https://www.sony-asia.com/electronics/in-ear-headphones/xba-z5

A head-fier drop-shipped Sony XBA-Z5 to me for measurement. I took this opportunity to write a short review of the Sony XBA-Z5.
MSRP: $631

Launched in 2014, Sony categorized the Sony XBA-Z5 as Sony’s ‘High-Resolution’ audio product. One thing I always ask for this kind of advertisement is, how do they justify the ‘High-Resolution Audio’ label for Headphones and In-Ear Monitors? Is there any measurement to support that claim? I guess the proof of the pudding is only in the listening test.

Pros:​

-

Cons:​

Shell size is a bit large, might not fit smaller ears very well.

Suggestions:​

To provide objective proof and measurement results to support the ‘High-Resolution Audio’ claim.
To improve the overall perceived detail and clarity.


The following is my guideline for the sound & engineering quality rating criteria that will be used in this review:

Sound Quality​

Sony XBA-Z5 measured frequency response compared to Earfonia IEM Target Curve (EITC-2021), normalized at the midrange dip:




*More info about EITC-2021 here.

The following is frequency response analysis and rating based on the 4 observation points of EITC-2021:

Overall Sound Signature:​

Moderately warm and bassy. Fat and laid-back midrange with silky smooth treble.

From the frequency response graph, we can observe the followings:

• Sony XBA-Z5 frequency response is within ±6 dB from my EITC-2021 observations points.
• Sony XBA-Z5 frequency response around the bass and midrange area is within ±6 dB from the Harman Target IE 2019.
• Around +3dB bass to lower-mid emphasis.
• Around -7dB upper-mid recession.

Warm, bassy, and laid back are the few words that I think are appropriate to describe the XBA-Z5 sound signature. It has pleasant and polite characters in the sound quality. Quite pleasing for a long session of listening without causing ear fatigue.

The sub-bass extension is good. Sub-bass to mid-bass balance tilted up towards the mid-bass area. To me, there is too much emphasis around the Mid-bass to the lower-midrange area that makes the midrange sounds a bit bloated to my ears. The mid-bass emphasis makes the bass sounds a bit boomy, lacking texture and tightness. Bass punch and attack are a bit too weak for my taste. Midrange balance has too much emphasis on the lower midrange and the upper midrange response is too soft. Midrange sounds laid back, lacking presence and clarity. Treble is nice, sounds silky smooth without any sign of harshness, but a bit soft, lacking a bit of treble energy, sharpness, and perceived upper treble extension. The treble doesn’t sound dull, but at the same time lacks transparency, airiness, and the perceived ‘High-Resolution’ treble extension.

The sound signature of the Sony XBA-Z5 is not exactly my cup of tea, and as we can see from the frequency response it deviates a bit far from my target curve. So XBA-Z5 sound signature doesn’t sound balanced or close to neutral to my ears. I cannot use XBA-Z5 to mix my recordings. It is moderately colored with emphasis on the bass to lower midrange area and recessed upper mid. Having said that, I think XBA-Z5 doesn’t sound bad, and it can be quite pleasing and enjoyable with certain recordings like modern pop, especially the brighter ones. There are many positive reviews of the Sony XBA-Z5 that indicate that it has a likable sound signature. Not natural but likable. It is moderately colored with (I think) the type of pleasing coloration that our brain can easily adapt. No offensive peaks across the audio band. The tonality coloration can be perceived as a nice coloration for those who prefer a warm sound signature. Overall, it is good enough for casual listening but not for critical listening and Pro Audio applications.

Perceived detail, resolution, and clarity are ok but not great. Instrument separation is sufficient but not as good as what I would like to hear. Spaciousness and airiness are lacking especially for orchestral works. Transient and attack are a bit slow and blunt. For an IEM with a ‘High-Resolution’ label at this price category, I expect a lot more. I would give the liveliness score 6/10, good enough but not great.

Since I’ve mentioned that XBA-Z5 sound quality is not my cup of tea, I don’t see the reason to do comparisons with my other favorite IEMs (obviously, they sound better).

Engineering Quality​

Disclaimer: The measurement results of the engineering quality measurement in this review represent only the pair of IEMs that was measured for this review. It doesn’t represent the overall quality control of the factory.

Left-Right Mismatch​

Observation range: 20Hz – 7kHz
The unit has an overall under ±2dB matching from 20Hz-7kHz, with a 1.9dB maximum mismatch at around 6.7kHz.

Harmonic Distortion​

Observation range: 55Hz – 7.1kHz

Sony XBA-Z5 performs well in distortion measurement. Overall THD level is quite low. Only at a high volume level, the distortion peak is a bit high, but in my opinion, it is not a concern. Left and Right channels show similar THD profiles. There is no abnormal distortion peak across the measurement range. Please take note that distortion measurement is not part of sound quality evaluation. It is only used to observe the engineering quality of the IEM.
Distortion measurement at 94 dB SPL at 500Hz:




Distortion measurement at 104 dB SPL at 500Hz:




Harmonic distortion analysis:

Electrical Impedance​

Observation range: 20Hz – 20kHz
The impedance curve is relatively flat from 20Hz to 1kHz, followed by a rise and a steep downslope around 3-4kHz. Overall impedance linearity is still ok for a hybrid IEM.

Sensitivity​

At 98.1 dBA SPL at 100mV @ 1kHz (measured) Sony XBA-Z5’s sensitivity is around the average, slightly higher than the Etymotic ER2XR which can be considered a bit low. Most portable devices would be able to drive Sony XBA-Z5 sufficiently, but a good quality DAC+Amp will improve the perceived dynamic, liveliness, and overall sound quality.

Fit, Comfort, & Build Quality​

Subjectively the Sony XBA-Z5 is quite comfortable for me. No issue with comfort. I would give a comfort rating of 8/10 for XBA-Z5. But please take note that it is not a small IEM so comfort level could be greatly varying between individuals. I’m not a fan of cable with memory wire but it seems necessary for the XBA-Z5 design. The wearing style of XBA-Z5 makes the memory wire is recommended on the cable end that connected to the driver. This can be an aspect for consideration for those who prefer not to have memory wire in the cable.



The build quality of the Sony XBA-Z5 is generally pretty good. All plastic The full-Magnesium housing feels strong and sturdy. I don’t see any issue with the build quality.

The 2x 3.5mm balanced cable that is included in the box is suitable only for Sony’s headphone amplifier with 2x 3.5mm balanced output.

Recommendation:​

Although Sony XBA-Z5 is good enough for casual listening (not for critical listening and Pro Audio applications), at this price point I cannot recommend the Sony XBA-Z5.


More information about my IEM Measurement Setup & Methodology:
Earfonia IEM Measurement Setup & Methodology

Advertised Technical Specifications:​

Drivers: Hybrid 3-way – 16mm dynamic + 2 Balanced Armature
Frequency Response: 3-40,000Hz
Sensitivity: 107dB/mW
Socket: MMCX

Conceptualized in early 2015, Symphonium has started to enter the high-end IEM market with their flagship IEM, the Helios. A 4-Way multi-driver balanced armature IEM.
MSRP: $1,099

Disclaimer:
Symphonium provided this IEM to me as a review sample in exchange for an honest and unbiased review. The company is not involved in any measurement process and editorial content of this review.

Notes: On the last 2 pictures above, the Left and Right connectors were reversed. I was taking pictures of the IEM drivers without cable then wrongly connected the Left and Right connectors to the drivers when taking the above pictures.


Durability, impedance linearity, and extended frequency response seem to be some of the important features of Helios. The shell is made of artificially tempered AL6061 Aluminium alloy to improve strength and hardness. And it is among few IEM models that utilize spring-loaded 0.78mm 2-Pin socket for maximum durability and consistent electrical contact even with frequent cable replacement. This is good news for cable aficionados because they can do cable replacement as often as they like on Helios without causing the 2-Pin socket to get loose. I swapped the cable many times between the stock 2.5mm cable and my 3.5mm cable and the grip of the 2-Pin socket is still consistent till now.

A common problem with multi-driver IEM is impedance linearity. It is often that the non-linear impedance curve of a multi-driver IEM causes tonality shift when connected to headphone output with relatively high output impedance. Helios is designed with a close to flat impedance curve for consistent tonality across multiple devices. This is a rare feature for a 4-way multi-driver IEM.

I measured Helios several times to check the consistency of my measurement and keep seeing that 20kHz frequency response sticks out like no other IEMs I’ve ever measured before. And the clean extended sub-bass response is quite impressive from a fully balanced armature IEM. Helios is a kilo-buck IEM and it seems to deliver what is expected from a kilo-buck IEM.

Pros:​

Highest 20kHz frequency response ever measured.
Very low overall harmonic distortion.
Close to flat impedance curve.
Spring-loaded 0.78mm 2-Pin socket.

Cons:​

Relatively large shell size and nozzle diameter (5.74mm) may not be suitable for those with a smaller ear canal.

Suggestions:​

To improve shell shape and size for better fit and comfort. The shell is a bit too large and protruding out from the ear. And to slightly reduce the nozzle diameter for better fitting.


The following is my guideline for the sound & engineering quality rating criteria that will be used in this review:

Sound Quality​

Frequency response is compared to Earfonia IEM Target Curve (EITC-2021):

*More info about EITC-2021 here.

Symphonium Helios measured frequency response normalized at 94 dB SPL @ 500Hz:


Symphonium Helios measured frequency response normalized at the midrange dip:


Symphonium Helios measured frequency response in comparison to Harman Target IE 2019:


The following is frequency analysis based on the 4 observation points on EITC-2021:

Overall Sound Signature:​

Mild V-shape tonality with clarity-oriented tuning. Excellent sub-bass and upper treble extensions.

From the frequency response graph, we can observe the followings:

• Helios frequency response is within ±3 dB from my EITC-2021 observations points.
• Helios frequency response around the bass and midrange area is within ±3 dB from the Harman Target IE 2019.
• The midrange peak (Mp) and 1st treble peak (T1p) are pretty close to my preferred target.
• The mid-bass to low-mid area is a bit recessed.
• Besides the T1p at around 4.26kHz, there is another treble peak close to it at around 5.57kHz. Since T2p is the expected resonance peak, I call this 5.57kHz peak the 3rd treble peak or T3p. I’ve seen this T3p on other IEM like the Fiio FH7. From what I’ve observed, the effect of T3p seems to enhance the perceived clarity.
• So far, I’ve never seen a 20kHz measured response as high as the Helios. A very interesting phenomenon. I measured several times to check consistency and the results are consistent. Helios is the only IEM that I’ve ever measured with this kind of ‘real' 20kHz upper treble extension. Remarkable! It also shows that my measurement setup can measure up to 20kHz.

Squeaky clean or shiny clean is the first thing that came into my mind when listening to Symphonium Audio Helios. It's slightly bright tuning with properly boosted sub-bass creates a unique mild V-shape tuning that is borderline analytical. Tonality is still quite balanced, and I won’t call it a bright-analytical sounding IEM, but there is an analytical nature in the sound signature. Records sound clean and detailed, while still maintaining a relatively balanced tonality.

The lower midrange sounds a tad recessed and the midrange body sounds a bit lean on vocal. I prefer a slightly fuller and warmer midrange. I guess Helios is not meant for those who are looking for warm and lush-sounding mids, instead, detail and clarity are the main themes here. The midrange probably can be described as 'neutralish' clean-sounding midrange with a high level of perceived detail and clarity. When listening to female vocals sometimes I hear some emphasis on the breathing sound a bit more than what I used to hear from my other favorite IEMs. Helios sounds ok with vocals but may not be my first choice of IEM for vocals as I prefer a fuller-sounding vocal. Instead, I think it is among the best IEM for instrumental and orchestral works.

Bass is tuned to emphasize more on the sub-bass, likely to avoid bass bloat that often spoils the mids. There is no bloated or boomy bass here, bass sounds super tight and deep. And the bass can be quite thunderous when the music calls for it. The mid-bass punch is good, but I prefer a tad more mid-bass body to improve the overall balance between sub-bass and mid-bass.

Treble is the pinnacle of Helios tonality, as the overall tonality is slightly emphasized in the treble area. The treble sounds very smooth with probably the best upper treble extension that I've ever heard. Helios treble tuning is executed brilliantly. I have no problem with sibilance even when listening to a rather bright vocal recording. There is no sharp or peaky shrill treble but flaws in the bad recording will be revealed without mercy. The treble tuning makes the Helios shines.

Perceived detail and clarity are the most prominent aspects of the sound signature. Helios is a master of perceived detail and clarity. Another quality that impressed me is the instrument separation and positioning that are presented with surgical precision. I’m a fan of David Garrett but I often don’t get the level of instrument separation that I would like to hear from his recordings. Helios solves this issue, and it has been my first choice of IEM for listening to David Garrett's albums and other similar orchestral works. Transient and attack are lightning-fast while the boosted sub-bass adds power and liveliness to the dynamic. Helios is a lively sounding IEM, not by boosting the bass as many IEMs do, but by presenting music with lifelike detail and clarity.

Comparisons to FitEar To Go! 334 & Fiio FH7​

FitEar made its debut around a decade ago and I was a fan of the ‘To Go! 334’ smooth warm and pleasing sound signature. In the last few years, I have done quite a lot of audio recording and mixing work, and that changed my personal preference for sound quality. My requirement for perceived detail and clarity increases because those qualities help me to hear more detail during recording and mixing. Now I feel FitEar To Go! 334 sounds a bit too warm. Helios sound more neutral and has higher perceived detail and clarity with better instrument separation than the To Go! 334. I would choose Helios over To Go! 334 any time of the day.




Fiio FH7 has 3 tuning filters: Green, Black, and Red. The Green filter is just a mesh without any filter, while the Black and Red filters dampen the treble in different degrees. Most of the time I use the Green filter as it sounds the most transparent to me. The FH7 with the Green filter sounds a bit more balance and less V-shape than Helios. The midrange sounds fuller and nicer on vocals. From the tonality perspective, I would say FH7 tuning is the better all-rounder than Helios by a small margin, while Helios still has the edge for perceived detail, clarity, and instrument separation. Helios also sounds a bit dryer compared to FH7. Both are nice IEMs and although they have a different sound signature, in my book sound quality wise they are in the same league. I would take the FH7 for vocal and Helios for instrumental and orchestral works. But on other technical aspects like Left-Right mismatch, distortion, and impedance linearity, Helios wins.

Equalization to Match EITC-2021​

One of the objectives of my EITC-2021 target curve is that it is a ‘realistically achievable target curve’ by my measurement equipment. It is based on real measurements and not just an estimated target curve. To test and experience an IEM with matching frequency response to EITC-2021 sounds like, I created an equalizer profile for Symphonium Helios to match EITC-2021.

Symphonium Helios frequency response (Red curve) after equalization to match EITC-2021 target curve (Blue curve):


To me, EITC-2021 equalization improves Helios' tonal balance. The midrange sounds more natural. I use REW to create the equalizer profile based on the difference between Helios' average response and EITC-2021. Then exported the equalizer profile as a text file to be loaded to Equalizer APO.

Below is the download link for the equalizer profile for Symphonium Helios to match the EITC-2021, so anyone who would like to try EITC-2021 on their Symphonium Helios can load it to Equalizer APO to test it. Please apply a -3dB gain to avoid clipping.
Symphonium Helios to EITC-2021 EQ APO v1.3

Engineering Quality​

Disclaimer: The measurement results of the engineering quality measurement in this review represent only the pair of IEM that was measured for this review. It doesn’t represent the overall quality control of the factory.

Left-Right Match​

Observation range: 20Hz – 7kHz
The review sample of Helios shows excellent left and right channel tracking. My unit has an overall 0.5dB matching from 20Hz-5kHz, with only 1.2dB maximum at around 5.4kHz.

Harmonic Distortion​

Observation range: 55Hz – 7.1kHz
Overall THD level of the Symphonium Helios is quite low even at the peak. Left and Right channels show similar THD profiles. There is no abnormal distortion peak across the measurement range. Please take note that distortion measurement is not part of sound quality evaluation. It is only used to observe the engineering quality of the IEM.

Distortion measurement at 94 dB SPL at 500Hz:



Distortion measurement at 104 dB SPL at 500Hz:



An interesting observation of the harmonic distortion profile, in general, the odd harmonics are higher than the even harmonics. Probably that’s what gives the analytical nature to the sound signature of Helios. But since the overall distortion level is quite low, I don’t consider it a concern.

Electrical Impedance​

Observation range: 20Hz – 20kHz
The impedance curve is almost ruler flat, with only a gentle roll-off after 13kHz. I’ve never measured a multi-driver BA IEM with impedance as linear as Helios before. This is an engineering quality that deserves acknowledgment. The following is the impedance curve of the Left and Right channels of Helios, Fiio FH7, and FitEar To Go! 334 for comparison.

Sensitivity​

At 92.9 dBA SPL at 100mV @ 1kHz Helios’ sensitivity is quite low, lower than the Etymotic ER2XR which is already quite low. But my old mobile phone, Samsung Galaxy S9+, still can drive Helios to a sufficient loudness level. So, in most setups, it is not a concern. Most portable devices would be able to drive Helios sufficiently, but a good quality DAC+Amp will improve the perceived dynamic, liveliness, and overall sound quality. I suspect the low sensitivity could be due to a resistor network inside the IEM that is used to flatten the impedance curve.

Fit, Comfort, & Build Quality​

Besides the regular Silicone ear tips, Helios comes with ‘Azla SednaEarfit’ ear tips which feel more rubbery than regular Silicone ear tips. To me, the ‘Azla SednaEarfit’ gives slightly better comfort and grip.

The shell nozzle is lipless, but I don’t have a problem with ear tips sliding off the nozzle. Probably the large nozzle diameter and the matte finish of the surface help to grip the ear tips quite well. With around 5.74mm nozzle diameter, I would advise those with smaller ear canals to consider testing the fitting before buying Helios. I always use medium-size ear tips with other IEMs, but with Helios and ‘Azla SednaEarfit’ ear tips I use the small size ear tip for better fitting. Fitting could be an issue for those who usually use small size ear tips.

Helios' shell size is rather large. In my opinion, the shell thickness is rather too thick that it tends to protrude out of the ear. And I would suggest the part shown in the 2nd picture below be curved in for a better fitting. I asked Symphonium Audio why the shell size is that large, and they said it is due to the high-quality components that they use requiring more space inside the shell.





I have used Helios for long listening sessions as well as mixing my recordings. I consider the fit and comfort are ok but not great. Subjectively I would rate the comfort level as 7/10. Aesthetically I’m not a fan of large and thick shells, and I hope Symphonium could come up with a better shell design for their future IEMs.

Left and Right indicators are on the cable connectors. To connect the driver with the correct polarity, the groove of the connector is to face the outer side of the shell.

Build quality of Helios is generally very good. The shell feels very solid and durable. I’ve used them for about 2 months without extra care, and I don’t see any scratches on the shell surface. It seems that it is built to last.

Metal Shell to Ground Pin Connection: Not connected​

Recommendation:​

Suitable for critical listening and Pro Audio applications, and any other applications where a high level of perceived detail and clarity, wide frequency extension, and linear impedance curve are important.


Kudos to Symphonium Audio, the Helios achieved ALL GREEN on all my quality ratings!


More information about my IEM Measurement Setup & Methodology:
Earfonia IEM Measurement Setup & Methodology

Advertised Technical Specifications:​

Driver Crossover: Custom Tuned True 4-Way Crossover with FLAT Technology
Frequency Response: 12Hz - 24kHz, ± 2 dB
Sensitivity: 104dB/Vrms @ 1 kHz
Impedance: 8.5 Ohms @ 1 kHz
Socket: Spring Loaded 0.78mm 2-Pin
Cable: 26 AWG Pure OCC Copper
Cable Impedance: 0.20 Ohms (2.5mm), 0.25 Ohms (3.5mm), 0.28 Ohms (4.4mm) @ 1kHz
Warranty: Limited 1 - Year Warranty

https://www.etymotic.com/product/er2xr-earphones/

Etymotic ER2XR (Extended Response) is one of my favorite IEM from Etymotic that doesn't need any introduction. I bought this pair from a local shop around 2 years ago. It is a deep insertion micro dynamic driver design with almost ruler flat impedance across the audio band. And the most important feature is, it sounds pretty good.

Pros:​

ER2XR has 2 essential features for pro audio and on-stage applications:

• Very high passive noise isolation (35-42dB) from the deep insertion design. Essential as hearing protection for an on-stage performer.
• Close to ruler flat impedance (15 ohms) ensures consistent tonality with various audio equipment regardless of the headphone output impedance.

Cons:​

• Designed for deep insertion into the ear canal, may not be suitable for everyone.
• Very difficult to identify the Left and Right channels in a dimly lit environment. Very small black on black L/R sign on the Left and Right channels. There is no 'Left Dot' indicator on the Left channel connector.
• Total harmonic distortion is on the higher side of average THD from all the IEMs that I’ve measured.

Suggestions:​

• On tonality, to add a slight bump around the 4.5kHz treble area to improve perceived clarity, and to increase the overall upper treble response to improve perceived transparency and spaciousness.
• To add 'Left Dot' on the left channel connector for easy channel identification.

Sound Quality​

*EITC-2021 is my frequency response target curve. More info about it here.


*Note: When there is no obvious treble peak (T1p) around the 4-5kHz area, SPL at 4400Hz is used as T1p value.

Bass to mids tonality sounds good, clean, balanced, and pretty close to my perceived neutral. Treble is good but can be improved. Treble is a tad on the softer side of neutral and sounds very smooth. Sometimes with a certain recording, it may sound a tad dull for me. I prefer the treble area around 4-5 kHz to have a slight peak like the ER4XR, as it will improve the perceived clarity. And the upper Treble extension is also a bit too soft for my taste and slightly lack the perceived airiness and spaciousness.

Overall, it sounds quite natural and balanced but frequency extensions at both ends, sub-bass and upper-treble, sound a bit too soft. That’s the main reason I rate it 7/10. If ER2XR has a better-perceived frequency extension at both ends I will rate it higher on tonality.

Perceived detail and clarity are ok, but not great. It doesn't sound dull or muddy, just lacking a bit of transparency and airiness. Dynamic is quite decent with good and clean-sounding bass. Pretty good bass attack and impact but lack a bit of sub-bass rumble. Overall, I do like the sound quality of ER2XR.

Comparisons to Etymotic ER4XR and ER2SE:


The hump around the 5kHz could be the reason for the better-perceived clarity on ER4XR.

Equalization to Match EITC-2021​

One of the objective of my EITC-2021 target curve is that it is a realistically achievable target curve by my measurement equipment, based on the real measurement and not just as an estimated target curve. To really test and experience an IEM with matching frequency response to EITC-2021 sounds like, I created an equalizer profile for ER2XR to match EITC-2021.

EITC-2021 (Blue curve) and Etymotic ER2XR (Right channel) FR after equalization to match EITC-2021 target curve (Red curve):


To my ears, EITC-2021 equalization improves ER2XR perceived clarity and frequency extension at both ends. I use REW to create the equalizer profile based on the difference between ER2XR average response and EITC-2021. Then exported the equalizer profile as a text file to be loaded to Equalizer APO.



Below is the link for the equalizer profile for ER2XR to match the EITC-2021, so anyone who would like to try EITC-2021 on their ER2XR can load it to Equalizer APO to test it. Please apply a -3dB gain to avoid clipping.
Etymotic ER2XR - EITC-2021 - EQ APO Profile

Engineering Quality​

Disclaimer: The measurement results of the engineering quality measurement in this review represent only the pair of IEM that was measured for this review. It doesn’t represent the overall quality control of the factory.


Excellent left and right channel tracking. My unit has an overall 0.2-0.3dB matching from 20Hz-10kHz, with only 0.5 dB maximum at 5kHz.




The impedance curve is almost ruler flat, with only a shallow bump, around 0.5ohms increase at 2580Hz.




Overall THD level of the Etymotic ER2XR is a bit higher than most IEMs that I’ve measured. Please take note that distortion measurement is not part of sound quality evaluation. It is only used to observe the engineering quality of the IEM.
Distortion measurement at 94 dB SPL at 500Hz:




Distortion measurement at 104 dB SPL at 500Hz:





The following is my rating criteria:

Fit, Comfort, & Build Quality​

All test is done using the ER2XR default medium triple flange ear tip. To me the fit and comfort are ok. The deep insertion design is surprisingly quite comfortable. What I mean is, I definitely feel something is stuck in my ear canal, but it doesn’t cause any pain. Even for a long session like an hour or more, I only need to readjust the position of the IEM a little bit every half an hour or so, but it doesn’t cause any discomfort until I must unplug it from my ears. I would say the level of comfort is around 7/10.



Build quality is generally good. I haven’t had any problem with the build quality. The cable is soft and flexible with sufficient thickness. The connector is custom MMCX so most 3rd party cables with MMCX won’t fit. Etymotic provided two spare green tuning filters (1500 Ohms) and the tool to replace it. Etymotic also sells a tuning kit for users to experience different FR with different tuning filters.

My biggest complaint is the left and right channel marking. It is almost impossible to see the marking in a dimly lit environment. The left dot as shown in the picture below has been implemented on many IEMs for many years, and I’m quite surprised why not all companies use this useful feature on their IEM cable.

Metal Shell to Ground Pin Connection: No connection​

Recommendation:​

Suitable for applications where high level of noise isolation is important.


More information about my IEM Measurement Setup & Methodology:
Earfonia IEM Measurement Setup & Methodology

Advertised Technical Specifications:​

Frequency Response: 20 Hz – 16 kHz
Transducers: High performance moving coil dynamic driver
Noise Isolation: 35dB using silicone ear tips, 42dB using foam ear tips
Impedance: 15 Ohms @ 1kHz
Sensitivity: 96 dB @ 1kHz, 1mW
Maximum Output (SPL): 120 dB
Cable: Detachable 4 ft cable with MMCX connectors
User Replaceable ACCU-Filters: Yes
Warranty: 2 Years
Custom-Fit Option: Yes

Big thanks to Burson for providing me with the review sample of Burson FUN!
Class A headphone amp with symmetrical circuitry is not rare, but Burson advertised that they implemented four sets of Max Current Power Supply (MCPS) that is claimed to be superior to traditional transformers for delivering instant, clean, and maximum electric current to the Fun. I expect the combination to produce class A low THD with fast and realistic dynamic. Besides that op-amp rolling is a welcome feature to bring the sonic signature closer to our personal preference.




Product Webpage:
https://www.bursonaudio.com/products/fun/

Product Manual:
https://drive.google.com/file/d/1BkYzliXQfuzxnYRiL-uJ7YdaVgku8T5-/view

Showcase:
https://www.head-fi.org/showcase/burson-audio-fun.23238/

Discussion Thread:
https://www.head-fi.org/threads/burson-audio-fun-2w-pc-class-a-headphone-amp.881515/

Op-Amp Rolling:
https://www.head-fi.org/showcase/opamp-rolling-with-the-burson-fun.23632/




Pros:

• Well designed amplifier for op-amp rolling with gain fixed at 5. The circuit was stable with 'cranky' op-amp such as LM6171 with very low DC offset on the headphone output. Op-Amp supply voltage is 30 VDC or +/- 15 VDC.
• Good balance between high output power and low output noise. Powerful enough to drive my Hifiman HE-6 and low noise enough to be used with my sensitive IEMs. Suitable for a wide range of headphones and IEMs.
• Low output impedance (based on my measurement).
• Unique 5.25" form factor to fit desktop pc 5.25" drive bay.

Cons:

• Location of the on-off switch at the back panel of the amplifier. A front panel power switch is preferable.
• No gain switch to switch to lower gain for IEMs.
• My unit came with a poor 12V power supply, but it could be just my case. Rated at 6A but couldn't supply more than 650 mA of stable power (read more on 'Power Supply' section below).

Suggestions for Improvement:

• Front panel power switch.
• Selectable low (0 dB) and high gain (5 dB).
• 3.5 mm headphone output socket for convenient.
• Screw-less top panel for easy access to the op-amps.
• Better quality 12V power adapter to improve startup with certain op-amps.
• Sound quality is ok with the stock NE5534 op-amp, but not great as a US$ 299 amp. Recommended for Burson to use 'better' op-amp than NJR NE5534 as the default op-amp.
• Better pricing and more bundle options for the package price with Burson Op-amps.

Recommendations:

• Recommended for those who are looking for a good amplifier system/platform for op-amp rolling. At US$ 299 Burson FUN with the default NJR 5534 op-amp is not the best value or best sounding headphone amplifier for the money. But when paired with better op-amp the sound quality and value may go up significantly. Op-amp rolling is highly recommended for Burson FUN.
• Generally more suitable to drive headphones. With almost 2-watt power output at 32ohms and no option to lower the gain setting (gain fix at 5), those specs are generally more suitable for headphones. Although Burson FUN is relatively low noise and I didn't have high noise issue with most IEMs that I tried with it, but considering the features of this amp it is generally more suitable to drive headphones than earphones.

Design and Build Quality
Burson FUN is designed to operate either as a stand-alone headphone amp or internal setup in desktop PC 5.25" drive bay. FUN has unique form factor to fit desktop PC 5.25" drive bay and it has a microphone input extension to extend the mic input from the motherboard to the front panel of the Burson FUN. According to Burson, it is designed for both music and gaming, I think that's where the 'FUN' name come from.



The amplification stage is dual mono Class-A circuitry. From what I observe Burson FUN seems to use op-amps for voltage amplification (gain fix at 5) with discrete transistors for output current buffer. Burson said that the FUN amplification circuit is similar to its bigger brother Burson Conductor V2.



I was excited when I plugged in LM6171 (know as 'cranky' op-amp with bipolar input transistors), and measured the DC offset on the headphone output, and it was only 1.61 mV on the left channel, and 1.04 mV on the right channel. That value is low and safe enough for even a very sensitive IEM. After checking that the headphone output is safe, I tried my super sensitive IEM, the 1964 V3 IEM with the LM6171, and it was ok. A bit noisier than other op-amps that I tested, but the transient was very fast. Very detailed with fast and impactful dynamic. An op-amp that I would recommend to try with the Burson FUN when you want to hear more detail and dynamic on your headphones.



Overall, from what I experienced with it, the amp circuit is very well designed, stable and suitable for all op-amps that I've tried with it. It has excellent power supply circuit and output discrete transistors buffer to bring out the most from an audio op-amp.



Power Supply
Burson FUN comes with a powerful power adapter, 12VDC 6Amp. The connector is the common 5.5mm x 2.5mm DC connector. Using a common DC connector is a very welcome feature for easy replacement with other 12V power supply.



I suspect my unit came with 'half defective' power supply. It works but not as specified. I notice this on the first time when I use Burson V5i op-amp. The amp occasionally fails to power up. When I switch it ON, sometimes the relay inside the amp keeps toggling between ON and OFF state for quite a long time. Sometimes it then manages to reach the ON state, but sometimes it fails to turn ON and the power relay keeps toggling ON and OFF. When that condition happens I saw the red LED on the power adapter also blinking ON and OFF following the relay.

Then I measured the maximum current output of the stock power adapter using an adjustable constant current load, it is starting to become unstable, toggling ON and OFF, when the current is over 650 mA. And it just switched OFF when the load current close to 700 mA or higher. That is way too low than the specified 6A output. This what makes me think that my unit power adapter doesn't work as specified.



When I use another 12V power adapter, I tried 12V-5A and 12V-2A power adapter, I didn't have that problem with the 5A, but similar symptom observed when using the 2A adapter. The 2A adapter fails to turn ON the Burson FUN. I tried 2 units of 12V-2A power adapters, both were not suitable for Burson FUN. I also tried 2 different brands of 12V-5A and both have no problem with Burson FUN. So as specified on the backside of the amplifier, we better stick with a 12V-5A power adapter for Burson FUN.

I measured the power supply current draw of Burson FUN. On my multimeter (Brymen BM829s), a short high current spike around was 8A detected when switching ON the amp, but after that, it is stable at only around 0.6 Amp, regardless of the load on the headphone output. Even when driving my Hifiman HE6 at a very loud level the average current consumption doesn't exceed 615 mA. I measured the switching ON current spike using the Crest capture mode feature on my Brymen BM829s (1ms Min-Max detection). It requires high current for a very short period when switching ON the amp, that's the reason why the 2A power supply didn't work even though the running current consumption is only around 0.6A.





Measurement
I need to make a disclaimer that the measurement in this review should not be considered as absolute measurement but only a relative measurement. That means the measurement results are not absolute values and should not be compared with the official specifications or other measurement using a different setup.

The objectives of measurement in this review are:
1. Quick Pass/Fail test, to observe abnormal characteristic if any.
2. Estimated specification of the headphone output.
3. Comparing some audio signal parameters like SNR, THD, and other parameters when using different Op-Amps, measured in the same setup using the same measurement equipment.

It is impossible to judge the exact sound quality of audio equipment just by looking at the number and graphs. The following video is a very good example that same value of THD+N from different measurement might come from a totally different type of distortion, and the value of the THD+N alone doesn't help to understand the sound quality of audio equipment.



Therefore we should consider measurement result only as a set of minimum criteria to check that the device specification is within the acceptable range.

I use QuantAsylum QA401 Audio Analyzer as measurement equipment:
https://quantasylum.com/products/qa401-audio-analyzer



For the RMAA test, I borrowed RME ADI-2 Pro as the audio interface (ADC) from a friend.





Measured Headphone Output Specification:

Maximum Output Voltage without load: 9.78 Vrms. Measured with 2 Vrms 1kHz sine wave on the input.

Maximum volume position without load before clipping / increased distortion, with 2 Vrms 1kHz tone: 4 pm.
With 2 Vrms input, the output is slightly distorted when the volume knob is at Maximum position.

Maximum Output Voltage with 32 ohms load at less than 1% THD: 7.95 Vrms
Measured maximum output power at 32 ohm: 1.98 Watt




Maximum Output Voltage with 16 ohms load at less than 1% THD: 5.20 Vrms
Measured maximum output power at 16 ohm: 1.69 Watt





Output Impedance: 0.21 ohms (highest measured)
Burson official spec is 6 ohms for the headphone output impedance, but several measurements on my unit using different load, 16 and 32 ohm, always showing less than 0.5 ohms of output impedance. Highest measured is 0.21 ohms which is excellent for a desktop amp with 2W output.




Output Gain measured at 600-ohm load: 5

Volume Control Channel Balance
Channel balance between left and right channel is very good across the volume range from minimum to maximum, with only 0.6 dB highest level imbalance observed:




RCA Pre-Out
Active and amplified, not only passive output from the volume control.
Gain: 5.15 / 1.00 = 5.15
Measurement using 10k ohm load on the RCA output.
Potentially this could be a very high output for the audio equipment connected to the RCA output.
Unity gain at around 1 pm volume position. So if the audio source connected to the RCA input has a regular line-level output (-10 dBV line level) setting the volume knob more than 1 pm might overload the audio equipment connected to the RCA output. So be mindful to set the volume knob when using the RCA line output.
Pre-Out disconnected when headphone socket is connected.




SNR and THD measurement
Headphone Ouput SNR on 33 ohms load (lowest measurement selected) @ 1kHz - 1Vrms input:
At 2 Vrms (6 dBV) : 97.2 dBA
At 1 Vrms (0 dBV) : 96.8 dBA
At 0.5 Vrms (-6 dBV) : 94.8 dBA
At 100 mVrms (-20 dBV) : 85.6 dBA
At 50 mVrms (-26 dBV) : 79.8 dBA



At a higher level, the measurement is pretty close with Burson FUN official specification. Please note that I measure SNR in dBA, and the FUN specification is in dB. Usually dBA is around 3 dB higher than measurement in dB.

For headphone amplifier, SNR means the expected level of audible hissing noise. My rule of thumb based on my own experience is:
SNR greater than 85 dBA: perceived as totally quiet.
Between 80 to 85 dBA: mild hissing noise might be audible.
Less than 80 dB: mild to moderate audible hissing noise.

Regular headphone playback level is usually around 100 mV to 500 mV, so we can expect no audible hissing noise with headphones. Sensitive IEMs playback level is around 50 mV, and less sensitive IEM can be around 100 mV or more. So we could expect some mild hissing noise with sensitive IEM, but more or less quiet on less sensitive IEMs.

Using my most sensitive IEM, the 1964 Ears V3, I could hear some mild hissing noise from FUN headphone output, but to my ears, at the level that is ignore-able. Considering the gain and high power output, I would say the SNR performance is pretty good and will be pretty quiet for most applications.

SNR and THD are also dependent on the Op-Amp being used. I measured SNR and THD of the headphone output using different op-amps on the following condition:
Input: 1 Vrms (0 dBV)
Output: 0.5 Vrms (-6 dBV) as this level is probably the most common listening level for most headphones.

The following measurement showing that practically all op-amps perform pretty close in term of SNR at 1 kHz, at 0.5V output. Burson V5i is the only exception where the SNR is lower and THD is higher than other op-amps in the test. This is also another measurement that doesn't tell much about sound quality differences between the op-amps and functions only as a pass/fail kind of test to see if there is any significant deviation between the op-amps. I will send both Burson V5i to Burson for checking if there is an issue with the op-amp and why it is showing relatively high SNR. So don't take this measurement result as absolute as the Burson V5i might be somehow defective.





RMAA Measurement
In this test, the baseline is Geek Pulse XFi RCA outputs connected directly to the RME ADI-2 Pro Line inputs. Then I inserted Burson FUN in between the Geek Pulse XFi RCA output and RME ADI-2 Pro input and set the volume level to output the same level as the input. In other words, the amp volume is set at 0 dB amplification. This test is another relative measurement to compare the setup without and with Burson FUN inserted in the Out-In loop.



Note: Please note that I forgot to change the DA-AD digital filter to Sharp during the test that supposedly will give a flatter frequency response. The DA and AD filter was set to SD Slow, therefore we can see the early roll-off of the high frequency. When the digital filter set to Sharp the frequency response is flatter up to the Nyquist frequency.


RightMark Audio Analyzer test:

Testing chain: External loopback (line-out - line-in)
Sampling mode: 24-bit, 96 kHz

Burson FUN RMAA Measurement at 0 dB.
Audio Interface: RME ADI-2 Pro AE
USB DAC: LH Geek Pulse XFi



We can observe the added noise and THD by inserting an amp in the loop between Out to In. The additional 8-10 dB of noise seems huge but overall output noise is still very low at around -113 dB, level of noise that won't be noticeable to human hearing. I would say from the RMAA test I don't see any issue with the result.



Sound Quality and Op-Amp Rolling

NJR 5534D is the default Op-amp that comes with Burson Fun. This is a well known generic op-amp that has good value and spec, and showing good result on measurement. Very low cost too. With the default op-amp, Burson FUN sounds relatively clean, low noise, with a good level of detail and clarity. Overall it sounds ok, but not great for the $299 price tag. Dynamic, impact, and tonal density just average, not as good as other op-amps in this review. Especially the bass slam and punch is rather weak in comparison. Also not as smooth sounding as other op-amps, and may sound a bit grainy with some tracks. Besides that, the perceived holographic spaciousness and imaging is not as spacious as other op-amps in this test and may sound a bit lacking in depth. Op-amp upgrade is highly recommended for Burson FUN to bring it to the next level.

Please take note that op-amp supply voltage is 30 volt, so make sure the replacement op-amp is specified for that supply voltage.




Sonic differences between op-amps are quite subtle. I'm not confident to say that I would be able to pass blind test differentiating the op-amps below. Practically all op-amps in this review are good sounding op-amps and the sonic differences between them are small. Therefore please take my subjective impressions below with a grain of salt.



I will divide the op-amps into 3 groups:
1. Fast, detailed, lean towards slightly analytical signature: Burson V5i, LM6171, OPA637, and AD797.
2. Relatively neutral signature: 5534D (stock), OPA627, and Sparkos SS3601.
3. Smooth, fatter bass, good tonal density, towards slightly warmer signature: OPA228 and OPA827.

TLDR, my favorites from the above op-amps in no particular order:
Sparkos SS3601, OPA827, and AD797


Burson V5i
Fast and transparent sounding op-amp. Lean a bit to the analytical side with good instrument separation. May sounds a bit dry and thin with analytical headphones / IEMs. Bass is clean and tight but may sound a bit lean. A bit noisier than other op-amps, and I feel it is a bit too noisy for the 1964 V3 IEM, but generally ok for headphones. So not recommended for sensitive IEMs. As mentioned earlier, I suspect there is something wrong with my V5i, therefore, I prefer not to give a lengthy impression about it. I did review it in the past, so please check my review for a more detail impression of V5i.



LM6171
Has some similarity to Burson V5i in speed, clarity, and transparency, but I feel a bit less dry on the LM6171, therefore I do prefer the LM6171 over V5i by a small margin. LM6171 is a very detailed and revealing op-amp. This is an excellent op-amp when detail and transient are the sonic traits that you're looking for. But also a bit too noisy for very sensitive IEMs such as the 1964 V3. So take note on the application especially when dealing with ultra-sensitive IEMs. Headphones are preferable for LM6171.

AD797
One of my all-time favorite when looking for a transparent sounding op-amp. Slightly more transparent and open sounding than V5i. The noise level also pretty low, therefore recommended for sensitive IEMs. I don't generally prefer an analytical sound signature, but AD797 transparency does sound amazing. Detailed and transparent and always sounds musical.

OPA637 (OPA637 is optimized for closed-loop gains of 5 or greater)
I consider V5i, AD797, LM6171, and OPA637 op-amps as fast and highly revealing op-amps. Between the 4 it is pretty hard to judge which one sounds best. Each must be tested in the system to observe the synergy with the whole system. In general, OPA637 and AD797 are my favorites among the 4. OPA637 is fast and transparent but slightly less analytical than V5i and LM6171, and a bit more musical to my ears. Also less noisy on sensitive IEMs.

OPA627
Very neutral sounding, but to be honest I'm never been a great fan of OPA627. A bit too flat and boring for my taste. OPA627 tonality is very neutral, but the dynamic is rather less lively, at least to me. I prefer something with a more lively dynamic. But I know there are many loves the OPA627 sound. So YMMV.

OPA827
OPA827 is one of my favorites when looking for smooth sounding op-amp with good bass and tonal density. OPA827 is like OPA627 with fatter and fuller bass and midrange. The thick tonal density is just addictive on vocal. But it is not overly warm or thick sounding. Overall OPA827 sounds very musical to my ears. When a system sounds thin and too analytical it is probably a good idea to try OPA827 in the chain. It is also pretty low noise, so a good op-amp for sensitive IEMs.

OPA228 (OPA228 is optimized for closed-loop gains of 5 or greater)
Pretty close to the OPA827 sound signature, with the lowest measured SNR by a slight margin. Recommended for sensitive IEMs. Good bass while still maintaining pretty good clarity and transparency. OPA228 sounds smoother and more fluid than NE5534 with a slightly better bass slam and impact as well. Therefore OPA228 perceived as more musical sounding than NE5534. OPA228 is a great all-rounder audio op-amp and considering the specification and the price that is only a few dollars more than NE5534, I think it is better to use OPA228 as the stock op-amp for Burson FUN instead of NE5534.



Sparkos SS3601
IMHO the most musically satisfying op-amp in this test. Although the noise a tad higher compared to the other chip op-amps in this test, it has lower noise than the Burson V5i, so still friendly for sensitive IEMs. It sounds very transparent and airy, at the same time smooth with very good dynamic. Bass slam and punch are excellent and very satisfying. Vocal has good clarity and tonal density. Sparkos SS3601 is not cheap but it is worth it. Probably the best op-amp for Burson FUN and now it stays in the amp.





Comparisons With Other Desktop Amps



My old Yulong Sabre A28 amp has rather different sound signature than Burson FUN + Sparkos SS3601. I would say the Yulong Sabre A28 is more colored towards smooth warm sound signature. The Sabre A28 is very nice for analytical headphones such as my Sennheiser HD800 and Beyerdynamic T1. But I would say Burson FUN + Sparkos SS3601 is more neutral and less colored.

Comparing Burson FUN + Sparkos SS3601 with Violectric HPA V200 (stock op-amps NE5532)
To my ears, both amps perform pretty close and it was not easy to choose for which one is the better amp. But after listening back and forth between both amps, I prefer the Burson FUN with Sparkos SS3601 over the much more expensive HPA V200. Burson FUN with Sparkos SS3601 reveals more detail with better holographic imaging. Treble perceived as slightly more airy and transparent. Busy tracks presented with better separations and imaging. Bass slam and impact are also slightly more realistic on the Burson with SS3601. The Sparkos SS3601 leaps Burson FUN sound quality a few levels above its price tag. Kudos to Burson!




Spare of the tiny 5A fuse.



Equipment used in this review:

Headphones:
Hifiman HE-6
Audio-Technica ATH-R70x

In-Ear Monitors:
1964 Ears V3 Universal
DUNU DK-3001
Creative Aurvana Trio
ATH-IM50

DAC and Amplifiers:
LH Geek Pulse XFi
QueStyle CMA600i
Violectric HPA V200
Yulong Sabre A28

Measurement Equipment:
QuantAsylum QA401 - 24-bit Audio Analyzer
RME ADI-2 Pro Anniversary Edition



Some recordings used in this review:

Webpage:
https://kennerton.com/thror
https://kennerton.com/headphones

RAA Measurement of Kennerton Thror:
https://reference-audio-analyzer.pro/en/report/hp/kennerton-thror.php





I would like to give a big thank to Zeppelin & Co. (Singapore) for the loan of the Kennerton Thror for review purposes!


Kennerton Thror, Odin's successor, reminds me a lot of the Kennerton Odin. Therefore in this review, I will be referring to my review of Kennerton Odin to highlight some aspects of the Kennerton Thror.

My review of the Kennerton Odin:
https://www.head-fi.org/showcase/kennerton-odin.21886/reviews#review-17108




Kennerton has improved some design aspects of Odin on Thror, mainly the weight and cable. Thror is lighter and more comfortable than Odin and has better cable with proper ¼” headphone jack. Besides that Kennerton use a newly designed high end 80mm planar-magnetic driver on Thror. And like the Odin, Thror also comes with various wooden cups. The one that I review here is Thror Bog Oak.






Pros:
Neutral tonality, perceived as very smooth and refined sounding.
Good treble response yet immune to sibilant.
Pleasant and Non-fatiguing for long sessions.
Generally lighter and more comfortable than the predecessor, the Kennerton Odin.
Easy to drive.
Very good built quality.

Cons:
Dynamic, Instrument separations, and stereo holography are not the best and the most holographic for a headphone in this price category.
The nice wooden box is again, like the Kennerton Odin wooden box, cannot accommodate the headphone with the headband extended and with the cable attached.

Suggestions for Improvements:
Dynamic, resolution and instrument separation could be improved further for a more realistic and lively musical experience.
The box should be designed to be able to keep the headphone after we use it, without the hassle to remove the cable and readjusting the headband.
Balanced cable should have been included in the package.









Sound Quality:
Sound observation is done mostly using the balanced cable, driven from the balanced output of Questyle CMA600i USB DAC and Headphone Amp.

Smooth, refined, neutral, and polite are probably the best few words I would use to describe the sound signature of Kennerton Thror. The smooth, fluid and cohesive sound with the polite presentation are probably the most prominent characters from the sound signature. Technically it could probably be related to the flat perceived frequency response and the absent of any annoying peaks and dips that translates to a very coherent sound from bass to treble. It has good clarity, but not tuned to be a clarity and detail oriented headphone such as the HD-800. Thror has neutral and good quality bass that extends pretty low, that I think many audiophiles may find it good and sufficient, but I do prefer slightly more bass dynamic. Thror bass, especially around the midbass, is fuller sounding than HD800, therefore it is actually quite satisfying, but the sub-bass rumble is not very cinematic. To me, Thror tonality sounds neutral. It is not bright nor warm sounding, just neutral, probably with some very mild emphasize on the midrange area. Those who are treble sensitive but still would love to hear a good level of clarity and good quality treble would probably find Thror sounds very pleasant and Non-fatiguing even for long session listening, while still providing a good amount of clarity. Unlike some V shape tonality headphones with stronger bass and treble, the neutral and polite presentation of Thror might not give a strong wow effect on the first try, but the smooth and refined sonic signature is very pleasant for long sessions.

I would say Thror with its relatively uncolored sonic signature is a good all-rounder. Thror presents classical, vocal, and jazz in a neutral, sweet, and intimate manner. it is just a bit shy with some bassy modern genres.




In comparison to Kennerton Odin, Thror perceived as having a more neutral tonality than Odin, and Odin can be perceived as mildly having a more V shape tonality than Thror. Odin has Slightly fuller midbass and more treble presence than Thror. Therefore bass may sound more satisfying on Odin due to slightly more dynamic, but the bass sounds more linear on Thror. Thror also shares the pleasant, rather forgiving, and non-fatiguing sonic character of Odin. Dynamic wise Thror is more polite than Odin, while Odin has slightly more oomph with a slightly more dynamic and lively presentation. Thror also shares some of Odin’s sounds characteristics such as the smooth, refined and cohesive sound. It also shares the tonal density characteristic of Odin, but Thror doesn’t sound as thick as the Odin. So Odin tonal density is slightly denser than Thror, but there are some similarities on tonal density characteristic between the two that makes them special. To me, Thror is like the more neutral, less colored version of Odin. While Odin is like the more dynamic and lively sounding version of Thror. I would say, it is not about which one that technically sounds better, but it is more a matter of personal preference. To me, I personally prefer a more dynamic and lively musical presentation, so the Odin suits my preference better. But those who prefer a more neutral version of Odin may find that Thror sounds better.

Compared to my Sennheiser HD800 and Hifiman HE-6, Kennerton Thror is smoother and less grainy. I can say that Thror sound signature is very smooth and grain free. It is about as smooth as the Odin. When using liquid viscosity as an analogy, if HD800 and HE-6 roughly have the viscosity of water, Kennerton Thror is slightly thicker with slightly higher viscosity but slightly less thick than the Odin. HD800 and HE-6 are more lively and dynamic with more spacious stereo holography. While Thror sounds smoother, more polite with a more intimate presentation. Both HD800 and HE-6 sound brighter than Thror, therefore the perceived detail and resolution from HD800 and HE-6 might sound slightly higher, but it doesn’t mean that Thror is less capable in retrieving detail and resolution. Thror actually has pretty good detail and resolution but not as emphasized as both HD800 and HE-6. It is like a picture processed with different sharpening level. Same amount of detail but with the different perceived level of detail.




At this price point there is a lot to be expected from Kennerton Thror, therefore I will be rather extra picky when pointing out what factors that I think could be improved from Kennerton Thror. No doubt Thror is a very good sounding headphone, but at this price point, people will observe it with a magnifying glass. Here are some factors that I think from my point of view and subjective personal preference, could be improved.

In the sound quality department, first I prefer the dynamic to be tuned to be a little more lively. When listening to ‘Bach Toccata And Fugue’ from ‘Dr. Chesky's Sensational, Fantastic, and Simply Amazing Binaural Sound Show’ album, I would like to feel the dynamic and grandeur of the pipe organ, especially the sub-bass rumble and vibration of the lower notes. But I didn’t really get that realistic feeling like I was in that church and listening to the live performance of a pipe organ. The higher register produced smoothly and faithfully by Thror, but the lower register although tonally correct, it lacks dynamic and weight to it. I know it is a very difficult task for a headphone to mimic the dynamic of the lower register of a church pipe organ, but at this price category, I expect Thror to perform better in the bass dynamic, especially on the sub-bass area.

The second improvement in sound quality that I would like to hear is the stereo holography which in my opinion is not very spacious. In comparison, Sennheiser HD800 sounds more spacious and holographic than Thror. This could probably be a personal preference, and those who prefer the more intimate presentation could probably prefer Thror over the more spacious sounding HD800. I just personally prefer spacious sounding headphones.

Other improvements that I can think of are probably to include the balanced cable in the package, and to improve the design of the wooden box to accommodate the headphone with the headband extended and the cable attached. But those are secondary.

One thing I need to mention here is, like the Odin, Thror is also relatively easy to drive. It has the same 42 ohms impedance, with slightly less sensitivity than Odin, so at the same volume setting Odin will sound slightly louder. But Thror is still quite easy to drive that many modern DAPs today will have sufficient output level to drive Thror to adequate loudness. From all the DACs and amplifiers I have at home, I prefer the matching with Questyle CMA600i which has great resolution and detail retrieval ability.






Comfort
Although Kennerton Thror is about 20%-27% lighter (depending on the type of wood) than Kennerton Odin, at around 480 grams (headphone only) it is generally still a bit on the heavy side. 400 grams would be my threshold for what I would consider as a lightweight headphone. But the level of comfort is subjective as seasoned head-fiers sometime could wear even heavier headphones for hours without comfort issue. While those who are not used to headphones sometime may have comfort issue even with a very lightweight headphone.



For me, so far I have no comfort issue with Thror. The headband construction with the adjustable driver position provides good fit and comfort. Headband clamp force is probably medium in my chart, not too hard, but not light either. Just nice for me. And the fine lambskin leather pad feels great and comfortable.






Cable
The cable is detachable using 4 pins mini XLR, with similar pin assignment as the Odin and Audeze LCD headphones. So Audeze LCD headphone cables can be used for Thror and vice versa.



The stock cable is an unbalanced cable using ¼” headphone jack. A more proper connector for a headphone in this size and category, than the Odin’s cable that comes with 3.5mm headphone jack. Balanced cable with 4 pins XLR is optional. I think for this price the balanced cable should have been included. Why I think the balanced cable should have been included is because audiophiles that would buy a headphone at this price will most likely have DAC or headphone amplifier with balanced output.




Similar design 'flaw' as the Odin’s wooden box, the Thror nice wooden box is unfortunately rather useless for daily use. It is only useful to keep Thror when we want to keep it for a long time. The wooden box cannot accommodate Thror with the headband extended and the cable attached. That means after we adjusted the headband to fit our head and attached the cable, we cannot use the box to keep the headphone without removing the cable and re-adjust the headband back to the shortest position. To me this is really annoying. Kennerton should have designed the box with slightly larger cavity to be able to accommodate the headphone with the cable attached and the headband extended at maximum.






I’m glad to see that Kennerton keeps improving their planar-magnetic headphones, and Thror reflects well their effort to make some of the best planar-magnetic headphones. As Odin's successor, Thror performs really well, although sound quality wise I would say it is probably on par and not necessarily better than Odin. Even if my personal preference for sound signature leans more to the Odin sonic signature, but I would say both are technically very good sounding headphones. Once again kudos to Kennerton!




Equipment used in this review:

Headphones:
Hifiman HE-6
Sennheiser HD800

DAC & Headphone Amplifiers:
Questyle CMA600i




Some recordings used in this review:

Product page:
http://ibasso.com/cp_xq_dy.php?id=7280
User manual:
http://ibasso.com/uploadfiles/20181010/201810101813547040.pdf


Many thanks to Zeppelin & Co. for the loan of the iBasso DX120!
I have iBasso DX90 for many years and it is still one of my favorite DAP sound quality wise. I tried iBasso DX200 for a few times and really like the sound quality of it (default Amp card). But I feel the DX200 is too bulky and heavy for me, as I prefer smaller DAP. DX120 seems to be a good option for those who prefer smaller and lighter DAP with solid build and features.

Review based on Firmware Version: V2.1.20 (22 September 2018) and V2.2.42 (28 October 2018).






Pros:

• Clean sound with relatively low hiss noise from the 3.5mm headphone output, especially for a DAP at this price category.
• Powerful headphone output, especially the 2.5mm balanced output.
• Excellent build quality, solid metal body with good ergonomics. Good size, not too big or too small, and not too heavy.
• Mango OS for quicker startup relative to Android OS.
• Well designed and easy to operate UI and menus.
• Good touchscreen with pretty responsive and smooth operation.
• Well-thought accessories with tempered glass screen protector and protective case included. I wish all DAP manufacturers learn from iBasso to include a screen protector and case with their DAP.
• 2x TF card slots.
• USB DAC Function.

Cons:

• Headphone output and line output are positioned side by side with similar gold ring appearance that might lead users to wrongly plug in the earphone into the line output socket and accidentally blasted by the line output higher output voltage.
• SD card scanning is rather slow.
• Besides the ‘Super Slow Roll Off’ digital filter, all other digital filters cut the high frequencies rather too early causing audible differences in the upper treble response. Although softer treble response might be preferable on bright recordings, In my opinion, we don’t need more than 1 digital filter with an early treble roll off. The rest of the digital filters could be set with a more extended treble response (check measurement section for explanation).
• Update 2018-11-17: I removed previous comment about "Easily scratched back side glossy surface" as Paul and some other members informed me that it was the plastic protector that scratched, and the back side is actually made of glass. Thanks to Paul from iBasso, @jamato8, and @mbwilson111 !
  
  

Suggestions for Improvements:

• Differentiate the appearance of headphone output and line output to avoid user mistakenly plug the earphone jack to the line output jack.
• Feature to swipe the volume up/down using the touch screen after pressing the volume button.
• In USB DAC mode, only volume control is accessible, headphone output gain and digital filter settings are not accessible on USB DAC mode. Would be nice if gain and digital filters are accessible in USB DAC mode.
• In USB DAC mode, there is no indicator of PCM / DSD, or the current DAC sampling frequency on the screen. I prefer USB DAC mode screen to show more information rather than just a plain screen. This is very useful to check if the DAC is operating at the correct sampling rate as the audio file that is being played.
• In USB DAC mode, digital filters 1 to 4 don’t show any differences in measurement, and all 4 filters behave like filter 2, the Slow filter. While in the DAP mode those digital filters clearly show differences in measurement. Probably a bug to fix in the firmware. See measurement section for more detail about this issue.

Sonic Recommendation:
DX120 is a clean and neutral sounding DAP, and I don't consider it as a warm sounding DAP. Clarity, tightness, and dynamic are DX120 prominent sound signature, especially when using the 2.5mm headphone output. The 3.5mm headphone output is audibly less lively or less dynamic than the 2.5mm headphone output. Therefore my recommendation for DX120 users would be to use the 2.5mm balanced headphone output. As for IEMs or headphones, I would probably pair it with anything from neutral to warm sounding IEMs or headphones. In comparison to warmer DAP, DX120 may sound a tad dry with tight and punchy bass. That sound characteristic might help to improve bass and midrange clarity of warm and bassy IEMs and headphones. Although DX120 might pairs well with some analytical IEMs or headphones as well, I would be more careful in pairing DX120 with analytical IEMs or headphones.






Sound Quality
Let’s discuss the sound quality first before everything else because others don’t matter if sound quality is not desirable. For this review, I’ve used DX120 for a few weeks, mainly compared with the sound quality of my Onkyo DP-X1 because that’s what I use to carry daily, and some USB DACs, like the Fiio Q5, Light Harmonic GO 2A, and Chord Mojo. So price wise it is not an apple to apple comparison, but more of a comparison of sound signatures to get the general idea of the DX120 sound signature. But to keep this review not too long, I will write comparisons with DP-X1 and Chord Mojo only. As for IEMs, I mostly use DUNU DK3001, Creative Aurvana Trio, 1964 Ears V3, and some others. For headphones, I used Beyerdynamic T1 (1st gen) and Kennerton Thror. I’m not going to be very detail about matching the DX120 with each IEM I tried, because it may not be relevant to many people that don’t have the same IEM model. But instead, I will share my general impressions of the DX120 overall sound signature.

DX120 has 5 selectable digital filters. The first 4 filters sound pretty much the same to my ears with very little to almost no distinguishable sonic differences, but the 5th filter, the ‘Super Slow Roll Off’ filter sounds quite different than the others. The default filter is the
‘Sharp Roll Off’ filter. My preferred sound signature is with the ‘Super Slow Roll Off’ filter. Therefore the sound quality description below will be based mostly on the ‘Super Slow Roll Off’ filter.



As for the ‘Sound Mode’, my ears are not sensitive enough to hear any significant differences between the modes. So I set it to ‘Original’ most of the time. It is not clear what ‘Sound Mode’ does to the audio signal as I don’t see any differences in oscilloscope and spectrum analyzer when switching between the modes. I guess it probably has to do with the clocking mode.



Before comparing DX120 with other player or DAC, let’s discuss briefly the sonic differences between the digital filters. From the 5 digital filters:
1. Sharp roll off
2. Slow roll off
3. Short delay sharp roll off
4. Short delay slow roll off
5. Super slow roll off

Filter number 1 to 4 sound quite similar to one another with only very mild differences. But filter number 5, the ‘Super slow roll off’ sounds more transparent, tonally more neutral and balanced to my ears. The super slow filter also have wider perceived stereo imaging, while other filters sound more forward with higher emphasis on the center imaging, that sometimes makes orchestral recordings sound smaller, but vocal may sound more forward and more intimate on filters 1-4. So it is a matter of personal preference, and my sonic preference is closer to the ‘Super slow’ filter.



Clear, neutral, and lively, are 3 words that I would associate with DX120 overall sonic signature that I perceived mainly using the ‘Super slow’ filter and the 2.5mm balanced output. Clarity seems to be the theme of DX120 sound signature. Clarity and instrument-separation are really good on DX120. Bass is tight punchy and impactful with good dynamic, but sub-bass sounds a bit lean, and I hear slightly less sub-bass rumble in comparison to my DP-X1 and other DACs. Sub bass decay is rather short, but bass speed, impact, and tightness are very good. Mids is on the neutral side, clear with practically no coloration. DX120 is not a warm sounding or vocal flattering DAP. As mentioned earlier relevant to vocal presentation, digital filter 1 to 4 bring vocal a bit more forward in comparison with the super slow filter. Treble is digital filter dependent. On filter 1 to 4, upper treble is relatively soft and less extended than the filter 5. For maximum transparency, set to filter 5, the ‘Super slow’ filter. Detail retrieval is relatively pretty good, especially when set on ‘Super slow’ filter. Dynamic is greatly improved on the 2.5mm balanced output. Usually, I don’t hear much improvement between 3.5mm to 2.5mm headphone output on a DAP, but on DX120, the 2.5mm output has a significantly better dynamic and impact in comparison to 3.5mm headphone output. To be honest, I was not very impressed when I listened to the DX120 on the first time, as the digital filter was set to Sharp and I was using the 3.5mm output. But when digital filter set to ‘Super slow’ filter and I use the 2.5mm output, I’m quite impressed with this player. So, yea the difference is quite audible, especially in the dynamic, therefore I highly recommend to use the 2.5mm balanced output on DX120. Please remember that the 2.5mm output is about 6 dB louder, therefore when comparing the 3.5mm output and the 2.5mm output volume need to be adjusted around 6 steps higher on the 3.5mm output.





Comparison with Onkyo DP-X1
Since I’m quite used to the sound signature of Onkyo DP-X1 after using it for many years, once I tried DX120, my first impression was, it has kind of the opposite sound signature of the DP-X1, mainly in the perceived tonality. I perceived DP-X1 as a tad warm, silky smooth, polite presentation with a good low-end body. DP-X1 has a pleasing sound signature, but I don’t perceive DP-X1 as very impactful, especially on the bass, or having very lively and dynamic presentation. DX120 on the other is quite lively and impactful with punchier and tighter bass, but less sub-bass body and rumble. DX120 perceived tonality is very slightly on the brighter side in comparison to the DP-X1, with the lower treble section a bit more prominent than DP-X1. DX120 vocal sounds a bit more forward than DP-X1. Perceived clarity is slightly more emphasized on DX120 but it doesn’t mean that DX120 is more resolving. When listening in a quiet room, DP-X1 still has slightly better micro detail with slightly wider perceived stereo imaging. But at this price bracket, DX120 performs really well in detail and resolution department. The most obvious difference is probably on the bass section, with DP-X1 has fuller and powerful sub bass, while DX120 has punchier and tighter bass. I love full sounding bass, therefore when switching from DP-X1 to DX120 I do miss the DP-X1 bass. But when it comes to fast and punchy bass, DX120 performs really well.

Comparison with Chord Mojo
Overall Mojo has more tonal density. I’m not sure if tonal density is a common expression in sound quality, but what I mean is instruments and vocal sound thicker, denser, and have more weight to it. Mojo also sounds a tad warmer. DX120 emphasize more on clarity, clearer instrument separation, but it sounds somehow lighter and doesn’t sound as thick and weighty as Mojo. In comparison, Mojo sound signature is probably closer to the DP-X1 than the DX120. So yes, bass also sounds fuller on Mojo. At the end, I guess it is not about which one better but it really boils down to personal preference.


I don’t have comparable DAP price wise to be compared to DX120. Comparing to my old Fiio X3ii, DX120 sounds better with better instrument separation and more realistic 3D stereo imaging. DX120 also sounds more refined overall. The interesting comparison probably with my old iBasso DX90. Interestingly, DX90 as a much older DAP than DX120, DX90 still competes pretty well sound wise. DX120 sounds more refined, smoother and less grainy with better stereo imaging. And for sure a much better UI and touchscreen than DX90. But considering the time span from DX90 to DX120, I’m quite surprised that it is not a day and night improvement. DX90 is surprisingly still quite enjoyable. A legendary player indeed. I think the cleaner and the more refined sound of DX120 is a clear improvement from DX90, but I think adding a touch of warmness on the mids and fuller sub-bass sound on DX120 would be nicer. But again this is just my personal preference. For those who prefer clear and refined sound signature, DX120 if a great DAP. The headphone outputs are surprisingly quite powerful, especially the 2.5mm balanced output. It drives full-size headphones and 600 ohms headphone like my Beyerdynamic T1 with ease, with good power and dynamic.




Measurement
All measurements were done using QuantAsylum QA401 Audio Analyzer and Owon VDS3102 Oscilloscope. While RMAA measurements were done using HRT LineStreamer+ ADC. The objective of measurements in this review is only for observation purposes and comparisons between digital filters, and the results are not meant to be compared with the manufacturer specification or other measurement result using different measurement equipment.

All headphone output measurements were done using 33-ohm resistive load.
All line output measurements were done using 10k ohm resistive load.



Output Impedance
Measured Line Out, Output Impedance: 22.31 ohms
Measured 3.5mm Headphone Out, Output Impedance: 0.18 ohms
Manufacturer specification for the 3.5mm headphone out, output impedance: 0.24 ohms



I didn’t measure the 2.5mm headphone output because I didn’t have the proper cable for the 2.5mm output. But if it uses a similar amp circuit as the 3.5mm output, in theory, it will be close to twice of the output impedance of the 3.5mm output. So theoretically will around 0.36 - 0.48 ohms. To me, output impedance below 1 ohm is considered very low. Even 2 ohms usually still pretty safe and won’t cause any significant sonic differences on multi-driver IEM.



Maximum Output
I noticed that on 33-ohm load, at the maximum volume level, 100, the THD is slightly higher than at the volume level 99. But still at below 1% THD, therefore it is not considered as clipping.

3.5mm Headphone Output - High Gain (33-ohm load) - Volume at 100:


3.5mm Headphone Output - High Gain (33-ohm load) - Volume at 99:


Manufacturer specification for maximum output:
Line Output (fixed output) : 1.8 Vrms
3.5mm Headphone Output : 1.8 Vrms
2.5mm Headphone Output : 3.6 Vrms

My measurement result for maximum output:
Line Output (10 kohm load) : 1.81 Vrms
3.5mm Headphone Output - High Gain (33-ohm load) : 1.80 Vrms
3.5mm Headphone Output - Low Gain (33-ohm load) : 0.90 Vrms
2.5mm Headphone Output - High Gain (33-ohm load) : 3.55 Vrms
2.5mm Headphone Output - Low Gain (33-ohm load) : 1.79 Vrms


I didn’t measure the maximum output power of the headphone output with other loads than a 33-ohm resistor. The general convention for maximum output power measurement is to load the output until the output distortion reaches 1% total harmonic distortion (THD). If we calculate from the balanced 2.5mm maximum output at 33-ohm load:

(3.55 Vrms)2 / 33 ohm = 382 mW

And at that output, it still maintains THD at around 0.01%. That means it probably can still output slightly higher power at lower impedance. That level of output power can be considered a very powerful output for a DAP at this size.



Signal to Noise Ratio
There is no standard SNR measurement in the audio industry yet, therefore in my opinion most useful SNR measurement is measured at the levels and conditions close to the intended applications. For example for headphone output SNR measurement, most of the time users have issues with hissing noise when using sensitive IEMs, and generally less hissing noise issue with headphones. Therefore SNR measurement at sensitive IEMs playback level is more relevant than SNR measurement at maximum output level. Especially for a portable DAP.

Therefore after years of playing around with measurement, I set my own standard for SNR measurement for headphone output, which is a simple guideline to estimate the level of audible hissing noise, especially for pairing with sensitive IEMs. My headphone output SNR measurement is 1kHz SNR at 50 mVrms (+/- 10%) at 33-ohm resistive load. At 50 mV, SNR equal to or greater than 85 dBA is practically very quiet even for sensitive IEMs. Between 80 - 85 dBA, considered acceptable with probably only mild hissing noise on some very sensitive IEMs (sensitivity ≥ 110 dB SPL/mW), but generally relatively quiet for other IEMs with less than 110 dB SPL/mW sensitivity. While less than 80 dBA at 50 mV can be considered not sensitive IEM friendly, as hissing noise would be most likely audible with most IEMs. This is not an audio industry standard, this is just my own (Earfonia) simplified SNR guideline for the headphone output. And different people have different sensitivity to hissing noise, so YMMV.

SNR measurement at 1kHz, at 50 mVrms (+/- 10%), at 33-ohm of resistive load:
3.5mm headphone output SNR at 1kHz 50mV - Low Gain : 84.3 dBA
3.5mm headphone output SNR at 1kHz 50mV - High Gain : 84.3 dBA
2.5mm headphone output SNR at 1kHz 50mV - Low Gain : 81.4 dBA
2.5mm headphone output SNR at 1kHz 50mV - High Gain : 81.4 dBA



So generally the headphone output is reasonably low noise and quiet, with only mild hissing noise when using very sensitive IEM such as my 1964 V3 universal (sensitivity: 119 dB SPL/mW).



Digital Filters and Frequency Response
When I did RMAA measurement, I was quite surprised at the result of the frequency response. I redo the RMAA test multiple times with various cables and load to verify the result, and it was pretty consistent, and it is also consistent to what I hear when listening to the differences between the digital filters. There is some audible treble roll-off on digital filters 1 to 4. While digital filter number 5, the Super slow roll off, produces the flattest frequency response. Please take note that the measurement is done on firmware Version: V2.2.42 (28 October 2018).

All tests were done in 24bit - 96kHz mode.

Line Output RMAA Test Comparing The 5 Digital Filters:


Line Output Frequency Response:



3.5mm Headphone Output RMAA Test Comparing The 5 Digital Filters:


3.5mm Headphone Output Frequency Response (33-ohm load):



I double check the frequency response using the QA401 Audio Analyzer, observing the frequency spectrum when playing white noise:

Sharp roll off:


Slow roll off:


Short delay sharp roll off:


Short delay slow roll off:


Super slow roll off:


In comparison to Onkyo DP-X1 Sharp Filter:



The result is pretty consistent, the digital filter 1 to 4 apply some early treble roll off, while filter 5, the ‘Super slow roll off’ filter has the flattest frequency response. I’m not sure if this is the default characteristic of the AK4495 digital filters, or if this is iBasso special tuning for the player. And I didn’t have time to redo all the testing at a different sampling rate, all test were done at 96 kHz sampling rate.


I found that in DAP mode, all digital filters work properly and showing a different result in square wave test and measurement. But in USB DAC mode The digital filters 1 to 4 don’t show any differences in square wave measurement, and those 4 filters all look like the Slow filter, or filter number 2. Only the ‘Super Slow Roll Off’ filter is showing differences on measurement, as well as audible sound differences than the rest of the filters. Usually different type of digital filter always showing some differences in square wave measurement. So I’m not sure if this is a bug in the firmware V2.2.42 that I used for this testing. There is no point for having 5 different digital filters USB DAC mode if 4 of them don’t show any differences at all. It seems that this is a bug in the firmware V2.2.42.

DAP Mode:

Sharp roll off:


Slow roll off:


Short delay sharp roll off:


Short delay slow roll off:


Super slow roll off:



USB DAC Mode:

Sharp roll off:


Slow roll off:


Short delay sharp roll off:


Short delay slow roll off:


Super slow roll off:



The digital filters have no effect on the DSD playback. All filters in both DAP and DAC modes are showing the same result for DSD Playback (DSD128):





Conclusion
There are lots to like from iBasso DX120. The form factor, build quality, user-friendly Menu and UI, features, and the powerful balanced headphone output. I observed only some minor issues (cons) with DX120 that I have listed at the beginning of this review. Sound signature is always a matter of both personal preference and equipment matching. Personally, I prefer neutral to a mildly warm sonic character with good tonal density. While I love the tight bass and dynamic of DX120, the neutral mildly dry sound signature is slightly off track from my preferred sound signature. But again this is just my own personal preference, as others might prefer dryer sonic character. Technically both headphone output and line output performs really well, especially on the ‘Super slow roll off’ filter. No doubt DX120 is a good performing DAP following the good tradition of iBasso good quality products. I hope this review provides sufficient information for potential owners of DX120. Kudos to iBasso!







Equipment used in this review:

Headphones:
Beyerdynamic T1
Kennerton Thror

DAPs and DACs:
Onkyo DP-X1
iBasso DX90
Chord Mojo

Test Equipment:
QuantAsylum QA401 Audio Analyzer
Owon VDS3102 Oscilloscope
HRT LineStreamer+ ADC



Some recordings used in this review:

Webpage:
http://www.hifiman.com/products/detail/274


Big thanks to AV One Singapore for the opportunity to loan the demo set of Hifiman RE800!
I should have posted this review many months back, but there was a sudden peak on my workload that forced me to temporarily halt the completion of this review. I guess better late than never, so here is my take on this golden IEM.

The unit that I reviewed, as shown in the pictures, was the older type of RE800 with no detachable cable. From Hifiman website, I saw that they have upgraded the RE800 with a detachable cable.




RE800 uses 9.2mm single dynamic driver with special coating technology by Hifiman that they called ‘Topology Diaphragm’. Diaphragm with special ‘nanoparticle’ coating on its surface that distributed in a distinct geometric pattern. The technology is said to reduce distortion and to achieve certain acoustic properties. We can read more explanation about it on the Hifiman website (link above). The IEM housing is made of Brass, electroplated with 24k gold. As for the cable Hifiman chose silver coated crystalline copper, selected from 30 different options. Hifiman seems to have put a lot of attention in the design of RE800. And at this price point, the expectation is high on this cute small golden IEM.

My personal ratings based on the sound quality alone would be around 3.5 stars, mainly due to my personal preference of sound signature is rather different than the RE800 sound signature. I think treble-heads might rate it higher. I like the small size and comfort factor. The build quality and presentation are also good, therefore I think 4 stars is quite a reasonable rating for RE800. Especially considering Hifiman has listened to user feedback and improved RE800 with a detachable cable for the newer batch of RE800. Extra points there.






Pros:

• Good build quality.
• Small size with excellent fit and comfort.
• Good clarity and transparency.

Cons:

• Pricey.
• Polarized towards bright tonality, therefore not an all-rounder IEM. The Lean bass and midrange make it tends to sound good on a certain type of recordings but not so good on others.
• 60 ohms impedance is not very smartphone friendly.

Suggestions for Improvement:

• Improve value. For the sound quality it offers, in my opinion, RE800 is rather overpriced.
• Improve bass and midrange tuning for a more balanced tonality.

Recommendation:

• Recommended IEM for treble-head, or those who prefer a higher level of clarity and transparency.
• Best with classical and general acoustic instrumental recordings.
• May not be suitable for those who are looking for IEM with full-bodied midrange and realistic sounding bass.

Sound Quality

Disclaimer:
Frequency response measurement in this review was done using MiniDSP UMIK-1 measurement microphone with a DIY acoustic coupler. The DIY acoustic coupler is not an industry standard acoustic coupler, therefore the measurement result is not absolute, and shouldn’t be used for comparison with other measurement result using different measurement equipment. The measurement result in this review is only useful to be used in this review, for comparison between different IEMs measured using the same system.




After reading some reviews in Head-fi, I suspect that there might be more than 1 variant of tuning of RE800, that most probably not on purpose but could be due to production batch inconsistency. The demo unit from AV One Singapore sounds smooth bright and doesn’t seem to have the reported 7 kHz treble peak as reported by other reviewers. Some friends also share similar opinions that the demo unit from AV One Singapore does not suffer from the 7 kHz peak. My measurement also doesn’t show the 7 kHz peak. Therefore I suspect, there might be another variant of tuning besides the tuning of the demo unit that I reviewed, but I cannot confirm that because I never tried or measure the other variant of RE800 with the 7 kHz peak. 7 kHz treble peak is easily detectable and won’t go unnoticed. So the possibility of being mistaken about it is rather slim. My Sennheiser HD800 has 7 kHz treble peak, so I’m quite familiar with it. Although at this price level we expect a much more stringent and consistent quality control. Anyway, that is just my suspicion, and I might be wrong. And hopefully, the new RE800 with detachable cable will have consistent tuning and a more stringent quality control.

You can read some of the discussion about the 7 kHz peak here:
https://www.head-fi.org/f/threads/hifiman-re-800.831364/page-9#post-13616853

In general, I’m not a big fan of bright tonality tuning, so RE800 tuning as mentioned earlier, is not my cup of tea. But having said that it doesn’t mean that I never enjoyed RE800 or my other bright sounding IEMs. Bright IEMs tends to polarize towards a certain type of recordings, good on some and not so good on others. So I generally prefer all-rounder IEMs with more natural tuning. It does sound great with certain recordings such as a classical orchestra. But I prefer a more balanced tuning with fuller sounding midrange and bass. In this review, I also will try to review RE800 from the treble-head point of view, as I think it is a suitable IEM for treble-head. What I mean by treble-head is those who prefer bright, clear, airy, transparent sound with rather lean midrange and bass.

My 15 years old son has developed an interest in audio as well, and he has been involved in church audio setup. So I let him tried RE800 to get his opinion on the sound quality. He has no idea what is Hifiman RE800 and how much it cost. So we can say that his opinion is unbiased. After about an hour, he came back to me with this:



He said, that is roughly the frequency response of the RE800 that he observed. My measurement instrument is not reliable for frequency region above 10 kHz, so only useful for comparison of measurement below 10 kHz. From what I hear I believe the RE800 frequency response above 10 kHz is quite extended, not rolled-off as shown in the FR graph below. While for frequency below 10 kHz, my son’s estimation from what he heard is not very far from the measurement result. I’m quite impressed, he has good ears.




Being a relatively bright sounding IEM, RE800 handles treble and sibilant pretty well. Treble is smooth and nicely extended, and IMHO not the ear-piercing type of treble. Sibilant is well managed in the sense that it doesn't sound harsh or piercing. RE800 might not be the IEM of choice for those who allergic to sibilant, but treble-heads will most probably find the sibilant level is acceptable and still far from being annoying. Especially when paired with smooth sounding sources like my Geek Out 2A and Onkyo DP-X1, RE800 treble is golden.




Although RE800 bass is quick and has pretty good sub-bass extension. But bass punch lacks power and impact. I won't call the bass as anemic, but for me, it is not satisfying enough, especially when a potent bass punch is desirable. But for recordings that don't really demand punchy bass, such as classical music, RE800 bass sounds pretty good.

Midrange is clear and transparent but sounds rather lean, not the full-bodied type of midrange. All my friends that have tested the RE800 mostly mentioned about the midrange as being lean sounding, sometimes too lean to their liking. Someone even said the midrange sounds hollow for his recordings. For me, although I agree that the midrange sounds lean and transparent, but not at the level that I would call hollow. Midrange probably rather too lean for vocal lovers, and rather too bright for some pop recordings, but most vocal audiophile recordings that I've tested with RE800 actually sounds fine to me, in the sense that I still enjoy them with RE800. But generally, I agree that vocal is not RE800's forte. Classical orchestra, chamber music, and general acoustic instrumental recordings are what RE800 will truly shine. Again, it is a matter of personal preferences, but that would be my general recommendation for RE800.

Different ear tips might cause slight changes to the tonality as well. As you can see below, a generic large bore ear tips (as shown in the picture above) that I tested on RE800 actually sounds pretty good as it reduces the treble brightness slightly.




In summary, I perceived the sound quality of the demo unit of RE800 that I review as:
Moderately bright, clear and transparent, sparkling yet smooth sounding treble, lean clear midrange, lean bass with good sub-bass extension, fast bass but lack of bass punch, good bass and treble extension, fast transient, excellent detail retrieval and instrument separation.






Compared to DUNU DK-3001


RE800 perceived as slightly brighter with leaner midrange and bass. DK-3001 is slightly more forward sounding, with a bit more emphasize on the upper midrange. Bass sounds fuller on DK-3001, with more powerful punch and slam. DK-3001 bass is really good, effortless without being overpowering. Midrange body also sounds fuller and much better with vocal. RE800 bass is actually pretty good as well, especially the sub bass extension, but midbass part lacks body and punch power, and the smooth and clear midrange might be to lean for most vocal lovers. The resolution, detail retrieval, clarity, and transparency level are more or less similar. As you might have guessed, in my opinion, DK-3001 is the winner with a more 'spot-on' well-balanced tuning.





Compared to AK T8iE Mk2


AK T8iE Mk2 is the only single dynamic driver IEM that I have, that I think worth to be compared to RE800. The sonic signature of AK T8iE Mk2 is quite the opposite of RE800 sonic signature. AK T8iE Mk2 sounds warmer with fuller and stronger bass, fuller sounding midrange and smoother treble. Treble sparkle on AK T8iE Mk2 is not as sparkling as the RE800, and the smoother character of AK T8iE Mk2 treble is more sibilant friendly. When switching from RE800 to MK T8iE Mk2, I do miss the nice treble sparkle of RE800. But when playing vocal, AK T8iE MkII immediately takes the crown. Although AK T8iE Mk2 may sound warmer, but generally it is not a 'very' warm sounding IEM. AK T8iE Mk2 has just the right amount of warmness to the sounds to make general Pop recordings sound more pleasurable, without sacrificing the overall clarity. For my personal preference, AK T8iE Mk2 tuning is more suitable for me.




Build and Comfort
In my opinion, overall build quality is pretty good. Besides that 3.5mm jack that I feel unnecessarily too big for this small IEM, I don’t have any other complaint. I used it over the ear, therefore cable microphonic is not an issue. It is very small and comfortable to my ears.





In the discussion thread, some mentioned about the bass tuning port position that might get blocked unintentionally and caused a very high increased of the bass level, causing inconsistent sound quality. I think it is a valid concern even though I never experienced it myself. I guess placing the bass tuning port on the opposite side of the barrel might be a safer option.







Conclusion
Now the $699 question. Is it $699 good? Quite subjective, and not easy to answer that question. For me personally, the answer is no. Simply because I’m not a treble-head. But those who enjoy emphasized clarity and transparency might say yes. I really like the small size and the comfortable shape, but I prefer a fuller sounding midrange and bass. RE800 performs really well on certain area, but the tuning might not suits everyone.





Specifications:
Drivers: 9.2mm Dynamic Driver with Topology Diaphragm
Frequency response: 5 Hz – 20 kHz
Impedance: 60 Ohm
Sensitivity: 105 dB/mW





Equipment used in this review:

IEMs:
DUNU DN-2000
DUNU DK-3001
AK T8iE Mk2

DACs & DAPs:
Chord Mojo
Geek Out 2A
Onkyo DP-X1


Some recordings used in this review:

https://sg.creative.com/p/headphones-headsets/aurvana-trio

Discussion thread:
https://www.head-fi.org/threads/creative-aurvana-trio.875050/

Many thanks to Creative for the review sample of Creative Aurvana Trio! Aurvana Trio is the first hybrid IEM from Creative, combining Bio-cellulose dynamic driver as the woofer, and balanced armature drivers for the midrange and treble region. A triple drivers hybrid. I had a discussion with a friend from Creative about hybrid IEM, probably in 2016, at that time they didn't have any hybrid IEM in their portfolio. I'm glad that now they finally launched their first hybrid IEM. And what makes me excited most is for the fact that it is truly a game changer for Creative IEM line-up! I will explain later as of why I think it is a game changer.

Designing a hybrid IEM needs careful driver selection and tuning. I remember I bought some hybrid IEMs a few years back when the hype was just started, only to find them disappointing. Sometimes the dynamic driver doesn't have matching sound with the BA driver and together they just sound incoherent. I'm a bit allergic to the incoherent sound of multi-driver IEM, not only in the case of hybrid design but multi-driver IEM in general. This is why the number of drivers is not an indicator of sound quality. Sometime single driver IEM may sound better than poorly designed multi-driver IEM. It is quite a challenge to design a multi-driver IEM that sound coherent across the audible frequency spectrum.




Before getting into the detail, here is the summary, pros, and cons:

Pros:

• Balanced tuning, coherent sound, excellent bass quality, very good overall detail and clarity.
• Detachable cable (MMCX connector).
• No driver flex.

Cons:

• Only straight down wearing style, not designed for over the ear wearing style.
• No left and right marking on the cable. Need to memorize that the microphone is on the right driver when we detach the cable.

Suggestions for Improvement:

• Default cable feels rather too thin, relative to the size of the IEM. Slightly thicker, and better quality cable might improve overall handling experience. I suggest keeping the ground wire separated till the 3.5mm jack, instead of combining the ground wire on the Y split part of the cable.
• Straight down wearing style is not very suitable for activities with lots of movements. Therefore a universal housing design that can be used for both straight down and over the ear wearing style is preferably a better approach.

Recommendation:
Recommended for those looking for good all-rounder IEM for both music and movie with clear, smooth, balanced sound and a rather strong bass dynamic.
Recommended for those looking for clear sounding vocal but allergic to sibilant.
May not be suitable for both bass-head and treble-head, and those looking for flattering warm sound signature.






Sound Quality
It is always a challenge for me to describe the sound quality of an audio equipment accurately. Sometimes it is hard to differentiate between objective and subjective opinions. I believe a good review is a balance of both objective and subjective personal opinions of the reviewer. With a little bit of background in Pro Audio environment, my personal preference has been developed from frequent exposures of live setups and recordings. So sound reproduction that close to live performance sound has always been my preference. Meaning, generally balanced tonality from bass to treble, good detail and clarity, and dynamic (more on the bass dynamic) that sounds realistic. I’m not a fan of overly warm or analytical sound character, as well as other overly colored sound signature. I also dislike weak sounding bass. Our personal preference certainly varies between person to person, but I try my best to be consistent with my own, so hopefully, after reading some of my reviews, readers would be able to gauge their personal preference against mine.

Disclaimer:
Frequency response measurement in this review was done using MiniDSP UMIK-1 measurement microphone with a DIY acoustic coupler. Chord Mojo was used as the playback device. The DIY acoustic coupler is not an industry standard acoustic coupler, therefore the measurement result is not absolute, and shouldn’t be used for comparison with other measurement result using different measurement equipment. The measurement result in this review is only useful to be used in this review, for comparison between different IEMs measured using the same system.




Tonality
Aurvana Trio has well-balanced tuning across the audio spectrum, with mild emphasized on the bass. Since it comes with both silicone and foam ear tips, I encourage users to try the foam ear tips as well. I generally not a fan of foam ear tips, but Aurvana Trio sounds pretty good with the foam ear tips. The difference is just mild but worth the try. Using the stock foam ear tips, the overall sound signature is still similar, but I feel the treble presence increased a little bit. To my ears, the tonality using the foam ear tips is a touch brighter with slightly better clarity. There are various types of foam ear tips. Each type might affect the tonality slightly in different ways. I tried Comply T400, the bass level was reduced further as compared to the stock foam ear tips, but doesn’t sound as tight. SpinFit also sounds good with Aurvana Trio. A further experiment with various ear tips might worth the effort to get the sonic tuning that is closer to our personal preference. The sonic impressions here is based mostly on the stock silicone ear tips.

Frequency Response Using Different Ear Tips:



There is no annoying peaks or dips in Trio’s frequency response. It doesn’t sound warm or analytical, and there is no overemphasized on any frequency region besides the mild emphasize on the bass region. But the mild bass emphasize is done in a very nice way, and for me, the bass sounds really good. For treble-heads, probably the treble region is a tad softer than the bass, but IMHO, still in a pretty good balance with the mids and bass, and the treble extends pretty well. Try different ear tips like foam or SpinFit to improve the treble part (a little bit) if the treble felt a tad soft. Tonality is probably one of the most important aspects of the sound quality, and Creative has tuned Aurvana Trio really well. IMHO Trio is tuned to be an excellent all-rounder, it simply sounds good with all kind of recordings and genres that I played with it.

Left & Right Drivers Consistency:



It is worth mentioning that from my test, Aurvana Trio tonality is pretty immune to a high degree of change of amplifier output impedance. Some multi-drivers IEMs may change it’s tonality significantly when the output impedance of the amplifier change. From my measurement, changing from < 0.5 ohms output impedance (Chord Mojo) to around 20 ohms (using DIY 20 ohms adapter) didn’t cause any significant changes to the frequency response. What it means in a practical way is, Aurvana Trio is a player-friendly IEM that doesn’t require any special matching to sound best. It will simply sound good from practically any source. I’ve tested it with Samsung Galaxy S7, Lenovo Tab 4 Plus tablet, ASUS laptop, Xduoo X10, Onkyo DP-X1, Light Harmonic Geek Out 2A, and Chord Mojo. Aurvana Trio sounds great with all of those devices. Better DAC like Chord Mojo obviously sounds better than my ASUS laptop, and Trio will just scale accordingly with the player.




Bass is probably one of the most addictive characters of Aurvana Trio, especially if you love realistic sounding bass. Bass is fast, punchy, textured, and extends deep into sub-bass territory. Trio is capable to produce very good quality bass, and not the low quality, slow & textureless boomy kind of bass. The bass comes out only when it is called for, not the ever-present annoying bass type. Although bass is a tad prominent, in my opinion, Trio is not a bassy IEM, and the bass level probably won't satisfy bass-heads, but Trio has a life-like bass dynamic that mimics the dynamic of bass in live performance. It is the bass dynamic that I often crave from Trio and I often miss from other IEMs. Bass slam might be felt a little too strong for those who prefer lighter bass, but for me, Trio bass is simply awesome and addictive. The Trio ‘explosive’ bass makes watching action movies more exciting and realistic, while the sub-bass rumble and weight help to present drums and percussions with great realism. Creative seems to have carefully chosen a very high-quality Bio-cellulose dynamic driver for Aurvana Trio.

Midrange is close to the perfectly balanced midrange. It is not warm and also not thin sounding. To my ears, the midrange sounds accurate without any obvious coloration, probably just a slight touch of warmness. The mids is also the part of the tonality that most agreeable to everyone who has tried Trio and shared their opinions about Trio with me. I haven’t heard anyone complain about the midrange so far, mostly said the midrange sounds natural on vocal and other instruments. Midrange sounds clear and detailed, yet never sounded analytical. It has the right amount of fullness on vocal without making vocal sounds too fat. The first 3 tracks of my regular test tracks are violin recordings from different artist and record label. Besides vocal, violin recordings are my reference for observing midrange purity, and Aurvana Trio passed all my midrange test with flying colors. The other important note on the midrange is the immunity to sibilant. Trio is highly immune to sibilant without sacrificing vocal clarity and detail. Just play all your vocal tracks on Aurvana Trio, and you will be amazed how well Trio handles sibilant while keeping vocal sounds clear and detailed.

Treble sounds silky smooth with good upper treble extension, but level wise it is not for the treble-head. It is slightly less prominent than the bass, but the treble never sounded lacking or dull. Treble quality is actually very good, musically tuned, smooth, transparent, and blends beautifully with the midrange. As some of you might have noticed from my other reviews, I’m not a treble-head and not a fan of overly hyped treble. I consider my Sennheiser HD800 and Beyerdynamic T1 are bright sounding headphones. Trio treble tuning is just right for me. It is the type of smooth treble that won’t cause ears fatigue even for a long period of listening. But for treble-head who prefer HD800 or T1 level of treble might feel Trio treble is a bit too soft for them.




Besides the tonality, I’m pretty impressed with the laser focus 3D imaging of Aurvana Trio. Instrument separation and positioning are impressively clear and focused. Although the stereo imaging is very vivid and impressive, the perceived size of spaciousness is more towards the intimate side. The perceived illusion of spaciousness is not very big and spacious, but also far from sounding congested. Stereo imaging is impressive, and the illusion of spaciousness is pretty good, just don’t expect it to give the Sennheiser HD800 level of perceived spaciousness. Binaural recording sounds spacious and realistic, but common closed miked pop recordings are as expected, like most IEMs, still sound in the head.

Detail and clarity of Aurvana Trio are excellent. Creative has made the right decision in the design to place the 2 BA drivers right at the nozzle end, to make it as close as possible to the eardrum and avoiding unnecessary reflection from housing or nozzle that might occur when placing the BA drivers inside the IEM housing before the nozzle. The result of the correct placement of the BA drivers is amazing detail and clarity with very minimum sound coloration.




On top of that, as mentioned earlier, as a multi-driver IEM, Trio sounds very coherent across the audio spectrum. The 3 drivers in Trio blends really well to create a coherent sound that is close to the coherency level of a single driver IEM. So far I never heard there is any frequency region that stands out by itself or sounds awkwardly different from another region in the spectrum. This is one very important aspect of multi-driver IEM tuning.


Summary of Aurvana Trio sound signature:
Well balanced tuning with mild emphasize on bass, awesome life-like dynamic rarely heard from an IEM in this price level, detailed and natural sounding vocal with high immunity to sibilant, with vivid and laser focus instrument separation and 3D imaging. A great all-rounder for both music and movies.

Aurvana Trio might not be suitable for those who are looking for warm sound signature, and for treble-heads who prefer to have bright and sparkling trebles. But other than that, it is an easy recommendation for most people.






Comparisons:

For comparisons I compared Aurvana Trio with 4 well known triple hybrid (Dual BA + 1 Dynamic) IEMs:
1MORE's Triple Driver
iBasso IT03
DUNU DN-1000
DUNU DN-2000


1MORE's Triple Driver


When I see Aurvana Trio for the first time, it immediately reminds me of 1MORE's Triple Driver. Those 2 are excellent IEMs in my book and definitely are among the best value IEMs in the market. They are not cheap, but IMHO their sound quality is way above their price tags. Comparing the 2, after hours of listening of many albums from different genres, considering different personal preferences people might have, I would say it is more or less a tie. I personally, if I have to choose between the two, I will choose Aurvana Trio, as it is closer to my personal preference of tuning. To be more specific, Trio has better, deeper and more dynamic bass than 1MORE's Triple Driver.



There are some similarities in tuning between the two, both sound very balanced tonally, especially around the midrange area. Aurvana Trio has slightly stronger and deeper bass, while the 1MORE's Triple Driver has slightly brighter treble and perceived clarity. So to choose between the two is really boils down to personal preference.



For example, for bass rich track such as ‘I Will Remember’ from Toto, where it begins with a such grand big sounding drum, 1MORE's Triple Driver is not able to deliver the sub bass part to create the big and grand illusion of the drum sound, that in my opinion is critical for that kind of track. Sci-Fi movies such as Jurassic Park requires realistic sub-bass rumble to raise goosebumps. For those cases, Aurvana Trio with its realistic sounding bass simply outshines 1MORE's Triple Driver. But for other cases where higher perceived of clarity is desirable, 1MORE's Triple Driver might be preferable.




iBasso IT03


Thanks to Zeppelin & Co. for providing the demo set of iBasso IT03 for reviewing purpose!
I perceived IT03 as having a more V shape tuning compared to Trio. IT03 has more bass and a more sparkling treble. The midrange sounds thinner and slightly more recessed in comparison to Trio. IT03 treble would probably satisfy treble-head better as the treble sounds richer and more sparkling with greater perceived clarity. But in my opinion vocal lovers would prefer Trio’s smoother and fuller sounding midrange. Both are great IEMs, with great detail and clarity, good dynamic and very lively sounding. I personally quite like IT03, but more for instrumental and orchestra recordings, as the V shape tuning brings extra liveliness to the music. But I won’t call IT03 an all-rounder IEM. and definitely not my IEM of choice for vocal. I think tuning wise, Trio tonality is more natural and sounds much better on vocal. Especially for long session listening, the smoother and less hyped treble of Trio is more friendly to the ears to avoid listening fatigue. As you might have predicted, personally I prefer Aurvana Trio over iBasso IT03 due to the more linear tuning.




DUNU DN-1000 and DN-2000


Comparing with DUNU DN-1000 and DN-2000, sound signature wise Aurvana Trio is much closer to the DN-2000. Trio is actually sounds like a close variant of DN-2000. But sensitivity wise Trio is closer to DN-1000. DN-2000 is about 4-5 dB more sensitive (required less volume) than Trio. In summary, Trio is better than DN-1000 for a more coherent sound and closer to natural tonality. Not by a great margin, but to my ears Trio is better. And between Trio and DN-2000, it is a close call, and in my opinion, they are in the same league. DN-2000 is better for those who prefer lighter bass. For me who prefer the more ‘life-like’ bass, I prefer Aurvana Trio.

On my measurement graph below, DN-1000 seems to have much more bass than Trio, but to what my ears perceived, DN-1000 bass level is only slightly higher and fatter than Trio. DN-1000 midrange sounds rather thinner and more analytical than Trio. Vocal sounds smoother and a touch warmer on Trio. Treble is more prominent and sparkling on DN-1000. While Trio treble is smoother and less analytical. For DN-1000, I use JVC EP-FX8 ear tips, not the stock DUNU ear tips. Reasons explained in my DN-1000 review, as the JVC ear tips make DN-1000 sounds better, less bright than the stock ear tips. Perceived clarity is higher on DN-1000, but the treble and bass regions are slightly less coherent than Trio. The 3 drivers in Trio sound very coherent, producing a sound like coming from a very good single driver IEM.




From the FR graph below, although the DN-2000 sub-bass seems to be slightly more than the Trio, from what I perceived, Trio bass is actually slightly fatter, better sub-bass rumble, and better overall bass dynamic. The midrange or both Trio and DN-2000 is pretty close. Flat smooth detailed type of midrange which is very neutral sounding to my ears. Trio’s midrange is slightly fatter and also has greater depth and dynamic. From the measurement, it seems that Trio sounds brighter than DN-2000, but in fact, it is not. Perceived brightness is pretty close, and sometime DN-2000 may sound a tad brighter. But most important is that they share a similar type of treble sound signature, the smooth neutral type that never hypes itself unnecessarily, and pretty immune from sibilant. Sensitivity wise, although on paper both have pretty close sensitivity, in reality Trio is less sensitive than DN-2000. On Chord Mojo I have to adjust around 4 levels to match the volume. That means switching from DN-2000 to Trio, I have to increase the Chord Mojo volume by 4 clicks (around 4 dB) to achieve similar midrange loudness. The bass does sound a few dB louder on Trio for the same midrange loudness. Treble loudness surprisingly perceived as similar regardless of what is shown on my measurement. Most probably due to the slightly louder bass of Trio my ears perceived the bass - treble balance as balanced. But the most prominent difference is the bass, Trio bass has stronger slam and dynamic than DN-2000, giving a better sense of depth and liveliness. As you might know, I truly like DN-2000 and have used it as my reference IEM for flat tonality for a few years. After switching between the two back and forth frequently, I have to say that I do prefer the Aurvana Trio slightly better than my old favorite DN-2000. This is truly a great achievement of Aurvana Trio. DN-2000 is a great neutral sounding IEM that has very low coloration to the sound, and Trio now improves that sounds signature with better, more ‘life-like’ dynamic.






Design and Comfort
Generally, I prefer ‘over the ears’ wearing style for IEM. Hopefully, next Aurvana hybrid can be worn over the ear. So far I don't have any major complaint from the overall design. Fit and comfort are good for me. The IEM housing also feels solid and durable.



In my opinion, these days many audiophiles take consideration of the look and finish of an IEM, and not only the sound quality of it. I hope Creative would consider to ‘modernize’ the utilitarian design of their IEM, and use less plastic. 1More Triple Driver and DUNU for example (and many other brands), use more metal than plastic for their IEMs to make it feel more solid and luxurious. I personally don’t mind good quality plastic, as it is generally lighter than metal, but the look and feel of metal IEMs do have its own attractiveness to it.

As mentioned earlier, I do feel the cable is too thin, and I prefer the left and right ground wire to be independent to reduce crosstalk, not joined at Y split part of the cable. I hope Creative would come up with better quality MMCX cable for Trio of the next model. Measured DC resistance of the cable is around 1 ohm which is normal for thin IEM cable.




The microphone sounds decent and usable, but better sounding microphone with better clarity would be nice.

As for ear tips size, any common ear tips with the bore diameter around 4.5mm can be used for Aurvana Trio






Conclusion:
The best test for IEM (and any audio product) is a long period of use and listening. After around 3 weeks with Aurvana Trio, and using it almost daily, I found myself keep coming for it. I find Trio competes really well with other well known good performance triple hybrid in the market such as the 1More Triple Driver, iBasso IT03, DUNU DN-1000, and DUNU DN-2000 that I used in this review for comparison. And I found myself liking Aurvana Trio the most in comparison with those IEMs. And that’s not a small achievement. In the beginning, I mentioned that Aurvana Trio is, in my opinion, a game changer. Now I will tell you why. In the past, I think I’ve tried all models in the Aurvana line, and frankly, I’m not a fan to any of them. Aurvana Trio is the first model in Aurvana product line that in my opinion sounds really good, and now I’m a huge fan of Aurvana Trio. That’s why I think it is truly a game changer for Creative Aurvana product line. If you’re looking for an excellent triple hybrid IEM under $300, Aurvana Trio will be among the top few on my recommendation list. At this price (US$ 150), Aurvana Trio is really a no-brainer and an easy recommendation to everyone.

Kudos to Creative!




SPECIFICATIONS
• Drivers:
2x balanced armature drivers
1 x 10mm dynamic driver (Neodymium magnet with Bio-cellulose diaphragm)

- Frequency response 5 Hz – 40 kHz
- Impedance 16 Ohm
- Sensitivity (1 kHz) 103 dB/mW

• Inline Microphone MEMS microphone
- Frequency response 100 Hz – 10 kHz
- Impedance <200 Ohm
- Sensitivity (1 kHz) -42 dBV/Pa
- Supports iOS/Android devices with 3.5mm headphones out, and PC/Mac with hybrid (4-pole) audio port
• Product Weight 19 g / 0.7 oz


PACKAGE CONTENTS
Aurvana Trio in-ear headphones
3 pairs silicone dome tips (S, M, L)
1 pair memory foam tip
1 compact carry case
1 airplane adapter






Equipment used in this review:

IEMs:
1MORE's Triple Driver
iBasso IT03
DUNU DN-1000
DUNU DN-2000

DAPs & DACs:
Chord Mojo
Geek Out 2A
Onkyo DP-X1
Xduoo X10




Some recordings used in this review:

Shortest description I can give for Audio-Technica ATH-ADX5000 sound signature is, Glorious! It is one of the few headphones that I’ve tried, that makes me want to listen to more music.

Many thanks to Audio-Technica Singapore for the loan of Audio-Technica ATH-ADX5000 for reviewing purpose!
http://www.audio-technica.com/cms/headphones/13caf776f0ed2aa4/index.html/




Pros:
Superb detail and transparency.
Excellent transient and dynamic. Faster and tighter than both HD800 and T1.
Natural tuning, highly recommended for Pro Audio applications.

Cons:
Headband creaks.
No shorter cable included, only one long (3m) cable with proprietary A2DC connectors.

Suggestions for Improvement:
To fix the creaking headband.
To include shorter cable and balanced cable.

Recommendation:
Recommended for those who are looking for very detailed and transparent sounding headphone with laser focus instrument separation and imaging.
Not recommended for those who are looking for smooth and warm sounding headphone.





Sound Quality
Perceived as slightly on the brighter side of neutral, but overall pretty natural sounding with very minimum coloration.
Extremely wide frequency response. The sub-bass and upper treble extensions are incredible.
Extremely fast transient with good dynamic.
Superb detail extraction and very resolving.
Lean on the analytical side but in a very good and musical way.

I would put ATH-ADX5000 in the family of Sennheiser HD800 and Beyerdynamic T1 sound signature category. Rather on the brighter side of neutral with excellent transparency, clarity, and detail. Clearly not in the warm headphones category. Detail retrieval and micro-dynamic are probably the biggest strength of ATH-ADX5000. Very realistic presentation from the very high level of detail. I always think that my HD800 and T1 are very good in detail retrieval, but ATH-ADX5000 beats them both in revealing micro details and micro-dynamics.

Thomas Örnberg's Blue Five - Black Beauty is one of the test track that I often use for treble peak test. And I’m glad to say that Audio-Technica ATH-ADX5000 performs pretty well playing the Black Beauty. Being slightly on the brighter side of neutral it does sometimes slightly overemphasized the trumpet, but it is still below my threshold for ‘peaky treble’.

I usually not a big fan of bright sounding headphones, because they usually sound thin around the midrange and bass. Fortunately, ATH-ADX5000 doesn’t sound thin. It has a good level of tonal density around the midrange and bass. Vocal presented in a natural manner, not too thin and not overly thick. I played my regular vocal test tracks from ‘The World Greatest Audiophile Vocal Recording’ by Chesky Records on ATH-ADX5000, vocal reproduction was very natural, and close to perfect to me. Bass is tight with good weight, punch, and beautifully textured. The sub-bass extension is simply awesome. The sub-bass from Jurassic Park soundtracks sounds deep and tight with realistic sub-bass rumble. It has very good quality bass, fast attack and very well controlled. But the bass level is more on the neutral side and far from being bass heavy.

I would give 5 stars for the sound quality of ATH-ADX5000. It is clearly in the league of highly recommended flagship headphones.





Comparisons

Sennheiser HD800 & HD800S
Most of the comparisons below were done using Audio-Technica AT-HA5050H for the desktop setup, and Chord Mojo for the portable setup. At 100 dB/mW sensitivity, the ATH-ADX5000 has about the same sensitivity as the HD800. So volume setting is about comparable between the 2, with ATH-ADX5000 only sounds a bit louder at the same volume level. So as a high impedance headphone, ATH-ADX5000 is relatively easy to drive.

Having HD800 for many years, although I admit it is a great headphone, but to be honest I’m not a great fan of it, especially when listening to vocal. As I would like to have more tonal density around the midrange and bass area from HD800. I was hoping HD800S gives the improvement that I’ve been waiting for HD800, but unfortunately, it is not there yet. HD800S less bright tonality is surely a welcome change, but the bass quality is not as tight, textured, and authoritative as I would like to hear from a headphone in that price range.



Comparing the 3 great headphones, HD800, HD800S, and Audio-Technica ATH-ADX5000, I choose the Audio-Technica ATH-ADX5000 as the winner for sound quality. While HD800 and HD800S win in the comfort department. In my opinion they are in the same family of tuning, clear, transparent, and revealing type of sound signature. Meaning, those who like HD800 type of sound signature would most probably like Audio-Technica ATH-ADX5000. ATH-ADX5000 has about the same perceived treble brightness as HD800. Probably in between HD800 and HD800S, closer to HD800. When listening to saxophone tracks, ATH-ADX5000 sounds more natural than HD800. HD800 sometime may sound rather thin and ‘shouty’ on saxophone. ATH-ADX5000 has more tonal density in the mids and bass than HD800. Not too much, just nice to give more weight to the overall sound. Bass on the ATH-ADX5000 sounds punchier, tighter, with more dynamic than HD800. Although it is debatable if HD800 is a good headphone for vocal or not, for me it is clearly not my headphone of choice for vocal. I prefer HD800 for listening classical orchestras. But ATH-ADX5000 is different. Although it is not those warm sounding headphones that make vocal sounds full-bodied and lush, ATH-ADX5000 performs very well on vocal, IMHO better than HD800. HD800 vocal generally sounds rather thin for me, while ATH-ADX5000 vocal sounds fuller and has the right amount of thickness and weight while maintaining the high level of clarity and detail. Overall vocal just sounds more accurate and more natural on ATH-ADX5000.

The main improvement I hear from ATH-ADX5000 over HD800 and HD800S is the dynamic and tonal density around the bass and midrange area. Bass has more punch, faster, and tighter with better texture. The midrange has more weight and body, and sounds more natural to my ears. I do feel ATH-ADX5000 has faster transient, more detail extraction, and has better overall dynamic than both HD800 and HD800S. Percussions sound more realistic with richer micro details on ATH-ADX5000. Piano sound has more weight, dynamic, and better percussive feeling to it. In short, ATH-ADX5000 is like HD800 with extra oomph. When comparing the 3 headphones with many different types of recordings, I keep wanting to go back to ATH-ADX5000 as it gives stronger musical engagement than HD800 and HD800S. To my ears, ATH-ADX5000 is the winner here.




Beyerdynamic T1 (First Generation)
My T1 sounds smoother with more polite presentation (less dynamic) compared to ATH-ADX5000. ATH-ADX500 has more sparkling treble, therefore perceived as slightly brighter. ATH-ADX500 is also faster in transient and can be perceived as more aggressive and lively sounding than T1. ATH-ADX5000 wins in dynamic and transient and can be perceived as more engaging than T1. Bass and percussions sound weightier with more realistic dynamic on ATH-ADX5000. T1 bass is simply not as good and as realistic as ATH-ADX5000 fast and textured bass. But for the treble part, I prefer the T1 smoother treble. With some bright recordings, ATH-ADX5000 may sound a bit too bright, while T1 sounds friendlier to the ears. Overall I still prefer the ATH-ADX5000, especially for listening to audiophiles recordings and classical orchestra. Instrument separation is way better and more distinct on ATH-ADX5000, that makes classical orchestra sounds more lively and realistic. In summary, compared to Beyerdynamic T1, ATH-ADX5000 sounds more transparent and more realistic due to the higher level of detail, resolution, clarity, and dynamic.


Focal Utopia
I had a chance to compare ATH-ADX5000 with Focal Utopia. Utopia sounds less bright, slightly smoother and warmer while having pretty close level of speed, detail, transparency, and dynamic. ADX5000 has more sparkling treble and may be perceived as slightly more transparent. Utopia has thicker tonal density, and to me, more musically engaging especially with vocals. Utopia tuning is more friendly to the ears, makes it a better all-rounder than the ATH-ADX5000. While ATH-ADX5000 may be perceived to have a bit faster transient, probably due to the brighter tonality. My personal preference for tonality is closer to Focal Utopia, but at much lower price the ATH-ADX5000 competes pretty well with Utopia, especially in the detail, clarity, speed, and dynamic.





Comfort & Build Quality
Audio-Technica ATH-ADX5000 is quite lightweight and comfortable. I have no issue wearing it for a long listening session. But when compared to Sennheiser HD800, HD800 with deeper earcups and unique ergonomic does feel more comfortable than Audio-Technica ATH-ADX5000. The Audio-Technica ATH-ADX5000 earcups are shallower than HD800 earcups and touch my pinae slightly, but so far doesn’t cause any irritating feeling even after a long session. From what I feel the headband clamp is rather tight but not too tight. Tighter than the ATH-R70x.Probably because it is still new. I’m ok with the clamping force, but I guess some people might prefer a slightly less tight headband. My son who helped me to test it also said he is ok with the clamping force. I would say the overall comfort level is good.



Design wise, ATH-ADX5000 reminds me of ATH-R70x that I reviewed last year. It shares the R70x industrial utilitarian style, but overall ATH-ADX5000 feels more solidly built. At only around 270 grams (headphone only), ATH-ADX5000 is a lightweight headphone.




For build quality, I only have 1 concern, the headband creaks. Not too bad, but occasionally can be a bit annoying. I would say for a headphone at this price level, the creaking headband is not acceptable. Hopefully Audio-Technica will fix it soon.

The A2DC connector provides tight and secure connection, seems better than other type of headphone cable connectors. Time will tell. I just hope that Audio-Technica will include shorter cable. The 3m included cable is too long for desktop use. And at the moment not easy to get replacement cable with the A2DC connectors.





ATH-ADX5000 comes with a fairly large suitcase style headphone case. I imagine smaller case might be more useful for Pro Audio people to travel with ATH-ADX5000. But it is not a big deal to get smaller headphone if necessary.






DAC and Amplifier pairings
ATH-ADX5000 is relatively easy to drive. Any system good for HD800 will most probably pairs well with ATH-ADX5000. At rather loud listening level, I measured max output of the headphone amp at more or less around 1.2 Vrms. Most DAPs and DACs will have no problem to output 1.2 Vrms. So there is no special requirement to drive ATH-ADX5000 to achieve sufficient loudness. Most desktop Amp or even USB DAC Amp will be sufficient. But as expected, I personally would avoid analytical DAC Amp such as my ifi micro iDSD & Questyle CMA600i. The Audio-Technica AT-HA5050H pairs wonderfully with ATH-ADX5000. So are my Light Harmonic Geek Pulse XFi and Geek Out 2A.





Summary
Audio-Technica did it again. ATH-ADX5000 is a serious contender to other flagship headphones. Personally, I think it is more competent than the widely acclaimed Sennheiser HD800 and Beyerdynamic T1, which is I consider as a big achievement for any headphone. ATH-ADX5000 ability to resolve details brings HD audio recordings to the next level of auditory experience. It is one of the most revealing headphones I ever tried. The large 58mm Tungsten coated diaphragm driver is capable to deliver a realistic level of dynamic and detail rarely heard from other headphones in this price category. ATH-ADX5000 deserves the place as a flagship reference headphone. Kudos Audio-Technica!




Specifications:
Type : Open-back dynamic
Driver Diameter : 58 mm
Frequency Response : 5 – 50,000 Hz
Maximum Input Power : 1,000 mw
Sensitivity : 100 dB/mW
Impedance : 420 ohms
Weight : 270 g
Cable : Detachable 3.0 m (9.8') cable with A2DC connectors
Connector : 6.3 mm (1/4") gold-plated stereo plug
Accessories Included : Hard carrying case


Equipment used in this review:
Headphones:
Beyerdynamic T1
Focal Utopia
Sennheiser HD800
Sennheiser HD800S

DACs & Headphone Amplifiers:
Audio-Technica AT-HA5050H
Chord Mojo
LH Geek Pulse XFi
LH Geek Out 2A
ifi micro iDSD
Questyle CMA600i


Some recordings used in this review:

Op-Amp is a very popular component in almost any electronic equipment these days. A small and versatile amplifier chip for various applications including audio. Different amplifier design resulting different amplifier characteristic such as noise, THD, slew rate, etc. The different characteristic translates to a different sonic characteristic in audio applications. Therefore, each op-amp has their own sonic signature.

There is a long debate over op-amp as a small chip amplifier over the larger discrete amplifier circuit that uses discrete components. Both have their own pros and cons, and I personally don’t really care much about it. As long as the amp gives good measurement result and sounds good, it doesn’t really matter whether it is in a form of a chip or discrete circuitry.

Before I continue with the review, I would like to say a very big thanks to Burson Audio for providing me with review sample of the V5i Supreme Sound Op-Amp!

Burson V5i is supposedly the miniaturized version of their V5 discrete Op-Amp, therefore it is expected to share the sound signature of its bigger brother the V5. While Burson V5 is a fully discrete Op-Amp, V5i is a hybrid audio opamp, which is both partially IC and discrete. The FET circuitry has been integrated in IC form while some other components are discrete.

Product webpage:
https://www.bursonaudio.com/products/supreme-sound-opamp-v5i/





Let’s get to the summary before we discuss it in more detail:

Pros:
Consistent low THD in both low gain (0 dB) and high gain (20 dB).
Metal shielded for better EMI immunity.
Smaller size than the fully discrete V4 and V5, easier to fit in tight spaces.
Cheaper than both Burson V4 & V5.
Lifetime Warranty.

Cons:
Slightly lower SNR at high gain (20 dB) as compared to other Op-Amps in the test.
Found to be not compatible to replace NJM2114D on the DAC I/V stage of Creative Sound Blaster X7.

Suggestions for Improvements:
Improve SNR at high gain.

Recommendation:
Clarity, speed, and transparency are the main sonic signature of V5i, therefore when improvement in detail and clarity department is desirable, V5i is recommended. V5i is a neutral sounding Op-Amp. If a certain type of coloration is desirable, such as adding warmness to the sound quality, V5i may not be the right choice. But when reducing coloration from the sound quality is the goal, V5i is a good choice. For example when a system sounds too mellow, veiled sounding, and lacking speed and clarity, swapping the existing Op-Amp with V5i may give it an extra zest, and improve the overall transparency.



Precautions:
For those who have some knowledge about Op-Amp and its characteristic, it is recommended to read the datasheet of the V5i Op-Amp:
https://drive.google.com/file/d/0Bxn23njCr8VCWGh4bHBZYTVLYWs/view

Check the followings before replacing any Op-Amp in your equipment:
Number of channel of the existing Op-Amp, single or dual channels Op-Amp.
Supply voltage of the existing Op-Amp should be within the operational range of the V5i Op-Amp (between ±5V to ±16V)

During the test, I found that V5i was not stable (hotter than normal) and exhibit a high level of noise when it was used to replace NJM2114D on the DAC I/V stage of Creative Sound Blaster X7. But it worked well replacing the LME49710, which is at the differential to single conversion stage of the SB X7 DAC. Only one case so far, therefore I cannot jump into conclusion that V5i is not suitable for DAC I/V stage until it is proven so with more than just 1 DAC. And I don’t have other DAC with replaceable Op-Amp on the I/V stage to test it. So this is just a precaution if V5i is to be used on DAC I/V stage.



Equipment
Op-Amp performance is highly dependent on the circuit design, power supply, etc. Therefore there is no straight answer if a certain Op-Amp will perform well in a given setup or equipment. The same Op-Amp may perform differently in a different circuit, therefore read Op-Amp reviews with a grain of salt.



I did Op-Amps comparisons in the past, and the latest one was when I reviewed Creative SB X7:
https://www.head-fi.org/f/threads/c...iled-review-impressions.756102/#post_11347704

To avoid overly lengthy review, I limit the comparisons of V5i to some well known Op-Amps. I also borrowed Burson V4 and V5 from a friend of mine for comparison.

Initially, I planned to use 3 equipment for V5i review:
Violectric HPA V200
Fiio E12DIY
Creative Sound Blaster X7

In the end, I used only the Fiio E12DIY and HPA V200 for listening test, as the headphone output of those amps is noticeably quieter than the SB X7, therefore it is easier for me to observe minute differences with a quieter background. For headphones & IEMs, I used mostly Beyerdynamic T1 (1st gen.) as monitoring headphones, DUNU DN-2000J, DUNU DK-3001, and AK T8iE Mk2 are the 3 most used IEMs during the comparisons.



Sound Quality
To be honest, comparing the sound quality of Op-Amps is not easy, at least for me. The differences that we need to observe are tiny, and usually, it is more of an accumulation of impressions over time. So please bear in mind that differences described below are in the order of small degree of differences.



Burson V5i can be considered a neutral sounding Op-Amp with almost no noticeable coloration in the sonic character. Clarity, transparency, speed, and instrument separation are the main sonic characters of the Op-Amp. There is a tiny bit of emphasis on treble sparkle and ‘s-es’ on vocal, giving the impression of enhanced clarity. As expected, sibilant on the vocal recording will also very slightly more emphasized, just very slightly, and nothing to worry about it. I don’t perceive V5i as having super silky smooth treble, but also not the harsh and grainy type. In comparison to V4 and V5, both have a tad smoother sounding treble than V5i. Bass and mids are neutral sounding with good speed and texture. V5i has fast transient, and it seems help to improve the detail and resolution. I really like the fast transient of V5i, especially for percussions. Hits and attacks of the percussion instruments sound more realistic than other chip Op-Amps in the test, and bass note has good texture on V5i. Detail resolving capability is very good, therefore it is quite a revealing Op-Amp. I think what important to take note here is the treble character. If reducing sibilant is the goal, V5i may not help. But as mentioned earlier, when improving clarity and transparency are the objective, V5i is highly recommended.



Comparisons to Burson V4 and V5
Thanks to my friend Siu who lend me Burson V4 and V5 for comparisons. As mentioned earlier, differences in sound quality between Op-Amps are not very easy to be observed. In general, Burson V4, V5, and V5i to my ears sound pretty close, especially between V5 and V5i. They share a lot of similarities, like transient, resolution, and dynamic which are pretty close in my observation. All three of them have the clear and transparent sonic character, and not the warm and mellow type. Compared to V5i and V5, V4 has a tad thicker and fuller sounding mids and bass. V4 can be perceived as slightly more organic sounding, while V5 and V5i may be perceived as having slightly more clarity and resolution. The V4 and V5 may sound slightly more dynamic than V5i, while v5i may sound as having a tad higher level of clarity and also slightly sound snappier. V5 sounds like it has the dynamic of V4 and the clarity of V5i. IMHO V5 is probably the better one of the three, excellent dynamic with good resolution and sounds quite refined. But to be honest, the differences are very subtle, at the level that I may not pass a blind test to differentiate the three. More like of an accumulation of impressions after listening to them for a long period.

My personal preference based on the equipment that I used to test them, I like the V4 and V5 more than V5i for analytical sounding headphones and IEMs, where they benefit from the smoother treble of V4 and V5. But with warmer sounding headphone and IEM, V5i performs really good and might be the preferred Op-Amp of the 3.





Comparisons with other IC Op-Amps

AD797 is probably the closest to V5i clarity and transparency. It is fast, snappy, and transparent sounding. To be honest I had a hard time to differentiate the two. V5i is still a bit better in instrument separation, especially in a busy and congested track, I can hear slightly better separation with V5i. Also on percussions, V5i sounds slightly faster and more realistic. In general they both shares many similarities in sound signature with V5i wins by a slight margin, especially in transparency department. Personally, I do prefer V5i in comparison to AD797.

OPA627 sounds smooth and neutral. The perceived bass and midrange ‘fatness’ or ‘fullness’ are similar between OPA627 and V5i, both are not fat sounding Op-Amps, for example, in comparison to OPA827. The difference between OPA627 and V5i is more on the treble quality where OPA627 sounds a tad smoother than V5i, while V5i has a more lively sparkle on the treble. OPA627 treble is actually pretty close to V5 treble. V5i also sounds a bit faster and snappier than OPA627, transient and attack are more pronounced on V5i. I perceived OPA627 as smoother and more polite sounding, while V5i is a bit more aggressive and dynamic in comparison. My personal preference is more on the V5i.



OPA827 is one of my favorite Op-Amp especially for matching with analytical IEMs. It is pretty much OPA627 with fatter and fuller bass and midrange. Treble may be perceived as a tad softer and smoother than V5i, with fuller mids and fatter bass. When a system needs a little bass boost, OPA827 might be a good choice. As expected, V5i wins slightly in the transparency department.

OPA604 is the most polite sounding from all the Op-Amps I tried, treble is very smooth and perceived as softer than other Op-Amps that I’ve tested. I perceived OPA604 as a tad mellow sounding, kinda the opposite of the lively and sparkling V5i. For long session listening OPA604 sonic signature probably helps to avoid ears fatigue, but sometimes may sound less lively. Those who prefer smooth and intimate sounding vocal might like the OPA604 sound signature. But as always, the overall result is always depending on system matching and personal preference.



Measurement
I need to make a disclaimer here that my measurement shouldn’t be considered as accurate as manufacturer measurement, therefore it is not to be compared with manufacturer specification or other measurements. The objective of the measurement is only to compare the V5i with other Op-Amps, measured in the same system using the same equipment. Besides that, the performance of the Op-Amp will also greatly affected by the circuit design where it is installed. Basically, a particular Op-Amp might give different measurement result when it is installed in different circuit or equipment.

For the measurement equipment, I use QuantAsylum QA401 Audio Analyzer:
https://quantasylum.com/products/qa401-audio-analyzer



Fiio E12DIY gives the best measurement result, generally lower THD and higher SNR than HPA V200 and SB X7, therefore measurement result from Fiio E12DIY will be used for the THD and SNR comparison between Op-Amps. The supply voltage for the Op-Amp in Fiio E12DIY is ±11V (Total 22 volts). I will also share some measurement result from HPA V200 and Sound Blaster X7 for observation purposes.

Since the measurement is from the headphone output of the headphone amplifiers, I use DIY coaxial cables with 33 ohms resistor terminated inside the 3.5mm jack, to simulate headphone load.

There are many parameters that can be measured from an Op-Amp, and it requires lab grade measurement instruments and lots of time to measure them all. Therefore, due to the limitation of my measurement instrument, and not to make this review a long and detailed lab report, I only did THD and SNR observations on 0 dB and 20 dB gain, at different output level of the 1 kHz signal, which I think is good enough to see some fundamental differences between the Op-Amps.

Before we get into the number and graphs, here is the summary of the observations:

• V5i THD performance is good, consistently low THD on both low gain (0 dB) and high gain (20 dB). This means that we can expect consistent sound quality from low to high gain application.
• SNR at high gain is slightly lower than other Op-Amps in the test. Therefore for high gain and low noise application, V5i is not the best option.

THD Table:


SNR Table (SNR measurement is ‘A’ weighted):


200mV, 50mV, and 1V Measurement
The first measurement is comparing THD and SNR between low and high gain at the same output voltage, which is 200mV. 200mV is roughly around the moderate listening level for easy to drive headphone like Audio-Technica ATH-M50, Shure SRH840, etc.

The second measurement is comparing THD and SNR of low gain at 50mV output, and high gain at 1V output. 50mV is around the moderate listening level for sensitive IEMs (110 dB/mW sensitivity or higher). What we would like to observe at this sensitive IEM playing level, is the hissing noise, or SNR at 50mV. A quiet output should have >85 dB SNR for the hissing noise to be practically pretty low to be easily audible. Therefore >85 dB SNR at 50mV is kind of my standard for a quiet headphone amp for sensitive IEMs. Some DAPs I tested have their headphone output with lower than 85 dB SNR at 50mV, and hiss noise is audible with sensitive IEMs. While 1V measurement is just for comparison of THD and SNR at near the line level. There is no standard for audio SNR measurement, but some company uses 0dBV or 1V rms for their standard SNR measurement, so I just follow for easy comparison. 1V is also around the listening level of high impedance headphones, so still a value within headphone listening level.

Below are some screenshots from the measurement using QuantAsylum QA401:

200mV at Low Gain (THD measurement):


200mV at High Gain (THD measurement):


50mV at Low Gain (THD measurement):


1V (0 dBV) at High Gain (THD measurement):




Violectric HPA V200
HPA V200 has 2 replaceable Op-Amps per channel. One at input stage using NE5532 (dual) and the gain stage using NE5534 (single). I couldn’t replace the NE5532 with V5i due to the 36V supply that is too high for V5i. The NE5534 supply voltage is actually a bit too high as well at 33.4V, but I took the risk to install the single channel V5i to replace the NE5534, and it works quite well so far. I read somewhere in the forum that V5i can actually take 34V supply at Max, that’s the reason for me to take the risk, to use V5i in my HPA V200. And I’m glad I did, as it is now permanently replaced the NE5534 in my HPA V200. Using the stock Op-Amp (NE5534), HPA V200 sounds rather dark, with the treble perceived as too smooth, soft, and lacks sparkle. V5i helps to improve the transparency of HPA V200, and improves the clarity and treble brilliance.




I did some measurement by using V5i only on the Left channel, and other chip Op-Amps on the Right channel. I notice that the noise floor is slightly higher on the V5i as compared to the stock Op-Amp NE5534.




Noise floor, Burson V5i A Left - NE 5534 Right - Headphone Output with 33 ohms termination:



The low-frequency harmonics shown above seems coming from the transformer inside the HPA V200. Sometime I observed similar low-frequency harmonics as shown above from other desktop equipment that has a transformer inside. The noise floor on the Left channel with Burson V5i is showing -87.5 dBV, while Right channel with NE5534 is showing around -91.6 dBV. The value fluctuates a bit, but generally, the noise floor is a few dB higher on the V5i.

At 1V output level, measurement results are quite similar between V5i and other chip Op-Amps. From the measurement of Fiio E12DIY, we know that the Op-Amps has lower THD and noise than what are shown below. So I guess the similar measurement result is due to the whole system THD and noise that are relatively higher than the Op-Amp THD and noise.

Burson V5i A Left - NE 5534 Right - Headphone Output with 33 ohms termination:


Burson V5i A Left - AD797 Right - Headphone Output with 33 ohms termination:


Burson V5i A Left - OPA627 Right - Headphone Output with 33 ohms termination:


Creative Sound Blaster X7
As mentioned earlier, I didn’t do much measurement on SB X7 due to compatibility issue when V5i was used on the DAC I/V stage. Another reason is that the noise level of the headphone output of the SB X7 is higher than Fiio E12DIY.



Just for your observation, this is the output of SB X7 with stock and V5i Op-Amp:

Headphone output measurement at around 67mV (couldn’t it set closer to 50mV due to the step of the digital volume) with stock Op-Amps without V5i:



V5i Op-Amp only on the DAC I/V stage:



V5i Op-Amp on both the DAC I/V stage and the differential to single stage:



V5i Op-Amp only the DAC differential to single stage:





Hopefully, those measurement result from various equipment can give us the idea of how an Op-Amp perform on different equipment. I’m quite happy with V5i for the improvement it brings to my headphone amplifiers. The single channel V5i will stay permanently in my Violectric HPA V200, proofing that it does improve the sound quality of the well known HPA V200. And I plan to use the dual channel V5i to replace the OPA2604 inside my Yulong Sabre A28 headphone amplifier. But since the 2x OPA2604 are soldered to the circuit board, I have to desolder the OPA2604 before I can test V5i on the Yulong A28. In my opinion, V5i is certainly a good sounding hybrid Op-Amp. When used in the right and compatible application, V5i may give a nice improvement in the overall clarity and transparency of the system.







Equipment used in this review

Headphones:
Audio-Technica ATH-R70x
Beyerdynamic T1

In-Ear Monitors:
AK T8iE Mk2
DUNU DN-2000J
DUNU DK-3001

DAC and Amplifiers:
Creative Sound Blaster X7
Fiio E12DIY
iFi micro iDSD
Onkyo DP-X1
QueStyle CMA600i
Violectric HPA V200

Measurement Equipment:
QuantAsylum QA401 - 24-bit Audio Analyzer



Some recordings used in this review:

Big thanks to Brainwavz for the review sample of Brainwavz B200!
 
Brainwavz B200 is a new Dual Driver, Balanced Armature earphones from Brainwavz, the 3rd model of the Brainwavz Balance Armature series. Excellent ergonomic and pleasant sonic signature seems to be main goals of the design, and in my opinion, Brainwavz has achieved both with Brainwavz B200.
 

 
 
 
Brainwavz B200 webpage:
http://www.brainwavzaudio.com/collections/earphones/products/b200-dual-balanced-armature-earphones
 
Here is the discussion thread for Brainwavz B200:
http://www.head-fi.org/t/831015/brainwavz-b200-dual-armature-iem
 
And here is an informative YouTube video about B100 and B200 comparison by @nmatheis:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6cBbjbjSAaU
 
 
 

 
 
With 30 ohms impedance and 110 dB/mW sensitivity, B200 is smartphone friendly and also we don’t have to worry about hissing noise from some not so quiet sources / DAPs. I do prefer this level of sensitivity to avoid audible hissing noise. I often hear a hissing noise from my 1964 Ears V3 which has a high 119 dB/mW sensitivity and sometimes can be a bit annoying. My Samsung Galaxy S7 can drive B200 quite well, but volume setting most of the time very close to maximum. I do find that B200 benefits from more powerful sources like Chord Mojo and iFi micro iDSD. I especially like the matching of B200 with iFi micro iDSD and iFi micro iDSD Black-Label version that I reviewed a few weeks ago, those DACs really bring out the best of B200.
 

 
 
 
 
Pros:
Excellent ergonomic. Small, light, and very comfortable.
Good build quality and seems to be quite durable.
 
Cons:
Treble might be a bit too soft for some.
 
Suggestions for Improvements:
Better quality control on the bending direction of the ear hook.
Frequency extension for the bass and treble could be improved, especially the treble.
 
 
 
 

 
 
 
 
Sound Quality
Brainwavz B200 is nicely tuned and leans towards smooth, warm, and pleasing sonic character. Tonality is rather midrange centric with pretty flat response around the midrange area. Overall it sounds pretty smooth without any annoying frequency peak or dip, and no obvious coloration besides the soft sounding treble. There is some roll-off around sub-bass and treble, but in a natural manner and overall tonality still can be considered quite natural. Obviously, B200 is not a bassy IEM, but bass level and quality are pretty good, especially considering that it is a dual BA drivers IEM. Bass is only slightly below the midrange, but coherency with midrange is excellent and the bass doesn’t sound anemic. I honestly have no issue with the bass level. Treble is smooth and soft, sufficient clarity and sparkle but not at the sparkling level of let say ATH-IM02 or Etymotic ER4XR. The rather soft treble might be suitable for those who are treble sensitive, but rather lacking for treble lovers. For me, the treble is a bit lacking as I usually prefer mildly V shape tonality. Therefore I prefer to pair B200 with a treble rich player or source like the iFi micro iDSD, to help to emphasize the treble a little bit. With foobar, I apply a shelf EQ to raise the treble starting +2 dB at 3.5kHz, ramping up to +6 dB at 7kHz onward.
 

 
 
As mentioned earlier, overall tonality is rather midrange centric, but in a good and musical way, and with good coherent tonality across the audio band. Midrange is clearly the strong character of B200. I don’t usually like midrange centric IEM, but B200 is exceptional as the midrange quality is quite special with very nice tonal density, good body, and midrange clarity. Vocal has good body and fullness to the sound. I’m quite sensitive to a muddy midrange, and usually not a great fan for warm sounding IEMs that sometimes sounds muddy. I’m glad to say that the nice full and dense sounding midrange of B200 has good clarity without any muddiness or fuzziness. The soft treble and dominant midrange might give the perception of warmness to the sound, but I prefer to call it mid-centric. Warm sound usually has a rather long decay around the midrange and bass, and I don’t hear that long decay characteristic on B200. There is a small degree of perceived warmness, so I think we can say that B200 is mildly warm.
 

 
 
As expected with midrange centric IEM, the presentation is more on the intimate style. Stereo imaging is around the average size, not congested but also not the wide and spacious type. I do wish the dynamic could be a little bit improved. Dynamic is a bit too polite for me, so sometimes it does feel a little lacking in excitement. Probably because I’m quite used with dynamic driver IEMs, the dual BA drivers of B200 don’t seem to move air as much as some of my dynamic driver IEMs. But actually for a dual BA, the dynamic is quite decent as I’ve heard other dual BA IEMs with less dynamic. Other than that, detail and clarity are pretty good, not emphasized but clearly not lacking. Coherency between the 2 BA drivers is excellent, they sound coherently like a single driver. In summary, smooth, polite and mildly warm sounding are probably the main characters of B200 sound signature. It is the type of IEM that will not easily cause ears fatigue even for a very long session.
 

 
 
 
 
Eartips & Frequency Response Graph
B200 comes with silicone ear tips (3 sizes) and medium size Comply T-100 foam ear tips. The B200 nozzle neck measured 3mm and the nozzle head is 4mm in diameter. The foam ear tips reduce the bass and giving the perception of slightly clearer midrange. I feel the bass is a bit lacking when using foam ear tips, although the mids is a little clearer. Tonality wise, I prefer to use the silicone ear tips in conjunction with a simple shelf equalizer to boost the treble by around 6dB. My impressions in this review are based on the silicone ear tips.
 
 
 
 
Before observing the measurement results, please take note of the following disclaimer:

1. Frequency response measurement in this review was not done using standard measurement instrument for in-ear monitors. Therefore measurement result should not be considered as an absolute result, and should not be compared to other measurement result using different measurement instrument. The measurement was done using MiniDSP UMIK-1 USB measurement microphone with a DIY acoustic coupler.
2. The program I use for measurement is the famous Room EQ Wizard, REW v5.16. I measured left and right channels a few times, take 2 most consistent measurements for each channel, apply 1/24 octave smoothing, and then average the result.
3. From my own observation, measurement result beyond 10 kHz doesn’t seem to be reliable, therefore can be ignored.

 
 
Below are all measurement showing left and right channel measurement with both Comply foam ear tips and silicone ear tips. We can see that left and right channels have good balance and consistency.
 

 
 
Averaged frequency response of both Comply foam ear tips (Red) and silicone ear tips (White) with 1/24 octave smoothing:

 
 
Averaged frequency response of both Comply foam ear tips (Red) and silicone ear tips (White) with Psychoacoustic smoothing (closer to human perceived hearing):

 
 
 
 
Comparisons
I don’t have other 2 BA drivers IEM with me to be compared with the B200, so I will compare it with my reference IEM for tonality, the DUNU DN-2000, just to observe the sonic differences between them. DN-2000 sounds flat to my ears and measured flat on my measurement equipment, therefore it has been my reference IEM for flat tonality. I also had an opportunity to compare the B200 with Etymotic ER4XR. Only a short comparison, but I will share it here as well.
 

 

DUNU-DN2000
DN-2000 sounds more transparent, more extended treble and bass, and the stereo imaging is more spacious and holographic. Overall the DN-2000 sounds more neutral in tonality. DN-2000 also has higher perceived detail and speed. The DN-2000 mid bass and midrange sound leaner than the B2000. The fuller and thicker mid bass and midrange of B200 might be preferable for vocal, but for classical and instrumental that benefit from wide frequency response, DN-2000 sounds superior.
 

 

Etymotic ER4XR
ER4-XR sounds more transparent and more resolving in detail, with more spacious perceived imaging. More extended and sparkling treble. I like the transparency, but bass is lacking for my preference. B200 has thicker and fuller mids. Vocal sounds fuller with more body. Smaller soundstage with a more intimate presentation. Fuller and more potent bass.
 
Both have actually quite different tonality, but both are enjoyable in their own way and don't have any audible annoying peaks and dips on their spectrum.
 

 
 
 
 
Build Quality and Comfort
Brainwavz has nailed down the design for excellent shape and size for their Bxxx series. B200 ergonomic, to me, is quite perfect to get a very good fit and comfort. 5 stars for the fit and comfort aspect. It is light and fits very nicely to my ears, and very comfortable even for many hours of use. The cable has a nice jacket that doesn’t feel sticky or rubbery. The thickness is just nice for the small and light drivers. 
 
B200 is designed for over the ear wearing style. The ear hook is flexible without memory wire. It uses heat shrink tube to shape the cable near the driver housing. I prefer this type of flexible ear hook compared to memory wire. I had small problem initially with the left channel ear hook, where it was not bent to the right direction. It should have been bent inward like the right channel, instead it was bent outward as shown in the picture below.
 

 

 
 
I fixed it using a heat gun to bend it to the right direction as shown in the picture. Probably high power hair dryer can be used to fix it as well. Hopefully Brainwavz could give more attention to the quality control to avoid this problem.
 

 
 
Overall build quality of B200 is great and seems to be able to withstand rough usage. It is the type of IEM that I can just crumple and throw into my bag without worry. And the excellent fit is also great for Sport as it won’t get easily fall off from the ear. The 45-degree headphone jack also has very good cable strain relief. Sometimes I could hear some mild cable microphonic from the cable when used while doing lots of physical activities, but I consider the microphonic as mild and ignorable. Although the design might not be very stylish, but practically it is a very good design with durable build quality.
 

 
 
 

The small size and great fit should be among the deciding factors when considering the B200. IMHO, It would be nice if Brainwavz has a version of B200 with microphone for smartphone use. B200 is not for bass heads or treble heads, or those who prefer V shape tonality. But for the treble-sensitive that love a sweet and intimate sounding midrange, Brainwavz B200 is must try. Although basically I’m not a great fan of mid-centric tonality, but I would say the B200 is quite special. It's pleasing and friendly sonic character together with the excellent fit and comfort make it a very nice all-rounder daily IEM. Kudos to Brainwavz!
 
 
 
 

 

 

 

 
 
 

Specifications:
Drivers : Dual Balanced Armature
Rated Impedance : 30 Ω
Frequency Range : 12 Hz ~ 22 kHz
Sensitivity : 110 dB at 1 mW
Cable : 1.3 m Y-Cord, Over the ear, OFC Copper
Plug : 3.5 mm, Gold plated

Included Accessories:
Earphone Hard case
6 sets of Silicone Ear Tips (S M L)
1 set of Comply™ Foam Tips T-100
1 Shirt Clip
Velcro Cable Tie
Instruction Manual & Warranty Card (24 month warranty)
 
 
 
Equipment used in this review:
 
DAPs and DACs:
Cayin i5
Chord Mojo
iFi micro iDSD Black-Label
iFi micro iDSD
Onkyo DP-X1
Samsung Galaxy S7
 
IEMs:
DUNU DN-2000
Etymotic ER4XR
 
 
 
Some recordings used in this review: 

Big thanks to Project Perfection Pte Ltd for the loan of STAX SRS-3100 electrostatic earspeaker system!
 
STAX SRS-3100 is relatively new entry level system from STAX launched last year (2016). It is an earspeaker system consisting of STAX L300 electrostatic earspeaker + SRM252S earspeaker driver (amplifier). Although it is positioned as an entry-level system, from my experience, there is nothing of the sound quality that falls into that category. I had it for a few weeks now and I’m totally impressed by the sound quality!
 
Web page:
http://www.staxusa.com/system/stax-srs-3100.html
 

 
 
I didn’t have enough time to write a comprehensive review, therefore this review will be short and more like a brief impression. Besides that, unfortunately, I didn’t have the chance to compare it with the SRS-2170 system.
 
I got to know the STAX SRS-3100 from a STAX event held locally in Zeppelin & Co. last December 2016, an event held by Project Perfection Pte Ltd, Wired For Sound, and Zeppelin & Co. It was a very nice event where many STAX models were setup for testing, and STAX SRS-3100 caught my attention.
 

 

 
 
Before I go further with my subjective impressions, I would like to share my personal preference of sonic signature. Having a good audio community locally made me realize that many of us have a quite different personal preference of sonic signature. Therefore what I consider as an excellent sounding system might not suit others personal preferences. My sonic preference is pretty much influenced by my experience of doing a live setup in my church weekly, for many years. Besides that, we occasionally perform classical pieces with orchestra. So true to life performance has always been the foundation of my judgment in evaluating sound systems. Therefore I don’t use much of electronic music to evaluate a system. I listen to electronic music but don’t use them much when reviewing audio gears. I know it is still quite far for recorded music to be close enough to live performance, but at least that’s the objective or my reference for sound quality. 
 

 
 
 
 
Sound Quality
 
For the big picture, if I have to group some of the headphones that I have or have experience with into a few group of sound signature like what I did in my review of Kennerton Odin, I would group them as the following:
 
Group 1: Natural with some emphasis on clarity & transparency (towards analytical):
Beyerdynamic T1
Focal Utopia
Hifiman HE-6
Hifiman HE-1000 v2
Sennheiser HD800
 
Group 2: Natural with a slight touch of warmness:
STAX SRS-3100
Kennerton Odin
Audio-Technica ATH-R70x
Massdrop Sennheiser HD 6XX
 
Group 3: Natural warm:
Audeze LCD-4
 
It doesn’t mean that headphones in the same group will have similar tonality, but they will have some similarities that when one's like a certain model in one of the group, there is a high probability that he/she will like the other models in the same group as well.
 

 
 
Generally, group 2 is the closest to my personal preference, and I also like some models in group 1 such as Focal Utopia and Hifiman HE-6. HD800 is a bit too analytical for me, and Hifiman HE-1000 v2 is a bit too polite in dynamic. Generally, when I listen to headphones in the group 2 I could relate them better with a live classical concert in a concert hall. Concert halls usually have some acoustic reverberation that gives some degree or warmness to the live performance.
 
STAX SRS-3100 is probably closer to the Kennerton Odin than the other headphones in group 2. What impressed me most is the perceived level of realistic sound reproduction, especially in the quality of micro-dynamic. It doesn’t really excel in the bass slam or brute force dynamic like the Abyss. But when listening to a classical orchestra, the timbre, detail, and micro dynamic are realistically impressive. SRS-3100 is not analytical, but when we listen carefully, it is actually very transparent in a realistic and natural way, without any hint of analytic character. Detail retrieval is very good without any exaggeration.
 
SRS-3100 tonality is balanced, very smooth, and leans a little toward warm signature. It has a minimum to almost no obvious coloration in its tonality, no perceived audible dips, and peaks in the frequency response. There is some roll-off at the sub-bass, but the overall level of bass is good and satisfying enough for me. SRS-3100 is obviously not a bass head headphone, but it is also far from being a bass shy headphone. Level wise, the bass level is just nice, and I feel that the bass is more satisfying than HD800 and T1. Not that the bass level is higher, but probably due to the absence of treble emphasis, SRS-3100 bass sounds more balance with the mids and treble. From memory, it has more bass than the Massdrop Sennheiser HD 6XX. SRS-3100 bass is not particularly fast and punchy, but I don’t consider it as loose or boomy either. Bass punch is good enough for most tracks that I tried, but might not be hard enough for bass lover. The SRS-3100 bass has a pretty good tonality and texture, complementing the average punch power. I always prefer a realistic level of bass and particularly dislike headphone with anemic bass. So far SRS-3100 bass doesn’t disappoint. 
 

 
 
The midrange is probably the most addictive aspect of SRS-3100. Very natural sounding mids, smooth, expressive, detailed, full-bodied with good tonal density. Both male and female vocal rendered beautifully in a natural way. Vocal has good weight and body, in perfect balance with clarity and transparency. SRS-3100 always able to convey the emotion of the singer, and that is a very important aspect to musicality. Treble is silky smooth, very transparent, never sounded harsh or offensive. The first impression, treble might sounds a tad behind the midrange, but after careful listening, I think it sounds very coherent with the midrange and never stands out by itself. The treble level is just nice for me, I prefer smooth transparent treble that doesn’t show-off unnecessarily like the HD800 treble. I’m very impressed with the way SRS-3100 handles sibilant. Mids and treble sound transparent and clear, without any lacking of clarity in any way, but somehow sibilant tracks sound clear without being offensive. SRS-3100 could be one of the best examples of how to treat sibilant without sacrificing the treble quantity and extension.
 
Stereo imaging is quite clear, quite easy to pinpoint the location of each instrument, and center focus for vocal is good. Presentation wise it is more towards intimate presentation rather than the wide and spacious presentation. So holographic presentation is not as big and spacious as HD800, and more towards the intimate presentation of the Kennerton Odin. I would say it is on the average level of width and depth.
 
 
 
 
Source Pairings
 
I’ve been using Questyle CMA600i as DAC to listen to SRS-3100. In my opinion, they match really well. The CMA600i impressive detail retrieval helps to boost the level of transparency of the SRS-3100. While reviewing iFi micro iDSD Black-Label I had it paired with SRS-3100 and was impressed by them as well. I tried SRS-3100 for the first time when during the local STAX event in Zeppelin Singapore. I only had my Onkyo DP-X1 at that time to test SRS-3100 with my own tracks, and the combination was pleasant, but a bit dull, lacking transparency, and not as impressive as the combination with CMA600i and micro iDSD Black-Label. From those experience, I prefer to use a rather analytical DAC to be paired with SRS-3100.
 

 

 
 
 
 
Build Quality and Comfort
 
Honestly, the build quality doesn’t impress me. Don’t get me wrong, it is not fragile, but the STAX L300 does feel plasticky and looks rather old-fashioned to me. I expect a more solid and luxurious feel for the asking price, but practically I didn’t have any issue with the build quality. Just personal preference end expectation. Although I know that electrostatic headphone need more wires than regular headphone, but I’m not a fan of the big flat ~2.4m cable. Again, just personal preference.
 

 
 
From the weight, the 12V adapter seems to be the linear power supply, not the switching mode power supply. Be careful when using other power supply, as the polarity is reversed, the positive is on the outside of the DC connector.
 

 
 
Comfort is a bit of an issue for me, the earpad of the L300 is too shallow for my ears. The inner side of the headphone touch my ears and it is not very comfortable for a very long session. But friends told me that the thin earpad problem can be solved by replacing it with the earpad from the L500 series. I haven’t tried it. Besides that I have no issue with the weight, to me, L300 feels pretty light. So from the comfort observation, the shallow earpad is my only complaint.
 

 
 
 
 
Summary
 
In summary, I really like and impressed by the sound quality of the STAX SRS-3100 system. I would rate it 5 stars for the sound quality. Might not be the best option for bass heavy tracks, but impressively very musical for classical, vocal, and audiophile tracks that I tried. In my opinion, the plastic build of the L300 is not really convincing for the price, and in my experience, the shallow earpad is not very comfortable for a long session. If the L500 earpad solves the comfort issue, to be fair despite my personal preference for the design, there is no major issue on the build quality and comfort. STAX SRS-3100 has the sound quality not to be overlooked despite its status as the entry level in the STAX system. I recommend anyone who is looking for a good sounding electrostatic system to try STAX SRS-3100. For the asking price, the STAX SRS-3100 offers a very impressive sound quality.
 
 

 

 

 
 
 
 
Equipment used in this review:
 
Headphones:
Audio-Technica ATH-R70x
Beyerdynamic T1
HiFiMan HE-6
Massdrop HD6xx
Sennheiser HD800
 
DAC and Amplifiers:
iFi micro iDSD Black-Label
Questyle CMA600i
 
 
 
Some recordings used in this review:

Many thanks to iFi for the tour program, to let us have some experience with the new iFi micro iDSD Black-Label!

 



 

iFi micro iDSD Black-Label product web page:
http://ifi-audio.com/portfolio-view/micro-idsd-bl/

Manual:
http://ifi-audio.com/wp-content/uploads/data/manual/miDSDBL_manual.pdf
 
 
Due to the limitation of max 100000 characters in this review section, I couldn't post here the features and measurement part of this review. Please check the features and measurement part here:
 
iFi micro iDSD Black-Label - In-Depth Review
 
 

The iFi micro iDSD Black-Label is the improved version of the previous iFi micro iDSD. iFi has shared to us in detail, many of their design considerations during the development of the micro iDSD. Lot’s to learn from the post, therefore I think it is worth to post the link to the early discussion here:

http://www.head-fi.org/t/711217/idsd-micro-black-label-tour-details-page-147-release-info-page-153

I bought the iFi micro iDSD pre-ordered from Stereo Singapore in September 2014. Since then it has been one of my favorite portable DAC. I like the line output sound quality especially when paired with iFi micro iCan, but the headphone output of iFi micro iDSD requires some matching to sound best. My biggest complaint so far from the iFi micro iDSD is the quality of the iEMatch switch that often glitchy and causes loss of the right channel or severe channel imbalance. The volume pot of my iFi micro iDSD also has audible channel imbalance below 9:30’ position. Together with the glitchy iEMatch switch, it makes me difficult to use it for sensitive IEMs. I’m glad to say that I found the channel imbalance of the review unit of the iFi micro iDSD Black-Label has been greatly reduced, and practically I didn’t have any channel imbalance issue even at low volume setting. I hope this will be the case for all iFi micro iDSD Black-Label units. I also hope that the iEMatch switch durability has been improved on the Black-Label version.
 

 

 

Some of the improvements in the Black-Label version are some of the electronic components, power sections, clock system, and some other improvement on both digital and analog circuit sections, including the implementation of custom Op-Amp. There is no changes in the technical specifications and features from the previous iFi micro iDSD, so feature wise both the iFi micro iDSD and the Black-Label version are similar. The improvement is more on the sound quality. One might ask when there is an improvement in the sound quality, why it is not shown in the specification? The simple answer is, the measured specifications don't cover all aspects of the sound quality. Basic specifications such as FR, THD, and SNR are only a few aspects of the audio quality and quite often are not advertised in detail. THD for example, usually only advertised as average THD, but manufacturer usually doesn't give further detail like what is the distortion profile across the audio band, which type of distortion that is more dominant, etc. Therefore, usually, it is close to impossible to judge the sound quality of a DAC or Amplifier only by looking at the advertised specifications.

In summary, iFi micro iDSD Black-Label is an excellent sounding, feature rich DAC + headphone amplifier. It does require some knowledge to get the most out of it. Sound quality wise, it is on the neutral side with no obvious coloration. For those who are looking for warm, intimate, mellow type of sound signature, better look elsewhere. Transparency, clarity, speed, and detail retrieval are still the main characteristics of iFi micro iDSD Black-Label sound signature, similar to the iFi micro iDSD. And iFi has improved it further in a more musical manner on the Black-Label version. Besides some technical improvement from the previous iFi micro iDSD, the sound quality improvement that I observed on the Black-Label are transparency, dynamic, and instrument separation. The Black-Label is more transparent and realistic sounding than the already transparent sounding iFi micro iDSD. Not a night and day differences, but noticeable. And I’m glad to say that the increase in transparency and detail retrieval doesn’t make the iFi micro iDSD Black-Label sounding more analytical than the iFi micro iDSD. Subjectively, iFi micro iDSD Black-Label is actually sounding more musical to me. Even though not by much, I do prefer the iFi micro iDSD Black-Label sound quality than the iFi micro iDSD.
 

 

Pros:

1. Feature rich with high performance to price ratio.
2. Neutral sound quality with superb transparency, speed, and detail retrieval.
3. Good multi-platforms compatibility with various operating systems.
4. Isolated USB and analog ground with excellent USB EMI noise rejection.
5. Various digital and analog filters to suit listening preference.
6. A wide range of gain and headphone output power settings to suit various loads, from sensitive IEMs to demanding headphones.
7. Useful and good sounding analog bass boost and stereo enhancement analog circuit.
8. Good battery life.

Cons:

1. 1-2 seconds of silence at the beginning of playback (from a stop). This short period of silence causes the first 1-2 seconds of the song gets muted at the start. This can be quite annoying for some songs that start immediately at the 1st second. This is the only most annoying flaw of iFi micro iDSD Black-Label so far, but I believe it can be fixed by firmware update if iFi is willing to fix it, or probably by releasing a special driver only for PCM playback. I notice that the silence period is slightly longer on the iFi micro iDSD Black-Label compared to the iFi micro iDSD. Due to the short review time, I’ve only tested it with foobar v1.3.12 (WASAPI and DSD ASIO). Probably there is a way to shorten the silence from the setting, but I didn’t have enough time to play around with the setting or checked this symptom using other media player applications.​ This short period of silence at the beginning of playback is could be due to ‘pop’ issue described here:

          http://ifi-audio.com/audio_blog/pop-goes-dsd-why-does-this-happen/

1. 1 LED indicator to indicate many operating conditions. It is not user-friendly to expect a user to memorize so many color codes from a single LED indicator.
2. Volume level indicator is hard to see.

Suggestions for improvements:

1. To shorten the start play silence.
2. A more user-friendly LED indicator. Suggested 3 LEDs indicator as described at the end part of this review.
3. White or silver volume level indicator for better visibility.
4. Better design rubber feet with a stronger attachment to the metal case. It is preferable to have better rubber feet that have been fixed to the metal case from the factory.

 


 
 
 

Sound Quality

Sound quality observations were done using my regular test tracks as shown at the end of this review. As for headphones and IEMs, I mostly used the following during this review:
 
Headphones:
Audio-Technica ATH-R70x
Audio-Technica ATH-MSR7
Beyerdynamic T1
HiFiMan HE-6
Massdrop HD6xx
Sennheiser HD800
Philips Fidelio X1
STAX SR-L300 + SRM-252S
 
In-Ear Monitors:
AK T8iE Mk2
Brainwavz B200
DUNU DN-2000
 

 

Headphone Output Sound Signature:
Transparent with good detail and dynamic is probably the simplest way to describe iFi micro iDSD Black-Label sound signature. Generally, it sounds quite neutral with no obvious coloration. The iFi micro iDSD Black-Label is not a warm and mellow sounding type of DAC that tends to ‘beautify’ recording flaws. It is a bit on the dry and analytical side, but iFi has done it in a nice and musical way. It is still lean on the analytical side but it doesn’t sound thin. iFi micro iDSD Black-Label has excellent stereo imaging, spacious and holographic with good depth. The headphone output is powerful with lightning fast transient, always giving the impression that it can drive any IEMs and headphones with ease. iFi micro iDSD Black-Label might not be for those looking for smooth warm and polite sounding DAC, but I imagine that the Black-Label could easily be the sound engineer favorite portable DAC.

With the mentioned headphones and IEMs above, I prefer to match the iFi micro iDSD Black-Label with the less analytical sounding ones. Though pairing the iFi micro iDSD Black-Label with HD800 and T1 give and impressive transparent and holographic sonic presentation, but overall still rather too bright for my preference. The iFi micro iDSD Black-Label despite the small size also surprisingly able to drive the HiFiMan HE-6 quite well, but the pair also a bit too bright for me.
 

 
 
So the headphones and IEMs that I consider pairs well with iFi micro iDSD Black-Label are:

Audio-Technica ATH-R70x
Philips Fidelio X1
STAX SR-L300 + SRM-252S (Connected to Line Output)

AK T8iE Mk2
Brainwavz B200

Most surprising is how iFi micro iDSD Black-Label improves the sound quality of the new Brainwavz B200, dual BA drivers IEM. B200 usually sounds polite with soft treble with my Onkyo DP-X1, not so much excitement. But when driven from iFi micro iDSD Black-Label, the treble suddenly shines and sparkling nicely. B200 sounds more lively and exciting with iFi micro iDSD Black-Label. Quite a significant improvement. The Audio-Technica ATH-R70x and STAX SR-L300 + SRM-252S (Connected to Line Output) are also wonderful pairs with the iFi micro iDSD Black-Label.
 

 


Comparison to iFi micro iDSD Headphone Output
At the same volume level, the Black-Label sounds more powerful with greater dynamic and sense of driving power. Bass sounds slightly thicker, tighter, punchier, and has a better texture. I feel both bass and midrange texture and micro dynamic seems to be improved on the Black-Label, giving a slightly better perception of depth, transparency, and instruments separation. Treble is more or less the same, but on some recordings with sibilance, the sibilant sounds a tad more prominent on the older micro iDSD, and a tad less sharp on the Black-Label. Just a tad, basically the difference is quite small. The level of treble and treble sparkle are about the same, but with slightly different character. The sparkling character of the treble of iFi micro iDSD Black-Label is somehow sounding a tad more natural to my ears. In summary, the Black-Label sounds more transparent, bolder, and more energetic than the previous micro iDSD. The difference is audible but not a night and day kind of differences. What I mean is, that if we already have the micro iDSD, I think it is not necessary to sell it to get the Black-Label. But if I have to choose, I would definitely choose the Black-Label over the silver micro iDSD.
 

iFi micro iDSD Black-Label Line Output + iFi micro iCan
I remember that in past, ever mentioned in the forum that some suggested to iFi to tweak the headphone amplifier of the micro iDSD to be closer to the sound signature of the micro iCan. So is the headphone amplifier of the iFi micro iDSD Black-Label now sounds close to the micro iCan? Well not quite yet. The headphone output of iFi micro iDSD Black-Label sounds dryer than the iCan. In my opinion, the iFi micro iDSD Black-Label line output connected to micro iCan still sounds better. They do share some similarity, like the level of transparency, detail retrieval, and dynamic are probably about the same, but the micro iCan sounds slightly smoother and warmer that makes the micro iCan more friendly for analytical headphones like HD800 and T1. The micro iCan has slightly longer decay than the Black-Label headphone amplifier that makes it sounds less dry and more pleasing to my ears. I’m still hoping that one day I could have a new generation of micro iDSD with the headphone out sound quality that is similar to the micro iCan sound quality. So I don’t have to bring two units to enjoy the sound quality of the combination of micro iDSD + micro iCan. In the past, I’ve compared the line output sound quality of my micro iDSD to bigger and more expensive desktop DACs, and micro iDSD line output has been proven to exceed its price bracket. iFi micro iDSD Black-Label line output doesn’t disappoint and even improved it further on the transparency, detail, and instrument separation. Very impressive line output sound quality from such a small portable DAC. IMHO, iFi micro iDSD Black-Label is worth it even just for the DAC section alone.
 

 

 
 

Chord Mojo (Headphone Output Comparisons)
Listening to classical DSD tracks, Super Artists on Super Audio sampler vol.5 from Channel Classics Records, when using the analogy of medium and large concert hall, Chord Mojo sounds like we are listening to the concert in a medium size hall, with a tad better micro detail and impact. Listening to Chord Mojo is like sitting closer to the musical performance, more intimate presentation with a tad clearer micro detail and slightly better sense of micro-dynamic. iFi micro iDSD Black-Label, on the other hand, provides a more spacious sensation, like listening in a larger hall. Less intimate with a larger sense of space. iFi micro iDSD BL is also perceived as a tad smoother sounding than Mojo. The difference is not day and night, but quite easy to distinguish. Both performs admirably in their own ways. I do need more time for better comparison between Mojo and iFi micro iDSD Black-Label, but the most distinguishable difference is in the presentation, between the more intimate presentation of Mojo and the more holographic presentation of iFi micro iDSD Black-Label. Honestly, I can’t really tell which one is better. I guess it is not for better or worst but more about personal preference.


 
 
 
Features and Measurement
 
Both the older version of iFi micro iDSD and the Black-Label version have similar features and specifications, therefore I listed only the Black-Label version in this table of features.
 
Table of Features in comparison to Chord Mojo:
 
I did some test and observation of the iFi micro iDSD Black-Label features, like testing the iFi iPurifier® technology on the iFi micro iDSD Black-Label USB input and how effective that feature to remove unwanted EMI from USB audio, here:
 

 
Unfortunately I cannot post all the features and measurement part here due to the maximum limit of the characters that can be posted in this section.
Therefore, Please check the features and measurement part here:
 
iFi micro iDSD Black-Label - In-Depth Review
 
 


iFi micro iDSD Black-Label is probably the most unique and feature rich DAC+Amp combo in its class. The Black-Label version is a proof of iFi main priority in their design philosophy, which is sound quality. The Black-Label version has similar features to the older version of micro iDSD, and all the effort and improvement is only to achieve one goal, better sound quality. And I think iFi has achieved it. Kudos to iFi!
 
 

 

 

 

 
 



Equipment used in this review

Headphones:
Audio-Technica ATH-R70x
Audio-Technica ATH-MSR7
Beyerdynamic T1
HiFiMan HE-6
Massdrop HD6xx
Sennheiser HD800
Philips Fidelio X1
STAX SR-L300 + SRM-252S
 
In-Ear Monitors:
1964 Audio V3 (universal)
AK T8iE Mk2
Brainwavz B200
DUNU DN-2000
 
DAC and Amplifiers:
Chord Mojo
iFi micro iDSD
iFi micro iCan
Audio-Technica AT-HA22Tube
 
Measurement Equipment:
QuantAsylum QA401 - 24-bit Audio Analyzer
Owon VDS3102 - 100 MHz Digital Storage Oscilloscope
Brymen BM829s - Digital Multimeter
HRT LineStreamer+ - Analog to Digital Converter
ZKE EBD-USB+ - USB Power Meter
 
Computer & Player:
DIY Desktop PC: Gigabyte GA-H77-D3H-MVP motherboard, Intel i7-3770, 16 GB RAM, Windows 7 Home Premium 64 bit SP1.
foobar2000 v1.3.12



Some recordings used in this review:
 

Thanks to Audio-Technica Singapore, for the loan of the Audio-Technica ATH-E50!
 
Webpage:
http://www.audio-technica.com/cms/headphones/1eaea2e39ebfe3cb/index.html
 

 


Knowing that ATH-E50 is a single BA driver IEM, I honestly was not very excited about it. From past experiences testing single or dual BA driver IEMs, I usually left unimpressed. They usually fail to provide enough coverage of the full audio spectrum, and rather shy in dynamic. But when I gave ATH-E50 a try, it gave me a nice surprise. I was really surprised that a single BA IEM has improved a lot and offer pretty good coverage of frequency response with surprisingly pretty good dynamic. ATH-E50 is a great improvement to the ATH-IM01 I reviewed in 2014. To date, ATH-E50 is simply among the best of single BA driver IEMs that I’ve ever heard.
 

 
 
 
 
Pros:
Comfortable, with good build quality.
Neutral, coherent, smooth, & pleasing sonic signature.

Cons:
Another ‘uncommon’ newly developed A2DC (Audio Designed Detachable Coaxial) connectors for the detachable cable.

Suggestions for Improvements:
To improve upper treble response.
To use a more common connector for the detachable cable for better compatibility with other 3rd party cables.

Summary of Sound Signature:
Close to neutral with slightly midrange centric tonality. Smooth and pleasing character with a pretty good level of detail and good holographic imaging.
 
 
 
 

 
 

 
Build and Comfort
 

 
 
Another surprise from the ATH-Exx series is the newly developed A2DC (Audio Designed Detachable Coaxial) connectors for the detachable cable. I honestly gave a sigh to the new connector, not because of the design, but because I hate to see another new type of connector that makes many existing IEM cables not compatible with the new ATH-Exx series. 2 years ago Audio-Technica launched ATH-IMxx series with a new type of connector for the detachable cable, and I was hoping that Audio-Technica will stay with that type connector. And now ATH-Exx came with another new type of connector. The question is how many types of IEM connectors Audio-Technica plan to develop? Will there be another newly developed IEM connector next year? IMHO, for cable enthusiasts new type connectors only add some frustration.
 

 

 
 
Despite my disagreement for another new type of connector, A2DC connector looks very well designed and seems to be more secure than the common MMCX connector. A2DC also seems to have more contact surface for better connectivity. It is a good connector for IEM, and I hope Audio-Technica won’t simply dump it and replace it again with another new type of connector. The rather long 1.6m cable with memory wire is actually quite similar to the ATH-IMxx cable. Only with a different connector at the earphone end. As for comfort and ergonomic, to me, ATH-E50 comfort level was great. ATH-E50 is relatively small and light and combined with good ergonomics it was very comfortable to my ears. Overall, ATH-E50 is very well designed with good ergonomic.
 

 
 

 
Sound Quality
Pretty close to neutral, mildly midrange centric, very smooth tonality without no annoying peaks and dips makes ATH-E50 quite enjoyable for a long session. Midrange is very close to neutral, that to me is a very important factor when choosing an IEM. For a single BA driver, the frequency coverage is pretty impressive. It doesn’t sound thin and has a pretty good tonal density. Although ATH-E50 doesn’t go very deep into the sub bass, but bass is pretty good with pretty good level and dynamic, and bass definitely doesn’t sound anemic. Considering that it is a single driver BA IEM, ATH-E50 has surprisingly good bass. Bass has a good body and pretty decent sub bass extension. Treble extension rolls off a little early and doesn’t go very high, yet ATH-E50 produce sufficient treble energy with good quality. Treble sounds smooth with enough sparkle to make E50 doesn’t sound dull.

Although ATH-E50 doesn’t have very wide frequency coverage, but it presents the frequency range that it covers in a very natural and refined manner. It sounds very pleasing and non-fatiguing, with good holographic imaging. Not extremely spacious imaging, but quite holographic.

ATH-E50 is quite capable in detail retrieval and sometimes may sound mildly analytical. Just mildly. Unlike the organic sounding ATH-E40, ATH-E50 sounds dryer, more towards the analytical side, but in a nice and enjoyable way. Not the type of fatiguing analytical sonic presentation. Tonality sounds more balanced and natural than ATH-E40. Though ATH-E50 doesn’t have the dynamic and liveliness of ATH-E40, but it may sound more pleasing in comparison.

ATH-E50 is really a nice and pleasing single BA driver IEM. It may not have the oomph and wow factor like some other good IEMs in this price category, and clearly not for those looking for a fun sounding IEM, but it is quite special for those looking for neutral sounding and non-fatiguing IEM.
 

 



Comparisons

DUNU DN-2000 and TDK IE800
When I listened to ATH-E50 for the first time, it reminds me of my TDK IE800. Somehow they both have the neutralist tonality and smooth sonic presentation. While DUNU DN-2000 is my reference IEM for neutral tonality.

ATH-E50 has bass level that approximately pretty close to DUNU DN-2000, and slightly stronger bass than the TDK IE800. ATH-E50 treble extension is decent. Treble is only slightly softer than TDK IE800 and not as extended as DN-2000, but definitely good enough and sufficient. It doesn’t sound veiled or dull. Treble is soft but not in the category of lacking or dull.

Dynamic response is relatively close to TDK IE800, I would say slightly better probably, but close. Polite but not lazy sounding. But not as dynamic as for example ATH-IM50. Midrange sounds very flat and neutral in a good way. Smooth and clean, a little dry (typical BA sound) but very detailed and articulated.
 

 


Final Audio Design FI-BA-SS
A friend of mine recommended me to try Final Audio Design FI-BA-SS, which is also a very good single BA IEM. At more than 4 times the ATH-E50 price, FAD FI-BA-SS is on much higher price category. So I went to local headphone shop, Jaben, and tried it. I agree with my friend that the frequency coverage and dynamic of FAD FI-BA-SS are better than ATH-E50, but the tonality is not as linear and neutral as ATH-E50. I heard a treble peak on FAD FI-BA-SS. To me, overall ATH-E50 sounds more pleasing, especially for a long session listening. ATH-E50 even though has slightly less coverage on the upper treble, but the treble sounds smoother without any annoying peaks and dips.
 
 
Etymotic ER4SR & ER4XR
Comparison with Etymotic ER4SR & ER4XR is based on memory. I tried both Etymotic ER4SR & ER4XR about 6 weeks later after I have returned the ATH-E50 to Audio-Technica Singapore. So please read it with a grain of salt. This comparison is only for some rough estimation, and cannot be considered a very accurate comparison.

Compared to the new Etymotic ER4SR & ER4XR, ATH-E50 is moderately less bright. Both Etymotic ER4SR & ER4XR excel in clarity and transparency, especially the ER4SR. ATH-E50 may sound rather dark in comparison. But being less bright it doesn’t mean that ATH-E50 sounds dull. ATH-E50 still has sufficient treble extension to produce decent clarity and transparency, although clearly not as transparent as the Etys. For treble and transparency lover, the Etys are clearly the better choice, while for those who are allergic to prominent treble may prefer ATH-E50 with it’s softer and smoother treble. Both are great IEMs, and I quite like them all despite the different tonality. I do wish that ATH-E50 has a little more treble, but on the other hand, it offers fuller mids and bass that musically quite appealing.

The following is my own frequency response measurement using MiniDSP UMIK-1 measurement microphone with a DIY acoustic coupler. Since this measurement is not using standard measurement equipment for IEM measurement, it is not to be compared with another measurement result. The reason I have the confidence to show this measurement is because it relates quite well with what I hear, therefore might be useful for readers to make some estimation. As mentioned previously, DUNU DN-2000 sounds tonally quite flat to my ears, therefore it is currently my reference IEM for tonality, for comparison with other IEMs.
 

 
 


I would consider ATH-E50 as a very nice neutralist IEM. I would love to hear slightly more treble, but ATH-E50 is quite nice as it is. The neutral tonality and presentation probably not for everyone, especially those looking for fun sound, V shape tonality, or strong bass IEM. It is probably not the best choice for EDM or disco music, but those looking for neutral sounding and non-fatiguing IEM must definitely give ATH-E50 a try. It is the type of IEM that probably sound a little shy and lacking wow factor when we listen to it at the first time. But over time, the neutral and holographic sonic signature will shine. Well done Audio-Technica!
 
 
 
 

 

 
 
 
 
Specification:

 
 
 
 
Equipment used in this review:

Earphones:
DUNU DN-2000
TDK IE800
Final Audio Design FI-BA-SS
Etymotic ER4SR & ER4XR

DAPs, DACs & Headphone Amplifiers:
Astell&Kern AK70
Onkyo DP-X1
Fiio X3 2nd Generation
 
 
 

Some recordings used in this review:

First of all, I would like to thank Fischer Audio Singapore for giving me the opportunity to test and review their flagship headphone, the Kennerton Odin! Also big thanks to Zeppelin & Co. where I spent hours comparing Odin with other headphones, and to AV One Singapore for their hospitality during the Audeze LCD-4 comparison!

http://kennerton.com/index.php?route=product/product&path=59&product_id=95
 

 
 
There are 3 type of woods for the ear cups: Old Wood, Sapele, and Walnut. Kennerton Odin Walnut is the version that I reviewed. It is made of all natural material, wood, metal, and leather, that somehow reflected well to its natural sound signature. Kennerton takes great care of the production of Odin. I’ve been told that the production rate is rather low, only around 30 pieces per month, to maintain the quality. I’ve used it for more than 2 months now, and I can say that besides the stock cable (which I will discuss in feature section), Kennerton Odin is made to last. It feels solid and I can see from the design and construction that it will last for a very long time.
 

 

From my 2 months of experience with Odin listening to various recordings and genres, tried different DACs and Amps with it, and also compared it with many other headphones, I honestly love the natural sound signature of Odin. It sounds so balanced, musical, and emotionally engaging without any emphasis on any of the sonic element. Sound quality wise, I would give a full 5 stars rating to Odin without any reservation. But for the overall rating, I have to reduce it to 4.5 stars, mainly due to the weight of the headphone that affects the comfort level.

One day, when I was at Zeppelin testing gears, there was a guy testing some headphones, near to where I sit. After a while, after he tested a few headphones, I suggested to him to try the Odin, and oh boy…. his facial expression was totally changed when he listened to Odin. Initially, he was quite serious, showing the usual analytical expression when he was testing other headphones, but once he listened to Odin, he smiled, joyful, and I saw some tears of joy in his eyes. I can see clearly Odin touched his emotion deeply and shed some joy to him. I was so surprised that Odin has that magical power to drastically changed his mood. It was a very nice experience that I will remember for a very long time.
 

 
 
 

Pros:
Lifelike sound quality, almost a perfect balance of all the musical elements, tonality, detail, clarity, speed, & dynamic.
Easy to drive.
Very good build quality (headphone only).
Detachable cable.

Cons:
Heavy. Around 666 grams, headphone only without cable.
Stock cable come with 3.5mm headphone jack that has no cable strain relief. The metal barrel of the 3.5mm connector will eventually erode the cable braided sleeve and jacket.
Sub bass rumbles a bit lacking for bass lover.

Suggestions for Improvement:
Weight reduction while maintaining the same sound quality.
Cable with proper 6.5mm headphone jack with cable strain relief is highly recommended as the main stock cable. Stock cable with 3.5mm jack is not appropriate for a headphone at this caliber, but a good option to be included as the 2nd stock cable.
To include a balanced cable with 4 pins XLR is highly recommended.
The nice wooden case is better if it is able to accommodate Odin with the headband extended at maximum extension, and with the cable attached. If user has to remove the cable and adjust the headband every time they want to keep Odin in the wooden case, the wooden case can be considered practically useless.

 

 
 
 

Sound Quality
 
Before going with more detail description, I would summarize the sound quality into a few bullet points:

1. Natural, smooth, musical, and engaging are probably 4 words that best described Odin’s sound signature.
2. Lifelike and consistent tonal density across the spectrum. The nice tonal density makes Odin has some fullness to the sound and doesn’t sound thin.
3. Balanced tonality with a touch of warmness. Odin is not analytical, but also not too warm or mellow. It is neither bright nor dark sounding. No annoying peaks or dips observed in the frequency response.
4. Pleasant, enjoyable, rather forgiving, and Non-fatiguing sonic character, yet quite detailed and transparent for classical and other acoustic recordings. Also quite lively and never sounded dull or boring.

Lifelike Tonal Density
If I have to pick one particular sonic character of Odin that I find most special, it would be the tonal density. It took me some time to find the right words to express that sonic quality, and I think tonal density would be the closest. I often feel that my Sennheiser HD800 and Beyerdynamic T1 sound rather thin when compared to some live concerts. They sound very transparent, detailed, but often don’t present music with good body and natural weight, and often make music sounds thin and light. Tube amps may help, but only to a certain extent. On the other hand, Odin never sounded thin, and also never sounded overly thick. It has the right amount of tonal density that gives a natural thickness, body, and weight to the sound, and quite consistent across the audio spectrum to give realistic musical experience. Listening to classical recordings on Odin reminds me of live classical performance. Somehow the sonic signature of Odin relates quite well with live music performances.
 

 

Pleasant & Enjoyable
Odin has the type of sound signature that makes music listening a very pleasant & enjoyable experience. Vocal rendered with a good body in a natural way without sounding too thick or over emphasized. It also has the right amount of detail, clarity, and dynamic that make music sounds lively and realistic without causing listening fatigue even for a very long session. But unfortunately, even though the sound signature is non-fatiguing, being a heavy headphone, Odin might cause some fatigue elsewhere.


Balanced Tonality
Overall tonality is quite balanced, slightly on the warmer side. Treble is silky smooth but has a nice sparkle and doesn’t take attention to itself. The treble is not as sparkling as Focal Utopia, HifiMan HE-6, Sennheiser HD800, or Beyerdynamic T1, but it has more treble than Audeze LCD-2 and LCD-4. Bass sounds clean, tight, with good texture and quality, and without any emphasis on the bass level. Bass level is quite neutral in comparison to the midrange, and never sounded anemic. Bass is slightly emphasized on the mid bass, with extended but rather soft sub bass, so not much sub bass rumble from the bass. Midrange is superb. Very natural sounding midrange that is both smooth and full sounding. It is not thin and also not overly thick or bloomy midrange. Simply beautiful, clear and realistic sounding midrange.
 

 

It is hard to identify any emphasize or deemphasize of a certain frequency from Odin tonality. There is no annoying emphasize or deemphasize of any area in the frequency region. The tonality is quite balanced in my book. Perceived balanced tonality could vary from one person to the other, and it is also heavily dependent on the recordings used to observe the tonality. Therefore I always mention in my reviews, the recordings that I use for evaluation. Besides recordings, I use both frequency sweep as well as individual tones from 20H to 15kHz (my hearing limit) in comparison to 1kHz tone, to observe the tonality. From my observation, the sub bass below 40 Hz rolls off rather early and it is rather difficult to observe the 20 Hz tone. Odin sub bass level is pretty close to my Hifiman HE6 sub-bass response, with HE6 has slightly fatter overall bass and a tad better sub bass. Around the midrange to the treble area, when using tone loudness comparison, I only could hear mild hump around 3 kHz and 7 kHz. What I mean by mild is, those humps are not obvious when we listening to music. This is roughly what I observed:

3 kHz : ~3 dB
7 kHz : ~3 dB

For my own personal preference, I do prefer a little boost around the sub bass area to add some sub-bass rumble and a little improvement in speed and transient like what I hear from Focal Utopia. I tried to apply some equalizer to boost the sub bass below 60 Hz. Around 6 dB sub bass boost sounds very nice to my ears. Sometimes I do have some craving for vibrating sub-bass. With Odin, a simple +6 dB eq as the following is all I need.
 

 
 
I saw a website that has frequency response measurement of Kennerton Odin by Reference Audio Analyzer Pro, pretty close to my observation, even though it doesn’t show the 3 kHz hump that I heard:

http://reference-audio-analyzer.pro/report/hp/kennerton-odin.php
 

Using my own method that I called Earfonia Frequency Response Evaluation or EFRE (under development), this is the estimated frequency response, based on my personal hearing:
 

 

Lifelike Detail, Transparency, Speed, and Dynamic
Perceived detail and transparency are very good, but in a natural way, without sounding analytical or artificially emphasizing the perceived detail and clarity. By now you might be able to guess that Odin has a rather forgiving sonic signature, mainly due to the smooth sounding treble. Being forgiving it doesn’t mean that it is dull sounding or has a low level of clarity that masks the detail. But the detail and clarity are naturally presented in a non-offensive way. I could easily hear the different sound signature between different amplifiers and DACs with Odin, and this is a good indication that the level of perceived detail and transparency are good.

Instrument separation is clear and focused, with good 3D localization. Stereo imaging is quite holographic but on the average level of width and depth. The stereo imaging is more spacious than LCD4, but not as large and spacious as HD800. So I would say the size of the perceived stereo imaging is about average, not congested and also not ultra spacious.
 

 

Odin has an engaging dynamic but never sounded aggressive. Dynamic is quite lively, and definitely not in the category of mellow or slow transient headphone, but not as fast and punchy as Focal Utopia. As mentioned earlier, personally I do prefer faster-sounding headphone and  I prefer for the speed and transient of Odin to be slightly faster and closer to the Utopia. But don’t get the impression that Odin is a slow and mellow sounding headphone, because it is not. It is more because I'm quite amazed at the incredible speed and transient of Focal Utopia. The speed and dynamic are just nice to make Odin sounds pleasant while still able to cope with some fast pace music and complex orchestra. But please take note that generally Odin is not a very fast sounding headphone, and if improvement in speed is desirable, pairing it with a fast amp in balanced connection is recommended. In my setup, when I need more speed, I prefer to pair Odin with my Questyle CMA600i in balanced, as compared to the smoother sounding Geek Pulse XFi.
 

 

In summary, Odin is neither bright nor dark. Tonality is quite linear, with smooth texture of midrange and treble, good clean bass with rather a soft sub bass. IMHO, generally Kennerton Odin is an excellent all-rounder. From what I’ve tried so far, it sounded great with almost any type of genres and recordings I tried. Probably only with one exception for some recordings that have lots of sub bass rumble like some movie soundtracks, Odin doesn’t have the earth shaking sub bass for those recordings. Kennerton Odin is not a bass head headphone and won’t give cinematic rumbling sub bass and the strong bass that bass head might crave for, but it has the musical type of clean bass that I believe most audiophile will prefer. In my opinion, Odin is a very musical and realistic sounding headphone.




Comparisons

For the last of almost 2 months, I mainly compared Kennerton Odin with the following headphones in my collection:

Audio-Technica ATH-R70x
Beyerdynamic T1
Hifiman HE-6
Sennheiser HD800

Besides those, I had a few sessions in both Zeppelin & Co. and AV One Singapore to compare Kennerton Odin with:

Audeze LCD-2
Audeze LCD-4 (both 100 ohms and 200 ohms version)
Focal Utopia
Hifiman HE-1000 v2
 

 

If I could generalize those headphones into 3 groups based only by their perceived tonality, it would be something like the following:

Group 1: Natural with some emphasis on clarity & transparency:
Beyerdynamic T1
Focal Utopia
Hifiman HE-6
Hifiman HE-1000 v2
Sennheiser HD800

Group 2: Natural with a slight touch of warmness:
Audeze LCD-2
Audio-Technica ATH-R70x
Kennerton Odin

Group 3: Natural warm:
Audeze LCD-4


Generally, my personal preference is group 2, natural and balanced tonality with a hint of warmness. The slight touch of warmness is preferable to me as they usually have a nice tonal density around the midrange and bass that IMHO sounds closer to some of the live performances that I auditioned, and use to hear in church weekly. Group 2 also has smoother treble that helps to avoid listening fatigue in a long session. While other warmer sounding headphones are sometimes polarized toward certain type of genres and generally less ‘all-rounder’ than group 2 headphones. Comparisons below will follow the sequence as the above grouping.

Previously I was not really sure where to put the Hifiman HE-1000 v2. Probably somewhere in between group 1 and 2. Hifiman HE-1000 v2 has a real smooth flat tonality, reach low to sub bass and also reach high to upper treble extension, but without any added perceived emphasis on clarity nor warmness. But after more sessions with it, I decided to put it in group 1 as it has pretty strong transparent character to its sound signature.
 

 

Beyerdynamic T1
Odin is obviously less bright than T1, with fatter bass. Not a night and day differences here, probably in the range of a few dB more bass and less treble. Both have more or less quite linear tonality to my ears, while Odin sounds horizontally flat, and T1 sounds linear but slightly ramping up towards the treble. T1 brightness is I would say within the limit of my brightness tolerance, but borderline at the maximum level. Anything brighter than T1 is started to become not acceptable to my ears. I heard that there are some different batches of Beyerdynamic T1 out there with some variations on the tonality. My T1 serial number is 7230, and I’m not sure in which category of T1 variant is mine. Being moderately brighter, T1 generally sounds more transparent than Odin but also sounds thinner in comparison. T1 bass is fast and punchy but rather lean. Odin has fatter bass, not by much, just nice to give more body to the bass. Overall, I much prefer the Odin tonality for being more linear and less bright than T1. Odin tonality is more agreeable to my ears as being more natural sounding and closer to lifelike tonality. The level of perceived detail is pretty close. At first, the brighter sounding T1 might give the impression of higher perceived detail. But with closer observation, actually, the perceived detail are quite similar between the two. Odin has better-perceived dynamic, more lifelike than T1. Imaging wise, both are not as spacious as HD800, but both have good 3D holographic imaging. Sound quality wise, I prefer Odin for sounding more natural and lifelike to my ears. But being a lighter headphone, T1 is more comfortable.


Focal Utopia
Utopia to me is an amazing headphone. I’m not saying this because of the $ 3,999.- price tag, almost twice the Kennerton Odin street price, but I truly impressed by the Utopia sound quality. From all headphones in this comparison, to me, the best three are Utopia, Odin, & Hifiman HE6. If I have the money, I would like to have both Utopia and Odin, and will probably pretty much settle for a long time.
 

 

Clarity, separation, detail, attack, and transient of Utopia are second to none. Utopia is gloriously transparent in the right and natural way. Detail and instrument separation is simply the best I've heard. Detail is presented in a very natural way without any artificial analytical artifacts. Don't imagine HD800 detail and transparency, which are good but sound rather artificial when compared to Utopia. Utopia transparency is so natural and realistic without sounding analytical. It also has better tonal density than HD800, therefore it doesn’t sound thin in comparison.

Utopia has excellent transient and dynamic that are presented in a very realistic way. Bass is much faster and textured, very punchy, but slightly leaner in body than Odin. Utopia tonality to my ears sounds balanced and neutral, just mildly bright, but with good tonal density. Realistic is probably the best word to describe Utopia sound quality. IMHO, Utopia is a must for all recording studios in the world. It is just remarkably balanced and realistic sounding.

So, Utopia is clearly better than Odin technically. But as ones might guess, it is also very revealing and might not be very friendly to less than stellar recordings. Bad recordings will simply sound bad on Utopia. While Odin is more pleasing and forgiving, and more friendly for those recordings. Utopia has the ability to bring stellar recordings to the next level of musical bliss, while Odin has the ability to make not so stellar recordings sound acceptable, and more enjoyable.
 

 

Hifiman HE-6
I’m glad to say that my old Hifiman HE-6 still competes very well with the newer Kennerton Odin. Being older and cheaper than Odin, I don’t feel that HE-6 is inferior in this comparison. At least from the perspective of musical enjoyment, I would say they give me more or less a similar level of musical enjoyment. In comparison to Odin, HE-6 tonality is mildly V shape, with slightly more emphasis on the treble and level of transparency, and slightly more potent bass. When properly driven, HE-6 has slightly better dynamic than Odin. But HE-6 is well known for being one of the most difficult headphones in the world to be properly driven, while on the other hand, Odin is much easier to drive and doesn’t require high power amplifier to produce lifelike and enjoyable dynamic. Currently, I use Matrix HPA-3B with around 3.8 Watt output power at 33 ohms to drive HE-6. Definitely, not the most powerful amp for HE-6, but for now I feel it is quite sufficient for HE-6. I tend to hear both Odin and HE-6 as two different headphones with more similarities than differences. They have rather similar ‘planar’ tonal density, quite similar in dynamic and perceived soundstage imaging. The main difference is in tonality as mentioned earlier. I do prefer the Odin tonality for a fuller and more engaging midrange, with the more intimate vocal presentation. While HE-6 can be more fun with large scale complex orchestra. In my book, they are almost equally good. If I have to choose between the two, I slightly prefer the Odin, but not by much. They are both among the most musical headphones I’ve ever tried.
 
EFRE Result of my HE-6:
 

 

Hifiman HE-1000 v2
I would describe HE-1000 v2 sonic signature as smooth, transparent, open and airy with neutral tonality. Dynamic and punch are rather on the soft side. Frequency extension and tonality flatness is excellent, reaching very low and very high, but it doesn't punch hard. Very polite dynamic. Bass body and punch are a bit lacking for my preference. Not anemic, but HE-1000 v2 bass doesn’t sound as potent as Odin.

HE1000 V2 is slightly brighter than Odin, with nice, smooth and extended high. No peaky treble and the treble sounds better and smoother than HD800. Midrange is very neutral, but leaner, less tonal density than Odin. I actually like the HE1000 v2 neutral tonality, but I prefer to have more punch and overall dynamic. HE1000 v2 sonic signature is probably lean more towards the electrostatic type of sonic character, sweet, smooth and relax sounding. For my personal preference, I do prefer the Odin for more dynamic and thicker tonal density.
 

 

Sennheiser HD800
Swapping HD800 and Odin back and forth makes me appreciate the comfort level of HD800. The design of HD800 with extra-large ear cups and much lighter weight (366 grams headphone only) makes HD800 a much more comfortable headphone than Odin. The large ear cups also helps to give a more spacious sensation of soundstage. On tonality, as expected HD800 tonality sounds brighter and thinner than Odin. And frankly I’m rather annoyed by the 7 kHz treble peak of HD800, therefore seldom could enjoy them for a long session of music listening. It is very transparent, but thin sounding, therefore to my ears, doesn’t sound as natural as Odin which has better overall tonal density and dynamic. I do like HD800 for the comfort, transparency, and spacious soundstage, but to be honest, having HD800 for many years, it doesn’t give me musical enjoyment as much as I got from Odin from the last 2 months. Odin is more musically engaging, provides balanced stimulation to both my left and right brain hemispheres. While I feel that HD800 stimulates my left brain much more than my right brain. For comfort, transparency, and spacious soundstage, HD800 is the king. But when it comes to balanced, natural, and lifelike sonic character, in my opinion, Odin is the better headphone.
 
EFRE result of HD800 based on my hearing:
 

 

ATH-R70x
I reviewed ATH-R70x last year. Here is the link if anyone interested:
http://www.head-fi.org/t/765004/audio-technica-ath-r70x-in-depth-review-impressions
 
ATH-R70x and Audeze LCD2 are probably the 2 headphones in the group that tonality wise closer to Kennerton Odin, with LCD2 being the closest. ATH-R70x has a tad fatter bass and better, ‘more shaking’ sub bass, but not as clean and textured as Odin’s bass quality. I actually feel the ATH-R70x vibrates on my ears when there is earth shattering sub bass on the tracks. It probably due to the light driver frame of the R70x. Vocal sounds more intimate on R70x with slightly more forward presentation. Odin has better overall clarity, perceived detail, and instrument separation. Stereo imaging is more spacious and holographic on Odin. I put ATH-R70x with Odin in the same group is for the reason that those who like the sound signature or ATH-R70x will most likely love Odin sound signature, and consider Odin as a great improvement over the ATH-R70x.
 
EFRE Result of my ATH-R70x:
 

 

Audeze LCD-2
Kennerton Odin is pretty much an LCD-2 with improvement in detail retrieval, instrument separation, clarity, transparency, and dynamic. Tonal balance is pretty close between the two, obviously not exactly the same but pretty close. For those who love LCD-2 tonality, and wish to have some improvement in detail, clarity, and dynamic, Odin is a must try. It is almost that simple, that I think that I don’t have to write more about the comparison between the two.
 

 

Audeze LCD-4
I had 3 different sessions for LCD-4 auditions. Twice with the 200 ohm version paired with Woo Audio WA5-LE amplifier at AV One Singapore, and once with the 100 ohm version paired with around 7 watts discrete DIY amplifier that belong to a friend. Odin was compared side by side with the LCD-4 using the same setup. I tend to like the 100 ohm LCD-4 setup slightly better for sounding a tad more lively, but the difference is not much. Both LCD-4 that I tried are generally warmer sounding than Odin. Odin has flatter and more balanced tonality in comparison. LCD-4 has more midrange and midbass emphasize, while Odin has more treble sparkle and extension. LCD-4 has slightly better dynamic and punch. Mid-bass punch is better on LCD-4, while Odin has slightly better sub-bass to mid-bass balance. Perceived detail, clarity, and instrument separation is slightly better on Odin, but not by much. Probably the more sparkling treble helps in the perceived detail and clarity. LCD-4 sounds a tad smoother and has a kind of cohesiveness to the sound that somehow makes the instrument separation less clear than Odin. Perceived size of soundstage is more or less similar, with Odin sounds slightly more spacious and holographic and the LCD-4 sounds closer and more intimate.
 

 

In general, I would say the LCD4 has the extra oomph, especially on vocal. Vocal has more presence and sounds fuller on LCD4. Those who love vocal would probably choose the LCD4 over Odin. But in my opinion, Odin is a better all-rounder, and less polarized towards a any kind of musical genre.
 

 
 
 

Features and Build Quality
 
Planar Magnetic Driver
I suggest visiting the Kennerton website to read more about the new 80mm planar-magnetic driver that is designed from scratch by Kennerton, as well as other design highlights. Planar magnetic is not a new technology, but the interesting part is how Kennerton improves the conventional design in their own planar magnetic driver. It was mentioned that Kennerton uses a reliable and durable multi-layer 10µm polyimide film diaphragm, and also unique semicircular FEM-Optimized bar magnets system to improve the driver response and reduce distortion. I attached the scan copy of the leaflet included in the package, to show the construction of the semicircular magnet bars.
 

 

One advantage of the planar magnetic driver is the constant impedance across the audio frequency spectrum. It translates as a constant load to the amplifier regardless of the frequency. Unlike common dynamic driver that usually has frequency specific impedance, that is inconsistent across the audio spectrum. Rated at 35 Ohm with 104 dB sensitivity, Odin is easy to drive and doesn't require a powerful amplifier.


Amplification & Gear Pairing
 

 

The loudest volume I ever set to play some soft sounding recordings was around -10 dB on my Geek Pulse XFi unbalanced output, at high gain. My listening volume is generally around -20 dB. The -10 dB unbalanced output was measured 2 Vrms on my oscilloscope, while -20 dB was around 0.64 Vrms. Therefore any player or amplifier that is able to output 2 Vrms at 35 ohms, or approximately 115 mW output at 35 ohms, would be able to drive Odin with sufficient loudness. These days, many modern DAPs have 2 Vrms maximum output or more, with output power ranging to a few hundred mW. Those powerful modern DAPs would be able to drive Odin with sufficient loudness. Adding an additional 6 dB headroom, in the case that louder volume is required, it is translated to -4 dB volume on my Geek Pulse XFi unbalanced output, which is 4 Vrms, which is approximately 460 mW output at 35 ohms. 500 mW output is quite common for desktop amplifiers, and not considered high power output. Therefore we can conclude that Odin doesn’t require high power amplification, and relatively easy to drive. Any source with around 150 mW output at 35 ohms would be sufficient, and around 500 mW (or higher) output at 35 ohms is recommended for Odin.
 

 

Odin is easy to drive in the sense that we could get adequate loudness even from a not so powerful DAP. But from my observation, bass will suffer when not properly driven. Bass may sound loose and less textured when not properly driven. When properly driver using good amp, bass is clean and tight with realistic texture.
 

 


During the 2 months period with Odin, I’ve tried Odin with some DAPs & DACs such as AK70, Onkyo DP-X1, Cayin i5 (only short period), Chord Mojo, Chord Dave, Geek Pulse XFi, ifi micro iDSD + iCan, Yulong DA8, Questyle CMA800i, Questyle CMA600i, Matrix HPA-3B amplifier, and some other amps. Odin with its musicality can easily sound good and enjoyable with all of them. But it doesn’t that Odin sounds more or less the same with all of them. Odin clearly reveals the source and amp signature quite well, but it has the ability to sound good with most gears. For DAPs like AK70 and Onkyo DP-X1 using the balanced output is highly recommended for extra power and better driveability. The 3 most frequent sources I used during this review is the Geek Pulse XFi, Questyle CMA600i, and Chord Mojo. My personal preference for Odin is the Geek Pulse XFi which gives a tad extra body to the bass for a more engaging musical experience. Questyle CMA600i and ifi micro iDSD + iCan combo are also highly recommended for a faster transient and dynamic. So even though Odin is easy to drive, but it also scales well with some gears that match well with Odin's sound signature.
 

 
 
Stock Cable
The cable is detachable using 4 pins mini XLR, with similar pin assignment as the Audeze LCD headphones. So Audeze LCD headphone cables can be used for Odin and vice versa. I don't understand why Kennerton decided to use a 3.5mm jack for the stock cable. Probably to show that Odin is easy to drive and can be driven from portable players. But I still consider stock cable with a 3.5mm jack for a headphone at this caliber is not a proper setup. I do believe that most Odin users will use a desktop amplifier or DAC to drive it. Therefore the 6.5mm stereo jack is more proper for the stock cable. I even think at this price Kennerton should have included a balanced cable with 4 pins XLR.
 

 

 

 

The quality of the stock cable itself looks pretty good, but unfortunately, as mentioned earlier, the 3.5mm jack's barrel has no cable strain relief, and the metal barrel will eventually erode the cable braided sleeve and jacket. and this is what happen after it was being used for the demo set in Zeppelin, for a few weeks.
 

 

I strongly suggest to Kennerton to include proper cable with 4 pins XLR or 6.5mm stereo jack as the stock cable for Odin.

To test the balanced connection, I made a balanced cable for Odin. Though I honestly didn't hear any major improvement using the balanced connection, there was a mild audible improvement in bass tightness and control. Impressions in this review are based mostly on the balanced DIY cable.
 

 
 
Headband and Ear Cups
The headband is very sturdy and well designed. Weight distribution is cleverly done using a simple and effective solution, by using a leather strap under the headband to evenly distribute the weight over the head.
 

 

Kennerton chose tighten-to-fix slider rather than the flexible one, and it is made of solid aluminum. I guess to properly hold the heavy drivers, this solution is much more durable. To adjust the slider, the metal screw must be loosened, and later be tightened after adjustment is made.
 

 
 
The ear pads have a large inner hole, approximately around 6.0-6.5 cm in diameter. It is large enough to cover my ears comfortably. The ear pads are made of real lambskin leather that I expect will be quite durable.
 

 

 

 
 
 
Weight
At 665.7 grams (headphone only) Odin is considered a heavy headphone. From my observation, 400 grams is more or less the borderline for generally comfortable headphone weight. More than 400 grams, we will start to feel the headphone as heavy. Having said that I had many sessions with Odin for more than an hour continuously. And one time 2.5 hours straight without putting it off. Yes, it is heavy, but for me the comfort is still acceptable, and I think some high flyer Head-Fi'ers shouldn’t have any issue with the weight, considering the excellent headband weight distribution.
 

 

For comparisons, below are estimated weight of some headphones that I have (or had):

Audio-Technica R70x : ~210 grams
Sennheiser HD 800 : ~330 grams
Beyerdynamic T 1 : ~350 grams
Beyerdynamic DT 880 Pro : ~295 grams
Philips Fidelio X1 : ~300 grams
Hifiman HE6 : ~502 grams
 
 
Wooden Case
Kennerton Odin comes with a very nice wooden case. But unfortunately, the wooden case is not very useful for daily use. The nice wooden case cannot accommodate Odin with the headband extended, and with the cable attached. The user has to remove the cable and adjust the headband every time they want to keep Odin in the wooden case. So, we can consider the wooden case is practically useless, and we will need another case for daily use.
 

 

 

 
 
 

Conclusion
 
Kennerton Odin is all about musical enjoyment. It might not be the most technically superior headphone, but definitely one of the most enjoyable sounding headphone that I’ve ever used. With Odin, I found it is so easy to get emotionally connected to the music, an important feature that often rather weak on other technically superior headphones. Odin is an excellent example of how to set all sonic elements in a balance proportion to achieve optimum musical enjoyment. I do hope that if in the future Kennerton will be releasing a newer version of Odin, they could reduce the weight for better comfort while maintaining the sound quality. I highly recommend for everyone to have some musical experience with Odin. Kudos to Kennerton!
 

 
 

 
 
 
 
Specifications:
Driver Type : Open Backed Planar Magnetic    
Driver Unit : 80 mm    
Frequency Response : 15-50000 Hz    
Sensitivity : 104 dB    
Impedance : 35 Ohm    
Cord length : 2 m detachable copper cable (3.5 mm)
Weight without cable : 666 grams
 
 
  
 
  
 
 
 


 
Equipment used in this review:

Headphones:
Audeze LCD-4
Audeze LCD-2
Audio-Technica ATH-R70x
Beyerdynamic T1
Focal Utopia
Hifiman HE-6
Hifiman HE-1000 v2
Sennheiser HD800

DAPs, DACs & Headphone Amplifiers:
Astell&Kern AK70
Onkyo DP-X1
Chord Dave
Chord Mojo
Geek Pulse XFi
ifi micro iDSD
ifi micro iCan
Questyle CMA800i
Questyle CMA600i
Matrix HPA-3B
Yulong DA8

Computer & Player:
DIY Desktop PC: Gigabyte GA-H77-D3H-MVP motherboard, Intel i7-3770, 16 GB RAM, Windows 7 Home Premium 64 bit SP1.
foobar2000 v1.3.12


 
Some recordings used in this review:
 

Many thanks to Creative Singapore for the review sample of Creative Sound Blaster Roar 2!
I supposed to post this review early this year, but it has been delayed quite a while due to unforeseen high workload this year.
 
Website:
http://sg.creative.com/p/speakers/sound-blaster-roar-2
 

 
 
Sound Blaster Roar 2 is the improvement of the 1st version of Sound Blaster Roar, mainly on the size and weight. Being 20% more compact and around 9% lighter,  Sound Blaster Roar 2 is claimed to offer similar performance to the predecessor.
 
And here is the user manual that I find very useful to understand the operation of Roar 2:
http://img.creative.com/files/guide/roar2/Roar2_A6_User_guide_Rev_A_3_EN.pdf
 
A few features have been removed from the 1st version of Sound Blaster Roar, like USB security option which is cool but probably may not be frequently used by many users, and the stereo setup option which I think is good to have. For most users, I believe, the reduced size and weight are practically more important than those extra features.
 
Before I start with details, I would like to share an experience. Soon after I received Roar 2 from Creative, I brought it to the office to get general opinions from friends about it. Long story short, 3 of my friends soon bought Roar 2 after they listened to it. I guess this experience is no doubt a proof of how good the Roar 2 is.
 

 
 
 
 
Pros:
Very good sound quality and level of loudness considering the size.
Very good Bluetooth implementation, very sensitive and stable connection.
Good battery life.
Various inputs: Bluetooth, USB, Line Input, and micro SD memory.
 
Cons:
Very slow USB charging. Cumbersome to carry additional 15V adapter when traveling.
The power button is prone to accidental press.
 
Suggestions for Improvement:
A little increase in treble response and extension.
Better placement or recessed power switch. When kept in the pouch, sometimes the power button may accidently be pressed.
Soft switch for microphone mute function, to avoid switching noise when muting or unmuting the microphone.
USB fast charging, like adopting Qualcomm® Quick Charge technology.
To include the Silicone pouch as default accessories.
 

 
 
 
 
Sound Quality
My first impression, when tried Roar 2 for the first time, was, 'Wow it sounds big!'. It is pretty loud for a relatively small speaker. Roar 2 could easily fill a small to medium size living room with music at pretty good loudness. It has decent level of bass that not many speakers at Roar 2 size are able to achieve. Besides that, I was impressed especially by its vocal presentation. Both male and female vocal rendered very nicely by Roar 2. It doesn’t have those typical ‘thin’ vocal sound generally associated with small speakers. Vocal sounds full with good body and clarity. Vocal is really one of the Roar 2 primary strength.
 
The classic problem with a small speaker is always the ability to produce a decent level of bass. Roar 2 has nice bass tuning, so despite the small size, there is decent level of bass to make music sounds rich without sounding thin. But don’t expect bass level like from proper bookshelf speakers, still not there yet. I used Roar 2 to watch sci-fi and action movies, and I was surprised that Roar 2 has sufficient bass and dynamic to make movie sounds enjoyable, especially for a small setup like watching a movie on PC, notebook, or tablet. Thanks to the excellent implementation of the passive radiators.
 

 
 
Clarity is good without causing any listening fatigue, especially good for Pop and Jazz kind of recordings. Compared to UE Boom that I borrowed from a friend, Roar 2 is less bright with more bass. Perceived brightness is better on UE Boom, but UE Boom might sound a little bright sometimes. It would be nice if SB Roar 2 could have a simple treble adjustment to adjust the treble when needed. It does have ‘TeraBass’ and ‘Roar’ mode to add some oomph, and I find it especially useful for low volume listening. But when listening to a classical chamber music or solo performance, it would be nice to have a little increase in treble.
 

 
 
SB Roar 2 is pretty well tuned. So far I didn’t hear any annoying peaks or dips in the tonality, and tonality is actually sounded quite nice. A little mid-centric, but in a nice way, and quite expected from a speaker in this size. The tonality tuning is very good and sounds pleasing. I would say Creative did a good job on SB Roar 2 tuning!
 
Due to the one side placement of all the active drivers, Sound Blaster Roar 2 has dual orientation, and can be positioned either vertically or horizontally. So far from my experience, somehow horizontal placement sounds nicer and more pleasing. A subjective observation definitely, but I prefer to position it horizontally. Solid surface is also important, as Roar 2 performs best when placed on a solid surface. Give some distance from the wall and other objects, it sounds better with more space around it.
 

 
 
Here are some highlights of the sound quality:

1. Well tuned, sounds pleasing and enjoyable without any annoying peaks and dips on the tonality.
2. Sounds best on vocal and slow to medium pace music such as pop, jazz, and vocal. Still good for classical chamber music, but doesn’t sound fast enough for complex orchestra and fast paced music, which is generally expected from such a small speaker.
3. Bass is good, decent level of bass for such a small speaker. In a small setup such as watching a movie using laptop or tablet, with Roar 2 placed around 1 meter away from the listener, we can actually feel the bass from this little speaker.
4. Midrange is probably the strength of Roar 2. Vocal is naturally and beautifully rendered, sounds full and clear.
5. Treble is a little soft, level wise slightly below midrange. Good treble level for modern genres to have good clarity without causing any treble fatigue, but for classical recordings, I do prefer a little more treble.
6. Best placed on a solid surface, with some distance from a wall or other objects.
7. At max, loudness reach around 85-86 dB SPL when playing pink noise, measured 1 meter from the speaker. Pretty loud for a small to medium size room.

 
Loudness was measured using an SPL meter, around 1 meter from the speaker. Roar 2 was placed on a table and the SPL meter was positioned around listening height when I’m on sitting position, as shown in the picture below. This small speaker is pretty loud, playing Pink Noise through Bluetooth, at maximum volume, reached around 85.9 dB(C). Practically, in small to medium room, I rarely set the volume to maximum.
 

 

I did some simple non-standard frequency response measurements, in a 2.8m x 5m x 2.6m (W x L x H) room, using the well known REW program and MiniDSP UMIK-1 measurement microphone. SB Roar 2 was in horizontal position on the floor in the middle of the room, measurement mic was around 1 meter directly above the speaker, pointed down facing the speaker.
 
Speaker frequency response is room dependence. Measurement in a different room will show different frequency response graph. Therefore this measurement (Psychoacoustic smoothing applied) is just to show an example of the Roar 2 frequency response in a room, comparing the default setting when Tera Bass and Roar were disabled, and when Tera Bass or Roar were enabled.
 

 

Looking at the graph and the hump around 500-600 hertz, one might think that the speaker might sound a bit honky, but in reality, it doesn’t sound honky. As mentioned earlier, Roar 2 tonality is rather mid-centric, but in a natural way, where vocal is rendered very nicely, clear, full, and natural sounding. So don’t worry about that hump, it is probably just room resonance or something, and it doesn’t cause any annoying sound. Tera Bass or Roar give some boost around the bass area as shown by the graph. Though it is not shown in the frequency response graph, there are some small differences between Tera Bass and Roar. Besides bass boost, Roar mode gives a little clarity boost as well and increasing the overall loudness. But the effect is not very obvious in loud volume setting.
 

 
 
 

Features
 
Build
SB Roar 2 is designed for indoor use, and not ruggedized for outdoor use. In my opinion, the silicone case should have been included as default accessories for additional protection. At around 1 kg, it is not particularly light for a Bluetooth speaker, but not particularly heavy as well considering the performance. SB Roar 2 has 3 active drivers and 2 passive radiators on the sides. The active drivers are 2x 1.5” tweeter & 1x 2.5” woofer. It used Bi-Amplified design, using 2 amplifiers, one stereo amplifier to drive the 2 tweeters, and another amplifier to drive the woofer. The passive radiators on the sides are pretty tough and durable. I personally like the simple rectangular design of Roar 2, looks simple and elegant.
 

 
 
 
Voice Prompt
Before going into detail on other features, in my opinion, one very important feature that every Bluetooth speaker must have is the voice prompt disable feature. To me, it is even better if the speaker doesn’t have any voice prompt at all. No matter how good is the sound of the Bluetooth speaker, if the voice prompt cannot be disabled, to me, it is a deal breaker. To me, Bluetooth speaker with voice prompt is really annoying. The good news is, Roar 2 voice prompt is not very annoying, and can be completely disabled. Let me quote the steps from Roar 2 FAQ:
 
http://support.creative.com/kb/ShowArticle.aspx?sid=125377
 
How do I disable the Voice Prompt on the Sound Blaster Roar 2? 
With the speaker powered ON, press both the Volume "-" and Multifunction button at the same time. You will hear a voice message indicating that the voice prompt is successfully disabled.
 
Press both buttons shortly at the same time. Long press doesn’t work.
 

 
 
If for some reason it needs to be enabled:
How do I enable the Voice Prompt on the Sound Blaster Roar 2? 
On a speaker with a disabled voice prompt, ensure that it is powered ON. Press both the Volume "+" and Multifunction button at the same time. You will hear a voice message indicating that voice prompt has been successfully enabled.
 
 
 
Source & Connectivity
Creative approach to playback from multiple sources is to mix them all. For example when it is connected to my phone via Bluetooth, and I connected the auxiliary input to an audio player, at the same time having a microSD card with MP3 files in the mSD card slot, and play audio from all the 3 sources, Roar 2 will simply mix the audio signal from all the sources and play them all together. So, no switching between sources, and mixing the audio sources is the approach taken for Roar 2 for operational simplicity.
 
Roar 2 has 4 inputs for audio signal: Bluetooth, USB, MP3 from micro SD slot, and analog auxiliary stereo input.
 

 
 
Bluetooth can be paired by a simple NFC tap or manual Bluetooth pairing. The Bluetooth version is 3.0 and supports AAC, aptX, and SBC. More detail on SB Roar 2 page. I never had any issue with BT connection so far, receiver sensitivity is very good and stable. I did a ‘line of sight’ distant test with my Android smartphone (Samsung Galaxy S4), and music still playing smoothly at staggering 40 meters of distance between the phone and Roar 2. I tested it in a corridor, probably the walls help to channel the BT signal, but 40m still a very long distance for Bluetooth. At home, I put the Roar 2 in a room, closed the door, placed my phone on other room, not line of sight, solid wood door and concrete wall in between, BT reception was still good for like around 7-8 meters distant. aptX codec works well so far, good audio sync with the video signal when watching movie. Besides that, there is a cool feature to connect 2 Bluetooth devices at the same time to Roar 2, and it will seamlessly switch between two devices for audio playback. Only one BT device playback at a time, not mixing the sound from the 2 devices. 1st device stop, the 2nd device can play and Roar 2 will automatically switch to the 2nd device. In summary, the Bluetooth implementation in Roar 2 is really good.
 
Roar 2 has USB Audio functionality. Only 16bit - 44.1kHz mode is available which is acceptable for such a small speaker. That means, if a PC or laptop lacks BT interface, it can be connected to Roar 2 via USB connection, and stream the audio signal digitally to Roar 2. The computer will detect Roar 2 as another playback device, and no driver required for Windows. Roar 2 charges its internal battery when connected to the PC USB at a slow rate. There is a switch to switch between ‘USB Audio’ or ‘Mass Storage’ mode. Switch to USB Audio for streaming music digitally through USB.
 

 
 
On Roar 2 specification it is mentioned that it supports microSD or microSDHC cards up to 32GB formatted in FAT/FAT32. I tested 128GB microSD formatted in FAT32, and it works fine with Roar 2. The only audio file format that is supported is MP3. File playback is either sequential or random. Sequential will follow the order of folder names and file names.
 
Analog auxiliary stereo input is must have for any Bluetooth portable speaker, and I found it to be very useful. Aux input allows other audio devices without Bluetooth interface to use Roar 2 as an external speaker. In church, we have a keyboard that has no built-in speakers. Every Time we need to use it, we need to connect it to a sound system, and sometimes this can be a little impractical in certain circumstances. Roar 2 comes in handy for this kind of situation, for example, a simple rehearsal. Just plug Roar 2 to the headphone output of the keyboard and it is loud enough for the purpose. Sometimes the keyboardist also needs a close speaker monitor when playing on stage, where the sound from the main PA system may not be clear enough from the place where the keyboard is positioned, Roar 2 is very useful for this kind of situation.
 

 
 
I bought another unit of Roar 2 to test it as a stereo pair. I cut a long 3.5mm to 3.5mm cable to become a stereo cable for the 2 units of Roar 2. The result was very satisfying! It is loud, and the stereo setup expands the stereo imaging. Perfect for small to medium room solution. To achieve balanced volume setting, both Roar 2 volume were set to maximum, and listening volume was set from the audio player. Roar 2 in the stereo setup is simply more than double the fun!
 

 

 
 

Recorder Function
Roar 2 has a built-in microphone, mainly to use Roar 2 as a speakerphone. The speakerphone function is good, loud and clear. The microphone is pretty good as well. To record the conversation, simply insert an FAT32 microSD, and press the record button. There is Red LED to indicate recording is enabled. Press the record button again to stop the recording. There is a minor problem with the microphone, the mute switch is mechanical, therefore the other party can hear a soft switching noise when we mute or unmute the microphone. It is recommended for Creative to use a soft switch for the microphone mute function to avoid audible switching noise.
 
 

Battery & Charging
SB Roar 2 has built-in 6000mAh Li-ion battery. I tested it with continuous music playback at loud volume, almost max, it last for slightly more than 8 hours. Pass 8:11’ hours, the overall loudness dropped around 6 dB, and the battery completely exhausted at around 8:31’ hours. Creative specification for 8 hours playback is proven. Also noted that no heat issue during the continuous playback, only slightly warm at the back of the speaker.
 

 
 
Internal battery can be charged by either using the 15V adapter that comes with it, or a generic USB charger through the USB port. USB charging is extremely slow, drawing current only around 0.5 - 0.63 Amp. Below are the measured charging duration using both 15V charger and 5V USB charger (smart & high capacity 2.4A charger), from completely discharged battery to 100% charged:
 
15V Volt charging (max current 0.96A) : ~ 2:18’ hours
5V USB charging (max current 0.63A) : ~ 9:00’ hours
 

 

 
 
In my opinion, Creative should have adopted the Qualcomm® Quick Charge™ technology, either QC 2.0 or the newer QC 3.0. But even if Creative is not adopting Qualcomm® Quick Charge™, still they should have designed the 5V charging to draw higher current when connected to 2.0A or 2.4A USB charger. All USB charging port has USB coding (from the D+ and D- USB pins) to give the indication to the device connected to it, of the maximum current the port is able to supply for charging. For example:
 
PC USB 2.0 with D+ and D- pins open : Max. Current 0.5A
PC USB 3.0 with D+ and D- pins open : Max. Current 0.9A
Generic USB Charger with D+ and D- shorted with max. 200 ohms : Max. Current 1.5A
Apple USB Charger with D+ voltage 2.8V, and D- voltage 2.0V : Max. Current 2.1A
Apple USB Charger with D+ voltage 2.8V, and D- voltage 2.8V : Max. Current 2.4A
Quick Charge 9V : D+ voltage 3.3V, and D- voltage 0.6V : Max. Current 2.0A
Quick Charge 12V : D+ voltage 0.6V, and D- voltage 0.6V : Max. Current 1.5A
 

 
 
There are more USB charger codings than what is listed above. If Roar 2 USB port can detect those coding like what most smartphones do, it can easily use 1.5A to 2.4A USB charger to draw higher current for battery charging, that may resulting 3 or 4 times faster charging than the current 0.5A USB charging. These days we have so many gadgets require battery charging. Laptops, tablets, smartphones, camera, etc. It is simply inconvenient to bring another 15V power adapter just to charge the Roar 2. If everything can be charged using a powerful multi-port USB charger, it will make things simpler and more convenient. I hope Creative would consider improving the USB charging speed for all of their Bluetooth speaker models, and simply remove the unnecessary 15V charging port and adapter. It will also save some production cost.
 

 
 
Besides the micro B USB port for charging the internal battery, There is another USB type-A port for charging external devices, to make use the Roar 2 internal battery functions as a power bank. The USB A port is capable to output 1A current to charge other devices. But please take note, I observed that the output voltage is only around 4.77V at 1A, a bit low for 5V charging. Maximum discharge output capacity is approximately ~ 3900 mAh. Maximum discharge capacity, at 0.5A and 1A discharge rate:
 
0.5A discharge : 3858 mAh
1A discharge : 3923 mAh
 

 

 
 
Measured discharge capacity will always be less than the internal battery rated capacity due to several factors such as step up the voltage from 3.7V to 5V, converter efficiency, etc. So measured output capacity at 65% or more is considered good for a power bank.
 
 
 
 
Currently Creative has expanded the successful Roar product line with some new models. Here are the Roar models with timeline:
 
2014 September : Creative Sound Blaster Roar
http://sg.creative.com/p/speakers/sound-blaster-roar
First generation of Sound Blaster Roar. 2x 1.5” tweeter & 1x 2.5” woofer. The 2 stereo full range speakers are placed on the side, while the woofer facing up.
 
2015 June : Creative Sound Blaster Roar 2
http://sg.creative.com/p/speakers/sound-blaster-roar-2
Smaller and lighter than the 1st generation Roar, while offering similar performance.
2x 1.5” tweeter & 1x 2.5” woofer. All drivers are placed on the same side of the speaker.
 
2015 November : Creative Sound Blaster Roar Pro
http://sg.creative.com/p/speakers/sound-blaster-roar-pro
The 2 stereo full range speakers are now placed on the side similar to the 1st Roar.
2x 1.5” tweeter & 1x 2.5” woofer.
 
2016 January : Creative iRoar
http://sg.creative.com/p/speakers/creative-iroar
The 2 stereo full range speakers are placed on the side similar to Roar Pro.
2x 2.0” tweeter & 1x 2.75” woofer.
 
2016 August : Creative iRoar Go
http://sg.creative.com/p/speakers/creative-iroar-go
2x 1.5” tweeter & 1x 2.5” woofer. All drivers are placed on the same side of the speaker, similar to Roar 2.
 
Creative iRoar is currently the biggest and the most advance Roar speaker. While Creative iRoar Go with IPX6 ratings seems to be the Roar 2 with improved outdoor durability.
 
 
 

Conclusion:
Even when compared with the newer model, Creative Sound Blaster Roar 2 is still a solid and good sounding Bluetooth speaker that holds its own value pretty well. It is feature rich and has good battery life. A nice solution for music lovers on the go, or those who need a small and simple, but good sounding speaker. Sound Blaster Roar 2 is a perfect companion for modern multimedia gadgets. Kudos to Creative!
 
 
 
 

 

 

 

2 rubber strips at the bottom of the speaker.
 
 
 

Equipment used in this review:

DAP & Smartphone:
Onkyo DP-X1
Samsung Galaxy S4
Bluetooth Speaker:
UE Boom
 
Measurement Instrument:
MiniDSP UMIK-1 (measurement microphone)
Dayton Audio iMM-6 (measurement microphone)
ZKE EBD USB+ (battery bapacity tester)
USB Charger:
Aukey PA-T1
 
 

Some recordings used in this review:

Big thanks to SKM Technologies Singapore for the loan of the AK70 demo unit, and also to Zeppelin & Co. for their hospitality and for providing such a great place to test audio gears and meet nice people!
 

 
Website:
http://www.astellnkern.com/eng/htm/ak70/ak70_feature01.asp


 

Being small and more affordable than most of Astell&Kern Digital Audio Players (DAP), AK70 is positioned among AK entry level DAP right after AK Junior. But don't underestimate the small series number and the small size, as AK70 sonic performance is actually competing quite well with its bigger brother, the AK300. We will see that later in comparisons with other DAPs. AK70 is also the first AK DAP to support USB host feature, for connection to other external USB DAC.

Zeppelin & Co. was the place where I get to know the AK70 for the first time, just a few days before its official launch date in Singapore, on 9th of July 2016. To be honest, I didn’t give much attention to it at that time, as besides the small size, there isn't any other feature that grabbed my attention. And my main interest during the event was the AK T8iE Mk2 that I'm currently reviewing. After the launch event, I approached SKM Technologies to loan AK T8iE Mk2 for review, and they generously loan me both AK T8iE Mk2 and AK70. And I'm glad they did. I gave it a try and use it almost daily for more than a month now. Going from Onkyo DP-X1 to AK70, I immediately realized how comfortable it is to have a small DAP in my pocket. And most important, AK70 does sound great.


 



Pros:
Premium build quality and small size.
Balanced 2.5mm output.
USB DAC function.
Driverless USB DAC (UAC 1.0).
USB Host function for connection to external USB DAC.
exFAT and 200 GB micro SD card compatible.
AK Connect and playback from DLNA 1.0 servers.

Cons:
Semi-sharp corners. Protective case is not included by default.
No sampling frequency and battery indicator when used as USB DAC.
On firmware version 1.10, Gapless playback and Equalizer don't work. EQ only reduced the overall volume by around 5 dB but doesn't do the equalization. Hopefully AK will fix it soon.

Suggestions for improvements:
To include protective case as default accessories (like AK300).
To support both USB Audio Class 1.0 and 2.0. UAC 1.0 for simple driverless operation, and UAC 2.0 to make full use of the capability of the CS4398 DAC. Selectable in the menu.
Battery and sampling frequency indicator in USB DAC mode.


 



Generally, AK DAPs are in the higher price category, and to simply comparing technical specifications per dollars with other brands DAP might not do justice. There are features that need real life experience to be appreciated, and many of those are not on written specification. I spent more than a month with AK70, putting many things into consideration to give it a proper rating. Besides the sound quality, all factors that are affecting the overall user’s experience are also must be taken into accounts, such as build quality, user interface, storage, playback compatibility, and many others. On one hand, I have cheaper DAPs that don’t sound inferior to the more expensive AK70, but may not have the premium build quality and excellent touch screen user interface. On the other hand, some experiences with other more expensive DAPs that in my opinion, AK70 is able to compete quite well with them. Putting all that into consideration, I’m juggling between 4.0 to 4.5 stars for weeks. When looking to options of cheaper DAPs that may sound equally good, I tend to give it 4 stars. But when comparing to more expensive DAPs and the ability of AK70 to competes well with them, I tend to give it 4.5 stars. At the end, I decided with 4.5 stars, especially considering such a bold and engaging sound from such a small player is quite an enjoyable experience. Besides that the USB host and USB DAC features that I found to be very useful. My Onkyo DP-X1 has only USB host feature but not USB DAC. While my other DAPs have only USB DAC feature but not USB host. IMHO having both features in one small DAP deserve an increase in the overall score. In other words, this small little player really packs quite a punch.


 
 


Sound Quality

Neutral, smooth, refined, bold, and engaging are probably best described AK70 sound signature. The bold and engaging dynamic is what I love most from AK70, and that what makes it sounds musical and never sounded boring or flat. I would describe AK70 sound signature as pretty close to neutral, slightly south towards good bass and smooth treble. AK70 is definitely not an analytical sounding DAP, but not particularly warm sounding either. Probably smooth sounding is the better description.

When observing my Onkyo DP-X1, after going through my test tracks for days using my reference IEMs, I got the impression of its sound signature as a tad dark, smooth, and laid-back. Some of the analytical IEMs that I have sounded rather pleasing on DP-X1, match well with its smooth sonic signature. But after going through the same process on AK70, it was harder for me to hear any obvious sonic character. The test tracks were all sounded musical and enjoyable. Bass and midrange sound full bodied with good tonal density and dynamic. Treble is smooth and never sounded harsh or analytical. As mentioned before, the engaging dynamic is probably the most addictive sound character of AK70. Dynamic is lively and engaging without being aggressive. It has a good driving capability that gives the impression of good dynamic on all IEMs that I tried with it. Between the Onkyo DP-X1 and iBasso DX90 that I’m familiar with, AK70 sonic signature is actually closer to DP-X1 than DX90. Probably the smooth treble that is quite similar to DP-X1, but with a more forward presentation than the laid-back DP-X1.


 

Perceived level of detail and clarity are good but not emphasized, and not as vivid as for example iBasso DX90 or Chord Mojo, that in comparison have better-perceived transparency and sound a little more analytical than AK70. Probably the smooth treble might reduce the perceived detail and transparency a little bit, but it makes AK70 non-fatiguing for long listening sessions. The smooth treble also makes AK70 have a good synergy with analytical sounding IEMs such as my DUNU DN-2000 and DN-2000J. The smooth treble and the bold dynamic is actually a good recipe for vocal. Vocal sounds smooth, lush, intimate, and full bodied. As expected from the above description, AK70 might not be an outstanding DAP for perceived detail and instrument separation as it is not an analytical DAP, but perceived detail and instrument separation are pretty good and definitely not lacking. Only not emphasized, but not lacking.

As mentioned earlier, AK70 has rather forward presentation in comparison to other laid-back sounding DAP such as DP-X1. I’m not really sure if this forward and lively dynamic can be attributed to the CS4398 DAC chip that is used in AK70. I observed that some other DAPs and DACs with CS4398 also tend to have similar forward and energetic presentation as AK70. To me, I do prefer the energetic and engaging dynamic rather than the polite one.

In summary, AK70 is an excellent all-rounder DAP that treats all kinds of recordings and musical genres equally well. It might not excel on certain recording or genre, but it performs really well for all.



Comparisons


 
 
In this comparisons, my approach is more to point out differences, rather than to pick which is the best. Sometimes what best for me is not necessarily what's best for others so that approach to a certain extent is rather subjective. For this comparisons, I compared AK70 with my own Onkyo DP-X1, iBasso DX90, and Chord Mojo DAC. Cayin i5 and Cowon Plenue S shown in the picture are only for size comparison. The i5 and Plenue S were belong to my brother and I didn’t have enough time with them to do a proper comparison with AK70. As with Fiio X3 2nd gen, though I think at ⅓ rd of the AK70 price, it is not too far inferior to AK70, but it is in a different price category, and AK70 with its bolder sound and dynamic does sound more engaging than Fiio X3 2nd gen. Size wise, AK70 is pretty close to Fiio X3 2nd gen, same height, slightly wider, and thinner. I also compared it with AK300, in 4 visits to Zeppelin. So not a short 15-30 mins comparison, but quite an intensive one. The summary is, as mentioned above, AK70 sounds closer to DP-X1, but with a more forward presentation. And in comparison to AK70, the AK300, DX90, and Mojo are all, in various degree, have higher perceived transparency.


Chord Mojo
Mojo is more transparent and resolving, with slightly brighter treble. I hear AK70 treble as a tad smoother and more rounded, and can be more pleasant on bright IEMs. But the smoother treble also reduces the perceived micro detail a little bit and brings the whole presentation slightly to the smoother side. Mojo performs better in dynamic and perceived detail sounds livelier with a more spacious soundstage. Overall sound quality, in my opinion, Mojo is better, but not a night and day different. Generally, AK70 sounds slightly less bright while Mojo sounds more transparent, resolving and livelier. But to be honest, after using AK70 as USB DAC for hours in the office, for many days, I honestly enjoyed AK70 and don't miss anything much from Mojo. AK70 is proven to function as a very good sounding USB DAC as well.
 

 

iBasso DX90
DX90 with the digital filter set to Slow Roll-Off has higher perceived clarity with more vivid presentation and sparkling treble than AK70. A little faster, aggressive, dryer, more authoritative, with slightly more oomph. While AK70 sounds smoother and more refined. In this setting, DX90 is more suitable for organic sounding IEMs, and might be a bit fatiguing for analytical IEMs. For example, I prefer to pair DUNU DN-2000 and DN-2000J with AK70 rather than DX90. While for AK T8iE Mk2, I sometimes prefer the DX90. Setting the digital filter set to Sharp Roll-Off makes DX90 sounds closer to AK70. Treble is less aggressive, but still, has slightly higher perceived clarity, slightly grainier treble, than the smoother sounding AK70. AK70 sounds smoother and more refined overall, but other might prefer the DX90 for more clarity and authoritative character. In my opinion, it all boils down to proper pairing and personal preferences.
 

Onkyo DP-X1 (Digital filter set to ‘Short’, no oversampling)
While the differences between DX90 and AK70 are quite noticeable, the differences with DP-X1 is less obvious. DP-X1 overall sounds a tad smoother and more laid-back. DP-X1 also has slightly wider soundstage. AK70 has a more forward in presentation, and doesn’t give the impression of the wide soundstage of DP-X1, but surely AK70 doesn’t sound congested in any way. I think it is the laid-back signature of DP-X1 that might give the impression of a wider soundstage. Sometimes I prefer the forward presentation of AK70 over the laid-back presentation of the DP-X1, depending on recordings. DP-X1 does sound a little smoother and refined, but sometimes that smooth and refined sonic character may sound a little artificial, and the AK70 generally sounds more realistic and natural.

Tonality, dynamic, clarity, and detail retrieval are more or less the same, both are non-analytical sounding DAPs. Transparency is good, but definitely not emphasized. In my opinion, AK70 competes quite well with DP-X1 sound quality wise.
 

 

 

Astell&Kern AK300
This is where things get kinda fun and interesting. Initially, I didn’t get a good impression of AK300. The dynamic sounded a bit flat for my taste, not as engaging as AK70. But with more comparisons, I got better impressions for AK300, and it doesn't sound as flat as I thought earlier. That’s why I usually doubt my first impression, as sometimes it is not very accurate. I prefer to hear audio gears in several sessions for more accurate impressions.
 

Matching the output volume before comparison

As mentioned earlier, I did compare AK70 and AK300 in 4 visits to Zeppelin. In the fourth visit, I brought a DIY switcher, to connect both the DAPs and easily switch the earphone connections between the DAPs. A few friends participated in a so-called blind test since they don’t know the association of the switch position to which DAP. The result is quite a balance between who prefer AK70 and AK300. Most said it is depending on the songs. The summary of the test are:
 

1. The sonic differences between AK70 and AK300 are pretty small, and it was not easy to identify during the comparison test using the switcher.
2. For some songs, AK70 might sound preferable while for other songs AK300 was preferable.

The result was almost a tie. In summary, AK300 sounds a little more transparent with slightly better in perceived detail and instrument separation, but AK70 has slightly more punch and engaging dynamic that easily connect users with the music emotionally. I’m not going to say the AK300 is easily a better DAP than AK70 because it has higher model grade and more expensive. But in this case, it is really depending on personal preferences and the IEM we use with it. To me, personally, I slightly prefer AK70.
 

 

A friend of mine, I called him WB, recently was looking for a DAP, and he spent some time in Zeppelin to compare the AK70 and AK300 as both are within his budget. After some intensive comparison, he chose AK300 as he found the sonic character of AK300 matches very well with his music and IEM. This is his comment about AK300:

“AK300 has a warm vocal and more often than not a lot of warm sound signature DAP sacrifices detail and transparency but not the AK300. I agree it lacks the punch and the dynamics but the smoothness will sometimes send you lost within the music.”

I think it makes sense for Astell&Kern to offer various DAPs with different sonic signatures to meet customer various sonic preferences. Therefore I see AK70 and AK300 as a good offering from AK to cater different sonic preferences.



 
Features
 


Observation of features and functionalities is based on firmware version 1.10. When I received it, AK70 was running older firmware, version 0.63. Upgrade to 1.10 was done conveniently through wifi (158 MB download size).


 

Build and UI
As expected from AK DAP, build quality is premium. Excellent quality metal casing with the premium workmanship. AK70 is designed with a premium feel, with nice and responsive touch screen. UI is simple and user-friendly.  


 

In my opinion, since it has some corners that might scratch other items when putting it together in a bag, I think AK should have included a free protective case with AK70 as default accessories, just like AK300.

Volume control and other buttons work when the screen is off. But in USB DAC mode, volume control doesn’t work when the screen is off. Need to on the screen to adjust the volume in USB DAC mode. I don't see any setting in the menu to change this behavior.


 

File browser is available. I consider file browser is a highly important feature on any DAP, as sometimes our music files are not properly tagged. The automatic playlist is rather limited to only 'Most Played' and 'Recently Added'. I wish to see more automatic playlist like 'Recently Played', 'Recently Played Albums', and 'Most Played Albums'.


 

The touch screen is responsive with a good quality display. I just feel that the battery indicator at the top is rather too small for my old eyes. Besides that, the design of the user interface is really good and user-friendly. Navigation was also smooth and easy.

The following are some settings available in the settings menu:


 

 

 

File Formats
AK70 plays all common file formats. I tested the following, all were playable:
PCM: AAC, AIFF, APE, FLAC, MP3, OGG, WAV, & WMA
DSD: DFF & DSF


 

 

The following FLAC files with different sampling frequencies were tested, all were playable:


 

AK70 doesn't support any format of CD image and SACD ISO image:


 

Storage
Both FAT32 and exFAT formats are supported.
Maximum tested working capacity: 200GB Sandisk mSD formatted to exFAT.
 

USB DAC & Host (OTG)


 

For a small player such as AK70, to support both USB DAC function as well as USB host / OTG for connection with external USB DAC, is simply awesome. Although the USB DAC supporting only UAC 1.0, but 88.2 kHz playback is supported using Foobar WASAPI driver. Otherwise, the Windows driver doesn't support 88.2 kHz. WASAPI (event) so far not very compatible with AK70, therefore WASAPI (push) is recommended for AK70 when using foobar.


 

My concern in USB DAC mode is the absence of battery indicator and sampling frequency indicator. In USB DAC mode, AK70 charges its internal battery slowly, taking the power from computer USB port, approximately 520 mA.


 

 

In order to activate the USB Host / OTG function, the USB icon in the drop down menu must be activated:


 

I have tried some USB DACs with AK70, and so far the compatibility is quite amazing. From all the USB DACs that I tested with AK70, only Mytek Stereo 192-DSD that was not compatible. Other USB DACs I tested so far mostly compatible. DSD streaming to external USB DACs also works well. USB DACs that I've tested and compatible with AK70:

Chord Dave
Chord TT
Chord Mojo
ifi micro iDSD
Light Harmonic Geek Pulse XFi


 

 

When used as USB host, connected to an external USB DAC, There is an automatic switch, where AK70 disconnects the audio streaming to the USB DAC when AK70 headphone output is connected. So we cannot use the AK70 built-in headphone output together with the external USB DAC at the same time.


Headphone Output
AK70 has balanced 2.5mm TRRS headphone output besides the unbalanced 3.5mm TRS headphone output. Both headphone outputs have similar maximum output voltage / loudness. The difference is the balanced headphone output provide higher current for a more demanding IEMs or headphone.

Maximum power output is defined as highest power output with THD less than 1%. To estimate the maximum output voltage before the waveform gets distorted, I visually monitor the waveform on the oscilloscope and monitor the FFT window to check that the harmonic distortion is less than 40 dB (100 times) from the main frequency.

Average maximum headphone output voltage
2.25 Vrms at 600 ohms load


 

Maximum unbalanced headphone output voltage and current
0.51 Vrms at 15 ohms load
Max output current: 34 mA


 

 

Calculated maximum power of unbalanced headphone output:
37 mW at 32 ohms
17 mW at 300 ohms

Maximum balanced headphone output voltage and current
1.06 Vrms at 15 ohms load
Max output current: 71 mA

Calculated maximum power of balanced headphone output:
161 mW at 32 ohms
17 mW at 300 ohms

Measured headphone output impedance:
Unbalanced: ≈ 3.7 ohms
Balanced: ≈ 10.7 ohms

Please take note that the headphone output impedance measurement result is quite far from the AK70 specification on its website. There might be some error in my measurement that I'm not aware of, but that's the result that I got.
 
The balanced headphone output has significantly more power than the unbalanced headphone output, and recommended for a more difficult to drive earphones or headphones.
 

 

RMAA Test of The Unbalanced Headphone Output


 

Disclaimer:
RMAA test is not an absolute test, and dependent on the quality of the audio interface used for the measurement. In most cases, RMAA test is only useful for verification purposes of the audio quality within the 20Hz to 20 kHz frequency range.

HRT LineStreamer+ audio interface that I used for RMAA measurement has the following specification:
Frequency Response (20 Hz/20 kHz)  : +0 / -0.4 dB
S/N Ratio (DC to 30 kHz) : 104 dB
S/N Ratio (A-weighted) : 109 dB

That means A-weighted S/N measurement result won't be higher than 109 dB (with a few dB tolerance), even if the audio equipment has better than 109 dB S/N ratio. AK70 Signal to Noise Ratio is rated at 116 dB. Due to the limitation of the audio interface, RMAA S/N result won't be showing measurement result that is better than 109 dB.
We can see from the RMAA result below which was done at 96 kHz sampling frequency, the result are good and within expectation.
 

RMAA Test Result:
 

 

 

Noise and EMI Immunity
Headphone output hiss noise is practically very low, both on unbalanced and balanced output. For hiss noise test, 1964 Ears V3 is my most sensitive IEM that picks up hiss noise from practically any headphone output. It is more sensitive than other IEMs that I have, and even more sensitive than my sensitive DUNU hybrids IEM, DN-2000 and DN-2000J, that are among sensitive IEMs that easily pick up hiss noise.
 
Practically I would say that AK70 headphone outputs are very quiet, no audible hiss noise on most IEMs. Only when I purposely observing the hiss noise in a very quiet room, playing a silent track to enable the headphone output (disconnected when music stop), and then plugging and unplugging 1964 V3 to observe the hiss noise, than I was able to observe a very soft hiss noise on both unbalanced and balanced output. Very very soft hiss noise that is practically unnoticeable on regular use. The balanced output is slightly cleaner than the unbalanced output.
 
For those who has some experienced monitoring audio signal on oscilloscope might notice that sine wave signal shown in previous oscilloscope screenshots doesn’t look very clean, and the line is slightly thicker than expected. AK70 headphone output does have some noise, but non-audible high frequency noise above 100 kHz. This probably related to their noise shaping algorithm. Nothing to worry about this high frequency noise, as it is practically not audible and RMAA test showing good result of S/N test on audible frequency range. My Owon oscilloscope is a 100 MHz oscilloscope, therefore it picks up any high frequency noise beyond audio band.
 
I did EMI immunity test on AK70, similar test as shown in this video:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OQsoGI-uzYE
 
The video was made when I reviewed Fiio X3 2nd generation, to show the different level of EMI immunity from various DAPs. I’m glad to find out that AK70 EMI immunity is excellent! Practically I didn’t hear any EMI noise during the test, or when I hold the AK70 side by side with my smartphone daily.


Line Output
Line output shares the same port as the 3.5mm headphone output. It can be enabled from the setting. Line output seems no different than headphone output locked at maximum volume. The reason for saying this is I didn’t see any changes to the output impedance, with and without the line out enabled. The output impedance was observed using 600 ohms dummy load and the peak to peak voltage on the oscilloscope. Line output generally has higher output impedance than headphone output, so if line output mode bypasses the headphone amplifier, an increase in output impedance can be observed. But in this case, the output level is the same between headphone output set at max volume (150) and line output enabled. So I assume the line output mode in AK70 is no different than headphone output at maximum volume.
 

 

Battery
The 2,200mAh 3.7V internal Li-Polymer Battery practically provides more or less 8 hours of play time.
 
The battery test that I did was continuous playing of my burn-in track which is a compilation of various recordings, at around 100 mV rms volume level, on a 16 ohms IEM (JVC HA-FXC80), with the screen off. The IEM is coupled to a microphone that is connected to a smartphone to measure and log the microphone output level. The AK70 battery, from fully charged, last around 9 hours and 44 minutes on continuous play test.
 

 
 
The screen draws approximately 165 mA, therefore quite a significant load for the battery. In practical use with the occasional use of the screen, we can expect more or less 8 hours of play time, depending on the screen usage.
 
I’ve tested a few USB chargers with AK70, from old regular charger to the modern smart charger (QC 2.0), and the result are more or less the same. AK70 in off state, battery charging draws a maximum of 912 mA from the charger. So any 1A USB charger is sufficient, and higher capacity charger like 2A or 2.4A charger won’t make it charge faster. From completely empty, 0% battery, to fully charged, it takes around 5 hours and 11 minutes. But the battery indicator showing fully charged slightly earlier, after around 3 hours of charging. As we know, Li-Polymer or Li-Ion battery will degrade faster when left completely discharged for too long, or left charged in the state of fully charged for a long period. Best is to let the battery operates in the middle, more or less between 30% to 90% of the battery capacity, for longer service life. So it is actually preferable for the battery indicator to give ‘fully charged’ indication a bit early.
 

 
 
When the battery is fully charged, AK70 still draw around 212 mA from the charger for an indefinite time. This is probably to operate the charging circuit and main processor to monitor the charging process. 212 mA is actually rather high for a simple device like a DAP. For example, my Onkyo DP-X1 only draws around 150 mA when the battery is fully charged. The 212 mA draws by AK70 keeps the device a little warm when connected to a charger, but there is nothing to worry about.
 

 
 
Bluetooth
(Added 10 September 2016)
Today I tried the Bluetooth feature with Creative Roar 2 bluetooth speaker, Bluetooth streaming was smooth up to around 5 meters distance, line of sight.
 
 
 

Conclusion
AK70 is probably the first AK player that I will put on my recommendation list. I was rather skeptical to AK DAPs before, especially when considering the price. AK70 has definitely changed my perception towards AK DAPs. It is truly a nice sounding little player that amazed me with its bold and engaging sound. When someone asks for a recommendation for sub $1k DAP, AK70 would definitely be among the top on my recommendation list. Kudos Astell&Kern!
 
And once again, many thanks to SKM Technologies Singapore and Zeppelin & Co. !
 

 


 
 
 
Equipment used in this review:
 

 

Earphones / IEMs & Headphone:
1964 Ears V3
AK T8iE Mk2
DUNU DN-2000
DUNU DN-2000J
Jomo 4
LZ-A2
Kennerton Odin

DAPs & DACs:
Chord Dave
Chord Mojo
Chord TT
Fiio X3 2nd gen
iBasso DX90
Light Harmonic Geek Pulse XFi
Onkyo DP-X1
ifi micro iDSD
Mytek Stereo192-DSD

Measurement Instrument & ADC:
Amprobe Pocket Meter PM51A
Owon VDS3102 Digital Storage Oscilloscope
HRT LineStreamer+
ZKE EBD USB+ (Battery Capacity Tester)
 
 

Some recordings used in this review:
 

First of all, I would like to thank Shozy for the review sample of Shozy Zero!

Website:
http://www.shozy-hk.com/zero-earphone/
 

 
 
I believe what makes Shozy Zero unique is the wooden housing. The driver’s housing is made of high density Brazilian rosewood, the type of wood that is also commonly used for musical instrument. The cable splitter and the 3.5 mm jack barrel are also uniquely made of wood. The simple bullet housing design allows both straight down or over the ear wearing styles. Personally I like the simple and elegant woody design of Shozy Zero. The IEM is very light and very comfortable, even for a very long listening session. I had it for more than a month before writing this review, and so far I don’t see any quality issue on my unit. The only complain on the build quality is the missing of the left dot indicator, and the super small and difficult to see left and right marking. But that can be easily solved, like using other eartips with different color between left and right driver.
 

 
 
There is no information on the website about the driver, but Shozy confirms that Zero is a single dynamic driver IEM. At 94 dB sensitivity Zero needs a little push on the volume as compared to other higher sensitivity IEMs in this category. But just a little, and Zero is still relatively easy to drive and smartphone friendly, though I sometime pushed the volume on my Galaxy S4 to the max for some recordings.
 
 

Pros:

Non-fatiguing, bright recordings friendly.
Light and comfortable.
 

Cons:

Detail, clarity, and transparency are generally a bit lacking for distant miking recordings such as classical, and binaural recordings.
Obscured Left and Right markings, no left dot for quick identification.
 

Suggestions for improvement:

Improvement in detail and clarity.
Clearer Left and Right markings.
Microphone version for smartphones.
 

 
 
 
 

Sound Quality

Smooth warm and pleasant sounding are probably best described Shozy Zero sonic character. It has intimate presentation, and in my opinion sounds best with Pop and Vocal. Vocal sounds smooth and intimate with good body, and most important sibilant free. I’ve spent hours listening to Zero using various players and DACs, listening to various recordings. I’ve read some reviews and comments about Zero, and many people seem to like it. I like the fatigue free and vocal centric character of Zero, but frankly, overall Zero sonic character is not really my cup of tea, as it is a little too warm for me, and I generally prefer something with more clarity. But this is more of personal preferences, not really about good and bad. 
 
With Zero sonic character, some recordings shine nicely, while some don’t. So IMHO, not really an all-rounder, and matching Zero sonic character to the recordings is the key to get the best of it. Many vocal and pop albums sound more pleasing on Zero than for example, one of my favorite IEM, DUNU DN-2000J that cost more than 5 times of Zero. It is sometime tiring listening to Pop albums using DN-2000J due to its analytical signature. On the other hand, listening to classical and some audiophile binaural recordings using DN-2000J is a bliss, while Zero may sounds rather veiled and not transparent enough for those recordings. The recordings we listen play a great role in choosing the right IEM. And from my experience so far, close miking modern recordings such as Pop and vocal are what make Zero shines.
 
Special venting design on the nozzle for air pressure control:

 
 
Tonality of Zero is pretty smooth without any annoying peaks and dips. Zero strongest character is in its midrange. It has mild to moderate emphasize on mid-bass to midrange area, but in a nice and good way, and doesn't sound like a boring mid-centric IEM. Bass and Treble extensions are decent. Bass has decent punch and doesn’t sound anaemic, but doesn't go very deep. Bass is emphasized more on the mid-bass area. Bass speed and texture is average, quite ok for this price range, just don’t expect a very fast and detailed bass. Treble sounds soft and smooth, no sibilant and bright recordings friendly. Upper treble extension rolls off rather early, and perceived clarity and treble sparkle is on the soft side. Dynamic is quite ok, especially for an IEM in this price range. Good enough to make music sounds lively and enjoyable.
 
Shozy recommended some burn-in, and I followed their recommendation with 200 hours burn-in. I did some measurement before and after burn-in. The measurement result shows that burn-in improves the bass extension of Zero. And from what I can remember, besides the slight improvement in sub bass extension, I don’t remember any other significant changes in sonic character, before and after burn-in. I would say the changes in sonic character after burn-in is rather mild. I’m not a burn-in fanatic, and in many cases that I experienced, burn-in doesn’t always make any significant changes in sonic signature. But in the case of Zero, there are some measureable differences after burn-in. Sonic impression in this review is based on the after burn-in sonic signature.
 
 
Before observing the measurement results, please take note of the following disclaimer:

• Frequency response measurement in this review was done not using standard measurement instrument for in-ear monitors. Therefore measurement result should not be considered as absolute result, and should not be compared to other measurement result using different measurement instrument.
• Measurement was done using MiniDSP UMIK-1 USB measurement microphone with a DIY acoustic coupler. The program I use for measurement is the famous Room EQ Wizard, REW v5.17 Beta 8. I measured left channel and right channel multiple times, take 3 most consistent measurements for each channel, apply Psychoacoustic smoothing, and then average the result.
• From my own observation, measurement result beyond 10 kHz doesn’t seems to be reliable, therefore can be ignored.
• What shown on measurement result does not always correspond well to what I audibly perceived.

 
 
Shozy Zero Left and Right Channel - New Before Burn-in:

 
Shozy Zero Left and Right Channel - After Burn-in:

 
Shozy Zero Left Channel - New & After Burn-in:

 
Shozy Zero Right Channel - New & After Burn-in:

 
Shozy Zero Average FR - New & After Burn-in:

 
Shozy Zero Average FR After Burn-in compared to DUNU DN-2000 (my flat reference for tonality):

 
 
 
 

Comparisons

Comparison is important to see the value and performance of a product in perspective to other products in the market. Below are the comparisons of Shozy Zero with other IEMs that I have, that are more or less are in the similar price category.
 

 
 
MEElectronics M-Duo
No fight, Zero is clearly better than M-Duo. M-Duo tonality is too V shape with kind of hole in the middle. Besides that the dual drivers inside M-Duo don’t sound very coherent. The treble region sounds kind of detach from the midrange.
 

 
 
Fidue A65
It’s a tie. Fidue A65 shares some similarities to Zero. Both have pleasing, smooth warm type of sound signature. Fidue A65 has slightly thicker bass notes, while Zero has slightly better perceived clarity. Level of perceived detail and dynamic are more or less similar. Both are great for Pop and vocal recordings. Though I like them equally, but if I have to choose, I would probably pick Zero for the little extra clarity. In this case, the measurement result doesn’t correspond well with what I hear, as it shown that Fidue A65 to have more treble than Shozy Zero, but to what I hear, the level of treble is more or less similar.
 

 
 
Audio-Technica ATH-IM50
ATH-IM50 in my opinion is technically better than Zero. Higher perceived detail with better clarity and dynamic. Though sonic preferences is something personal, but objective evaluation is as important. IM50 tonality can be perceived as balance with a slight emphasize on upper midrange to make vocal sounds a little forward. Overall clarity is much better on IM50. Bass and midrange sounds tighter with better texture, and to me that’s very important. Moving from IM50 to Zero I feel that Zero is a tad veiled and congested. So in this comparison ATH-IM50 is a winner in my book. But some people might not feel comfortable with the shape of IM50 and over the ear wearing style, and might prefer the simple bullet shape design of Shozy Zero.
 

 
 
 
 
 

DAPs Pairing

Shozy Zero is not picky on sources, even my old Galaxy S4 drives them quite well with good sound quality. I tested it with some DAPs and DACs, and generally I prefer brighter sounding sources for Zero to give a little boost on the clarity. For example, my Onkyo DP-X1 is a little too dark for Zero, and my old DX-90, Fiio X3 2nd generation, and the new Astell&Kern AK70 match better with Zero. As for DACs, my ifi micro iDSD, Chord Mojo and Geek Out 450 are good choices for Zero. And the Superlux amp I used for IEM comparisons also sounds great with Zero. So far I find Zero is easy to pair and matches well with many of the sources I tried, but I would avoid rather dark sounding DAP like my DP-X1.
 
 
 
 

Conclusion

Market for sub $100 IEM is quite crowded, therefore competition is very tough. Some comments said that Shozy Zero competing well with IEMs many times its price, well I honestly don’t think so. But within this price category, Shozy Zero actually competes quite well, offering a unique sonic character that many may found pleasing and non-fatiguing.
 
 

 

 

 
 
 
 
Earphones / IEMs:
DUNU DN-2000
Audio-Technica ATH-IM50
Fidue A65
MEElectronics M-Duo
 
DAPs, DACs, & Headphone Amplifiers:
Astell&Kern AK70
Chord Mojo
Fiio X3 2nd generation
iBasso DX-90
Light Harmonic Geek Out 450
Onkyo DP-X1
Superlux HA3D
Samsung Galaxy S4
 
Measurement Microphone:
MiniDSP UMIK-1
 
Some recordings used in this review: