance from multi-BA in-ears even at this price point, since the Hex are outperformed by other comparably priced single- and multi-BA in-ears.

Link to my review and measurement index thread where one can also find a full review overview, more information about myself as well as my general-ish audio and review manifesto: https://www.head-fi.org/threads/956208/

---

I only give full stars. My ranking/scoring system does not necessarily follow the norm and is about as follows:

5 stars: The product is very good and received the "highly recommended" award from me.

4 stars: The product is very good and received the "recommended" award from me.

3 stars: The product is good/very good, but not outstanding/special enough to get any of my two awards. ["Thumbs Up"]

2 stars: The product is only about average or even somewhat below that and somewhat flawed/flawed in some areas. [neither "Thumbs Up" nor "Thumbs Down"]

1 star: The product is bad/severely flawed to outright bad. ["Thumbs Down"]

---

Brainwavz M100


Source:

Review sample.


Miscellaneous:

Decent amount of accessories.

Shells made of metal. Build quality seems high.
I really like the design.

The cable is rather decent but not all that supple.

One dynamic driver per side.




Sound:

Included black silicone ear tips.

Tonality:

Bassy, warm and especially very dark.

Downward sloping line from the lows to the highs with a difference of more than 20 dB (which is a loudness difference of no less than more than four times). Therefore everything sounds veiled and like behind a thick curtain or blanket.
Clearly, there is a distinct lack of brightness and the sound just ends up as muffled, muddy and dull.

Around 11 dB of bass boost compared to diffuse-field neutrality peaking towards the sub-bass but ultimately actually somewhat closer to 100 Hz.
Gradually loses level towards the mids (900 Hz starting point) but has got a noticeable bleed into the midrange. Already quite full between 200 and 300 Hz.
Very full fundamental range.

The mids sound very warm, thick and also dark because the level continues to decrease above 1 kHz, which results in a dull and muffled presentation.

The treble is just very dark and lacks any bit of clarity.
It re-gains a bit of presence around 5 kHz but clearly far too little and is still clearly in the background here as well, with the rest above quite missing wherefore cymbals sound much too muffled.

Frequency Response:


ER-4S-Compensation


ProPhile 8-Compensation

Resolution:

Nothing special and outperformed by several other similarly priced in-ears.

Soft and slow sounding on fast and busy tracks. Not overly spongy but definitely neither tight nor precise, and furthermore with some softening towards the sub-bass.

Actual midrange and treble details are not too bad but still just “average”, and clearly held back by the overly dark and muffled tuning.

Would be okay in the 30$ to 50$ range but definitely not around 100$.

Soundstage:

Neither the widest nor the narrowest. Quite average.
Almost circular.

Imaging could be more precise as there is at most only very little air/empty space around and between instruments, and the general presentation is rather foggy, especially with busier tracks.


Conclusion:

Very dark, veiled, dull, foggy, muddy, slow, soft and muffled sound.

Link to my review and measurement index thread where one can also find a full review overview, more information about myself as well as my general-ish audio and review manifesto: https://www.head-fi.org/threads/956208/

---

I only give full stars. My ranking/scoring system does not necessarily follow the norm and is about as follows:

5 stars: The product is very good and received the "highly recommended" award from me.

4 stars: The product is very good and received the "recommended" award from me.

3 stars: The product is good/very good, but not outstanding/special enough to get any of my two awards. ["Thumbs Up"]

2 stars: The product is only about average or even somewhat below that and somewhat flawed/flawed in some areas. [neither "Thumbs Up" nor "Thumbs Down"]

1 star: The product is bad/severely flawed to outright bad. ["Thumbs Down"]

---

Etymotic ER-4S


Source:

Personal unit.


Miscellaneous:

Excellent unboxing experience with all of the accessories nicely arranged in a large, protective plastic hard case that can be also used for storage/transport in addition to the small soft case. I really like this.

The shells are made of black plastic and have got the individual side’s serial number on them.
While the in-ears feel sturdy and durable, they could perhaps appear just a bit more premium from a consumer point of view.

Removable cable with the same connectors as the Sennheiser HD 600s’ cable.
Angled 3.5 mm connector.
Properly executed strain relief.
Twisted conductors above the cable divider.
The bulky y-splitter contains all of the electrical filter network/resistors, wherefore simply by changing the cable, one could theoretically turn the ER-4S into the ER-4P or ER-4B.
I like how it reads “ER-4S” on the y-splitter.
Unfortunately no chin-slider and therefore even higher microphonics than the ER-4S already have due to their deep insertion.
I really like the red dot that acts as side indicator on the right hand side’s connector.

One Balanced Armature driver per side.




Sound:

Largest included triple-flange silicone tips, modified so that they create a seal in my large ear canals while still maintaining the original ear tip length (achieved by cutting off the smallest flange and putting it onto the nozzle first, followed by the remaining double-flange rest of the tip).

Tonality:

Diffuse-field oriented flat, lifeless studio neutrality.

The ER-4S, to my ears when performing sine sweeps, listening to noise signals, music and spoken word, just sound as they are advertised – studio reference neutral flat and highly accurate.
They just don’t really have any colouration at all to my ears and come the closest to my personal perception of uncompromised neutrality, and are therefore (along with their successors, the ER4SR,) the flattest and most lifeless, most uncoloured, most accurate and realistically tuned in-ears that I have ever heard, wherefore they are also by far my favourite choice for serious music listening from my CD rig; their tuning just seems to match my ears’ HRTF extremely well wherefore I choose them over my Ultimate Ears Reference Monitors, the Ultimate Ears Reference Remastered to-go and my InEar ProPhile 8, three sets of in-ears that are among the most neutral on the market but in comparison still tuned more for a “natural neutral” instead of “uncompromised studio neutral” tonality, purely based on my personal tonal preferences.

Generally, there is not much that I could really think of about writing here, since the mostly audibly flat and lifeless, neutral tuning could be more or less summarised in just one sentence, which is also the reason why most of this text is just a slightly modified pasted version of my ER4SR review.

The bass is just flat without any sort of lift and extends flat down into the real sub-bass without any real roll-off. No warmth, no body, but definitely not lacking – just uncompromised flat.

The midrange is just generally flat and direct, without any of the relaxation dips in the upper mids that is found on almost any other set of in-ears, wherefore the ER-4S are quite merciless here and purely raw, without trying to create any sort of recession to create an even slightly laid-back fatigue-free long-term listening effect.
If I were overly critical, I would say that to my ears, the presence range is just a wee bit too strong for absolute flatness, wherefore the ER4SR are even a tad more “correct” sounding here than my ER-4S.

The treble is simply among the most realistic and evenly tuned regardless of price, wherefore the ER-4S manage to create an incredibly realistic, accurate response here as well.
The only area, when performing sine sweeps, that is just a little below neutral in quantity to my ears, is the one around 7 kHz, but this is nothing that’s really audible when listening to music.
Extension past 10 kHz is good and not lacking to my ears.

Frequency Response:


ProPhile 8-Compensation

Resolution:

Very high. Probably the best single-BA implementation that I know of, and superior to some multi-BA models.
Typically for a single-driver design, coherency is perfect.
Even distribution of the resolution across the whole frequency range.

Nimble, fast, tight and controlled bass. High quality. Outperforms some of the other single-BA in-ears in terms of speed and tightness, although ultimately not as tight and controlled as some multi-BA implementations when pushed to the limits by the recording; comparable speed but a little softer in comparison. There are, however, some multi-BA implementations that are noticeably softer and slower – so absolutely nothing to criticise here and about the most technical single-BA implementations I know of in the lows.
The ER-4S sound even a little tighter in the lows to my ears than the ER4SR.

Very high midrange resolution and speech intelligibility without “cheating” by presence range elevations found implemented into some w-shaped in-ears’ tuning. Very authentic.

Excellent transient response and precise note separation in the high frequencies. Highly natural as well thanks to the very even treble response.

It is generally remarkable what the ER-4S manage to put out in terms of tonal range/extension, bass quality, resolution and authenticity – just like their predecessors, they show that a well-implemented and -tuned quality single Balanced Armature driver doesn’t lack behind its similarly priced multi-driver competitors.
In some categories, there are multi-driver in-ears (such as my UERM and ProPhile 8) that can somewhat beat the Ety in terms of partial resolution or bass speed, transparency and control when the recording is extremely demanding, however there are very few in-ears at this price point that deliver such an excellent overall package where nothing lacks behind – there is really hardly any flaw in terms of resolution.

Soundstage:

Neither the largest nor the smallest. “Averagely large”, as it usually the case with a flat neutral tuning without any strategically placed elevations or recessions.

Authentic and three-dimensional with just as much depth as spatial width to my ears.

Precise imaging without any blur/fog. No bleeding of single instruments/tonal elements into each other. The ER-4S even manage to render some of the perceived “empty space” around and between them really well.

- - - - - - - - - - - -

Comparisons:

Etymotic ER4SR:

Only very small differences when it comes to tuning: the ER4SR are slightly less forward in the presence range and will therefore appear slightly less fatiguing over time; to me they are even a little more realistically tuned here than my ER-4S. Slightly less level around 10 kHz as well.

Pretty much equal when it comes to resolution. In comparison, though, the ER4SR appear to be just a slight bit softer in the lows, but as a result also just a little more visceral.

To my ears, the ER4SRs’ soundstage appears to be just a touch wider than the ER-4S’, with a slightly cleaner imaging (instrument separation), which is mostly audible with faster and more complex recordings.

Ultimate Ears Reference Monitors:

In terms of flatness and accuracy, I hear the ER-4S as superior to my UERM that have about 3 dB stronger bass quantity, are more relaxed in the presence range in comparison, and brighter past 10 kHz due to the peak that they have there, and which also makes their treble response come across as ultimately less even and realistic compared to the Etymotic (and UERR to-go), although that’s criticism on a rather high level.
As a result, the ER-4S are even more critical to the recording and even less forgiving, and more sterile sounding (which is something that I consider a very positive aspect while others may not).

While I prefer the ER-4S’ even flatter, less forgiving, more sterile tuning, when it comes to bass speed, control, micro details and note separation, I definitely perceive the UERM as audibly superior, as they have more detail headroom for the recording to pushing them to their limits.

The same as for the resolution can be said about the soundstage that appears to be a good bit larger than the ER-4S’ and “gives in” less early in comparison when very dense and fast arrangements are played back.

InEar ProPhile 8:

To my ears, the ER-4S represent more of a “sterile studio reference neutral” tuning whereas the ProPhile 8 fall more into the range of being “naturally neutral” tuned.

That said, the ProPhile 8 have around 3 dB more bass than the ER-4S and sound warmer in the fundamental range and lower mids, but are a slight bit less “warm” than the ER4XR and have also got slightly less bass.
The ER-4SR are slightly more forward/intimate sounding in the mids whereas the ProPhile 8 present the middle frequencies in a comparatively more relaxed way due to the more recessed presence range, but with still accurate timbre and no audible colouration.
Both are very even, realistic and accurate in their treble reproduction, which is something not too many in-ears achieve.

In terms of resolution, precision, bass speed and tightness, the ProPhile 8 are ultimately ahead, which is the most audible during very fast and complex, dense music, but not as strikingly obvious otherwise most of the time. So to say, the ProPhile 8 don’t yet “cave in” when the ER-4S already start to do.

Regarding perceived soundstage, that of the ProPhile 8 isn’t even all that much larger to my ears but only somewhat, but as with the resolution, the In-Ear in-ears are ahead when it comes to imaging precision and remain cleaner, better separated when the track is densely arranged and/or very fast.

Pai Audio MR3:

The MR3 are more v-shaped/loudness-compensated tuned in comparison, with a moderate bass lift of around 5 dB and somewhat elevated upper highs. Therefore, they are definitely more coloured than my ER-4S, but less so when compared to my Ultimate Ears Reference Monitors.
When it comes to the open ear gain compensation in the upper mids, that of the MR3 is weaker and more comparable to the UERM.
The highs are more even and smoother on the Etymotic.

When it comes to soundstage, that of the MR3 is larger.

InEar StageDiver SD-2:

They are close in terms of treble evenness and flatness in the highs but ultimately a bit darker than the ER-4S and minimally less even.
The SD-2 are warmer and thicker in the lows by around 5 dB.
In terms of midrange, that of my InEar are warmer and darker.

The SD-2s’ stage is larger than the ER-4S’ to my ears.

Phonak Audéo PFE 132:

The Phonak, while still very neutral and among the most neutral in-ears, have ultimately got a peak in the upper highs and a bit of a dip in the middle treble, as well as a bit more warmth in the lows.

Compared to the ER-4S, their bass is softer as well and they are also somewhat below the Etymotic when it comes to resolution.

To my ears, my Phonaks’ soundstage never sounded completely realistic or coherent, therefore my ER-4S sound spatially more convincing as well as more precise.

Logitech/Ultimate Ears UE900:

Their biggest weakness is definitely the midrange tuning with the moderate bass warmth “radiating” way up into the central midrange, with a sudden drop towards the upper mids/presence range, wherefore there is no real differentiation between the actual midrange and lower mids/fundamental range, which is also the reason why I find my UE900 to sound somewhat weird (i.e. plasticky) with voices and use them mostly for electronic music.
Their 5 kHz range shows a dip with a mild follow-up elevation in the upper highs.
While ultimately decently tuned except for the somewhat weird/plasticky midrange, they are clearly not as realistic or even sounding as the ER-4S.

The UEs’ soundstage is quite flat to my ears without much depth, wherefore the ER-4S sound spatially more realistic and convincing to me.

Etymotic ER2SE:

Highly comparable to almost similar tuning, with the ER2SE having minimally more bass quantity, minimally less presence range quantity, and slightly less level at 10 kHz. The ER2SE, unlike the ER-4S, are closer to neutral around 7 kHz, though, when performing sine sweeps.

In terms of technical perception, the dynamic driver Etys are just a smidgen behind the BA Etys to my ears when it comes to ultimate note separation, but this only shows rarely when the in-ears are stressed by very busy, dense and bast sound material. Most of the time, they are remarkably close to the point of being near-indistinguishable.
Slightly “softer” bass presentation compared to the BA Etys but on its own very tight and controlled. Attacks and impact better/easier perceived when compared to the single-BA Etys.
In direct comparison, the single-BA Etys appear to have a bit of “grain” in the midrange compared to the dynamic driver Etys that do not.

Larger perceived soundstage than the single-BA Etys and highly precise as well, but starts to become “foggy”/gives in earlier with spatially very crowded, densely arranged tracks with many tonal elements at the same time, wherefore the ER-4S are my choice with spatially more crowded, more demanding recordings/arrangements.




Conclusion:

Highly Recommended.

Uncompromised flat, neutral, lifeless “studio-neutral” tuning with really high technical performance especially for single-BA in-ears (ultimately below my UERMs’ and ProPhile 8s’ resolution, but the ER-4S, as a whole package, are still somewhat ahead of other good multi-BA in-ears in the 500$ range in some areas or are at least similarly precise when it comes to technicalities, and moreover have that uncompromised flat neutral tuning in addition).

As a result, together with the ER4SR, they are also my personal favourites for serious CD listening.
The lack of a chin-slider above the cable’s y-divider (that was finally added to the ER4SRs’ cable) is my only real complaint about my ER-4S.


Photos:

Link to my review and measurement index thread where one can also find a full review overview, more information about myself as well as my general-ish audio and review manifesto: https://www.head-fi.org/threads/956208/

---

I only give full stars. My ranking/scoring system does not necessarily follow the norm and is about as follows:

5 stars: The product is very good and received the "highly recommended" award from me.

4 stars: The product is very good and received the "recommended" award from me.

3 stars: The product is good/very good, but not outstanding/special enough to get any of my two awards. ["Thumbs Up"]

2 stars: The product is only about average or even somewhat below that and somewhat flawed/flawed in some areas. [neither "Thumbs Up" nor "Thumbs Down"]

1 star: The product is bad/severely flawed to outright bad. ["Thumbs Down"]

---

Etymotic ER4SR


Source:

Review sample.


Miscellaneous:

Really nice unboxing experience with many accessories such as an amply large, protective carrying case, several different ear tips, a “certificate of performance” that shows the individual in-ears’ frequency response, channel matching, serial numbers, sensitivity and measured total harmonic distortion.

“SR” stands for “Studio Reference”.

While the ER-4S’ shells were made of plastic, the ER4SRs’ are made of metal and appear visually subjectively more premium. The unique serial number is still engraved into each shell.
Build quality seems to be very good.

Instead of the 2-pin connectors similar to the ones from Sennheiser’s HD 6x0 series headphones used on the ER-4S, the ER4SRs’ cables now come with MMCX connectors that are rotation-locked wherefore they seem quite reliable and durable.
The new cable is definitely an improvement over the older one as it is more flexible and softer while it still appears sturdy. Another good thing about it is that it has now finally got an incorporated chin-slider.
Although the y-splitter doesn’t contain any resistors anymore (the crossover components are now inside of the shells instead), it has still got that cylindrical shape as an homage to the previous generation where the bulky shape was necessary to carry the resistors (and in case of the ER4B also the capacitors).
On the other hand, the side indicators are now more difficult to find as there is no red dot on the right hand side’s connector anymore.
Twisted conductors above the y-splitter.
Rather high microphonics when worn down, but that can be fixed by guiding the cable over the ears and using the chin-slider (or alternatively using the included shirt clip).

One Balanced Armature driver per side.




Sound:

Largest included triple-flange silicone tips, modified so that they create a seal in my large ear canals while still maintaining the original ear tip length (achieved by cutting off the smallest flange and putting it onto the nozzle first, followed by the remaining double-flange rest of the tip).

Tonality:

Flat studio neutral; lifeless and uncoloured.

The ER4SR, to my ears when performing sine sweeps, listening to noise signals, music and spoken word, just sound as they are advertised – studio reference neutral flat.
Just like my ER-4S, the new ER4SR just don’t have any colouration at all to my ears and come the closest to my personal perception of uncompromised neutrality, and are therefore the flattest and most lifeless, most uncoloured, most accurate and realistically tuned in-ears that I have ever heard, wherefore they, along with my ER-4S, are also by far my favourite choice for serious music listening from my CD rig; their tuning just seems to match my ears’ HRTF extremely well wherefore I choose them over my Ultimate Ears Reference Monitors, the Ultimate Ears Reference Remastered to-go and my InEar ProPhile 8, three sets of in-ears that are among the most neutral on the market but in comparison still tuned more for a “natural neutral” instead of “uncompromised studio neutral” tonality, purely based on my personal tonal preferences.

Generally, there is not much that I could really think of about writing here, since the mostly audibly flat and lifeless, neutral tuning could be more or less summarised in just one sentence.

The bass is just flat without any sort of lift and extends flat down into the real sub-bass without any real roll-off. Etymotic, just as with the ER-4S. No warmth, no body, but definitely not lacking – just uncompromised flat.

The midrange is just generally flat and direct, without any of the relaxation dips in the upper mids that is found on almost any other set of in-ears, wherefore the ER4SR are quite merciless here and purely raw, without trying to create any sort of recession to create an even slightly laid-back fatigue-free long-term listening effect.
While, to my ears, the ER-4S still showcase just a little of lift in the presence range, this area has been toned down very slightly on the ER4SR wherefore they sound even a bit more accurate to my ears here.

The treble, just like on the ER-4S, is simply among the most realistic and evenly tuned regardless of price, wherefore the ER4SR manage to create an incredibly realistic, accurate response here as well.
The only area, when performing sine sweeps, that is just a little below neutral in quantity to my ears, is the one around 7 kHz, but this is nothing that’s really audible when listening to music.
Extension past 10 kHz is good and not lacking to my ears.

To summarise, the ER4SR are truly worthy successors to the ER-4S and come extremely close to my personal perception of an uncompromised, lifeless, uncoloured, flat studio neutral tuning with an excellently realistic and even tuning that is rarely achieved by other in-ears, especially in the treble. Therefore it is no surprise that I personally really love them.

Frequency Response:


ER-4S-Compensation

The ER4SR were measured with the non-modified triple-flange ear tips in both graphs as I did not save the other measurements and didn’t bother to re-measure them. Due to the resulting slightly different insertion depth into the coupler, the graphs shows a bit less upper treble quantity than they would actually have, as it’s really just the upper mids/presence range where the ER4SR differ slightly from my ER-4S.


ProPhile 8-Compensation

Resolution:

Very high. Probably the best single-BA implementation that I know of, and superior to some multi-BA models.
Typically for a single-driver design, coherency is perfect.
Even distribution of the resolution across the whole frequency range.

Nimble, fast, tight and controlled bass. High quality. Outperforms some of the other single-BA in-ears in terms of speed and tightness, although ultimately not as tight and controlled as some multi-BA implementations when pushed to the limits by the recording; comparable speed but a little softer in comparison. There are, however, some multi-BA implementations that are noticeably softer and slower – so absolutely nothing to criticise here and about the most technical single-BA implementations I know of in the lows.

Very high midrange resolution and speech intelligibility without “cheating” by presence range elevations found implemented into some w-shaped in-ears’ tuning. Very authentic.

Excellent transient response and precise note separation in the high frequencies. Highly natural as well thanks to the very even treble response.

It is generally remarkable what the ER4SR manage to put out in terms of tonal range/extension, bass quality, resolution and authenticity – just like their predecessors, they show that a well-implemented and -tuned quality single Balanced Armature driver doesn’t lack behind its similarly priced multi-driver competitors.
In some categories, there are multi-driver in-ears (such as my UERM and ProPhile 8) that can somewhat beat the Ety in terms of partial resolution or bass speed, transparency and control when the recording is extremely demanding, however there are very few in-ears at this price point that deliver such an excellent overall package where nothing lacks behind – there is really hardly any flaw in terms of resolution.

Soundstage:

Neither the largest nor the smallest. “Averagely large”, as it usually the case with a flat neutral tuning without any strategically placed elevations or recessions.

Authentic and three-dimensional with just as much depth as spatial width to my ears.

Precise imaging without any blur/fog. No bleeding of single instruments/tonal elements into each other. The ER4SR even manage to render some of the perceived “empty space” around and between them really well; to my ears even a little better than the ER-4S since the newer generation in-ears remain a bit better separated and more controlled sounding with more complex and fast recordings.

Generally convincing and realistic.

- - - - - - - - - - - -

Comparisons:

Etymotic ER-4S:

Only very small differences when it comes to tuning: the ER4SR are slightly less forward in the presence range and will therefore appear slightly less fatiguing over time; to me they are even a little more realistically tuned here than my ER-4S. Slightly less level around 10 kHz as well.

Pretty much equal when it comes to resolution. In comparison, though, the ER4SR appear to be just a slight bit softer in the lows, but as a result also just a little more visceral.

To my ears, the ER4SRs’ soundstage appears to be just a touch wider than the ER-4S’, with a slightly cleaner imaging (instrument separation), which is mostly audible with faster and more complex recordings.

InEar ProPhile 8:

To my ears, the ER4SR represent more of a “sterile studio reference neutral” tuning whereas the ProPhile 8 fall more into the range of being “naturally neutral” tuned.

That said, the ProPhile 8 have around 3 dB more bass than the ER4SR and sound warmer in the fundamental range and lower mids, but are a bit less “warm” than the ER4XR and have also got slightly less bass.
The ER4SR are slightly more forward/intimate sounding in the mids whereas the ProPhile 8 present the middle frequencies in a comparatively more relaxed way due to the more recessed presence range, but with still accurate timbre and no audible colouration.
Both are very even, realistic and accurate in their treble reproduction, which is something not too many in-ears achieve.

In terms of resolution, precision, bass speed and tightness, the ProPhile 8 are ultimately ahead, which is the most audible during very fast and complex, dense music, but not as strikingly obvious otherwise most of the time. So to say, the ProPhile 8 don’t yet “cave in” when the ER4SR already start to do.

Regarding perceived soundstage, that of the ProPhile 8 isn’t even all that much larger to my ears but only somewhat, but as with the resolution, the In-Ear in-ears are ahead when it comes to imaging precision and remain cleaner, better separated when the track is densely arranged and/or very fast.

Ultimate Ears Reference Monitors:

In terms of flatness and accuracy, I hear the ER4SR as superior to my UERM that have about 3 dB stronger bass quantity, are more relaxed in the presence range in comparison, and brighter past 10 kHz due to the peak that they have there, and which also makes their treble response come across as ultimately less even and realistic compared to the Etymotic (and UERR to-go), although that’s criticism on a rather high level.
As a result, the ER4SR are even more critical to the recording and even less forgiving, and more sterile sounding (which is something that I consider a very positive aspect while others may not).

While I prefer the ER4SRs’ even flatter, less forgiving, more sterile tuning, when it comes to bass speed, control, micro details and note separation, I definitely perceive the UERM as audibly superior, as they have more detail headroom for the recording to pushing them to their limits.

The same as for the resolution can be said about the soundstage that appears to be a good bit larger than the ER4SRs’ and “gives in” less early in comparison when very dense and fast arrangements are played back.

Shure SE425:

The Shure are somewhat more on the mid-centric side of neutrality compared to the Etymotic.
The SE425 are comparable to the ER4SR in the bass department but have got slightly more upper bass and lower root quantity. To my ears, the Shures’ midrange is somewhat more emphasised.
The SE425 have got somewhat less level in the highs, however just slightly. They start to roll of very early, though, even below 10 kHz, whereas the ER4SR extend well above that.

The ER4SR resolve better (higher detail retrieval and transparency) and seem to have the cleaner transient response.

The Shures’ soundstage is quite small and congested in comparison to that of the ER4SR, and the Ety also feature the better instrument separation.

Etymotic ER2SE:

Highly comparable to almost similar tuning, with the ER2SE having minimally more bass quantity, minimally less presence range quantity, and slightly less level at 10 kHz. The ER2SE, unlike the ER4SR, are closer to neutral around 7 kHz, though, when performing sine sweeps.

In terms of technical perception, the dynamic driver Etys are just a smidgen behind the BA Etys to my ears when it comes to ultimate note separation, but this only shows rarely when the in-ears are stressed by very busy, dense and bast sound material. Most of the time, they are remarkably close to the point of being near-indistinguishable.
Slightly “softer” bass presentation compared to the BA Etys but on its own very tight and controlled. Attacks and impact better/easier perceived when compared to the single-BA Etys.
In direct comparison, the single-BA Etys appear to have a bit of “grain” in the midrange compared to the dynamic driver Etys that do not.

Larger perceived soundstage than the single-BA Etys and highly precise as well, but starts to become “foggy”/gives in earlier with spatially very crowded, densely arranged tracks with many tonal elements at the same time, wherefore the ER4SR are my choice with spatially more crowded, more demanding recordings/arrangements.

Etymotic ER4XR:

The XR have got ca. 3 dB more quantity around 100 Hz and ca. 4 dB more than the SR around 50 Hz, and a little less than 5 dB at 30 Hz – not much, but enough to make them sound a bit bassier and have a bit more perceived body/texture and a little more lower midrange/fundamental range warmth in comparison, albeit without affecting the midrange balance.
The XR that I have on hand are slightly more relaxed in the presence range, but have got a bit more quantity around and above 10 kHz (definitely not to degree of an emphasis, but just enough to make them have slightly more perceived subtle super treble sparkle/”air”).
Generally, the difference is definitely mainly in the lows.

Both sets of in-ears are equal to me when it comes to resolution and bass quality, with the exception that the ER4SR, when compared directly to the XR, sound ever so slightly cleaner in the lows.

Both have got an almost identical soundstage reproduction, with the ER4XRs’ being ultimately just ever so slightly less deep and minimally less precise in terms of separation in direct comparison.




Conclusion:

Highly Recommended.

Uncompromised, flat, uncoloured, lifeless “studio neutral” tuning with a flatness (especially in the treble) and realism that is only rarely achieved.
High technical performance as well (ultimately below that of my UERM and ProPhile 8, but the ER4SR, as a whole package, still outperform many other multi-driver in-ears in the 500$ range or are at least similarly precise when it comes to technicalities, and moreover have that uncompromised flat neutral tuning in addition).

As a result, together with my ER-4S, they are also my personal favourites for serious CD listening.


Photos:

Link to my review and measurement index thread where one can also find a full review overview, more information about myself as well as my general-ish audio and review manifesto: https://www.head-fi.org/threads/956208/

---

I only give full stars. My ranking/scoring system does not necessarily follow the norm and is about as follows:

5 stars: The product is very good and received the "highly recommended" award from me.

4 stars: The product is very good and received the "recommended" award from me.

3 stars: The product is good/very good, but not outstanding/special enough to get any of my two awards. ["Thumbs Up"]

2 stars: The product is only about average or even somewhat below that and somewhat flawed/flawed in some areas. [neither "Thumbs Up" nor "Thumbs Down"]

1 star: The product is bad/severely flawed to outright bad. ["Thumbs Down"]

---

Akoustyx R-210


Source:

Review sample.


Miscellaneous:

Nicely designed package. Good unboxing experience.
Accessories nice/adequate for the price (three pairs of differently sized single-flange silicone tips, one pair of dual-flange silicone tips, one pair of foam tips, one neoprene storage pouch case).
Also come with three pairs of differently sized silicone ear hooks (called “Surefire EarLocks”) that are supposed to hold the in-ears securely in the concha, however as the R-210 are in-ears and not earbuds, and as they already fit well and securely, I personally don’t need them and am not using them.
I really like the neoprene storage pouch case – it’s got two pockets that are closed by a zip, as well as a large Akoustyx logo on its front as well as the zips.

Nice blue colour metal shells that definitely appear to be somewhat of an homage to Etymotic’s design.
Pretty small shells.
One white Akoustyx logo on either in-ear piece as well as large, easy to read side indicators (white as well).
Angled MMCX connector housing made of smoky black plastic.
Good build quality.
Overall probably not the visually most premium appearance, but with no faults.

Comfortable, secure fit.

Detachable cable with MMCX connectors.
High quality, flexible and supple cable with twisted conductors. The visual appearance of the twisted copper conductors with clear insulation is great.
Pre-shaped (no memory wire) ear guides, therefore the more professional over-the-ear fit is definitely intended by Akoustyx.
Three-button remote control, which is really nice to have, located on the cable’s left hand side.
A chin-slider is present.

One Balanced Armature driver per side.




Sound:

Largest included single-flange silicone ear tips.

Tonality:

Warm, bassy, smooth, inoffensive.

Compared to in-ears that follow a flatter, more diffuse-field-oriented approach, such as my Etymotic ER-4S and the ER4SR, the R-210 feature a bass boost of around 10 dB.
The lows’ boost starts to climb around 800 Hz and reaches its climax around 60 Hz, although the area between 90 Hz and 400 Hz is already full and elevated.
What’s very nice is that the in-ears don’t roll off towards the sub-bass and are able to keep the elevation upright down into the deep sub-bass.
As a result of the lows’ elevation, the root and lower midrange are on the warmer, fuller side. Definitely on the warm and cosy side and with some unavoidable masking effects with this very tuning, but without overshadowing the midrange yet.
The full, fairly strong elevation is also responsible for a fun, impactful bass presentation.

The central midrange at 1 kHz is neutral in quantity and sounds quite natural. Of course the lows’ elevation is responsible for a generally warm midrange tint and colouration, but voices aren’t too unnaturally coloured (warm but not unnaturally thick or masked); therefore on the warmer and thicker side of natural.
The upper mids are somewhat more on the darker side without being subdued. This definitely adds to the warm, bassy, relaxed character and fits well, even though sometimes just a little more upper midrange presence would be desirable.

Level is back around neutral again around 3 kHz just to decreases once again a bit above that without ever being perceived as dark.
Further up, the level climbs a bit between 6 kHz towards 10 kHz, and adds just a bit of slightly-more-than-neutral sparkle to the sound, however it’s really only a bit wherefore the highs are generally on the inoffensive, smooth side (there’s no bright, countervailing treble peak to compensate for the bass warmth and fullness – the treble is generally quite soft, with cymbal attacks ultimately even missing some final bite).
Super treble extension is good up to 14 kHz and rolls off quite steeply above that.

So definitely single-BA in-ears that are tuned for a bassy, warm and smooth presentation. Definitely nice sounding to me.
On a related note, the single-BA R-210 do definitely show a lot of similarities to the dual-BA EARNiNE EN210 in their tuning, with the EARNiNE being the ultimately somewhat darker sounding in-ears out of the two.
There are also some similarities to my single dynamic driver Shure SE215m+SPE, with the Shure being a bit more boosted in the bass below 100 Hz, along with some more midrange intimacy (due to a stronger presence range and upper midrange quantity compared to the Akoustyx’ more relaxed level in those areas) but an overall noticeably darker, more down-sloping treble. As a result, the R-210 are a serious single-BA alternative with a less dark upper treble tuning and (much) better cable, however with the remote control located on the (in my opinion) less convenient left hand side.
Needless to say, as I like the EN210 and my SE215m+SPE as bassy, warm and smooth and/or dark sounding in-ears, I personally also like the R-210.

Frequency Response:


ER-4S-Compensation


ProPhile 8-Compensation

Resolution:

The level of resolution is generally good for single-BA in-ears in this price range and I personally see the Akoustyx even a bit above that of the Brainwavz B100 and B150, while they don’t fully reach that of the more balanced tuned FiiO FA1 or comparably tuned dual-BA EARNiNE EN210.

Perceived coherency, which is not really surprising given they are single-BA in-ears, is really good.

Speech intelligibility and midrange resolution are good, nonetheless not without the nearly unavoidable masking effects on the lower midrange caused by the root and bass elevation.

The R-210s’ bass is definitely quite a positive highlight – even though it’s a single-BA implementation with a fairly strong bass elevation, the lows are comparatively clean, tight and precise, although typically for single-BA in-ears, with a slightly longer decay compared to really good multi-BA implementations, which adds some body and just a bit of a dynamic driver-like character to them (control is better on the Akoustyx compared to most bass-boosted dynamic driver in-ears, though).
Especially nice is that the R-210 are able to keep up the bass definition, tightness and precision down into the lowest sub-bass (not a hint of softening or loss of bass definition) – very nice.

If there’s a “weak spot” in the resolution, it’s the treble whose transients and response are soft and lack some definition compared to the lows and mids. Not fully to the point of sounding smeared, but definitely not as clean as the treble separation could be. Sure, it fits to the warm and bassy tuning and smooth character, but just a bit more treble cleanness would have been better.

Soundstage:

Authentic; however generally definitely more on the oval side.
Expands a bit further than the base between my ears, so definitely not small or congested.
There is some front-projection, but it’s not as present as the in-ear’s spatial width.

Instruments are placed fairly precisely in the imaginary room.
When it comes to instrument separation/imaging precision, some smear becomes present when the track is spatially busy and/or more bass-oriented, but fortunately not to the extent of that the soundstage would collapse.
Generally pretty clean and stable as long as the bass’s masking effects don’t kick in.




Conclusion:

Good sounding single-BA in-ears with a bassy, full, warm and smooth tuning and high bass quality as well as really good cable.


Photos:

Link to my review and measurement index thread where one can also find a full review overview, more information about myself as well as my general-ish audio and review manifesto: https://www.head-fi.org/threads/956208/

---

I only give full stars. My ranking/scoring system does not necessarily follow the norm and is about as follows:

5 stars: The product is very good and received the "highly recommended" award from me.

4 stars: The product is very good and received the "recommended" award from me.

3 stars: The product is good/very good, but not outstanding/special enough to get any of my two awards. ["Thumbs Up"]

2 stars: The product is only about average or even somewhat below that and somewhat flawed/flawed in some areas. [neither "Thumbs Up" nor "Thumbs Down"]

1 star: The product is bad/severely flawed to outright bad. ["Thumbs Down"]

---

the t.bone EP-7


Source:

Personal unit.


Miscellaneous:

I was so curious about those in-ears distributed by Thomann under their own “the t.bone” branding that I just had to buy them. Back in the day their price was quite low for dual-BA, two-way in-ears, however nowadays there is much more competition with comparable specifications in this price range.

Seem to be the OEM version of the JTS IE-6.

Come with a really decent carrying case and three pairs of differently sized silicone ear tips.

Non-replaceable cable that seems to be highly comparable to the one my Shure SE846 have.

Decent build quality and nice, Westone-like design. Therefore excellent fit.
I like that the shells are transparent and that one can see the drivers through them. Interestingly, the internal wiring also acts as additional side indicator.

Two BA drivers per side, two acoustic ways, single-bore nozzle.




Sound:

Largest included silicone ear tips.

Tonality:

Punchy, warm, somewhat bassy and dark.

The upper midbass, upper bass and lower fundamental range are elevated by around 8 dB by diffuse-field standards, with the sub-bass showing somewhat less quantity (so it’s a more Westone-like bass hump that mainly concentrates on the midbass and upper bass as well as fundamental range), so it is a rather punch-driven bass signature with some undeniable warmth as the lows extend high up into the midrange at 900 Hz.

The lower mids show a good bit of warmth that brings vocals just a little closer in the mix.
The midrange timbre is generally on the warmer side and somewhat comparable to my Westone W4R.
The area of the upper mids and presence area around 3 kHz is in the background, which definitely gives voices a darker timbre but also makes them miss clarity in this range.

The middle highs at 5 kHz are clearly recessed, something that can be also found on my W4R, Shure SE846 and especially the Audiofly AF1120. Therefore there is not that much middle treble information on the EP-7 and the sound appears somewhat veiled/muffled and with details being held back, which is especially true for brighter voices; the highs are quite dark, and voices lack overtone clarity and many instruments sound somewhat muffled due to this – ultimately, the highs are just too polite in the lower and middle treble to show enough information in the music, which is even more accentuated by the warm lower mids.
One can basically say that the area above 2 kHz and below 7 kHz is audibly in the background, and should be around 12 dB more present in the area of around 5 kHz.
The level comes back around 7 and 8 kHz but remains sill around neutral in quantity and is rather soft in character, so there is no real added clarity or sparkle or whatsoever, just a move to save the tuning by adding some necessary quantity in this area so that cymbals are audible and not too muffled and so that the whole tuning is not entirely dark (without this, the highs would have been subjectively pretty much entirely missing).

Super treble extension is rather poor; there’s not much above 10 kHz (which is still better treble extension by one kHz than my Shure SE425, though), so one should not expect any subtle high overtone sparkle or glare.

Clearly this tuning is better suited for actual stage musicians’ monitoring in-ears than for recreational music listening (unless one wants a very dark and inoffensive treble presentation in the middle highs); probably bassists and drummers would be a good target audience. Given Thomann’s and the alleged OEM company’s (JTS) roots and market orientation, this definitely makes sense.

Frequency Response:


ER-4S-Compensation

Except for the peak shown above 10 kHz shown on the graph that is not there to my ears when performing sine sweeps, that’s about how I perceive the EP-7 as well, although that upper treble “peak” at 8 kHz on the graph appears very soft instead of bright when listening to music.


ProPhile 8-Compensation

Resolution:

The in-ears resolve generally well and just like one would expect from decent ones in the 300$ range – they are about on the same level as my Shure SE425 that I paid more money for than for my EP-7, and are actually even a bit above the Shure in terms of note separation.

Nonetheless, because of the tuning with the recessed lower and middle treble as well as woolly-warm lows, the treble and high midrange information is reproduced in a way that appears quite muffled and lacking.
Equalising the sound signature to that of my Shure in this area, the EP-7 would even be ahead of the SE425 in terms of resolution, but the raw un-equalised tuning just doesn’t allow that.

So, just as with many in-ears from earlier years that were targeted towards on-stage musicians as monitoring devices instead of for recreational musical enjoyment, the EP-7 are decent to good in terms of technical performance, but clearly held back by their target-group oriented tuning.

The lows show good control. Their character is generally somewhat on the softer and more “dynamic” side compared to the tighter, quicker SE425 lows, nonetheless the EP-7 are still fairly tight and quick, even though they soften a bit more towards the sub-bass. It’s a fairly typical response for the large BA woofer, and it’s not the slowest/softest BA implementation of it that I know of. Precise but soft and dynamic – that’s how I would describe it.

Soundstage:

Superior to that of the SE425 and larger but ultimately nothing really special (decent enough for fairly inexpensive multi-BA in-ears, but not even close to the stage of my InEar StageDiver SD-2 or Pai Audio MR3 in terms of size and openness – it’s somewhere between my Shure SE425 and Fischer Amps FA-3E in terms of dimensions).

Ultimately definitely on the smaller to average side of size. Appears rather circular, though.

The imaging (placement, separation, layering) is fairly precise, however not at the same level as that of my Fischer Amps FA-3E or Pai Audio MR3 (doesn’t necessarily have to at this price point anyway).




Conclusion:

Theoretically decent and convincing technical performance, but the tuning with the recessed middle treble and warm lower mids which results in a muffled presentation that appears as it lacked details while it actually doesn’t is ultimately definitely much better suited for actual stage musicians’ monitoring purposes than recreational music listening.

Link to my review and measurement index thread where one can also find a full review overview, more information about myself as well as my general-ish audio and review manifesto: https://www.head-fi.org/threads/956208/

---

I only give full stars. My ranking/scoring system does not necessarily follow the norm and is about as follows:

5 stars: The product is very good and received the "highly recommended" award from me.

4 stars: The product is very good and received the "recommended" award from me.

3 stars: The product is good/very good, but not outstanding/special enough to get any of my two awards. ["Thumbs Up"]

2 stars: The product is only about average or even somewhat below that and somewhat flawed/flawed in some areas. [neither "Thumbs Up" nor "Thumbs Down"]

1 star: The product is bad/severely flawed to outright bad. ["Thumbs Down"]

---

Anew U1


Source:

Review sample.


Miscellaneous:

The placement of the vent hole that most dynamic driver in-ears have (one counterexample are the Shure SE215 that have got closed, unvented shells) and that is used by in-ear manufacturers to control the bass levels (either the sub- or midbass, depending whether it is located if front of or behind the driver) is done very cleverly as it is not in the front but instead on the side of the shells wherefore the likelihood that the vent is covered after inserting the shells into one’s ears, which would either increase (front cavity vent) or decrease (rear cavity vent) the bass quantity, is reduced.

The ear tip selection is good, however quality control doesn’t seem to be Anew’s strongest point since some of the included tips arrived already damaged.

Quite surprising is that no storage solution is supplied – nothing at all, not even a basic pouch. This is clearly not appropriate for the price; for more than 100$ I definitely expect to find a storage case or pouch included with the in-ears.

As sort of a compensation, the cable that is included is of really high quality, doesn’t lack a chin-slider and is almost as attractive as the one used by iBasso on the IT01 (in fact the U1s’ 3.5 mm plug and y-splitter are even somewhat more attractive).

One dynamic driver per side.




Sound:

Largest included silicone ear tips.

Tonality:

W-shaped but not executed well.

The bass starts to rise around 500 Hz and reaches its climax way down in the sub-bass around 40 Hz with about 11 dB in quantity compared to an in-ear with a diffuse-field flat bass tuning (Etymotic ER-4S and ER4SR), therefore the tunings avoids any warm spillage into the midrange. Overpowering, strong upper bass punches are also avoided as a result and the lows are really rather sub-bass-centric.
When it comes to warmth, the Shure SE215m+SPE have got the most, followed by the iBasso IT01. Then come the U1 that have got the least amount of warmth

The midrange is a double-edged sword. It’s clearly emphasised, to a degree where the sound in the central frequency range is noticeably “in your face” and mid-centric. This can become exhausting after longer listening sessions, and this also leads to a quite unnatural presentation at times.
Sometimes that midrange emphasis with the present presence range works really well and highlights vocals, whereas sometimes it is totally out of place and makes voices sound nasal and way too present. Clearly this is not a natural nor universal tuning-

Unfortunately it doesn’t get all that much better above that.
While the 3 kHz dip is welcome as it makes the overly present midrange and what comes above that at least somewhat more acceptable and tolerable on tracks where the tuning doesn’t work well, the pronounced 5.3 kHz peak makes the highs sound plasticky and metallic when a note hits that frequency band, and there is another one at 10 kHz. The upper of the peaks is not as problematic though as it’s thankfully placed high enough and has a softer character to it (cymbals aren’t harsh but even tend to be on the softer side).
Super treble extension above 10 kHz is flawless.

About half of the time the tuning works and feels vibrant and lively, and highlights several aspects of a song positively. The other half of the time it is just way out of place and plasticky; anyway it’s clearly no natural or realistic tuning, and that midrange emphasis and especially 5 kHz peak are mainly responsible for that. Due to that, it is highly unlikely that the U1 will remain as someone’s everyday in-ears but rather end up as a soon forgotten flavour of the month when the initial excitement of the plasticky tuning has faded away – for in-ears with a fun-oriented but still realistic and natural enough tuning, there are just so many much better alternatives available.

Frequency Response:

ER-4S-Compensation

ProPhile 8-Compensation

Resolution:

Decent and capable but clearly held back by the tuning.

Fairly clean and tight bass for dynamic driver standards without any real softness or muddiness. About comparable to that of my Shure SE215m+SPE, which is a good and rare thing as they are pleasantly tight, fast and controlled for dynamic driver in-ears at this price point (the Shure have got a slight advantage when it comes to attack, but decay, speed and control are similarly good; as the Shure are tuned warmer though, the U1 don’t suffer from the SE215s’ slight masking effects wherefore the Anews’ bass and low midrange appear subjectively a smidgen more detailed).

Midrange and treble separation are where the Anew are a bit ahead of the Shure though, with slightly better separation with fast and more complex tracks. That advantage is however less than half of a class.

While the U1 are n-ears that are worth the money based on technical performance (but ultimately definitely no recommendation (at all!) due to the highly artificial tuning), they don’t fully reach the iBasso IT01s’ level of performance. Especially with more complex and faster music material, the IT01 show their superiority when it comes to tightness, separation and control. Overall I’d describe the IT01 as being one class above the Anew. The only area where both may be roughly comparable is midrange resolution.

Soundstage:

Not small, not large. Bigger than “average”. Not as wide as the Shures’. Spatial depth is present and there’s even a bit of layering. Overall still spherical.
Separation and placement are quite precise.




Conclusion:

Decent technical performance, build quality, cable and cleverly placed vents, but that’s about it – unfortunately the tuning, except for the nice bass, is so miserably artificial that it’s ultimately just “plain bad” and not “fun” at all.


Photos:

Link to my review and measurement index thread where one can also find a full review overview, more information about myself as well as my general-ish audio and review manifesto: https://www.head-fi.org/threads/956208/

---

I only give full stars. My ranking/scoring system does not necessarily follow the norm and is about as follows:

5 stars: The product is very good and received the "highly recommended" award from me.

4 stars: The product is very good and received the "recommended" award from me.

3 stars: The product is good/very good, but not outstanding/special enough to get any of my two awards. ["Thumbs Up"]

2 stars: The product is only about average or even somewhat below that and somewhat flawed/flawed in some areas. [neither "Thumbs Up" nor "Thumbs Down"]

1 star: The product is bad/severely flawed to outright bad. ["Thumbs Down"]

---

Akoustyx R-120


Source:

Review sample.


Miscellaneous:

The unboxing experience is generally nice with a well-designed, compact package that contains the in-ears, several differently sized silicone ear tips of high quality, some Comply foam ear tips, three pairs of differently sized ear hooks (called “Freebit ear interface”) that can be put on the in-ear shells, one pair of silicone covers that can be put on the shells, and a nice carrying case made of neoprene.

I like the shells’ dark blue colour and that they are translucent.
While it’s generally good that the shell design is unique, I don’t particularly find it the most attractive. Less attractive without any “Freebit ear interfaces” or silicone covers installed, so I have the silicone covers installed on the shells all the time.
I like how and where the MMCX sockets are located.
Perceived value/build quality of the shells is on the lower end – the blue plastic seems to be rather thin; my Shure SE425s’ and Knowledge Zenith AS06s’ shells definitely appear thicker and more premium to me.

Excellent fit and comfort.

High quality cable; removable with MMCX connectors. Supple and flexible thanks to twisted conductors. Looks and feels premium.
Nice three-button remote control, located on the left hand side.
A chin-slider is present.

Two Balanced Armature drivers per side; single-bore nozzle.




Sound:

Largest included single-flange silicone ear tips.

Silicone covers installed on the shells (not that it would really make any difference, though).

Tonality:

Flat-neutral leaning more towards to bright-/lean-neutral; mostly diffuse-field oriented.

The tonality is somewhere in-between my Etymotic ER-4S, the ER3SE, the ER2SE, my Ultimate Ears Reference Monitors and the diffuse-field target.

The lows that are generally flat neutral extend flat and linearly into the real sub-bass (no roll-off) and are generally elevated by ca. 1.5 dB compared to my Etymotic ER-4S that are absolutely flat and lifeless in the bass, which makes the R-120s’ minimal bass elevation appear quite similar to that of the Etymotic ER3SE and ER2SE in quantity, with the exception that the Akoustyx’ minimal elevation extends a little further towards the midrange wherefore they have got slightly more warmth in the upper fundamental range and lower midrange in comparison to Etymotic’s SE models.

The midrange is generally flat, neutral and highly realistic sounding without any real tendency towards warmth or brightness, while the presence range around 2 kHz is slightly relaxed compared to the central midrange at 1 kHz wherefore the R-120 are a bit less “brutal” and direct with imperfections on the track compared to the ER4SR and my ER-4S and more comparable to the ER3SE in this area, and still more direct here than my Ultimate Ears Reference Monitors.

Going up in the treble, Akoustyx’ dual-BA in-ears deviate somewhat more from the more Etymotic (ER3SE) target oriented signature that they closely follow below, and are closer to the diffuse-field target compared to the Etymotic (ER-4S, ER4SR) target (that is basically a slightly milder approach to the rawer diffuse-field target), which makes them sound rawer, more direct, but also brighter in the upper middle and upper highs.
Listening to sine sweeps, the area between 4 kHz and 10 kHz, especially in the middle around 7 kHz, is on the brighter side to my ears and sounds brighter than the central midrange at 1 kHz to me. Compared to my Etymotic ER-4S and the ER4SR, the output from the R-120 is about 3 respectively 4 dB stronger around 7 kHz, and around 2 dB below and above that (there are no audible peaks in these areas, they are just generally and broadly elevated to my ears); around 10 kHz and above, the R-120 are also somewhat brighter than what my ears perceive as flat when listening to sine sweeps, which leads to a somewhat metallic upper treble timbre.
Extension past 10 kHz is really good.

Listening to music, the R-120 sound generally mostly neutral and realistic to me, but also somewhat (sometimes a bit too) bright and metallic all of the time compared to what I perceive as flat when performing sine sweeps or listening to noise signals.
Often the treble timbre appears mostly realistic, but sometimes it doesn’t fully and comes across as somewhat too bright, tending towards being rather metallic and a bit screechy with high notes; anyway, it’s a treble presentation that’s definitely raw, merciless and direct, although on the edge of becoming a bit too bright and a bit too metallic due to the bass being clearly on the flat-neutral side of tuning, wherefore there is no warmth that could act as a bit of counterweight.
This, along with listening to sine sweeps that tells me the same, and demonstrates that the comparatively milder Etymotic target response (that is basically a somewhat modified diffuse-field response) sounds flatter and more correct to me in the highs with music, sine sweeps, noise signals and audio material that contains spoken words/dialogues, compared to the slightly brighter approach that Akoustyx went for – even if the difference in the upper middle and upper treble is only minimal (just few dB), the R-120 are tuned just a bit too bright in the area around 7 kHz to sound correct to me.

Frequency Response:


ER-4S-Compensation


ProPhile 8-Compensation

Resolution:

Generally decent to good resolution, but not among the best in this price range.
Subjectively at least one step or two below Etymotic’s comparably priced Balanced Armature and dynamic driver models from the ER2 and ER3 series when it comes to separation, cleanliness and control in busy parts of the music as well as revealing micro details.

Bass slightly on the softer side for BA drivers, which creates the perception of just a little extra body. Not slow or soft at all thanks to the flat tuning.
Good bass control; doesn’t really show any signs of strain even when fast and complex bass lines are on the music files.

Fairly good speech intelligibility.

Treble separation is mostly clean but starts to show a bit of haze and some loss of control in fast, busy and dense parts of the music.
Due to the slightly brighter tuning, the R-120 come across as more “revealing” in the highs than Etymotic’s single-BA models, but comparing them side by side shows that actual details and separation are somewhat higher on the Ety models.

Soundstage:

The soundstage presentation is somewhat wider than deep to my ears wherefore the perceived shape is a bit more oval than circular; it sounds natural, realistic and three-dimensional to me.
In terms of size, the R-120s’ stage is neither the smallest nor the largest but sounds more or less “average” in size and believable.

In terms of imaging, the R-120 do a good job and provide clean instrument separation and localisation.
Their stage remains intact and precise but cannot fully keep the same level of control when the scenario becomes fast, dense and busy.




Conclusion:

Comfortably fitting in-ears with a rarely found, largely flat- to rather bright-neutral sound signature that is mostly oriented towards the diffuse-field target, but ultimately just a bit too bright to sound fully correct. Decent technical performance but ultimately not fully Etymotic-level.
High quality cable; the only thing in terms of build quality/finish/perceived value that I would wish for are thicker-walled, more premium appearing plastic shells.

Link to my review and measurement index thread where one can also find a full review overview, more information about myself as well as my general-ish audio and review manifesto: https://www.head-fi.org/threads/956208/

---

I only give full stars. My ranking/scoring system does not necessarily follow the norm and is about as follows:

5 stars: The product is very good and received the "highly recommended" award from me.

4 stars: The product is very good and received the "recommended" award from me.

3 stars: The product is good/very good, but not outstanding/special enough to get any of my two awards. ["Thumbs Up"]

2 stars: The product is only about average or even somewhat below that and somewhat flawed/flawed in some areas. [neither "Thumbs Up" nor "Thumbs Down"]

1 star: The product is bad/severely flawed to outright bad. ["Thumbs Down"]

---

Shanling MTW100 – Balanced Armature Driver Version


Source:

Review sample.


Miscellaneous:

Available either with one graphene-coated 6 mm dynamic driver per side (white shells) or full-range Knowles Balanced Armature driver (black or red shells), as reviewed here.

Nice unboxing experience.
I like the charging cable’s vibrant green colour.
The black and orange charging/carrying case is much more compact than I thought and looks and feels fantastic. There’s also a colour-matched little lanyard that can be attached to it (which I have done). However, this beautiful case also comes with a trade-off, as its surface is made of glossy black plastic without any further pouch or silicone cover protection, wherefore it is highly likely also prone to scratches.
There’s another thing about it that isn’t as nice – the lid: while it shuts firmly and is held in place magnetically, it feels quite loose and floppy when open, and can also easily fall shut unintentionally, which is accompanied by a quite painfully loud noise (it would have been much better if its nice looking hinge were stiffer and/or had some sort of soft close mechanism so that it didn’t fall shut unintentionally this loudly).
Other than that, it holds the in-ear pieces in place nicely (through magnets), seems to be protected well against dust, and has got three nice little LED battery status indicators.
Additionally, the MTW100 also come with a selection of no less than seven pairs of differently sized silicone tips, which is definitely commendable.

The MTW100s’ ear pieces look very nice as well and feature high build quality along with small LEDs that act as battery indicators when the ear pieces are put back into the charging/carrying case. While the outside is made of glossy black plastic and has got built-in capacitive touch buttons, the inside is made of matte soft-touch plastic that fortunately doesn’t feel or look cheap as such surfaces sometimes do.
The nozzles are quite short.

As the nozzles are fairly short and the ear tips are rather uniquely shaped instead of oval, getting an instant seal is a bit trickier than usual but manageable – while I’m able to achieve a good and constant seal, at least slightly longer nozzles would have been beneficial.
In terms of fit and size, the MTW100s’ earpieces fit and are held securely in my large ears while there’s still plenty of free space around them. Comfort is decent.

Touching either earpiece’s touch-sensitive faceplate for three seconds and then releasing the finger enters the surrounding awareness mode that lowers the volume by ca. 6 dB and passes the environmental noise through the listener through built-in microphones. However, this is accompanied by a horribly loud beep when it is activated respectively deactivated (and the microphone-amplified exterior noise is very hissy, too, but otherwise the pass-through feature works well), so it’s something that I will clearly avoid to activate.
Playback control gestures (double-tapping etc.) work well and are accompanied by a soft, gentle beep on the corresponding side most of the time, however sometimes this beep is also horribly loud.

It seems like the right in-ear piece is the master unit as it is the one that is the last to disconnect/lose connection if the transmission signal is weak, and as covering it when the signal is weak results in a short playback interruption (happens with my ZOTAC ZBOX CI547 and Acer Chromebook 14 CB3-431, both of which seem to have weak Bluetooth antennas (the former more than the latter)).

The connection, at least with my Apple iPhone 4 (and BlackBerry Classic), is superbly stable and the in-ear pieces never lose the connection in a radius of around nine to ten metres (around eight to nine with my BlackBerry) (no dropouts or signs of unstable connection with either mobile phone).
If the transmission/connection is weak or unstable (which is the case when used with my Chromebook and ZBOX), the treble wobbles sometimes, which never happens when the signal is strong and the connection is stable (which is the case when used with my iPhone and BlackBerry – stable and correct treble reproduction).

Bluetooth 5.0 with AAC and SBC codec support; unfortunately no aptX codec support.

By the way, the tuning is achieved by the use of (unfortunately not user-configurable) DSP (which nowadays probably applies to most of the better-tuned wireless headphones), which is something that I actually generally welcome to be implemented into wireless in-ears as it makes achieving a certain target tuning that may be otherwise more complicated to get close to easier.

Carrying/charging case can be charged via USB-C or with a wireless charger (the latter only on the BA driver version).




Sound:

Main wireless sources: ZOTAC ZBOX CI547, Acer Chromebook 14 CB3-431, Apple iPhone 4, BlackBerry Classic (wireless sound quality: BlackBerry ≥ iPhone > Chromebook >> ZBOX; connection stability: iPhone > BlackBerry >> ZBOX >>> Chromebook)

Largest included silicone ear tips.

What’s definitely nice to hear is that the hiss one can hear in quiet or silent passages of the music in a quiet environment is only very gentle and soft.

Volume Control:

The MTW100 don’t have any volume control; instead it’s controlled solely by the source device. What’s unfortunate, and unfortunately this is true for so many Bluetooth in-ears, is that the lowest possible volume level is too loud for me personally with the devices that I have tried the in-ears with so far (BlackBerry Classic, Apple iPhone 4, Xiaomi Redmi 4A 4G, ZOTAC ZBOX CI547, Acer Chromebook 14 CB3-431), which requires me to lower the volume in the player software in addition to having the master volume set to the lowest possible setting, which is unfortunately not possible with every player or software.

Another clear flaw they have for me, something that unfortunately many Bluetooth devices suffer from, is that their voice and status notifications (beeps, “connected”, “disconnected”, etc.) are horribly loud (therefore I definitely also don’t want to ever encounter the status notifications that the battery is low).

Unfortunately, as it seems, none of these horribly loud beeps and status notifications can be activated or attenuated, which is definitely sad and something that unfortunately many Bluetooth devices suffer from.

Tonality:

Gentle, warm v-shape.

Compared to what would be diffuse-field flat, the bass is elevated by ca. 9.5 dB and starts to climb around 750 Hz and then reaches its climax around 100 Hz with an elevation that can be kept down until around 30 Hz, with only a small drop below that. Therefore the sub-bass extension is definitely good and not lacking.
Definitely somewhat comparable to that of my Shure SE215m+SPE, with the exception that the Shure are more elevated between 20 Hz and 200 Hz.
Also with some parallels to the Brainwavz B100, although the B100 are a bit thicker in the upper fundamental range and start to roll off earlier in the bass (and are a little less elevated).
Additionally also with similarities to my Campfire Audio Andromeda that are however a bit thicker in the upper fundamental range and a bit less elevated between 20 Hz and 300 Hz.

The lower mids are only gently and moderately warm – the lows definitely don’t overshadow the mids and don’t spill into them by much at all.
Generally, the mids sound quite natural but are overall somewhat more on the gentler, inoffensive, darker side with the upper mids and presence range being slightly in the background wherefore voices are placed a bit more in the background instead of being intimate and, as a result, gain a touch of darkness.
In comparison, my Shure are somewhat more present in the upper mids at 2 kHz, while my Andromeda are definitely and audibly more recessed in the upper mids and presence range. The Brainwavz, compared to the Shanling, are a bit darker in the upper mids and presence range.

There’s a small elevation around 4 kHz audible when doing sine sweeps that adds just a bit of metallicness to higher notes’ timbre, but it’s ultimately only ca. 2.5 dB above neutral wherefore it is harmless and only barely noticeable on its own.
Otherwise, the highs are mostly neutral and form a mild peak between 8 kHz and 9 kHz that acts as a very welcome balance to the bass elevation.
Super treble extension is good up to 12 kHz after which the level rolls off.
Compared to the Shanling, my Shure are tuned much darker in the highs. The Brainwavz are darker in the highs, too, whereas my Campfire Audio Andromeda are brighter, sharper and splashier in the upper highs, right around the edge of being sibilant, whereas the MTW100 avoid this nicely.

In conclusion, the MTW100 (BA version) are tuned nicely without any forced exaggeration.

Frequency Response:


ER-4S-Compensation


ProPhile 8-Compensation

Resolution:

Unfortunately the MTW100 don’t support the aptX codec, so their technical performance is much more dependent on the source device’s Bluetooth transmission quality (whereas I have found that the sound quality is similar from all aptX supporting sources if a receiver that supports aptX too, is connected to any of those sources that transmit aptX).
From the mainly used sources listed above, the MTW100 perform the best when used with my BlackBerry (should be SBC codec), very closely followed by my iPhone (AAC), very closely followed by my Chromebook (should be SBC codec – would be even almost at the same level as the iPhone if the Chromebook’s signal strength were not so low which results in constant high frequency wobble), with the ZBOX (should be SBC codec) falling behind.
With the best wireless sources, there’s no to only very little compression noticeable, whereas one can notice a clearly compressed sounding bass with the worse of the sources, along with transients and treble details/separation that is somewhat on the softer side.

With the good sources, the technical performance is almost on the same level as that of decent sounding single-BA in-ears in a comparable price range, such as the Braiwnavz B100, although the MTW100 are ultimately just slightly behind when it comes to separation sharpness and bass definition. Otherwise and generally speaking, control is good and the in-ears don’t smear when used with fast and complex music, show good speech intelligibility and midrange resolution, have got a rather tight bass that is only on a bit on the softer side and don’t lose too much texture towards the sub-bass, and shows good, although ultimately slightly hazy, treble separation.

Soundstage:

Just like the resolution, the MTW100s’ soundstage depends on how well the source device’s Bluetooth transmission chip was configured and implemented for high quality audio playback, wherefore the imaging is much more diffuse than precise when used with my ZBOX, whereas the soundstage is the most precise and cleanest when used with a source with good Bluetooth implementation, such as my iPhone or BlackBerry, with whom the Shanling reproduce an imaginary soundstage that, while ultimately rather on the more compact, smaller side and a little wider than deep, places and separates instruments believably, and appears just a slight touch less clean when compared to comparably priced non-wireless single-BA in-ears.




Conclusion:

Beautiful design, high build quality, good sound (well tuned (warm and gentle v-shape), good technical performance that’s just slightly behind that of comparable non-wireless in-ears (but will ultimately depends on the source device’s Bluetooth chip quality as only SBC and AAC wireless transmission codecs are supported by the Shanling MTW100 whereas aptX isn’t)), but unfortunately not free from some typical wireless in-ear issues (very loud status notifications/information, very loud quietest possible volume).
Additional things that could be improved: charging case’s lid and nozzle length.


Photos:

Link to my review and measurement index thread where one can also find a full review overview, more information about myself as well as my general-ish audio and review manifesto: https://www.head-fi.org/threads/956208/

---

I only give full stars. My ranking/scoring system does not necessarily follow the norm and is about as follows:

5 stars: The product is very good and received the "highly recommended" award from me.

4 stars: The product is very good and received the "recommended" award from me.

3 stars: The product is good/very good, but not outstanding/special enough to get any of my two awards. ["Thumbs Up"]

2 stars: The product is only about average or even somewhat below that and somewhat flawed/flawed in some areas. [neither "Thumbs Up" nor "Thumbs Down"]

1 star: The product is bad/severely flawed to outright bad. ["Thumbs Down"]

---

EarFun Free


Source:

Purchased at a discount for the purpose of a product review.


Miscellaneous:

Don’t come with many accessories, but enough so that it’s a complete package – three pairs of silicone ear tips, a charging case that’s also used for storing the Free, and a charging cable.

Bluetooth 5.0 with AAC and SBC codec support. Unfortunately no aptX, but that isn’t really to be expected at this price point anyway.

The charging case itself can be charged wirelessly.
It is compact, looks very nice (in my opinion) and has got four white LEDs that light up when the lid is opened and indicate the battery status. I like that the surface is hard matte plastic and not shiny (should reduce scratches).
What’s very nice is that the lid doesn’t fall shut unintentionally but is held in place in any position that it is opened.
The in-ear pieces are strongly held in place magnetically – a bit too strongly, in my opinion, as removing them requires some more force than I’d like.

The ear pieces themselves look rather generic and don’t have any special design elements that are unique.
Design and build quality are okay for the price but don’t feel premium, although not cheap either.

The faceplate with the EarFun logo is made of rubber as there’s a small button under each that’s used for playback and phone call controls. Even though the accentuation force isn’t too high, it’s not a pleasant thing and an inferior solution to using a touch-sensitive surface.
There’s no volume control on the Free – the volume is controlled by the source device (I personally don’t mind, but some could).

The fit and seal are good as the insertion depth is surprisingly deep even though the nozzle and ear piece shape don’t look like that (which is also why the ear tips that look smaller than expected and usual fit and seal easily and well in my large ear canals). The comfort is good and since the fit and seal are good, the Frees’ ear pieces stay in my ears securely and don’t fall out.

The right ear piece is the master unit.
The Free turns on and off automatically when taken out of the charging case respectively back in.

The signal quality and stability are excellent when used with my Apple iPhone 4 or BlackBerry Classic – no dropouts or the like.

One 6 mm graphene-coated dynamic driver per side.




Sound:

Largest included silicone ear tips.

Bluetooth sources used for listening to music: ZOTAC ZBOX CI547 nano, BlackBerry Classic, Apple iPhone 4. (Bluetooth sound quality with the EarFun Free: BlackBerry ≳ iPhone >> Zotac.)

The Free hiss slightly in quiet and silent passages of the music, so the amplifier chip that’s used probably doesn’t have state-of-the-art signal-to-noise ratio and/or the dynamic driver that is used is very sensitive.

Volume Control:

There is no built-in volume control – the Bluetooth source device acts as such.

The status reports (“connected”, “disconnected”) aren’t overly loud, which is nice, but they are not very quiet either and I wish they were just somewhat quieter; they only come through the right ear piece.

Unfortunately, the Free also suffer from the same problem that pretty much all Bluetooth in-ears suffer for me: the quietest possible volume setting above mute is much too loud for me personally and clearly above my normal listening volume.

Tonality:

Heavily consumer-oriented fun-oriented v-shape sound signature with the main focus on the lower bass and upper treble, which isn’t a surprise given that they are affordably priced dynamic driver in-ears; really good and naturally tuned midrange.

Heavy bass elevation that peaks at 30 Hz in the sub-bass with a quantity of 16 dB over the central midrange at 1 kHz.
The upper bass at 100 kHz is already elevated by ca. 12 dB.
The root at 300 Hz is elevated by ca. 5 dB over the central midrange.
The bass elevation starts to climb at around 600 Hz.

The lower mids and fundamental range is, not much surprisingly given the heavy bass elevation, on the warm and full side and gives the sound an undeniably warm and full tilt, but doesn’t overshadow the midrange (since its elevation rises towards and peaks in the sub-bass), which is nice.
Other than that, the central and upper midrange mostly follow a slightly-less-than-flat-neutral target and are not far off the Etymotic ER2SE, wherefore the mids sound realistic and natural.

The lower and middle treble are mostly neutral, with the 5 kHz range showing a moderate dip, followed by the highs rising again just a little below 7 kHz, just to then form a strong and bright peak around 8 kHz.
The super treble above 10 kHz shows an even down-slope/roll-off.

As a result, the sound is v-shaped and clearly exaggeratedly consumer-oriented, but done so in a surprisingly nice way with a really good tuning of the midrange, wherefore one could even consider the sound as natural but with a loudness compensation adjustment for listening in a loud, noisy environment; solely the bright 8 kHz peak appears artificial and plasticky even though it doesn’t come across as too sharp as it acts as a counterweight to the strong lower bass elevation.

Frequency Response:


ER-4S-Compensation


ProPhile 8-Compensation

Resolution:

Good. Do not sound like typical wireless in-ears from a few years ago (for example, they are clearly better than the MEE audio X7 Plus), and are more controlled than comparably priced wired in-ears such as my SoundMAGIC E10.
Aside from the bass quality that is superior on the Shure, the Free are not much behind my (non-wireless) Shure SE215m+SPE in terms of resolution, which is definitely a good thing, however as the Free lack aptX codec support, their sound quality will ultimately depend quite strongly on how good the streaming source’s Bluetooth audio transmission quality is (it is rather bad on my Zotac desktop PC, but very good on my BlackBerry and iPhone). One should not fully expect the technical performance of really good dynamic driver in-ears such as the Fidue A65 or iBasso IT01, let alone the Etymotic ER2XR, though.

Especially surprising is the bass control despite the very strong elevation.
The lows soften towards the sub-bass and lose some texture but without becoming muddy, and the bass doesn’t feel uncontrolled even with more complex tracks.

The midrange resolution is good for the price and doesn’t show any weakness; there’s also no obvious sign here that the Free are wireless in-ears.

Treble separation is slightly on the softer side but still defined and precise. This, however, also helps with the 8 kHz peak.

Transients are a bit on the softer side but far from blurry or the like.

Therefore, the Free perform well in the technical department, and it’s clear that the dynamic driver that was used is of the better and more capable sort.

Soundstage:

Expands wider than the base between my ears and stretches almost to the outside of my shoulders. Therefore definitely wider than average and not congested in any way.
Subjectively, the spatial depth is almost similarly present wherefore the soundstage is almost perfectly circular; it appears realistic and three-dimensional.
This, however, is pretty much always the case with a v-shaped tonal tuning.

The imaging is nicely accurate and still remains intact even with fast, dense and complex material, although some mild to moderate blur then starts to occur.




Conclusion:

Good sounding and affordably priced in-ears with a strongly consumer-oriented v-shaped tonality (but well-tuned midrange and generally tuned well for what they aim for (personally, I like the tuning and sound)), but they unfortunately suffer from the same problem that pretty much all Bluetooth in-ears do: they are much too loud for me.


Photos: