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:
 

This review is the summary section of Yulong DA8II in-depth review here:
http://www.head-fi.org/t/779702/yulong-da8ii-in-depth-review
 
Please visit the above thread for more information.
 
 
 
Many thanks to Yulong and Qubes Audio Singapore for the loan of Yulong DA8ii demo unit!
I had the demo unit for more than a month for proper review and comparison with other desktop DACs.
 
http://www.yulongaudio.com/en/product_detail.asp?pid=48
 

 
 
I have the previous model, Yulong DA8 for more almost 2 years now, and it has been one of my favourite and reference DAC+Amp combo. The powerful and smooth sounding 1 watt discrete class A headphone amplifier makes it one of the best one box solution in its class.
 
Instead of increasing the model number and releasing DA9, Yulong launched DA8ii, as the improved version of the successful DA8. While still using the same SABRE ESS9018 DAC chip, the following are the improved components in DA8II:
Low phase noise Crystek CCHD-950-25-100 audio crystal oscillator, fine-tuned power supply, Low Pass Filter (LPF), and headphone amplifier.
 

 
 
Look and Feel:
Overall they look quite similar, with the same size and design. The whole unit feels really solid and well made. The front panel is made of thick aluminium plate, which seems to be the classic trend for high end audio equipment. Beside the additional 'II' on the model, the only difference in the design is the volume knob that looks slightly different than DA8. Other than that both DA8 and DA8II basically look similar. Both are available in black and silver. The 2.4 inch colour LED display still looks the same as Yulong DA8 color LED display. The display quality of my Yulong DA8 starts degrading after 1 year of frequent use. After around 1.5 years, the edges of the display started to get brightened and bright lines started to show up. It can be easily repaired, but more durable type of display is preferable. Though the graphic might not look as good as Yulong LED display, simple monochrome LED display like the display for Mytek Stereo192-DSD and Geek Pulse XFi will most probably more durable and last longer than the type of color LED display used in DA8 and DA8II. But to be honest, though they look the same as DA8 display, I don't have any information from Yulong if the type of LED display in DA8II is the same as the one in DA8, or if DA8II is now using the better type. In practical, I rarely use the display other than checking the sampling frequency, to make sure it is matching the sampling rate of the recording being played. So I would say it is something minor, but I would like to share my experience here. Besides that, DA8II looks and feels solid, and the build quality is simply excellent, proven by almost 2 years of using DA8.
 

 
 
 
 

Summary

Yulong DA8II is a refinement of the already excellent product, Yulong DA8. Refinements that bring DA8II to a more neutral sounding DAC+Amp, as compared to the mildly warm sounding DA8. Most noticeable improvement is in the speed and transient that DA8II is superior to DA8, while still maintaining natural sound signature without any unnatural exaggeration in detail and clarity. Detail and dynamic are now presented in a more lively and natural manner. One of my favourite signatures from Yulong DA8II is that it has high detail resolving power without sounding analytical. Tonality is now closer to neutral, but not yet stepping into analytical territory. Bass is punchier and faster, midrange is more or less similar with slightly better texture, and treble is slightly more transparent. The smooth sounding signature is still retained, but now presented as 'smooth-transparent' instead of 'smooth-warm'. From my observation comparing Yulong DA8II with Yulong DA8, Mytek Stereo192-DSD, and Geek Pulse XFi, and tested it with many headphones, I come to a conclusion that Yulong DA8II has neutral sound signature, more or less comparable to Mytek Stereo192-DSD line output signature. Not analytic, not warm, but neutral. The refinements in DA8II bring it closer to neutral, reference type of sound signature, lively dynamic, while retaining the DA8 musicality. Kudos to Yulong!
 
All subjective listening tests were done with ‘Slow’ filter and Jitter Eliminator set to bypass. Though I almost cannot hear the difference between Jitter Eliminator ON and bypass, I feel that bypass setting is a tad livelier. The following is simplified comparisons between the 4 DACs headphone output sound quality subjective listening test, from most preferred to less preferred, top to bottom:
Yulong DA8II & Geek Pulse XFi. Quite different sound signature, but comparable in perceived quality.
Yulong DA8. Only very slightly behind DA8II sound quality, with slightly less transient speed and clarity.
Mytek Stereo192-DSD. Sounds rather thin, lacking bass and midrange body. Highest perceived hiss noise on sensitive IEMs.
 
As for the line output sound quality, honestly, after testing the DACs with different amplifiers and headphones, they kind of have their own unique signature that may sound excellent and enjoyable with matching setup. It is hard to make simple judgement which one sounds best. All DACs line output sound really good and more or less comparable in quality, while having their own unique sound signature. So I rather summaries their unique sound signatures, than voting a winner.
 
Yulong DA8II and Mytek Stereo192-DSD are the most neutral sounding of the four. Yulong DA8II tonality is quite comparable to Mytek 192-DSD tonality. DA8II sounds a tad smoother than Mytek 192-DSD especially on the high frequency, like a tad more refine with slightly better instrument separation, while Mytek 192-DSD sometime may sound a tad dryer, like there is a slightly more emphasize on detail and transient. But the difference is quite small, and they are more or less comparable in overall sound quality. Yulong DA8 sounds pretty close to Yulong DA8II sound signature, slightly warmer with fatter bass, while DA8II has better transient, texture, and transparency. LH Geek Pulse XFi, like the DA8, is on the warmer side of neutral, with fatter, stronger bass than DA8II, slightly fatter than DA8 as well, with sweet smooth warm signature, and slightly more laid back in presentation. Geek Pulse XFi also has slightly less perceived level of detail when compared to DA8II, could be due to the smooth warm signature. I prefer to use Geek Pulse XFi for brighter and forward sounding headphones. While warmer sounding amplifiers and headphones will probably find better matching with Yulong DA8II.
 
Mytek is stronger on the features for professional audio application with more comprehensive volume control features, so more suitable for pro audio application which requires more comprehensive features. But when looking for a neutral sounding DAC + headphone amplifier, but due to the much better headphone amplifier quality, Yulong DA8II is the better one box solution for headphone system.
 
Sound quality wise, in my opinion, Yulong DA8II deserves 5 stars rating, at least for this price category.
 
 

 
 
 
 

Pros:

1. Excellent sound quality of both DAC and headphone amplifier sections.
2. User friendly design. Features are directly accessible through dedicated buttons, instead of digging into menus.
3. Amplifier bypass feature for the line output, for pure DAC mode.
4. Very good volume knob turning response.
5. Very stable Windows USB driver.

 
 

Cons:

1. Probably using the same type of colour LED display as Yulong DA8, which from frequent use might start to degrade from as early as 1 year.
2. Very tight headphone socket. Probably only when new, and will get loosen after some use.
3. No indicator on display for different sampling rate of DSD format. Both DSD64 and DSD128 playback are shown as DSD.

 
 

Suggestion for Improvements:

1. To use a more durable and lasting display quality.
2. Display can be totally turned off after a certain period to save the lifespan of the display. And to use power switch with light like on Yulong A28, to indicate that the DAC is on, when the display is off.
3. Additional digitally-controlled analogue volume control feature beside digital volume control, using digitally-controlled analogue volume control chip such as PGA2311. Something like what Mytek Stereo192-DSD offers would be excellent, offering the choice of both digital and analogue volume control, with 2 independent volume controls for line output and headphone output.
4. Dedicated ‘Mute’ button.
5. Balanced headphone amplifier.
6. DSD256 and DSD512 support.
7. USB compatibility to Yulong U200 Wi-Fi module, for lossless Wi-Fi music streaming.

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:

Many thanks to Venture Electronics for the VE Monk review sample!

Product website:
http://eng.52ve.cn/product.php?cm_id=205


 

I haven't been using earbud for quite a long time since my favourite Sony MDR-E888 died many years ago. A few months back I had a chat with Head-Fi'er @RedJohn456. From there I came to know about Venture Electronics. Thanks buddy!

In general, IEM might still be the preferable option due to the better noise isolation and generally better sound quality. But in some circumstances, earbud is quite useful especially when we prefer not to have isolation, and require awareness of surrounding sound. In office for example, I found earbud is more useful, as we can easily hear when being called, or when our phone ring. A few friends of mine prefer earbud simply because of personal preference as they don't feel comfortable to have something isolating their ears. So earbud does have its own market and fans.

VE Monk really did give me a nice surprise when I tried it for the first time! It looks like an ordinary cheapo earbud, but there is nothing cheap with the sound quality! It is actually a very nice sounding earbud! Excited with the discovery, I brought it around and asked family members and friends to try it, and the Monk never failed to impress everyone who tried it! From casual listener, to my friend a pro audio engineer, Monk gave them a smile when they tried it. When I told them that VE Monk is a $5 earbud, they were greatly surprised. They know from the look that it doesn't look like an expensive earbud, but having heard the sound quality, they didn't expect it to be a $5 earbud.


 
 
 
 
Sound Quality
My memory and past impressions of earbuds are their usual midrange centric tonality, lacking bass and treble extension. I'm glad to say that VE Monk is different than those old earbuds I tried in the past. It doesn't have that mid centric signature. Tonality is best described as natural and balanced with good clarity. Well, don't expect bass level of a good sealed In-Ear monitor, though as an earbud the Monk has pretty good bass, but level wise it is still below a decent In-Ear monitor, for example Awei ES800M that cost approximately the same as the Monk. But the tonality tuning is so good that I don't feel the bass is lacking. Bass quality is good, good speed and texture, not boomy or muddy, and only slightly below the midrange level. Low bass extension is also pretty decent for an earbud. I like bass, and generally I prefer mildly emphasized bass, and still, I enjoy the Monk, and I don't feel the bass is anemic like I often heard from other earbuds in the past.

Natural clarity is probably Monk's most prominent signature. Clarity is very good and sounds natural. Texture wise, Monk is not the smooth and refined type, a bit grainy, but not harsh. No annoying peaks and dips in the frequency response, tonality is perceived as linear from bass to treble. Low bass and upper treble extension are smoothly rolled off, but quite sufficient. Please take note that earbud tonality is greatly dependent on position and fitting. For larger ears, the fitting might get loose, and less bass is expected. Midrange is natural with good detail and clarity, not warm and not analytic. Vocal sounds clear and articulated. Many earphones in this price category sounds muffled and lacking clarity. Monk's midrange is clear without any indication of muddiness or muffledness. Treble has enough sparkle and quite balance with the midrange. Dynamic and transient is pretty good as well, quite lively and fast, and never sounded slow and lazy. The open, non-sealing design gives quite an open, less 'in your head' stereo imaging. Imaging is rather flat and lacking depth, but pretty wide and not congested.


 
 
 
 
Player Requirement & Build Quality
Due to less isolation, we tend to play it a little louder; therefore usually it needs a little extra volume to achieve desirable loudness. Using mobile phone, Samsung Galaxy S4, I usually play around 90% to 100% of the volume level. VE Monk is quite player friendly, sounds good from generally any decent source or player. The Monk is best used in quite environment. When using earbud in noisy environment, we tend to increase the volume of the music to be louder than the environment noise, resulting high level of loudness that might reach unhealthy level for our ears.

Build quality is good. Simple old fashion design that seems to be pretty durable for normal use. Cable is soft with no memory effect, so it is not coiling. The TPE cable jacket is smooth and not rubbery, therefore not easily tangled.
 
 
 
 
Comparison
The only earbud I have left that is still alive is V-MODA Remix M-Class Earbuds. I'm glad to say that comparing V-MODA Remix M-Class with VE Monk, the Monk is clearly the winner in sound quality department. V-Moda Remix looks nicer and more stylish with solid metal housing, but doesn't sound as good as the Monk. They have similar level of detail and clarity, but the Monk has better bass. Midrange and vocal sounds fuller on the Monk, with overall more balance tonality.


 
 
 
 
Summary
Overall, Monk is a good all-rounder. I tested it with many genres and types of recordings, from classical to modern genres; Monk delivers them all in a natural and enjoyable manner. I've used it for long period of listening in office, no fatigue from the sound character, but occasionally I felt some discomfort from the shape of the earbud that slightly pressing some parts of my ears. I just need to change the position a little bit when I feel discomfort. Those with smaller ears please take note, that the Monk has the regular earbud size that might cause discomfort over a long period of use. I wish VE would come up with a better and modern design for their earbuds, especially to improve the comfort level. But this humble and old fashion look has some advantage. The simple old fashion earbud look won't grab anyone attention, so we can rest assure it will be safe wherever we left it behind. Or even if we lose it or break it, it doesn't cost much.

VE Monk is a good sounding, fun and enjoyable earbud. For the sound quality and the price, there is no reason for me not to give 5 stars rating for VE Monk, mainly due to its value. Kudos to Venture Electronics!


 
 
 
 
 
Pros:
A good all-rounder with excellent sound quality at a very affordable price.
 
Cons:
Large driver and housing might not be comfortable for smaller ears.
Sound quality is position and fitting dependent.
 
Suggestions for improvements:
More comfortable design like the Apple Earpods.
 
Evaluation:
Estimated Sound Quality : 3/5 Good
Estimated Value (SQ/Price) : 5/5 Excellent
Build Quality: 3/5 Good
Noise Isolation: 1/5 Poor
 
Perceived level of:
Naturalness: 4/5 Very good
Clarity: 3/5 Good
Detail & Separation: 3/5 Good
Holographic Imaging & Spaciousness: 3/5 Good
Dynamic & Transient: 3/5 Good
Treble level in comparison to midrange: 0
Bass level in comparison to midrange: -1
Relax (-) to Analytical (+) balance: 0
 
 
Score:
5 - Excellent
4 - Very Good
3 - Good
2 - Acceptable
1 - Poor
 
Balanced Level:
+/- 1 : Mild - Still within acceptable range for most recordings.
+/- 2 : Moderate - Generally acceptable, but may start to sound a little too much on some recordings.
+/- 3 : Strong - Generally sounds unnatural and too strong for most recordings.
 
 
 
Specifications:
Dynamic Driver Diameter: 15.4 mm
Impedance: 32 ohms
Sensitivity: 112 dB (1 mW)
Frequency response: 18 ~ 22500 Hz
Power rating: 1000 mW
Cable: Y cable, 1.2m, OFC.
Microphone: No
Price: $5


 
 
 
 

Equipment used in this review:

[size=17.03px]Earphones / IEMs:[/size]
V-MODA Remix M-Class
 

DAPs & DACs:

Fiio X3 2nd gen
iBasso DX90
Samsung Galaxy S4
 
 
 
 

Some recordings used in this review:

A very big thanks to DUNU for the DN-2000J review sample! I've been a great fan of DUNU hybrid IEMs since I bought DN-1000 and DN-2000, and reviewed them some time ago. It took me almost a year to complete this review due to unforeseen high workload.
 
http://www.dunu-topsound.com/DN-2000J.html
 

 
 
DN-2000J is a hybrid IEM, in the same family as DN-1000 and DN-2000. It has one dynamic driver and two BA drivers per channel. One special note, the dynamic driver seems to be quite special, the diaphragm is made of liquid crystal composite with Titanium coating, and it performs remarkably well in DN-2000J.
Having similar model number and housing design as the DN-2000, one common question is whether the DN-2000J is an improved version of DN-2000. In my opinion, yes, an improvement, but not a replacement. DN-2000J does improve certain design features of DN-2000, such as the knurled nozzle to hold the eartips tighter, slightly thicker cable that feels stronger and more durable, and improved detail and transparency in the sound quality department. But DN-2000J in my opinion doesn't replace DN-2000 due to the rather different tonality. With more treble emphasize than DN-2000, DN-2000J is generally brighter than DN-2000. And might be a little too bright for some people. DN-2000 tonality to my ears sounds very linear, very good balance from bass to treble. Probably a little lacking on the upper treble coverage, but to my ears, DN-2000 is one rare IEM with very linear tonality, especially on the bass to upper mid region. DN-2000J tonality might not sound as 'pleasing' as DN-2000 and has shifted more towards analytical sonic character. For those who like the DN-2000 tonality (like me), the analytical nature of DN-2000J might not be considered as an improvement over DN-2000, and might prefer the DN-2000 tonality instead. But for those who prefer a more transparent sonic signature, DN-2000J superb transparency and clarity are certainly a very welcome improvement.
 

 
 
 

Summary:

 

1. An excellent monitoring IEM with good accuracy, superb transparency, clarity, dynamic, and detail retrieval capability.
2. Neutral-analytical sound signature and highly revealing. Definitely not for those looking for smooth-warm sound signature, and probably not for vocal lovers as well. DN-2000 is the better option for those looking for a more pleasing smooth-warm signature while still having pretty good transparency.
3. To get the best sonic character to match individual preference, testing all the sound tuning options like eartips, bass ring, and DNK rings, is a must.
4. Bass ring is recommended to bring the bass level to a more realistic level (~6 dB boost).
5. Excellent bass quality, reach very low, fast, detailed, and very rich in texture. Probably the best bass quality in this price category.
6. With bass ring, the tonality is mildly V shape with more emphasize on the treble.
7. Best paired with neutral to warm sounding amplifiers or players.
8. Might not be the best choice for Pop recordings, but definitely one of the best IEM for classical, binaural, and other distant miking recordings, as well as Pro Audio applications.
9. An improvement, but not a replacement of DN-2000.

 
 
 

Pros:

1. Technically excellent IEM, very revealing with excellent level of detail retrieval and transparency.
2. Excellent coherency between all the 3 drivers.
3. Excellent 3D holographic imaging.
4. Superb bass quality.
5. Sound tuning option with bass ring, DNK rings, and various eartips.
6. Easy to drive and not much affected to different value of amplifier output impedance from 0 to 10 ohms.
7. Generous accessories.

 

Cons:

1. Tonality probably a little bright for those who prefer warm sonic character.
2. Though the knurled nozzle has better grip for the silicone eartips as compared to the smooth nozzle of DN-2000, but still need to be improved further, as occasionally eartip still left stuck in ear canal when unplug the IEM.

 

Suggestions for Improvements:

1. Eartips fitting, especially the Silicone eartips.
2. Detachable cable.

 

 
 
 
 
From my observation, though there are many various personal preferences on sound signature and tonality, I observed that there are 2 major groups of user, the 'Sounds good' and the 'Sounds right'. The first group, the 'Sounds good', are those looking for a more pleasing sound signature. It doesn't really matter if the sonic character is a little coloured, not very detailed, or less accurate, as long as overall sonic character sounds good and pleasing, matches to their personal preferences. The second group, the 'Sounds right', prefer detailed, transparent, and accurate sonic character that reasonably close to life performance, even though the sonic character might be unforgiving for less than stellar recordings. If the older DN-2000 probably sits in between the 'Sounds good' and the 'Sounds right', DUNU DN-2000J is clearly more suitable for the later.
 
100% early responses that I got from friends when I asked them about DN-2000J, are quite similar. They all said it is quite bright sounding. Some said that the tonality is simply too bright to their liking. Unfortunately that's quite true when I tried it out of the box, not a very positive first impression. But, thanks to DUNU, they provide bass ring adjustment that will cover the front bass port of DN-2000J when used, and will increase the bass response of DN-2000J by around 6 dB (about twice). Personally I prefer to use the bass ring for a more linear, more balance and less bright tonality. A few friends tried again with bass ring and the feedback was more positive. I think if DUNU put the bass ring as the standard setup from factory, general perception of DN-2000J will be different. Many friends that tried DN-2000J at local shops, never tried it with the bass ring. Once it sounded too bright to them, they simply lost interest of DN-2000J and don't bother to try the tonal adjustment that provided as standard accessories by DUNU. My suggestion to DUNU, probably it is better to put the bass ring as default setup from the factory, for the reason that people are generally have more tolerance to higher level of bass than higher level of treble. It is a pity if some people might avoid DN-2000J due to the rather hot treble at first impression. First impression is very important, therefore in my opinion, to put the bass ring as default factory setup is a better marketing approach.
 

The left earphone showing nozzle with Bass Ring and DNK Ring. On the right, the very small bass port shown at the base part of the nozzle.
 
 
DN-2000J transparency and the level of perceived detail are in the category of high-end IEM, and have been improved from DN-2000. What amazed me most is the coherency between drivers and the level of detail and texture across the audio spectrum, from sub bass to upper treble. Something I consider rare for multi driver IEM. Starting from DN-1000 where I can notice a slight different sonic signature between the lower frequency region served by the dynamic driver and the upper frequency region served by the BA drivers, DUNU has kept improving the coherency between the drivers in their IEMs. DN-2000 drivers coherency is better than DN-1000, and I'm glad to say that DN-2000J drivers coherency is probably one of the best I've ever heard. It is quite seamless across the frequency spectrum. The sonic signature between the bass region and the upper frequency region is very coherent. The Titanium coated dynamic driver truly delivers high quality bass. Bass is fast, tight, reaches low, and beautifully textured. And the sonic character of the dynamic driver matches nicely the sonic character of the BA drivers.
 
Tonality is tunable to some degree. Out of the box with the stock grey eartips, without bass and DNK rings, DN-2000J sounds smooth bright. Treble is moderately emphasize, and generally a little too bright for modern genres, but good for classical and audiophile recordings, especially those stereo recordings that recorded with distant miking stereo technique. Most obvious tuning is the bass ring that close the bass port near the nozzle, and boost the bass around 6 dB. But please take note, the bass ring will cause some mild driver flex. Without bass ring there is no driver flex. DNK rings adjusts the treble part in a subtle way. And eartips also affect the tonality to some degree. To try the combination of all of them is highly recommended to get the best sonic character that suit individual preference. My best recipe for DN-2000J is: Bass ring + the stock DUNU translucent grey silicone eartips, medium + red DNK ring.
 

 
 
Though probably the treble takes the most attention at first, but DN-2000J bass is actually what I consider the best performance of DN-2000J. It is surely one of the best IEM in the bass department. I'm not talking of bass quantity here, but bass quality. Quantity wise, without bass ring, to me it is on the low side, a bit too low to what I consider as realistic bass level, but not yet anaemic. With bass ring, the bass level is just nice for my preference. The bass reaches very low to sub bass, super tight, fast, very detailed, and very rich in texture. Using bass ring, the bass has good body and punch as well. Simply 5 stars bass quality!
 
DN-2000J grew on me. From 'Uurgh the treble is bright!' to 'Wow! This is really a very capable and accurate IEM!'. Honestly, after using it for a few months, I really like DN-2000J, and admire its capability. It is one of the most transparent and accurate IEM I've ever tried. It has the level of transparency, detail, and texture way better than many other IEMs in this category, and not only in this price category, but also competing well with some higher priced IEMs I've tried. But please take note, DN-2000J might not suitable as a 'general all-rounder' IEM. It is very revealing with some emphasize on the treble, so recording flaws on less than stellar recordings will be revealed bluntly. Though DN-2000J is not really my favourite IEM for Pop music, but it is really an amazing IEM for classical, binaural, and audiophile recordings that recorded with aim to achieve natural tonality and stereo imaging. Some of my audiophile albums with distant miking recording technique sound best on DN-2000J. For example, audiophile albums like the '8 Ensembles in 1 Bit', many of Chesky recordings and the famous Chesky binaural album, 'Dr. Chesky's Sensational, Fantastic, and Simply Amazing Binaural Sound Show', so far DN-2000J has been my IEM of choice for those recordings. Those albums sound more realistic and lively on DN-2000J as compared to my other IEMs.
 

 
 
I have both Sennheiser HD800 and Beyerdynamic T1 that beside for music listening, I also use them occasionally for recording and mixing due to their analytical character. Somehow DN-2000J sonic character reminds me of those two flagships headphones, and in my opinion DN-2000J has enough transparency and accuracy to be used for recording and mixing as well. Therefore I called DN-2000J, 'DUNU Reference Monitor'.
 
 
 
 

Build Quality

As mentioned earlier, after having it for about 1 year, my only complaint is the Silicone eartip fitting to the nozzle that is not tight enough and sometime the eartip left stuck in my ear canal when unplugging the IEM. Besides that the build quality is pretty good, and it has been proven to be quite durable so far, though I won't recommend using it for exercise.
 

Some scratches on the metal housing after about 1 year of use.
 
 
 
 

Gear Pairings

DN-2000J is easy to drive, and at the same time can take some high output and get very loud without getting easily distorted. I got wonderful pairings with many of my gears such as Onkyo DP-X1, Chord Mojo, the old Centrance DACport with 10 ohms output impedance, as well as the newer Centrance DACport Slim, and some other gears. It also pairs wonderfully with my AT-HA22TUBE tube amp. The analytic sounding ifi micro iDSD headphone output is in my opinion not a very good option for DN-2000J. Fiio X3 2nd generation that pairs wonderfully with DN-2000 unfortunately doesn't pair well with DN-2000J either. Rule of thumb for DN-2000J, avoid analytical sounding amp or player, and pair it with neutral to smooth warm sounding gears and it will sing.
 

 
 
Driven by first generation of AK100 with 20 ohms output impedance, DN-2000J still sounds reasonable natural. Bass level drop with higher impedance, so overall tonality gets a little brighter on AK100, compared to other player with low (less than 1 ohm) output impedance. Bass level probably drop around 3 dB on AK100, quite noticeable, but overall tonality still quite natural. I prefer the bass level with low output impedance player. Based on experience, the safe range of amplifier output impedance for DN-2000J is I would say 0 - 10 ohms.
 

 
 
 

Comparisons

 
 
DN-1000, DN-2000, and DN-2000J offer some sound tuning using different eartips and DNK rings. The setup that sound best for me are:
DUNU DN-1000: JVC EP-FX8M-B, medium eartips.
DUNU DN-2000: The stock DUNU translucent grey silicone eartips (2K Tips), medium + silver DNK ring.
DUNU DN-2000J:  Bass ring + the stock DUNU translucent grey silicone eartips, medium + red DNK ring.
 
More coverage of DN-1000 and DN-2000 can be read here:
http://www.head-fi.org/t/727286/review-and-comparison-of-dunu-dn-1000-dn-2000-jvc-ha-fx850
 
 
 

DN-1000

Though I really like the fun and lively sounding of DN-1000 especially using the JVC EP-FX8M-B eartips, I have to admit that DN-2000J is clearly superior to DN-1000, especially in coherency and transparency department. Coherency, detail, and transparency are clearly better on DN-2000J and worth the price different between them. DN-2000J bass is much better, faster with better detail and texture. DN-2000J also has better upper treble extension that makes it sounds more transparent with better 3D imaging as compared to DN-1000. Using the JVC eartips DN-1000 treble does sound slightly smoother and more ear friendly than DN-2000J, but the wider and more holographic imaging of DN-2000J gives a different, more realistic listening experience. Value wise, they are 5 stars in their own price category.
 
 
 

DN-2000

DN-2000 will still be my reference for linear tonality, as tonality wise it sounds a little more linear than DN-2000J. But on the other aspects like coherency, dynamic, clarity and detail retrieval, DN-2000J is clearly better than DN-2000. DN-2000J has better upper treble extension, sounds brighter and more transparent than DN-2000. Bass detail and texture also have been improved on DN-2000J. While DN-2000 sounds smoother with a little touch of warmness, with softer and a more ear friendly treble. I really like them both almost equally. When I'm travelling light with Fiio X3ii, DN-2000 goes with me. When I need a more detailed and transparent IEM during recordings or to audition and testing gears, DN-2000J is my IEM of choice. When I'm listening to Pop and vocal, DN-2000 sounds friendlier to my ears, while for classical DN-2000J breaths more air with better holographic imaging.
 

 
 
 

1964 Ears V3

Besides DN-2000, 1964 Ears V3 is another reference IEM of mine that to my ears sounds 'balanced'. Kind of another variant of DN-2000 with better bass and dynamic, and sounds livelier than DN-2000. V3 is less analytical and less bright than DN-2000J, and closer to DN-2000 tonality. V3 has very good detail retrieval without sounding analytical. Transparency wise, DN-2000J is better than V3, so some recordings that benefit from transparent sound signature like the few albums mentioned earlier, sound more realistic and more holographic on DN-2000J. While the fuller, beefier, and slightly warmer signature of V3 sounds nicer on vocal and pop recordings. When looking for transparency and high detail retrieval capability for pro audio monitoring, or listening to classical I tend to pick DN-2000J. While when I want to enjoy vocal and some other closed miking recordings, V3 or DN-2000 are usually my preferred IEMs. On volume setting, V3 is more sensitive than both DN-2000 and DN-2000J, and requires less volume to get similar loudness. And as expected from the less bright tonality and higher sensitivity, V3 is easier to match with almost any gears that I have. It adapts very well from analytical sounding players or amps to the warmer sounding ones. While DN-2000J doesn't go very well with analytical sounding players or amps. So while DN-2000J excels in transparency and holographic imaging, but it is more polarized towards certain type of recordings mentioned earlier, and Pro Audio monitoring applications. While 1964 Ears V3 is in my opinion a better all-rounder for music listening, especially for modern genres with closed miking recordings.
 

 
 
 
 

Measurements

I don't have standard IEM measurement equipment, and I found IEM frequency measurement to be rather complicated. I use USB measurement microphone, MiniDSP UMIK-1 and a DIY acoustic coupler that I made from heat shrink tubing. 
 

 

 
 
So far from some testing I’ve done, I observed the following:
1. The length and volume of the acoustic coupler affects the upper treble response. Longer acoustic coupler will create unnecessary treble peaks above 10 kHz.
2. Room temperature affects the bass response. Similar measurement done in 25 degree Celsius and 31 degree Celsius room temperature consistently showing around 6 dB differences in bass response. Bass response is higher in lower room temperature.
3. Level of loudness during measurement affects the smoothness of the overall frequency response. Generally measurement done in louder volume showing smoother frequency response.
4. The equipment that I use doesn't seem to be accurate for the upper treble region, therefore only useful for up to around 9 kHz. Measurement result from 9 kHz onward can be ignored.
 
I suggest to always read IEM frequency response measurement result in the context of the measurement environment, as they are mostly useful only as comparison to other IEMs that are measured in the same measurement environment using the same equipment. So please take note that all the frequency response measurement shown here is not a standard measurement, therefore cannot be used for comparison with other measurement. This measurement is only to show comparison of estimated frequency response of the IEMs that were measured in the same environment using the same equipment.
 
The following measurement for DN-2000J was done in an air conditioned room, at around 24 degree Celsius room temperature. I used the short DIY acoustic coupler that gives around 4-5 mm distant between the tip of the silicone eartip to the microphone. The program I use for measurement is the famous Room EQ Wizard, REW v5.14. 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.
 
 
The following is the frequency response measurement for the Left and Right channel, without and with Bass ring. Both Left and Right channels have pretty good consistency, and there is no audible difference between the Left and Right channel.
 

 

 
 
The following is comparison of DN-2000J frequency response (average FR from Left and Right channels measurements) with DN-2000. We can see higher treble response that explains the brighter tonality of DN-2000J.
 

DN-2000J without Bass ring (Yellow), in comparison to DN-2000 (Orange).
 
 

DN-2000J with Bass ring (Blue), in comparison to DN-2000 (Orange).
 

Measurement at 60 Hz shown that the Bass ring boost the bass area by around 6 dB.
 

DN-2000J bass response comparison, with (Blue) and without bass ring (Yellow)
 
 
 
DN-2000J to me is a keeper. It is probably not an IEM that impressed me at first try, but it does grow on me, and the more I use it the more I impress by its capability. Now it is my favourite IEM for listening to classical, instrumental, and binaural recordings. It is also the IEM that goes with me for Pro Audio activities. Kudos to DUNU!
 
 
 

Specifications:
Drivers: Dynamic (10mm) + 2x Balanced Armature
Frequency range: 4 Hz-40 KHz
Impedance: 8O
Sensitivity: 112±2dB
Connections: 3.5mm Gold-plated
Cable: 1.2m
Weight: 21.8g
 

 

 
 
I apologize for the incomplete Silicone eartips shown in the picture below. Somehow I misplaced the Silicone eartips and I couldn’t find them during picture taking. Please check accessories picture from other reviews for all the Silicone eartips that come with DN-2000J.

 

 
 
 

Earphones / IEMs:
DUNU DN-1000
DUNU DN-2000
DUNU DN-2000J
1965 Ears V3
 
DAPs, DACs, & Headphone Amplifiers:
Astell&Kern AK100
Audio-Technica AT-HA22TUBE
Chord Mojo
Fiio X3 2nd gen
iBasso DX90
ifi micro iDSD (firmware 4.06)
Onkyo DP-X1
Superlux HA3D
 
Measurement Microphone:
MiniDSP UMIK-1
 
Some recordings used in this review:

Hybrid 3 ways: 2x Balance Armature + 1x 10mm Dynamic driver
http://www.dunu-topsound.com/DN-1000.html
 

 
I was a bit disappointed with DN-1000 when I tried it out of the box. The treble was a bit metallic with the stock silicone eartips. The first few weeks with DN-1000, I used foam eartips, Comply T-500, that smoothen the treble, made the DN-1000 sounds very open and airy, but a bit lacking in bass. Until I did some experiments with more eartips, and found the silicone eartips from my JVC HA-FXD80 give the best sound and tonal balance for my DN-1000. Treble from the foam eartips & bass from the silicone eartips. Best of both worlds. It was a very happy moment, and I was not alone. I was with my friend Leo who is a sound engineer, and for hours we listened to DN-1000 with the JVC HA-FXD80 silicone eartips. We have same conclusion, very good tonal balance on the whole spectrum, without any annoying peaks and dips. Simply, we didn't find anything to fault the combination. From that moment, the JVC FXD80 tips stay on my DN-1000.
 
With the JVC eartips, DN-1000 sounds very balanced, realistic, and most important, very musical and fun sounding. DN-1000 has the realistic type of natural tonal balance, with no emphasize and deemphasize on any region of the frequency, just perfectly smooth and balanced. Good bass, clear mids, smooth and airy high, with good dynamic and lively sounding. Very good detail and transparency without sounding analytical. Truly an excellent all-rounder. With the JVC EP-FX8 eartips, sibilance is very well controlled without sacrificing clarity and transparency. I have no idea how the JVC EP-FX8 eartips do it, maybe there is a little bit of 'smoothening' on the treble, just slightly to remove most sibilance, without sacrificing treble detail. The result is simply amazing. Open, airy, transparent, without sibilance.The JVC EP-FX8 eartips is simply the 'missing secret ingredient' from the DN-1000 package.
 

 
Mids to treble transient is fast, and clarity is crystal clear, but i don't consider it sounds analytical. I guess it is due to the matching dynamic driver with the BA drivers, the dynamic driver seamlessly adds body to the midrange, creating clear and smooth midrange that never sounds dry or analytic. While the JVC EP-FX8 eartips smoothen the treble without reducing transparency and airiness. Balanced, smooth, transparent, and very musical, maybe the best way to describe how DN-1000 sounds with JVC EP-FX8 eartips.
 
Bass level and dynamic is better than DN-2000, better balance with the midrange. Only a few dB better, but since DN-1000 midrange is flatter and more balanced with the rest of the spectrum, not slightly emphasized like DN-2000, bass has better presence and body, and slightly better slam and punch than DN-2000 bass. But bass level is still far from basshead level. FX850 bass level in this case, is closer to basshead level. DN-1000 Bass power and dynamic is good and realistic, and low bass extension is nicely present in realistic level. But overall bass quality is not as good as ATH-CKR9 bass. CKR9 bass has better detail, texture, power and dynamic. I don't mean DN-1000 bass quality is bad, the bass is good. It is just that I ever heard better quality bass from other IEM, which is the ATH-CKR9. So there is still room for improvement for DN-1000 bass, especially on bass tightness and texture.
 
Imaging is impressively spacious and 3 dimensional, almost comparable to the excellent imaging of DN-2000, and sounds slightly more airy and open sounding than DN-2000, maybe due to higher level of treble in comparison to the mids. Instrument separation and placement is clear and focused, although DN-2000 is slightly clearer and more sharply focused. Imaging of the two is like comparing a very good quality consumer grade lens with a professional grade lens. Both are sharp, but the professional lens is slightly sharper. Listening to Chesky binaural recordings, DN-2000 gives slightly more realistic of the 3D imaging than the DN-1000. But DN-1000 imaging is still better than FX850 for binaural recording 3D imaging.
 
Beside the JVC EP-FX8 silicone eartips, Comply T-500 foam eartips is also my next favorite eartips for DN-1000, like on DN-2000. Comply T-500 + the silver adjustment ring gives a more airy sound, while retaining good bass. If you cannot get JVC EP-FX8 silicone eartips, try Comply T-500 + the silver adjustment ring. Another awesome combination for DN-1000.
 
I tried all the ring adjustment, and I prefer no ring for JVC EP-FX8 eartips, and silver ring for Comply T-500. 
 
DN-1000 sounds fun and musical for all the recordings I tried. IMHO, DN-1000 using JVC EP-FX8 eartips has the better 'all-rounder' tonality of the 3. It goes really well with all genres and recordings in my collection, from medieval classical to Baroque, Pop, Jazz, Movie soundtrack, to Dub Colossus, all sounds great and enjoyable! But I didn't try Rock music, because I don't have any. Being the cheapest of the 3, DN-1000 holds it's ground very well to be in the same class with DN-2000 and FX850. But please note, only when using the JVC EP-FX8 eartips. 
 

 
 
 
Tonality: Natural-realistic tonality, good bass, transparent, open sounding, smooth, and very musical. Slightly less refined than DN-2000, especially in level of detail, but can be musically more engaging.
Bass: Natural & realistic, a few dB higher than DN-2000, better bass slam and sounds more realistic. Very good low bass extension. Bass tightness and texture can be improved.
Midrange: Natural, open sounding, and smooth. Not warm and not analytic.
Treble: Clear and transparent, with good treble sparkle and upper treble extension. Might sound a bit metallic with some sibilance when using stock silicone eartips, but not with the JVC EP-FX8 eartips.
Detail: Good level of detail in a natural way, slightly less detailed than DN-2000, but better than FX850.
Imaging: Spacious and 3 dimensional.
Dynamic and Transient: Bass dynamic is good, better than DN-2000, but not as fast as the midrange and treble. Midrange to treble transient is fast and realistic.
Noise isolation: Good.
Comfort: DN-1000 has large diameter nozzle, around 5.8 mm diameter. This large nozzle could be an issue for small ear canals. As for me, DN-1000 is very comfortable.
Build & design: Housing is rather heavy, but very solid. Build quality and design is excellent, looks much better than DN-2000. Smooth bullet shape without any hard edges.
 

My DN-1000 after 6 months of daily usage, looks better than my 1 month old DN-2000.
 
 
Burn-In
I didn’t notice any significant changes before and after 2 days burn-in.
 
Effect of high output impedance amplifier
Explanation on DN-2000 section.
Similar as DN-2000, on DN-1000, low output impedance will improve clarity and transparency, while high output impedance will reduces the clarity, transparency, and also bass dynamic. Bass is a bit sloppy on high impedance output. Low output impedance of 20 ohms or lower is recommended.
 
 
Gears matching
Generally DN-1000 is not very picky on gears, not like DN-2000, maybe due to its balance and fun sound signature. I would say all the gears mentioned here sound great with DN-1000. Fiio X5 headphone output that sounds lacking in transparency on DN-2000, performs much better on DN-1000. Although still not as transparent as the Fiio E12DIY amp, but I don’t feel the treble is lacking.
Some gears that I found sound especially good with DN-1000 would be Yulong DA8, DACport, Dragonfly, and Fiio E12DIY amplifier with AD8599 Op-Amp + LME49600 buffer. 
 

 
 
Pros:
One of the best sounding IEM from the balanced, realistic, and musical sounding perspective, regardless of the price.
Easy to drive, doesn't require high voltage swing. But low output impedance of 20 ohms or lower is recommended.
Comes with various types of eartips and ring adjustment for flexible sound tuning.
Both straight down and over the ears wearing style.
Good build quality with solid metal housing.
Sounds good out of the box requires no or minimum burn-in.
Soft and flexible cable with no coiling memory effect.
 
Cons:
Bass tightness and texture can be improved.
Large nozzle limits the choices of third party eartips, and might not fit small ear canal.
Stock eartips found to be less than optimum compared with 3rd party silicone eartips, for DN-1000 to sound at its best.
Driver flex, mostly with stock silicone tips, much less, to no driver flex with JVC EP-FX8 eartips.
Relatively small cable for the relatively heavy housing. I hope the small cable will last.
Non-detachable Cable.
 
Suggestion for improvement:
Bass tightness and texture.
To include JVC EP-FX8 kind of eartips and Comply T-500 in the package.
Detachable cable with balanced cable included.
Ring adjustment is too thin and loose. It’s better if the ring is thicker with some grip to the nozzle.
 
 
Specifications:
Type : Hybrid 3 ways
Driver Unit : 1x Knowles Twin Balance Armature + 1x 10mm Dynamic driver
Frequency Response : 16 - 22,000 Hz
Impedance  : 10 ohms
SPL : 98 +/- 2 dB
Plug : L shape 3.5mm 24 Gold plated stereo Mini plug
Cord Length : 1.2m Y shape OFC cable
Detachable Cable : No
Left & Right marking : Clear. Left dot & L/R print on housing.
Weight : 26g
Accessories : 10 sets of silicone eartips, 4 sets of foam eartips, 1 pair of Earhook, 3.5mm Female to 6.5mm Male Adapter, 3.5mm Female to 2-pin Male Adapter, Aluminum alloy box, 4 pairs of metal adjustment ring. 
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 
Discussion thread here:
http://www.head-fi.org/t/727286/review-and-comparison-of-dunu-dn-1000-dn-2000-jvc-ha-fx850

Hybrid 3 ways: 2x Balance Armature + 1x 10mm Dynamic driver
http://www.dunu-topsound.com/DN-2000.html
 
Update 30 July 2015:
I decided to raise the rating to 5 stars after I using it with more players, amps, and DACS, and did more comparisons with other IEMs. My hearing now perceive it as one of the flattest and balanced tonality IEM I've ever used, and no longer slightly mid centric as I perceived before.
 

 
I've let around 6 of my friends (non head-fier's) to try DN-2000, without first telling them how much it cost, or what technology behind it, simply just ask them to try it, and to see their initial honest impression. All impressions were an honest "WOW". They simply amazed by how beautiful DN-2000 sounds. DN-2000 does have that initial ‘Wow’ factor. But frankly, after using them regularly for about a month now, that wow factor does fade a little on me. I guess it is simply because the bass is a bit lacking to my liking.
 
 'Highly refined sonic character' maybe the simplest way to describe DN-2000 sound signature. It has natural tonal balance with very good level of detail and resolution. Wide frequency coverage from very low bass to upper treble, in a natural manner, flat smooth without any annoying peak and dip. Clarity and transparency are good, without sounding analytic. Spacious and open sounding, with very focused and clear imaging. Very clear instrument separation and placement. DN-2000 renders the room or hall reverberation very clearly in a natural manner. Somehow I can hear room's reverberation easier on DN-2000, better than DN-1000 and FX850. I notice this quality when I was listening the album of Dr. Chesky's Sensational, Fantastic, and Simply Amazing Binaural Sound Show. DN-2000 is simply sensational with binaural recordings. Maybe one of the best IEM for binaural recordings.
 
I was expecting DN-2000 to be an upgrade from my favorite DN-1000, but in my opinion, it is not. They have different sound signature, and I don't consider DN-1000 (with the JVC EP-FX8 eartips) inferior to DN-2000. IMHO both DN-1000 and DN-2000 are in the same level of top quality IEMs. It is a matter of personal sonic preferences, they are great in their own way.
 

 
Midrange is the strength of DN-2000, sweet, smooth, spacious, and detailed. Simply charming and beautiful midrange. A tad warmer than DN-1000, but not as warm as FX850. The midrange could be beautifully mesmerizing, but the quality is highly dependent on the headphone amplifier. When the pairing is not optimal, the midrange sounds loose, lacking definition, with nasal-sounding vocal. There is a little emphasize on 400-600 Hz area on DN-2000, but the intensity is quite different from player to player. I heard the highest intensity of that mid hump is when DN-2000 paired with DX90. For recording like the Chesky ‘The World Greatest Audiophile Vocal Recording’, I hear a rather annoying nasal sound on the vocal, slightly stronger than what I perceived as natural vocal sound. The midrange also sounds a bit glaring, and less detailed. This unnatural nasal sound and ‘midrange glaring’ could be one of the indications of whether the player / amp are a good matching for DN-2000 or not. From the gears used in this review, the DACs and amp seem to be more capable to drive DN-2000 properly than the DAPs. Fiio E12DIY with AD8599 Op-Amp + LME49600 buffer is one of my favourite amp for DN-2000. The ring adjustment reduces this mid hump. The silver ring gives me the most balanced tonal balanced with the 2K Tips.
 

 

Comparing the headphone output of DX90 and the headphone output of Fiio E12DIY using DIY switch box.
 
DN-2000 somehow reminds me of my Beyerdynamic T1. They don’t share the same tonality, but there are some midrange qualities that make my mind relate it to my T1. Most probably the sweet, smooth, spacious, and detailed midrange of DN-2000. T1 still excels in detail, but DN-2000 as an IEM, also has an excellent level of detail. Using foobar equalizer, I tried to equalize DN-2000 to mimic T1 tonal balance, to observe the difference of bass and treble level between the two. The estimated result is, DN-2000 has about 4 dB more bass (80 Hz downward), and about 3 dB less treble (8 kHz onward) than T1. To my ears, only from the tonal balance perspective, I prefer DN-2000 tonal balance than the T1's. I always feel my T1 is a bit bright and lacking a bit bass. But T1 as a full size headphone is still better in detail and spaciousness. This is just a simplistic comparison to give some idea of how DN-2000 sounds in comparison to T1. In this comparison, I used Yulong DA8 headphone output for DN-2000, and Yulong A28 balanced headphone output for T1.
 
Bass has very good low bass extension, good body, and at natural level. But bass rather lacking of bass slam and impact. Bass level is the lowest among the 3, but still considered natural and far from anaemic bass. Simple EQ to shelf-up 50-80 Hz region improves the bass nicely. On foobar I just need around 2-3 dB shelf-up on 55 & 77 Hz, and then gently roll down. But on my DAP like DX90 and X5, sometime more than 3-4 dB boost is what I like. All EQ don't behave in the same manner, so the level of bass boost might vary.
 
When reading user impressions on the impression thread, mostly agree that the bass although extends low but lacking of punch and impact, and the midrange is very beautiful. But for the treble, there are mix impressions. Some say the treble rolls off early, some say neutral, some say bright. I did experience both the treble that sounds roll off early and neutral. I don’t experience bright treble, unless the recording is bright and DN-2000 just honestly reveals it. As mentioned before, DN-2000 quite sensitive with the amplifier. With Fiio X5 headphone output I hear soft treble that lacks of extension, but when connected to Fiio E12DIY amplifier with input from Fiio X5 line out, the treble extension is open up and DN-2000 treble sounds neutral and very transparent, especially when using the silver ring adjustment.
 

 
DN-2000 with the stock 2K eartips, without ring adjustment, treble is silky smooth and slightly softer than the midrange level. Treble extension is reasonably good, and I don't consider the treble rolls off early, but treble is not as airy as DN-1000. The midrange level is slightly more dominant than the treble, especially when listening classical music at low volume. I do prefer to have slightly more airy treble when listening classical. But for Chesky and other modern genres recordings, treble and midrange sound balanced. So I consider the DN-2000 treble is sometime on the softer side of neutral, but not lacking and not bright. Silver ring helps to improve the soft treble to a more balance level with the midrange.
 
Treble quality is good, no annoying peak and dip, very smooth and sounds natural, although slightly less airy when compared to DN-1000. DN-2000 treble is affected by the value of the amplifier output impedance, so always use amplifier with less than 10 ohms output impedance for best treble clarity and transparency. Not only output impedance, but also the amplifier high frequency characteristic can be easily heard from the perceived treble quality.
 
Overall dynamic is good, lively, & never sounds compressed. But bass dynamic is just average due to slightly lacking of bass slam and impact.
 
Many multi drivers IEM suffers from incoherency between the drivers, that the drivers don't sound coherently in the same phase, like an ideal one single driver. This is mostly caused by the less than optimum crossover circuit, or the drivers don't have the same speed, as the woofer usually heavier and slower than the tweeter. From what I hear, DN-2000 does not suffer from any incoherency. Coherency is excellent on DN-2000 when properly paired with matching amplifier.
 
Beside the grey 2K silicone eartips, Comply T-500 foam eartips is my next favourite eartips for DN-2000, especially for classical music, for a more airy sound. Comply T-500 sounds slightly better than DN-2000 stock foam eartips, less bright, with a more natural airy treble. The JVC EP-FX8 eartips are not very good on DN-2000, sound thin and bright, lacking of bass and midrange body.
 
I tried all the ring adjustment, and I prefer the tonal balance of the 2K Tips with silver ring. The silver ring reduces the mids level a little bit, and improves the bass and treble level. But I’m also fine with the tonality without any ring. The blue and red rings shape the tonality more towards V shape tonality.
 
DN-2000 might not be for bass lover. Those who are looking for powerful bass with good bass slam and impact better look elsewhere. But for those who are looking for natural tonal balance with highly refined sonic characteristic will find DN-2000 is hard to beat at any price level.
 

 
 
 
Tonality: Natural with slight warm accent. Smooth, refined, and detailed. Slight emphasize on the midrange area.
Bass: Natural in level, good bass body, extends very low, but rather lacking in bass punch and impact.
Midrange: Simply very natural, beautiful & refined. Slightly fuller, warmer, and more forward than DN-1000.
Treble: Silky smooth and detailed, slightly softer then the midrange level, good clarity but slightly lacking of airiness.
Detail: Very detailed, but in a natural way, not in an exaggerated way like what we use to hear on analytic IEMs.
Imaging: Spacious and 3 dimensional, renders room acoustic in natural manner.
Dynamic and Transient: Bass dynamic is a bit weak and not so realistic, but midrange to treble sound fast and realistic.
Noise isolation: Good.
Comfort: DN-2000, like DN-1000 has large diameter nozzle, around 5.8 mm diameter. This large nozzle could be an issue for small ear canals. For me, DN-2000 is very comfortable, as comfortable as the DN-1000. I always wear it over the ears, so the grey silicone fins are not useful for me. Shape wise, I prefer the DN-1000 housing, smooth bullet shape, without the hook for the silicone fin. 
 

 
Build & design: Housing design doesn’t look as good and durable as DN-1000. Hard edges are prone to dent and scratches.
 

DN-2000 after around 1 month of use. Some scratches on the hard edges.
 
 
Burn-In
I didn’t notice any significant changes before and after 2 days burn-in.
 
Effect of high output impedance amplifier
Multi drivers IEM tonal balance is usually prone to amplifier output impedance due to their crossover circuit.  Tonal balance could change drastically with the change of amplifier output impedance, like what I found with ATH-IM02, where the treble level increases quite a lot with the increase of amplifier output impedance.
 
In this review I use the two outputs of LH Geek Out 450 for the test, one with 0.47 ohm output impedance (low Z), the other one with 47 ohms output impedance (high Z). I noticed when moving from low Z to high Z output, the treble level reduced, resulting a warmer and less transparent sound. The differences is mild to moderate, not really extreme. The high output impedance causes DN-2000 treble rolls off early. DACport has around 10 ohms output impedance, and DN-2000 sounds wonderful with DACport. I also tested with a DIY extension that I put 22 ohms resistor in series in the connector, treble level reduction started to become too evident, but generally still acceptable. So I conclude that DN-2000 still performs quite well with amplifier output impedance up to 20 ohm, which is practically acceptable. Beyond 20 ohms treble will start to sound too soft. For those with high output impedance player or DAC, like 1st gen AK100 (20 ohms) or old version of Meridian Explorer DAC (50 ohms), or when using smart phone that generally has rather high output impedance headphone output (in the range of 50 ohms), please take note.
 
More reading here:
http://www.head-fi.org/t/705687/review-of-audio-technica-ath-im01-ath-im02-ath-im03-ath-im04-ath-im50-ath-im70#post_10270915
 
On DN-2000, low output impedance will improve clarity and transparency, while high output impedance will reduces the clarity and transparency. Output impedance of 10 ohms or lower is recommended for best performance. Output impedance higher than 20 ohm is not recommended, as DN-2000 started to lose too much treble clarity & transparency.
 
Gears matching
Although DN-2000 is relatively easy to drive, and doesn't require large voltage swing to drive it, it does demand for good pairing, and also reveals the sound quality of the player / amp quite transparently. When it doesn't sound so good, don't quickly blame DN-2000, because it might just reveals the truth of the source sound quality, or simply it doesn’t pair well with the amplifier.
 
I don’t find my Fiio X5 and iBasso DX90 pair well with DN-2000. For DN-2000, Fiio X5 headphone output lacks of clarity, sounds like it has sharp and early low pass filter that reduces the treble clarity and transparency. While on DX90, the midrange sounds a bit loose, kind of amplifying the 400-600 Hz hump, which makes vocal sounds a little nasal-sounding. But when using the line output of the DAP, connected to Fiio E12DIY headphone amplifier, the combo sounds great on DN-2000, much better well driven bass and midrange, and much better clarity and transparency. Also improves upper treble extension. So DN-2000 does demand for good quality amplification, and quite picky on that. For my case, for portable setup, to use my Fiio E12DIY for my DAP is kind of a must for DN-2000, because I simply not really satisfied with the sound quality of DN-2000 when driven directly from my X5 and DX90, even though both DAPs have low output impedance on their headphones output.
 
Some of the best pairing would be with:
Yulong Sabre DA8, Centrance DACport, Dragonfly, & Fiio E12DIY with AD8599 Op-Amp + LME49600 buffer.
 
Geek Out 450 sounds great as well, but DN-2000 has better chemistry with the above.
I found with DN-2000, Geek Out 450 background noise is audible, more audible than other IEMs. Although it is just a very soft hiss noise. Besides that, GO 450 is also too powerful for DN-2000. I only have around a maximum of 18 levels of volume to play with, and normally my listening volume would be around 12-15 on windows volume fader.
 

 
 
Pros:
One of the best sounding IEM from the natural and refined sound perspective, regardless of the price.
Optimum sound from stock eartips, with other various types of eartips and ring adjustment for flexible sound tuning.
Easy to drive, doesn't require high voltage swing. But low output impedance of 10 ohms or lower is recommended.
Both straight down and over the ears wearing style.
Good build quality with solid metal housing.
Sounds good out of the box requires no or minimum burn-in.
Soft and flexible cable with no coiling memory effect.
 
Cons:
Quite particular with equipment pairing. But very rewarding when paired right.
Slighlty lacking of bass slam and impact.
Large nozzle limits the choices of third party eartips, and might not fit small ear canal.
Driver flex. For some people driver flex matters, for me it is not. Many of my IEMs have driver flex issue, and I don't consider it as an issue.
Relatively small cable for the relatively heavy housing. I hope the small cable will last.
Non-detachable Cable.
Hard edges at the outer part of the housing are prone to dent and scratches.
The hook for the silicone fin might cause discomfort.
 
Suggestion for improvement (maybe for DN-3000):
In my opinion, DN-1000 smooth bullet shape is better and more elegant than DN-2000 shape with hook and silicone wing. I suggest DUNU to collect some user feedback for the design, whether the silicone wing, or the smooth bullet shape is preferable. Hard edges are to be avoided.
The bass. I suggest DUNU to get Audio Technica ATH-CKR9, and let it burn-in for 200 hours, after that analyze the CKR9 bass quality. If DN-3000 can have CKR9 bass, DN-2000 midrange, and a more airy treble, it simply will become the best IEM in the world.
To include Comply T-500 foam eartips in the package.
Detachable cable with balanced cable included.
Ring adjustment is too thin and loose. It’s better if the ring is thicker with some grip to the nozzle.
 
 
Specifications:
Type : Hybrid 3 ways
Driver Unit : 1x Knowles Twin Balance Armature + 1x 10mm Dynamic driver
Frequency Response : 10 - 30,000 Hz
Impedance : 16 ohms
SPL : 102 +/- 2 dB
Plug : L shape 3.5mm 24 Gold plated stereo Mini plug
Cord Length : 1.2m Y shape OFC cable
Detachable Cable : No
Left & Right marking : Clear. Left dot & L/R print on housing.
Weight : 22g
Accessories : 9 sets of silicone eartips, 1 sets of foam eartips, 1 pair of Earhook, 3.5mm Female to 6.5mm Male Adapter, 3.5mm Female to 2-pin Male Adapter, Aluminum alloy box, 6 pairs of metal adjustment ring, 4 pairs of fitting rubber, Shirt Clip. 
 

 

 

 

 

 

‘Genghis Khan’ in Mongolian text is engraved on the DN-2000 metal housing.
 
Discussion thread here:
http://www.head-fi.org/t/727286/review-and-comparison-of-dunu-dn-1000-dn-2000-jvc-ha-fx850

I would like to thank Brainwavz for the review sample of Brainwavz Hooka, the super sturdy and good looking all metal headphone hanger!
 
http://www.brainwavzaudio.com/products/brainwavz-hooka-headphone-hanger
 

 
 
Brainwavz Hooka is a superb headphone hanger at a very affordable price! The all metal, die cast aluminum construction feels very solid and durable. The hanger is not only nicely designed, but also carefully engineered. The wide seat plate for the headphone headband provides enough space for wide headband up to 8 cm, and it is curved for better stress distribution and also to minimize unwanted marking on the headband.
 

 

 

 
 
All metal construction means some considerable weight. The Hooka weighs 133.5 grams as shown on my cheapo scale (125 grams as per the specification).
 

 
 
Average full size headphone with the cable will easily add another 200-400 grams to it. Practically the adhesive must be able to take a constant load around half kg or more. Without a strong adhesive, the solid and nicely build Hooka would be useless if it fail to hold a heavy headphone. Thanks to Brainwavz who has carefully chosen one of the best and proven adhesive in the market, the 3M™ VHB™ (very high bond) Tape. More info about 3M™ VHB™ here:
 
http://solutions.3m.com/wps/portal/3M/en_US/Adhesives/Tapes/Brands/3M-VHB-Tape/
 

 
 
3M™ VHB™ is a very strong adhesive tape. We can search YouTube for  3M™ VHB™ and watch some demos of its strength. According to 3M, VHB tape will continue to sips to the nooks and crannies of the surface for up to 72 hours after application. So maximum bonding power will be achieved after a few days. For load test I use my heaviest headphone, the Hifiman HE-6, plus the DIY balanced cable. In total it weighs 685 grams.
 

 
 
From my observation so far, most headphones weigh much less than HE-6, therefore if Hooka can hold HE-6 for a long period, it is practically will be able to hold any headphone. Both Hifiman HE-6 and the cable are hanged on the Hooka as shown in the picture below.
 

 
 
I left the HE-6 on the Hooka not only for a few days, but a straight full 2 weeks. And Hooka has no problem holding such a heavy headphone for a long period. Test pass!
 
 
 
Brainwavz Hooka is a perfectly engineered headphone hanger. I couldn't find any flaw from it. Correctly engineered headphone seat, solidly build, and equipped with a very strong adhesive that is able to hold the heaviest headphone. Kudos to Brainwavz!
 
 
 

 

 
 
 
 
Measurements:
 

Length: 101.3 mm
 
 

Maximum headband width: 79.8 mm
 
 

Seat plate width: 45.9 mm
 
 

Unit height: 57.7 mm
 
 

 

Adhesive tape area: 54.5 mm x 40.0 mm
 
 
 
 
Specifications:
 
Weight : 125g
Dimensions : 102 mm x 46 mm x 58 mm
Plate Length : 78 mm
Plate Width : 46 mm
Material: All-Metal die-cast Aluminum

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:

This review is a summary section of In-Depth Review I posted here:
http://www.head-fi.org/t/765004/audio-technica-ath-r70x-in-depth-review-impressions
Please visit the link above for more information.
 
 
Many thanks to Audio-Technica Singapore for the demo set loan of ATH-R70x! By the time i post this review, i have had it with me for about a month.
 
http://www.audio-technica.com/cms/headphones/f39784ce643a82e6/index.html
 
 

 
 
 
I was quite surprise of how light ATH-R70x was when I took it out of the box. Lighter than other headphones in my inventory. The matte black finish and the utilitarian design gives it a modern and professional look. A nice blend of form and function. ATH-R70x is designed in conjunction with Paris-based design company, ARRO Studio. When I listened to it for the first time, ATH-R70x gave me another surprise with its natural tonality. Not bright, not warm, it just sounds natural to my ears. From the beginning ATH-R70x feels, looks, and sounds professional.
 

 
 
 
When mentioning of professional open-back reference headphone, some of us might think of the well-known flagships, such as Sennheiser HD800, Beyerdynamic T1, or AKG K812. Is ATH-R70x competing with those flagships? Does ATH-R70x sound like any of those? The answer to both questions is simply, No. I have HD800 and T1 for years, and auditioned K812 a few times, and I'm glad ATH-R70x sound tuning has taken a different approach. In my opinion, it is complimenting those flagships rather than competing them. I explained that in my In-Depth Review. Meanwhile for those who doesn't have much time to read the whole review, here is the summary, pros & cons, and some suggestions for improvement.
 

 
 
 
 

Summary:

ATH-R70x has a very smooth, polite, and balanced sound signature. Tonality sounds natural and very pleasing without any annoying peaks or dips on the frequency spectrum. Sometime may sound a little too smooth, depending on recording. Tonality leans a little, to the warm side, just a little, not as warm as HD650. Bass and mids are balanced, with good bass presence & low bass extension, but it doesn't sound bassy. It has more bass than Beyerdynamic T1, but less bass than Philips Fidelio X1. Treble is only a tad softer than the midrange, but not lacking and overall still quite balance. I do prefer to hear a little more clarity, especially for my music. If HD800 brightness is North Pole, and HD650 warmness is South Pole, ATH-R70x tonality is probably Australia. ATH-R70x is not for basshead, and also not for those looking for HD800 or T1 transparency, but an excellent choice for those looking for natural and balanced sounding headphone for long period of music listening. ATH-R70x is especially good on vocal. Vocal sounds smooth, natural, and full bodied.
 
Detail and resolution are good, slightly better than HD650, but not yet at the level of HD800 or T1. ATH-R70x is rather a little forgiving when it comes to revealing detail, especially when compared to HD800 and T1. Dynamic is pretty good, but a little hard to drive. With 470 ohms impedance ATH-R70x need a good amplifier to sound lively. When compared to T1 & HD800, ATH-R70x is not as fast sounding as those flagships, and not the best choice for extremely fast pace & complex music. But regular pace music, pop and jazz, sounds gorgeous on ATH-R70x. I definitely enjoy vocal on ATH-R70x better than HD800 and T1. For example, ATH-R70x is my favourite headphone for albums from Stockfisch Records. ATH-R70x does classical as well, but performs better with small orchestra and chamber music. As an open-back headphone, ATH-R70x imaging size is around average, not very spacious, but also not congested. Imaging is accurate, but not as big and spacious as HD800.
 
I have burnt-in ATH-R70x for about 100 hours, no changes in sound quality. So, no burn-in is required for ATH-R70x, which is a good thing. Headphone that changes it sound after burn-in, to me is indicating inconsistency. As with DAC and amplifier, I didn't find ATH-R70x to have good chemistry with tube amp or warm & smooth sounding amp, and matches better with neutral to slightly analytic solid state amplifiers. With my ifi micro iDSD + iCAN, ATH-R70x is simply music. At 210 grams, ATH-R70x is feather-light and very comfortable. Headband pressure is pretty light, less pressure than T1, about the same as HD800. ATH-R70x fits really well on my head, always stays in place.
 
Some factors of ATH-R70x that in my opinion make it suitable for professional applications:
1. Very balanced, almost ruler flat tonality, makes ATH-R70x very useful for tonality observation & equalizer adjustment.
2. Light weight and comfortable for long sessions. Headband pressure is light, but it fits very well, and not easily moved from position even with lots of head movement.
 
I gave 5 stars for ATH-R70x, is that mean that ATH-R70x a perfect headphone? There is no such a thing as a perfect headphone. 5 stars are mainly for its performance, in comparison with other headphones within the price bracket that I've ever tried. Best achievements of ATH-R70x are the very natural tonality, almost ruler flat tonal balance, and the light weight and good fit of the headphones. ATH-R70x is probably not the one headphone that fits all music, but it really excels on what it does best, which are vocal, pop, and jazz. Generally modern recordings with closed miking sound wonderful on ATH-R70x. What I think can be improved further to match other open-back flagships mentioned above are the clarity, detail, speed and dynamic. Overall ATH-R70x is a very pleasing & comfortable headphone. Some headphone may sound technically right, but not necessarily emotionally involving. Not with ATH-R70x. With the right DAC and amplifier, ATH-R70x sounds gorgeous and emotionally involving. For under $500 bracket, in my opinion, ATH-R70x deserves 5 stars. An excellent sounding headphone for both professionals and audiophiles. Kudos to Audio-Technica!
 
 

 
 
 

Pros:

Almost 'perfectly natural' tonal balance.
Feather-light weight (approx. 210 g w/o cable).
 

Cons:

Obscured Left and Right markings.
Only one long (3 meters) stock cable is included.
Headband size might be a little short for extra-large size head.
 

Suggestions For Improvement:

Clearer Left and Right markings.
Larger & thicker earpad for greater comfort.
Shorter cable (approximately 1.5 m - 1.7 m) to be included.
Semi-hard case protective carrying case.

Many Thanks to Fiio for the review sample!
I`ve been a Fiio user for some time. Currently I have Fiio X3 (1st gen) and Fiio E12DIY amp. Also had Fiio X5 before, and I reviewed Fiio X1 a while ago. So far my experiences with Fiio products have been positive.

 

Review sections:

Summary, Pros & Cons, Suggestions for improvement.
Sound Quality & Comparisons.
Features & Measurements.

 
 



 
 

 

Summary

Design wise, Fiio X3 2nd gen looks closer to Fiio X1, and very different from the older Fiio X3. The heart of the player is DAC chip Cirrus Logic CS4398, which is also used in higher end players such as Astell&Kern AK120 II and AK240. X3 2nd gen supports playback of both PCM and DSD, all the way up to PCM 24bit-192kHz and DSD128. Not only it supports most of the common audio file formats, it also supports CD image formats (wav / flac / ape + .cue) and SACD ISO image. Basically it plays nearly almost all common audio formats.  

 
 

Beside as a standalone player, Fiio X3 2nd gen also functions as USB DAC. As USB DAC it also supports both high resolution PCM and DSD format as well. While PCM support is up to 24bit-192kHz, in DAC mode DSD support is only for DSD64. Probably it will support DSD128 as well in the future, but as the time of this review, only DSD64 is supported in DAC mode. Nevertheless, for such a small player in this price range, those features are already very impressive.  

A few features that I consider improvement from X3 are:
Sleep or hibernation after a certain time of idles, instead of total power off. We know that iPod already implemented this long time ago, but this is a great improvement from previous Fiio players. After idle for a few minutes (adjustable from 1 to 8 minutes), the player goes to hibernation mode, and consuming less than 5 mW during hibernation. And the player will immediately ON when we press the power button. Anyway, even without this feature, X3 2nd gen starts pretty fast, from power off to ready to use in less than 10 seconds.
Improved EMI immunity. My experience with Fiio X1, X3, and also iBasso DX90, they might get interfered by phone EMI, and occasionally I can hear EMI noise when hold them side by side with my smartphone. But so far none with Fiio X3 2nd gen. The all-metal chassis function as an excellent EMI shield for the player. Watch the video below showing EMI test on X3 2nd gen and other players.  

 
 

Feature rich is not good enough without good sound quality. Don't be fooled by the modest price tag, Fiio X3 2nd gen sounds way beyond its price tag, both the headphone output and line output sound quality. What impresses me most is the soundstage. It has 3D holographic imaging that has been greatly improved from 1st generation X3. Imaging is more 3D, wider, and more spacious, with good layering and better depth. Also quite accurate in instruments separation & placement. Hall's acoustic portrays realistically. The improved soundstage greatly improved the music listening experience.  

Although the old X3 has more powerful headphone output than X3 2nd gen, but most of the time the extra power doesn't translate to better sound on IEMs, and even on some full size headphones. Headphone output of the X3 2nd gen has more than enough power for most IEMs. X3 2nd gen sounds powerful with all earphone / IEMs I've tested. Therefore, IMHO, the more refined sound quality of Fiio X3 2nd gen with its spacious holographic imaging is preferable than the high power output of the X3. I've also tested X3 2nd gen to drive some full size headphones, Philips Fidelio X1, Philips SHP9500, Shure SRH840, Audio-Technica ATH-MSR7 & Audio-Technica ATH-M50, no driving issue at all, X3 2nd gen drove them with full authority, spacious imaging, detailed, with good quality & powerful bass. Really impressive to hear this little player drives those full size headphones, it really has good driving power.  

Beside the imaging quality that impresses me most, X3 2nd gen has a very neutral tonality. It has excellent detail, clarity, and transparency, at the level that is just right, before entering to the analytical region. Both line and headphone outputs have good bass and treble extension. Dynamic is surprisingly quite lively. Transient is fast and snappy. Bass has good punch and speed, with good texture, at neutral level, without any bass emphasize or de-emphasized. Detail and clarity are excellent, clean sounding with realistic transparency, without sounding analytical. The headphone output can drive some low impedance full size headphones really well, with sound quality that pretty much conveys the quality of the DAC, and relatively sounds as good as the line output.  

It could be due to the dual clocks in X3 2nd gen are very well implemented and perform better than X3 clock, or it could also be due to better design of the analogue output stage, or other improvements. But one thing for sure, Fiio have done it well on X3 2nd gen. It is not only feature rich, but to my ears it has the sound quality that is simply punches through its suggested price tag. Overall I rated it a little less than 5 stars due to mostly the quality of the LCD display, and playlist management that could be improved. But for sound quality alone, I would rate it 5 stars. Kudos to Fiio!  

 
 

Pros:

Exceptional sound quality from such a small and affordable player.
Feature rich. It has almost everything we could expect from a modern player in this category.
Sleep / Hibernation mode.
Good battery life.
Very good all-metal chassis build quality with excellent EMI immunity.
 

Cons:

LCD display could be improved, especially for day time outdoor usage.
Not the best playlist management.
Silicon protective cover easily attracts dust and lint.
 

Suggestions for improvement:

Higher contrast and better resolution LCD display.
Better material for the protective cover, material that doesn't attracts dust and lint. 
Beside 'pure mode' line output, fix gain and without equalizer, it would be a nice feature if user can choose to enable volume and equalizer for the line & SPDIF output.
Option to enable headphone output when the line or SPDIF output is connected.
Option to enable and disable battery charging in USB DAC mode.
Option to disable volume lock feature when screen is off.
Larger database capacity for the library to manage more than 5800 songs.
Automatic playlists such as: Recently played lists, Most frequently played lists, and Recently added lists.
 


 
 

 

 

Sound Quality & Comparisons

 

The sound signature of Fiio X3 2nd gen is clean, detailed, spacious, and transparent, without sounding analytic. The detail and transparency sound natural, and not over emphasized to make it entering the analytic category. Overall tonality is neutral with very good spaciousness and driving power. It significantly sounds more spacious, with better imaging than the older X3. Clarity and detail are also improved from X3. X3 2nd gen is not a warm and mellow sounding type of player, but also not the harsh and analytic type. It has excellent perceived detail with the right level of smoothness to make it sounds musical. Driving power is good on X3 2nd gen, most of IEMs and full headphones I tried with it sound well driven.  

Personally I'm impressed with the sound quality of Fiio X3 2nd gen, and it has been my daily player for the last 2 months now. I found that it has good matching ability with most of the IEMs and headphones I tried, with my favourite pair would be to pair it with DUNU DN-2000. Simply a wonderful sounding portable system, probably one of the best neutral sounding portable system for under $500. Beside DN-2000, ATH-IM50 also matches beautifully with X3 2nd gen. The transparent and spacious X3 2nd gen complements the warm and bassy signature of IM50 really well. Resulting a full and spacious sounding, powerful bass with clear and full bodied mids, and silky smooth treble. Listening to both DN-2000 and ATH-IM50 paired with Fiio X3 2nd gen, are truly addictive.  

 
 

Previously DX90 was my daily player since last year, now using X3 2nd gen for 2 months somehow I don't feel that I missed my DX90. They have different sound signature, and DX90 still has slightly better transparency and treble sparkles, but X3 2nd gen sound quality is good enough to make me not missing my DX90 for daily commuting. X3 2nd gen smaller size is also more comfortable in the pocket.  

Pairing Fiio X3 2nd gen with portable amplifier Fiio E12DIY (Op-Amp OPA827 + Buffer LME49600), I was simply impressed by how well they drive my Sennheiser HD800. They manage to give body to HD800 mids and bass, while maintaining good detail and transparency. While not really quite up to the level of good tube desktop amp which I prefer for HD800, this small system is good enough that I would confidently bring them around in a headphone meet or local shops to test IEMs and headphones. Recently I brought this pair, X3 2nd gen + E12DIY to a local shop to audition MrSpeakers Ether, and they don't disappoint. They have good tonality, power, with excellent detail and imaging. Impressive!  



 
Testing MrSpeakers Ether at local headphone shop
 

 

 

Comparisons

During the more than 2 months period, I've compared it with other players:
Fiio X3 (1st generation, Ver. 3.3)
Apple iPod 6th Generation 80 GB (Ver. 1.1.2)
iBasso DX90 (Ver. 2.1.0)
Astell&Kern AK100 (Ver. 2.4)  

As for the Fiio X3 2nd gen itself, the latest firmware version I tried for this review is version 1.1.  

Main headphones and earphones used for comparisons:
Audio-Technica MSR-7, Shure SRH840, Yamaha HPH-200, DUNU-DN2000, DUNU-DN-1000, DUNU Titan 1, and ATH-IM50.  

 

Comparison with Fiio X3 (1st generation)

Fiio X3 is using Wolfson WM8740 professional DAC and AD8397 high current op-amp. Fiio X3 2nd gen is using Cirrus Logic's top-flight CS4398 DAC and OPA1642+LMH6643 for the amp section. To me, X3 2nd gen is totally a different player than X3 1st gen. What puts them together is only their price which is within the $300 price bracket. Other than that they don't have many things in common.
 

Most noticeable difference in sound character is the imaging. Switching from X3 to X3 2nd gen I can hear better, and more spacious soundstage, better depth, and clearer instrument separation. X3 soundstage sounds a little flat and congested when compared to X3 2nd gen. The 3D & spacious imaging adds a lot of pleasure in music listening, and probably the best improvement of X3 2nd gen over X3.  

Besides that, X3 2nd gen sounds more transparent than X3, not much, but audible. Nothing wrong with X3 treble, but X3 2nd gen sounds like it has smoother upper treble extension, so treble sounds silky smooth, more airy and transparent. X3 2nd gen has slightly better micro detail, and sound slightly more refined than X3.  

There is also improvement on power efficiency on X3 2nd gen, it doesn't heat up as much as X3. X3 will gets quite warm after sometime, especially when kept in less ventilated place, like in a bag or pocket. So far I didn't have any heat issue with X3 2nd gen, at max it only gets a little warm. Power efficiency seems to be better on X3 2nd gen, smaller battery, yet longer playing hour and less heat. Beside that I also found the navigation is a little easier on X3 2nd gen, requires less button clicks with the scroll wheel.  

 
 
 

Aside from their sound quality, in my opinion, the following are some features of each model that can be considered better than the other:  

X3 1st generation:
1. Analog circuit bass and treble adjustment that sounds good, and works even when playing high resolution PCM and DSD format, where digital EQ of both models doesn't work for DSD, and only works up to 48 kHz PCM.
2. More powerful headphone output.  

X3 2nd generation:
1. Plays DSD 128 and DSD ISO image. Well, practically to me this feature is not very important, but YMMV.
2. More efficient battery consumption, less heat and slightly longer playing time.
3. Scroll wheel for easier navigation.
4. Hibernation mode.
5. Playback from USB OTG storage.  

Both are excellent players in their category. Sound quality wise, both won't disappoint at their price point. Features wise, easy to use and user friendliness, I prefer X3 2nd gen.  

 

Comparison with Apple iPod 6th Generation 80 GB

My iPod is probably too old to be compared with the new X3 2nd gen, but just for comparison sake I will write a brief comparison between them.
 

The 2 x 30mW iPod headphone output is no match for the X3 2nd gen more powerful headphone output. X3 2nd gen has better driving power, bass has better texture, tighter, and punchier than iPod. Fiio X3 2nd gen also has better detail and faster transient. Upper treble is more extended on X3 2nd gen, and overall sounds more transparent than iPod.  

I used my iPod classic for years, and it is more or less retired early last year. It is a nice sounding player, smooth, polite, with friendly sound characteristic, but it is rather too old, and doesn't offer many features as compared to modern players. Limited playable formats, no line output, no USB DAC function, etc. But I think iPod has better UI, and especially the automatic playlists, the recently added, recently played, and Top 25 most played playlists are quite useful.  

Size comparison with Samsung Galaxy S4 and iPod classic 6th gen.
 

 

Comparison with Astell&Kern AK100 (first generation)

AK100 20 ohms output impedance might not be suitable for some multi drivers IEMs, so for fair comparison, I mostly use single driver IEM, but also tried the DN-1000 and DN-2000 hybrid just for comparison. For example, DUNU DN-2000 has wonderful matching with X3 2nd gen, it sounds transparent and holographic, with excellent detail. on AK100, DN-2000 bass is slightly boosted, and treble level is slightly less than X3 2nd gen. Overall still sounds balanced and enjoyable, and I do like AK100 pairing with DN-2000. With DN-1000, the difference is even more audible, as DN-1000 starting to lose its transparency on AK100.
The difference is quite audible between X3 2nd gen & AK100 when comparing them using multi driver IEM.
 

Operation wise, X3 2nd gen feels quicker and more responsive than AK100. Probably due to simpler OS and the lack of touch screen. As for the size, AK100 is smaller. About similar width and thickness, but much shorter.  

AK100 sounds warmer and a little smoother than X3 2nd gen. AK100 also has slightly stronger and fuller bass presence. While X3 2nd gen sounds more transparent and open sounding. Vocal sounds fuller and more intimate on AK100, and overall I do prefer the smooth and intimate vocal on AK100 for pop music. If you like open sounding vocal, X3 2nd gen vocal sounds a tad more open and transparent. But the difference is not much. I also notice that the perceived transient is slightly faster on X3 2nd gen. Both have good imaging, with excellent detail and dynamic. Though the price difference is quite high here, IMHO X3 2nd gen doesn't sound inferior to AK100. They do have different character, but I don't hear one player to be inferior to the other. It is all depending on personal preferences, as well as matching the right earphone to the player. For example with ATH-IM50, X3 2nd gen transparent signature really helps to balance the warm and bassy signature of the IM50, in this case, better than AK100. While AK100 might be better on other pairing. In general, those who like smooth & warm character with stronger bass will find AK100 is preferable, while those who prefer transparency will find X3 2nd gen is really a good deal.  

 

Comparison with iBasso DX90

DX90 sounds a little more transparent and powerful than X3 2nd gen, with better dynamic. DX90 treble sounds more extended with more treble sparkles. It also makes DX90 a little more prone to sibilant as compared to X3 2nd gen. Bass punches harder and fuller on DX90. Both the sparkling treble and more powerful bass make DX90 sounds livelier. But vocal sounds a little smoother on X3 2nd gen, less grain, more focused and rounded. Sometime I do like vocal of the X3 2nd gen a little better than DX90, especially with matching IEMs such as DN-2000 and ATH-IM50. DX90 vocal may sounds a little sharp and grainy sometime. But again it comes back to matching. With smooth sounding full size headphones like my new ATH-R70x, DX90 sounds better, more open sounding with better detail.
 

Soundstage presentation is rather different between the two. DX90 imaging is perceived wider, while X3 2nd gen is perceived deeper. Both have excellent capability to produce 3D holographic imaging.  

I observed that sound quality between low and high gain on X3 2nd gen is quite consistent. While on DX90 I always set it to high gain due to noticeably better sound quality at high gain. DX90 sounds tighter with better driving capability at high gain.  

Though in general, I feel that DX90 is still a better sounding player, but the difference is not night and day despite of the double price. And X3 2nd gen comes pretty close.  


Size comparison with AK100 & DX90:
 
 
 
 

 

 

Features & Measurement

 

Fiio has listed most of the features of X3 2nd gen here:
http://www.fiio.net/en/products/39
 
The following are some of the features I would like to highlight or have been tested.  

Line Output & SPDIF Coaxial Output

Beside the headphone output, there is a switchable multi-function output, for analogue line output and digital SPDIF coaxial output. Selection is done in system settings menu. Headphone output is disconnected when line output or SPDIF output is connected.
 

 
 

Line output level is fix at 1.45 Vrms (measured 1.46 Vrms), bypassing the digital volume control and digital equalizer. Probably due to the limitation of the battery voltage, the level is slightly below the standard 2 Vrms for line output. Some users provided feedback that it would be nice if there is an option to enable variable gain and equalizer for the line output.  

SPDIF coaxial output connector pin assignment is different than the X3 and iBasso DX90. That means, we cannot use SPDIF cable from X3, for the X3 2nd gen SPDIF output. Older X3 and DX90 use the Tip and Shield of the 3.5 mm connector for SPDIF output. X3 2nd gen use the 4 poles TRRS 3.5 mm connector. From the Tip, Ring 1, Ring 2, & Shield (TRRS), X3 2nd gen SPDIF output uses the Ring 2 and Shield poles. Ring 2 connected to the ground or shield of the RCA connector, while the Shield pole of the 3.5 mm connected to the Tip of the RCA connector. So it is similar to CTIA standard for TRRS phone connector, the SPDIF coaxial output uses the microphone pole for the SPDIF signal. The new arrangement is quite make sense, since the SPDIF is sharing the same port with the line output.  

 
 

The SPDIF coaxial output works for all PCM sampling rates from 44.1 kHz up to 192 kHz, including 88.2 kHz and 176.4 kHz. SPDIF output sampling frequency follows the sampling frequency of the audio file.  

The interesting part of the SPDIF output is when X3 2nd gen playing DSD64 files. Instead of muting, the SPDIF output will output 88.2 kHz PCM signal, converted from the DSD64 files. So X3 2nd gen functions as DSD to PCM converter. Brilliant! But please take note, DSD128 is not supported by the SPDIF output, therefore when the multi-function output is set to 'Coax Out', DSD128 files are not playable. In order to play DSD128, the output must be set to Line Out.  

 
 

CTIA Inline Remote

Another interesting feature is the compatibility with inline remote. Using earphones or IEMs with microphone and inline remote, the remote middle answer button functions as the following on X3 2nd gen:
1 click: Play or stop
2 clicks: Next song
3 clicks: Previous song
 

Please take note, X3 2nd gen only supports the more common CTIA standard, not the less common OMTP headphone jack standard. More info here:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Phone_connector_(audio)
 
 

USB DAC & USB OTG

Beside a standalone player, X3 2nd gen also functions as USB DAC. All PCM sampling rates from 44.1 kHz up to 192 kHz are supported, including DSD64 format. DSD128 is not supported in DAC mode. Probably not yet. DSD playback method in foobar is using the common DoP Marker setting.
 

 
 
 

The micro B USB port also supports USB OTG storage. Using the common USB OTG cable for Android smartphone or tablet, X3 2nd gen can access flash storage connected to the OTG cable. I tested PNY 128GB USB 3.0 flash drive (formatted in exFAT), as well as Transcend USB 3.0 card reader to read micro SD, so far the OTG function works well. This feature is quite useful especially if we have a full micro SD in the player, but want to try some audio files with the player. Simply copy the files to a flash drive, and plug it to the OTG cable.  

 
 

Storage

Officially supported file format is FAT32, up to 128GB maximum capacity, and it is recommended to use the player to format the micro SD card. Nevertheless, I found that X3 2nd generation (firmware v1.1) supports exFAT file system as well. At the time of this review, I haven't seen this feature mentioned on Fiio website, but I have tested both 64GB micro SD and 128GB USB flash drive connected using OTG cable, both formatted in exFAT, and both were supported by X3 2nd gen. I have tested exFAT cluster size 32kb, 128kb, and 256kb, all work. Though during testing, exFAT file system works fine most of the time, but some users reported that occasionally they have issues playing 24/192 PCM files and DSD files from exFAT storage. exFAT support is probably still in early stage and need further development, but this is a good sign to support larger storage in the future.
 

 

Media Library

The media library scanning is quite fast, faster than DX90 and AK100. It scans 1114 songs in about 21 seconds. Currently, with firmware 1.1, media library maximum capacity is 5800 songs. Not sure if the capacity will be expanded in future firmware update, but IMHO, 5800 is generally sufficient for 64GB storage. With 64 GB micro SD, in average we could use around 59.5 GB of storage space. Averaging some of my collection, around 2739 songs, a mixture of MP3 320kbps & AAC 512kbps, resulting an approximate of 11 MB file size per song. It means, for high quality lossy formats, 59.5 GB could hold around 5400 songs. Most of my songs are in FLAC format (mixture of standard and high resolution), which is in average around 4-5 times larger than 320 kbps MP3 file. Therefore the 5800 songs of media library capacity is quite sufficient for 64 GB storage, especially for mixture of lossy and lossless formats. But when 128 GB is getting cheaper and more popular, it might not be enough for a collection with mostly lossy formats.
 

But please take note, that this 5800 capacity is 'Media Library' capacity, and not X3 2nd gen file browsing capacity. The file browser is not limited by the media library capacity. We can have 128GB storage with much more than 5800 songs, and we can browse them all using the file browsing feature. Since most of my song collections are folder organized, I never used the media library so far, and always use file browser to select songs. So the 5800 limitation is not relevant if we browse our songs using file browser. But I could imagine if in the future the playlist management has been much improved, more will start using the media library function, and with 128GB storage, the 5800 capacity will need to be expanded.  

 

File Formats

Tested the following file formats & sampling rate, except the DXD format, all are playable, including DSD files, both DSF and DFF format, in both DSD64 and DSD128 resolution.
 

 
 
 
 

CD & SACD Image

Supporting various common audio formats is probably not something unique these days, but playing CD images and SACD ISO images directly from the player is not what many portable players claim able to do. This is especially useful for those who backup their collection of CDs and SACDs as images.
 

I've tested the following CD images format:
CD_Image.ape + CD_Image.cue
CD_Image.flac + CD_Image.cue
CD_Image.wav + CD_Image.cue  

 

All are playable on X3 2nd gen. Only gapless playback on CD image is still not perfect, with a very short, probably around 0.3-0.4 second gap. Hopefully future firmware upgrade will fix it.  

The neat way to organize the image files is probably to put each of the image file in a separate folder, with proper naming. But we have the option to put all the CD images together in the same folder. The displayed artwork for the CD Image playback will follow the file name of the CD image file. So just name the artwork jpeg files accordingly, with the same file name as the associated CD image, and X3 2nd gen will display the artwork accordingly.  

 
 
 
 

Also tested SACD ISO image that was placed in a folder together with artwork jpeg file with different file name, and X3 2nd gen has no problem displaying the artwork file while playing the SACD ISO file.  

Please take note some of the following limitations for DSD playback. Some SACD ISO images might be in DST format (compressed DSD) and is not supported by X3 2nd gen. The solution is to convert the ISO image to DFF files, with DST to DSD conversion option selected. When I found some the SACD ISO images were not playable by X3 2nd gen, I was not aware of the DST codec. I have to thank @WayneWoondirts for the tips to check the DST codec! ISO image in DST format may be converted to DFF files using Sonore ISO2DSD (freeware). The other limitation is surround DSD files. Fiio X3 2nd gen is a stereo player, meaning DSD 5.0 and 5.1 files are not supported. Only 2.0 DSD file is supported.  

 

Display Quality & User Interface

There is not much improvement for the LCD display from previous X3, most probably to keep the cost low. But I do hope that in the next generation X3, Fiio would improve the quality of the LCD display, especially to improve the contrast & resolution. It is difficult to use the display in bright outdoor condition. And it would be nice to have higher resolution display.
 

 
 

In my opinion, the new wheel navigation is preferable over the buttons navigation on the old X3. The X3 2nd gen wheel and buttons arrangement are quite intuitive and easy to use. User interface has also been improved and quite user friendly.  

What I would like to be improved is the back button behaviour and playlist management.  

1. I prefer for the back button to have the following behaviour:
Short click from the currently playing song is dedicated to always bring back one level up to the song file directory, or one level up of the playlist hierarchy, for example back to the list of songs in the album.
Currently, once we long press the back button to go to the home menu, when we go back to the currently playing song, when we short click the back button, it won't bring us back to the song's folder or album, but goes back to home menu.  

2. Automatic playlists such as:
Recently played:
Songs; Albums; Folders; Artists
Most frequently played:
Songs; Albums; Folders; Artists
Recently added:
Songs; Albums; Folders; Artists  

Something like this:
 
 

Equalizer

Equalizer is standard 10 bands digital equalizer with +/- 6 dB adjustment. Equalizer only works for PCM files with sampling rate 44.1 kHz and 48 kHz. It doesn't function for higher sampling rate and DSD files. When EQ is on, it reduces the whole level by 6 dB to provide a 6 dB headroom for EQ adjustment.
 

 
 

This is quite a common implementation in today's digital audio players. I would like to suggest a slightly different approach to Fiio (and other vendors). I suggest integrating the digital volume and the digital equalizer, so headroom calculation can be done in an integrated manner. Instead of cutting the volume by 6 dB immediately when EQ is activated, why not just reduce the maximum volume instead. For example, if maximum volume is let say 18 dB without EQ, when EQ is activated maximum volume is reduced to 12 dB max, providing the 6 dB headroom for EQ. The digital volume control is limited to 12 at max when EQ is activated, instead of 18 dB max without EQ. The reason is, when using IEMs, we seldom use near the maximum volume, so there will be some headroom from digital volume control that can be used for EQ. When EQ is activated, users don't have to experience that the overall volume is reduced, because EQ is using the leftover headroom from the digital volume control. Only the maximum level of the volume control is reduced when EQ is activated. In headroom calculation, it might looks the same, but different user experience, since user no longer has to adjust the volume when activating EQ.  

For example, maximum volume of X3 2nd gen is at level 120, and -6 dB from maximum is at level 108 (the same for both high and low gain). So, just make it that when equalizer is enabled, reduce the ceiling of maximum volume level from 120 to 108. Most of the time my listening volume with my IEMs, DN-2000, DN-1000, ATH-IM50 are only in the range from 40 to 70. If the ceiling of max volume is lowered from 120 to 108, it is not affecting the playback volume, and I don't have to adjust the volume when enabling equalizer. My 2 cents  

 

Power Management and Battery

Mentioned earlier, the newly implemented sleep / hibernation feature is a very welcomed feature. Sleep when idle can be set between 1 to 8 minutes. Sleep mode is indicated by blue LED. The LED will turn off when in sleep mode, and the player consumes less than 5 mW of battery power. To activate the player, press the power button.
 

From my experience, battery life is pretty good. Though battery life varies by many factors, with more than 2 months of almost daily use, I don't feel the battery capacity is lacking.  

X3 2nd gen uses similar 0.8 mm P2 pentalobe screws to those found on the iPhone 4. Using the pentalobe screwdriver from generic smartphone tool kit, we can open the back of the X3 2nd gen. Pictures below shown the battery and circuit board or the X3 2nd gen. The battery seems to be removable.  

 
 
 
DIY expert might know how to open the battery connector.
 
 

EMI Rejection

As mentioned earlier, the X3 2nd gen all-metal chassis design has improved the EMI rejection from the first generation X3. X3 also has metal chassis, but EMI rejection is not as good as the X3 2nd gen. Using X3 2nd gen, now I'm no longer annoyed by EMI when holding the audio player side by side with my smartphone.
 

The following video is showing a simple EMI test using the base of home DECT phone. The base of DECT phone is transmitting consistent radio signal, that easily interfered audio players on close distant. A simple electromagnetic transmitter for EMI test.  

 
 

The test setup is simple:
4 players: Fiio X3, Fiio X3 2nd gen, iBasso DX90, & Astell&Kern AK100.
All players were set to high gain (except AK100 which doesn't have gain adjustment), and the volume was set to 0.5 Vrms when playing 0 dBFS 100 Hz sine wave. So output level were equal.
During the test all players were playing silent track.
Headphone output of DUT (Device Under Test) connected to Line Input 1 (Left) and 2 (Right) of Zoom H6, gain set to 7.
Zoom H6 headphone output connected to a small active speaker (Creative Woof), to monitor the sound of the EMI noise.
Video recording was using Panasonic DMC-FZ1000. Sound in the video was recorded from the speaker sound using the FZ1000 build-in mic. No audio post processing.  

http://youtu.be/OQsoGI-uzYE

 

From the Zoom H6 recorded file, we can see that Fiio X3 2nd gen has the best EMI immunity from other players in the test.  

 
 

Headphone Output

The following is some measurement of the headphone output. I don't have lab grade accuracy measurement instruments, or dedicated audio analyzer, so the measurement result should be taken as estimated value.
 

Low gain maximum output voltage at 600 ohms: 1.345 Vrms / 3.8 Vpp
High gain maximum output voltage at 600 ohms: 2.69 Vrms / 7.6 Vpp  

Low gain output impedance: 0.34 ohm
High gain output impedance: 0.39 ohm  

 
 

Measured power output:

My digital oscilloscope doesn't do THD measurement, but it has FFT feature. Power output criteria is maximum output at less than 1% THD. To estimate the maximum output voltage before the waveform get distorted, I visually monitor the waveform on oscilloscope, and monitor the FFT window to keep the harmonic distortion is less than 40 dB (100 times) from the main frequency.
 

Maximum volume before distortion, at 20Hz & 200Hz on 15 ohms load (at volume 106 - high gain):
 
 
 

Waveform started to get distorted, at 20Hz & 200Hz on 15 ohms load (at volume 107 - high gain):
 
 
 

For low impedance load, I made a custom cable as shown below, where the load is connected using 4 pins XLR. This way I can use the cable with various load, including balanced headphone.  

 
 

Maximum output voltage at high gain, at 15 ohms load:
At 20 Hz: 1.157 Vrms (volume @ 106)
At 200 Hz: 1.167 Vrms (volume @ 106)
Average: 1.162 Vrms
Maximum current at 15 ohms load: 1.162 / 15 = 77.5 mA  

Maximum output voltage (Vrms) at high gain, at 600 ohms load: 2.69 Vrms  

Calculated maximum power output @ 32 ohms: 192 mW
Calculated maximum power output @ 300 ohms: 24 mW  

 

Line Output:

Measured output impedance: 99 ohms
Measured maximum output voltage: 1.46 Vrms
Line output is fix gain, bypassing the digital volume control and digital equalizer.
 

 

RMAA Test Results

Audio interface for RMAA test is using HRT LineStreamer+. HRT LineStreamer+ doesn't have any gain at the input stage, so it is a direct connection to the ADC stage, at 24bit-96kHz sampling rate. Line output is connected directly to HRT LS line input as shown below, while headphone output is connected with 600 ohms load (different cable).
 

 
 

Please take note:

RMAA test is only as good as the quality of the audio interface used for the measurement. And in most cases, only useful for verification purpose of the audio quality within the 20Hz to 20 kHz range. For example, most audio interface line input only have linear frequency response up to around 20 kHz, if I measure an amplifier with flat frequency response up to 100 kHz (which is common), RMAA test result will only shows frequency response up to 20 kHz. In this case RMAA test result doesn't reflect the frequency response of the amplifier under test, but the frequency response of the line input of the audio interface. Besides that, noise and total harmonic distortion result are also affected by the performance of the line input interface, which in many cases has inferior specification than the tested unit. Once again please take note, RMAA test is only for verification purpose, and not accurately reflecting the real specification of the equipment.
 

Sampling mode: 24-bit, 96 kHz
Fiio X3 2nd Generation Outputs: Line Output, Headphone Output at Low Gain & High Gain.



 
The frequency response (FR) graph is pretty close to the official FR graph published by Fiio. The HRT LineStreamer+ FR is 20Hz-20kHz in +0 / -.4 dB tolerance, so won't get better result than that even if the player FR is flatter. From the individual output result, I don't see any issue with channel imbalance. Output level balance between Left and Right channels is good.  

 

 

That concludes my Fiio X3 2nd generation review. It is a wonderful audio player, very reasonably priced, with performance that exceeds many other players in the category. Congrats to Fiio!



 
   

 

Additional pictures:

 

Accessories:
 
Fiio X3 2nd gen comes with silicon protection case and screen protector. One of the screen protector already applied to the player from factory.  

 

User Guide:
 
 
 

System Settings:
 
 
 
 

Play Settings:
 
 
 

Equipment used in this review:

 

Headphones:
Audio-Technica ATH-R70x
Audio-Technica MSR7LTD
Audio-Technica M50
Philips Fidelio X1
Philips SHP9500
Sennheiser HD 800
Shure SRH840
Yamaha HPH-200
 

Earphones / IEMs:
Audio-Technica ATH-IM50
Audio-Technica ATH-IM70
DUNU DN-1000
DUNU DN-2000
DUNU Titan 1  

DAPs, DACs & Headphone Amplifiers:
Apple iPod Classic 6th gen 80GB
Astell&Kern AK100 (loan)
Fiio X3
Fiio X3 2nd gen
Fiio E12DIY (Op-Amp OPA827 + Buffer LME49600)
iBasso DX90
ifi micro iDSD (firmware 4.06)
Mytek Stereo192-DSD  

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 v1.3.3  

Measurement & Other Instrument:
Amprobe Digital Multimeter AM-160
Amprobe Pocket Meter PM51A
Owon VDS3102 Digital Storage Oscilloscope
Velleman PCSU 200 PC Scope & Generator
Zoom H6  

 

Some recordings used in this review:

 

 
 
Simply music. That summarizes this review of Fiio X1.
 
At $99.- Fiio is offering a very affordable high resolution (24 bit / 192 kHz) player to the market. At this price, many might question of the sound quality. Thanks to Fiio, they don't set the sound quality of X1 at the sub $100 bracket. There is nothing cheap with the sound quality of Fiio X1. On a blind test, I doubt any experience reviewer or audiophile will guess that it is a sound quality from a $99 player. X1 sound quality is simply beyond its $99 price tag. Kudos to Fiio!
 
X1 might not be technically superior as the X3 and X5, but I do honestly impressed by the sound quality. X1 always sounds pleasing and musically engaging. It has a very like-able sound signature that makes us forget the technicality of the player, and just enjoy the music. X5 for example, always sounds technically superior than the rest, but I sometime find it not as musically engaging as X1, especially for vocal. X1 might not have the most exotic ingredients, but mixed and cooked right, and always delicious.
 
 
 
The unit I reviewed was a loan unit from Fiio, from the "X1 preview world tour - Malaysia and Singapore" program.  Thanks Fiio!
 
 

 
This review is based on Firmware 1.0  
 
 
I have both Fiio X3 and Fiio X5, and I used them as reference to describe Fiio X1 sound signature. The comparison will mainly on the headphone output sound quality. I didn't have enough time to explore and compare the line out quality. From other reviews, I read that the line out quality is actually better than the headphone output quality. Having observed the headphone output sound quality, IMHO X1 is not far behind X3 and X5. Technically X3 and X5 are more superior than X1 with higher power headphone amp. But when using regular easy to drive IEM, X1 competes well with X3 and X5 on the musical fun factor. X1 might be technically lacking this and that, but the fact is, music always sounds fun and enjoyable on X1. I would say Fiio did it right. At this price category, simplicity and musicality are the main priority. And Fiio X1 hit the bullseye on those.  
 
 
Pros:
Very good sound quality for the size and price.
Supports high resolution formats up to 24/192.
Support .cue sheet with multiple file format, and cleverly use the cover picture from jpeg file with the same file name.
Better UI when compared to X3 and X5.
Line Out. Not many players at sub $100 has line out.
Support 128GB micro SD card.
Very good battery life, around 12 hours playback time, continuous playback of 24/96 FLAC with minimum screen ON. Can be slightly longer with MP3 files.
Compatible with smart phone control using the In-line remote button on earphones with built-in remote and microphone.  
Cons:
Slippery scroll wheel. The scroll wheel doesn't have anti-slip surface like on the Fiio X5.
 
2014-10-31 Update:
Fiio recently updated me, that they will use rubberized scroll wheel on the production model. I increased the rating to 4.5 due to this improvement. Here is the message from Fiio:
Please note that the "slippery scroll wheel" is limited to the world tour X1's. Production X1's have rubberized scroll wheels.

UI theme is lacking of high contrast theme for day time outdoor use.
exFAT is not yet supported on FW1.0 (period). Might be supported in the future. 64GB and 128GB should be formated in FAT32 format using the player or 3rd party software.
Charging LED covered by the silicon case.
No USB DAC funtion.
Sensitive to mobile phone interference due to plastic back cover.
 
 
Suggestions for improvement:
Anti-slip layer on the scroll wheel. --> Production model of X1 will have rubberized scroll wheel.
Better and higher contrast screen.
High contrast, white graphics on black background theme for day time outdoor use.
Back button dedicated to go back one level up to the folder where the song is located, or the last level of selected playlist.
TPE (Thermoplastic elastomers) material for the case, instead of Silicon Rubber, for less 'dust magnet' property.
Small hole on the case to show charging LED.
The combination of OPA2322 and buffer ISL28291 sounds sweet. It would be great if Fiio could increase the driving power and level of detail from the headphone output.
USB DAC function please  
 
 
 

 
Sound Signature
 
Many of head-fi'ers, have more than just a few IEMs and DAPs, simply because we like to have a few type of sound signatures in our collection. IMHO, X1 has the type of sound signature that is worth to be taken into our collection. X1 is a keeper, it has that type of 'collectible' sound signature.
 
X1 has natural warm and organic sound signature, with pretty good soundstage and instrument separation. Overall, X1 sounds very pleasing, fun and musical. X1 is less analytical than both X3 and X5, but still rendering pretty good level of detail, certainly better than my iPod Classic 6th Gen 80GB. X1 is not for those looking for highly detailed and analytical sound signature, but more for those who like warm and organic sound.  
Though X1 has a smooth warm sound signature, it is not the muddy and dull type of smooth warm, but smooth warm with a pretty good level of detail and imaging. Imaging though not as wide and spacious as X5, but more spacious than iPod Classic 6th Gen, also better than some other good smart phones that I've ever tried.  
Midrange
The midrange is lovely, warm, full sounding with good detail. X1 performs admirably on vocal. The full bodied vocal sound conveys the singer's emotion really well. With DUNU-DN1000 that sounds a bit analytical, tonality wise, X1 vocal sounds just right. With DN-1000, X3 vocal might sounds a bit too analytical, while X5 vocal sometime sounds a bit thin for my taste. Tonality wise, DN-1000 matches X1 really well, organic sound with good detail and imaging. While for a more organic sounding IEM such as my ATH-IM50 and ATH-IM70, I might prefer X3 for a more dynamic and powerful sound. Generally I prefer to match the smooth organic X1 sound with natural to analytical type of IEMs.  
Bass
X1 doesn't sound as powerful as the X3 and X5. Bass is slightly less punchy and impactful on the X1. X3 & X5 bass is tighter and more punchy than X1, but not by much. I'm not trying to say X1 is bass anemic, which is not. X1 bass is quite presence and sounds full bodied. But the slam, impact, and tightness, are not as good as X3. The rated 100 mW@16Ω headphone output is just not as powerful as the headphone output of X3 and X5. Considering the size and price, X1 power is actually quite impressive. But if you're very particular with powerful and hard hitting bass, X3 is the better choice.  
Treble
X1 treble is the softest among the 3. X3 treble is more sparkling, and X5 treble is smoother and more refined. But X1 treble is not lacking either. Treble level is good, treble quality is on the smooth side, sometime lacking sparkle and airiness for classical music. If some people think that X3 treble a bit edgy, then X1 treble sounds more pleasing. X5 treble still the most refined of the 3, but sometime I do feel like X5 treble is slightly lacking of sparkle, and sounds like rolled off too early at the upper treble region. X5 treble decay sounds a bit too short for me. X3 treble maybe love or hate. For me, I do like X3 sparkling treble. X3 treble is the most sparkling of the 3, might sounds a bit edgy to some, but I do like it, IMHO it makes music sounds livelier. For the rather bright and edgy recordings, X1 silky smooth treble definitely preferable.  
Headphone Output Driving Power
X1 does music in a fun way, but it doesn't always have the speed and power to catch up well with fast paced music as good as X3 or X5. Selection of recordings does play parts to get the most from X1. Vocal is what I found X1 does best. With album 'The World Greatest Audiophile Vocal Recording' from Chesky, overall X1 wins by a slight margin when compares to its bigger brothers the X3 and X5. X1 vocal is just right for my sonic preference, full bodied and less analytical. For album such as Pat Coil Gold and other instrumental albums, X3 is my favorite player for the most engaging bass and drum. As for X5, it is best for those looking for spacious imaging, such as binaural albums.
 
 
 
Compared to X5
X5 has clearer and wider imaging, with slightly more forward vocal. X5 sounds more spacious overall. X5 also sounds more powerful with faster transient and bass hits harder. But X1 has slightly fuller mids, that makes male vocal sounds fuller. I prefer X1 tonality for male vocal. X5 sounds more refined, but slightly lacking in midrange and bass body. X1 has fuller mids and bass compared to X5. X1 sounds warmer than X5. X1 Dynamic also slightly behind X5, but not at the level of lacking of dynamic. X1 still manage to sounds quite lively with decent power.  
Compared to X3
X3 is power. It punches and hits hard. Even harder than X5. But sometime it sounds rough, less refined. While X5 sometime sounds too refined for me. X1 is gentler than X3. It does music in a gentler way. X3 has more sparkling treble that makes recordings sound airier than X1, but sometime could also sounds grainier. X1 treble is smoother than X3, and lacking a bit of air for classical. Just a bit. I did enjoyed hours of classical with X1. Lacking a bit of air, but still enjoyable. I think X1 treble is closer to X5 than X3. While X3 sounds a bit dryer, more analytical with better detail, X1 sounds warmer, more organic, and more relax, and not as detailed. X3 has better dynamic and sounds more powerful than X1. X3 sounds livelier, but sometime X3 might sounds a bit aggressive, depending on the recordings and earphone pairings.  
Compared to iPod Classic 6th generation
X1 sounds bigger with a bit wider soundstage than iPod. Better detail, instrument separation, and sounds a bit more spacious. Tonality is actually pretty close to iPod, but overall X1 sounds better.  
Compared to Samsung Galaxy S4 (SHV-E330K - Korean version)
X1 is a clear winner. S4 sounds brighter, and doesn't have the mids and bass body as good as X1. S4 Imaging is not as spacious, and focused as X1. X1 is simply more musically engaging than S4. X1 at $99.- is justifiable for those looking for an affordable music player that sounds better than smart phones.
 
 
 
 
Some simplified comparisons:  
Bass power, punch, and tightness. Top to bottom, most potent to less potent:
Fiio X3
Fiio X5
Fiio X1  
Treble. Top to bottom, most sparkling to less sparkling:
Fiio X3
Fiio X5
Fiio X1  
Warm & Analytical. Top to bottom, warm to analytical:
Fiio X1
Fiio X5
Fiio X3  
Level of detail. Top to bottom, more detailed to less detailed:
Fiio X5 & Fiio X3 (comparable in level of detail, while X3 sounds more analytical, and X5 sounds more refined)
Fiio X1  
Dynamic and Transient. Top to bottom, most potent dynamic to less potent:
Fiio X3
Fiio X5
Fiio X1  
Wide and Spacious Imaging. Top to bottom, most spacious to less spacious:
Fiio X5
Fiio X3
Fiio X1  
Refined sound quality. Top to bottom, most refined to less refined:
Fiio X5
Fiio X3 & Fiio X1 (different sound signature, but comparable in level of refinement)
 
 
I tested X1 to drive HD800, the headphone output has enough voltage to drive HD800 to a reasonable listening level. Volume was set in the range 90-100 (max) when driving HD800. Not bad at all 
 
 

 
 
 
Build & Features  
Features comparison with X5 and X3:
http://www.fiio.com.cn/products/index.aspx?MenuID=105026016
 
While some said X5 is a bit too bulky and heavy, X1 small size and light weight is a joy to carry. I just hope the next version of X1 could be thinner.
 
 
 
 

 
Compared to iPod Classic 6th generation, X1 is smaller, but thicker.
 
 
 

 
Position of buttons, micro SD slot, headphone / line out socket, and micro USB charging port.
 
 
 
 

 
During the battery test, before FW 1.0 upgrade, X1 was once hang and become unresponsive. So I had to poke the reset switch located between the power button and the volume button. But after FW 1.0 upgrade I didn't experience any more problem with the player.
 
 

 
X1 has front metal housing, but the back is made of plastic. The back screwed to the housing using pentalobe torx screw, like those found on iPhone 4.
 
 

 
Fiio X1 has very good battery life, around 12 hours non-stop playback with minimum screen, tested using 24/96 FLAC files. 
The battery and the circuit board:
 
 
 

 
My main complain from the build is the scroll wheel. It is slippery. I hope Fiio will apply anti slip layer on the X1 wheel like the one on Fiio X5.
 
 

 
Second complain is the themes. All of them are low contrast themes, on relatively low contrast LCD screen. None of them is usable for outdoor during day time. Fiio, we need a high contrast theme, a simple white graphics on black background.
 
 

 
I found the UI on X1 is better and easier to use than X5 and X3. I hope Fiio will have unified UI on all their players, based on X1 UI. 
 
 

 
Headphone Output Vp-p and Output Impedance
Measured maximum peak to peak voltage on headphone output is at around 4.38 volts on 33 ohms load, and 4.63 volts on high impedance load (1 Mega ohm).
Measured headphone output impedance: 1.88 ohms.
 
Maximum peak to peak voltage on high impedance load:
 
Maximum peak to peak voltage on 33 ohms load:
 


Line Out Vp-p and Output Impedance
Not many DAP at sub $100 has line out feature. Line out on X1 is selectable through menu, and shares the same socket with the headphone output. Although X1 line out shares the socket with headphone output, from the measurement it is confirmed that the line out by passed the digital volume control and headphone amplifier / buffer. The line out has different maximum peak to peak voltage, and also different output impedance.
Measured maximum peak to peak voltage on line output is at around 4.31 volts on high impedance load (1 Mega ohm).
Measured line output impedance: 97.5 ohms.

 
 
Maximum peak to peak voltage on high impedance load:
 
Maximum peak to peak voltage on 33 ohms load:
 


CD image / CUE sheet compatible
This is another cool feature of X1 (also supported on X3 and X5), that it is compatible with CUE sheet that is quite common for CD image backup from audio CD. Some of us backup our audio CD into a CD image instead of separate tracks of flac or mp3 files. So those with tons of CD images backup don't have to split them into separate audio files per track, and can just dump them all to X1 to be played directly by the player. X1 also cleverly choose the cover image from the jpeg file that has the same file name as the CUE sheet file name. Gapless playback also tested and works fine.
 
Tested CUE sheet with APE, BIN, FLAC, and WAV audio file formats, only BIN file is not supported, the other common audio file formats are supported. BIN file, although not commonly used by consumer, is the output from Digital Audio Workstation for CD Image.
 
My CD images test files:
 
 
 
 
 

 
File Formats and Sampling Rates
Tested the following audio file formats and various sampling rates, all are playable up to 24 bit / 192 kHz, except the last DXD file at 24 bit / 352.8 kHz.
 
 
 
 

 
Silicon case
Though X1 silicon case in my opinion is better than X5 silicon case, with less 'dust magnet' property, I still prefer for Fiio to use TPE (Thermoplastic elastomers) material like smart phones cases, rather than silicon. Silicon case still annoyingly attracts dust and lint. One flaw, Fiio seems forgot to punch a small hole on the silicon case to show the charging LED.
 
 

 
In-line remote button compatible for earphones with built-in remote and microphone
I haven't tried this, but found on some post in Head-Fi, that the remote button on earphone that has built-in remote and microphone for smart phones, works with X1.
Single click: Play and pause
Double clicks: skip to next track
Triple clicks: skip to previous track
 
 
As I mentioned earlier as a point for improvement, is the behavior of the back button. After browsing through the album folders or playlist, and select a song to be played, I expect the back button to bring back one level up from the 'Now Playing' page, back to either the folder where the song is located, or the related selected playlist. The back button behaves that way, but only if I don't go to the home page by long pressing the back button. After I long press the back button to go to the home page, and go back to the 'Now Playing' page from home, a single short press of the back button now doesn't bring me back to the song folder or relevant playlist, but back to the home page instead. I find it very annoying as I have to browse back to folders or playlist to get to the album of the song that is being played. Fiio, could you please set the back button, when short pressed from 'Now Playing' page, to always go to one level up from the 'Now Playing' page, to either the folder where the song is located, or the selected playlist. It will greatly improve the user experience. Thank you!
 
 
I was quite busy when I got the turn to try the Fiio X1, so there are some features I haven't tested, like the line out quality, In-Line remote button, EQ quality, etc. From the limited time I had with X1, IMHO, FiiO X1 is truly a simple and beautiful sounding DAP. One again, kudos to FiiO!
 
 



 
 
 
Earphones and Headphones used in this review:
DUNU DN-1000
JVC HA-FXD80
Brainwavz S5
Narmoo S1
Sennheiser HD800
 
Some albums 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 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:

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:

 
 
This is the introduction & summary part of my detail review of Sound Blaster X7. The link to the detail review is here:
Creative Sound Blaster X7 - Detailed Review & Impressions
 
 
The detail review consist of 5 sections:
Introduction and Summary
Sound Quality
Op-Amp Rolling
Control Panel
Features & Measurements
 
 
 
Sound Blaster X7 is an impressive multi-platform, all-in-one solution for music, movie, and gaming. As a USB DAC, X7 works with most of today's operating system, Windows, Mac OS, and newer version of Android, & iOS. But what makes X7 stands out from the USB DAC's crowd is the SB-Axx1™ multi-core Digital Signal Processor (DSP) that adds many unique audio processing features to the Sound Blaster X7.

The SB-Axx1™ DSP is a multi-channel digital audio mixer and signal processor, capable of processing up to 32 concurrent audio channels, at up to 24 bit 96 kHz per channel. Not only for mixing, but also audio effects such as equalizer, compressor, and other customized effects. If Creative would make a professional digital mixing console based on SB-Axx1™ DSP alone, it would probably cost around $ 1k or more. SB-Axx1™ is a powerful audio DSP.

Sound Blaster X7 has a very unique triangular shape, nice looking, and attention grabbing design for a desktop component. Though for practical purpose, I prefer the conventional rectangular box shape for easy stacking and transport-ability.

I bought SB X7 standard edition in November 2014 during the launch in Singapore Expo. And many thanks to Joseph from Creative Singapore, for the loan of SB X7 Limited Edition, to be reviewed together with the standard edition. The differences of the SB X7 Limited Edition to the standard edition are:
1. Approximately 1 ohm headphone output impedance. Lower output impedance than the 2.2 ohm on the standard SB X7.
2. High power, 144 watts power adapter, while the standard edition comes with the 69.84 watts power adapter.
3. White color.
 

 

I'm more of an audiophile, and not a gamer, so I won't review X7 from the gaming perspective, but more on SB X7 overall sound quality and main features. And 5.1 configuration was not tested either since I don't have 5.1 receiver and speaker setup.

Purist audiophile probably considers the audio processing features in X7 are not necessary features. The fact is, Sound Blaster X7 is not only designed with gaming and movie in mind, but also has included some important features for audiophile, such as:
USB asynchronous data transfer protocol.
USB and SPDIF Direct Mode that bypasses the SB-Axx1™ DSP for bit perfect digital audio conversion.
Audiophile-grade Components like the Nichicon “Fine Gold” capacitors.
Swappable op-amps on the DAC output stage, to fine tune the sonic character.

Sound Blaster X7 adopt asynchronous USB transfer mode, relying more on its internal low jitter clock, rather than the signal clock from USB / SPDIF. The asynchronous USB transfer mode is probably not mentioned in the X7 webpage and manual, but it is an important feature to be mentioned, and was informed to me by Creative.

Creative have pushed the limit of a multi-function audio interface that excels in all aspects. And I would say they have done it really well! Sound Blaster X7 delivers. A very unique one box solution with superb sound quality and tons of features. And very reasonably priced!



Pros:
Multi-platform & multi-function audio interface, with USB host function to interface with Android and iOS platform through USB connection.
Tons of features in such a small package, with extensive connectivity options.
Asynchronous USB data transfer protocol
Very good sound quality headphone output and line output, with pretty good speaker amplifier.
High power headphone output (measured approximately 1200 mW @ 32ohm).
Convenience 3.5 mm and 1/4" headphone socket.
Very good sound quality Bluetooth audio with easy NFC pairing.
Rich audio processing features for gaming, movies, and music, with smart equalizer.
5.1 outputs with speaker calibration.
Standalone operation.
Swappable op-amps.
 

Cons:
High dependency to Sound Blaster Control Panel, minimal dedicated buttons for important features for standalone operation.
No default start up volume for hearing safety.
No volume level indicator.
No DAC operating sampling rate indicator.
Bluetooth connection announcement, "Device connected" & "Device disconnected" can be too loud and annoying. There should be an option to disable it, or replace it with a simple soft sounding tone.
 

Suggestions For Improvement:
Volume level indicator. Even a simple 4 LEDs indicator is sufficient.
Option for default start up volume feature for hearing safety.
DAC sampling rate frequency indicator.
Dedicated button for DAC input selector. Toggle switch to switch between: USB Direct - SPDIF-In Direct - DSP Playback Mix (Default).
Dedicated button for profile selection.
Bluetooth transmitter / Bluetooth 4.0 adapter function, to pair Bluetooth headphones to SB X7.
Better quality microphone input to accommodate good quality microphone (for recording, karaoke, etc.).
Option to bypass line input gain.
Icon to launch the X7 control panel from the Android notification panel.
HDMI input.
 
 
 

 


In summary, Sound Blaster X7 is really a High-End Sound Blaster that successfully integrates Gaming, Movies, and Music into one unique and innovative product. Superb sound quality with tons of features. Kudos to Creative!
 
 
 
Feature Highlights:
Asynchronous USB data transfer protocol
SB-Axx1 multi-core audio processor
Main Stereo DAC: 1x Burr-Brown PCM1794 (127dB Dynamic Range)
Surround Channels DAC: 2x Burr-Brown PCM1793 (113dB Dynamic Range)
ADC: Burr-Brown PCM4220 (123dB SNR)
TPA6120A2 for the headphone amplifier
TPA3116D2 for the speaker amplifier
DAC output I to V stage: 2x NJM2114D (one for each channel)
Differential to Single conversion stage: 2x LME49710 (one for each channel)
Bluetooth 4.1 Low Energy connectivity
apt-X Low Latency and AAC are supported for quality wireless connections
PCM stereo up to 24 bit - 192 kHz (including 88.2 kHz and 176.4 kHz)
5.1 channels up to 24 bit - 96 kHz
USB to SPDIF converter
 

Specifications:
Output : Stereo and 5.1 Channels
Audio Processor : SB-Axx1™
Connectivity Options (Main):
microUSB
Microphone : 
Built-in Stereo Mic
1 x 1/8" (3.5mm) Mic In
Line / Optical :
1 x RCA Aux/Line In
1 x TOSLINK Optical In
1 x TOSLINK Optical Out
Speaker : 
2 x Binding Post Passive Speaker Out (L/R)
1 x RCA Line/Front Speaker Out
1 x 1/8" (3.5mm) Rear Speaker Out
1 x 1/8" (3.5mm) Centre/Sub Speaker Out
Headphone :
1 x 1/8" (3.5mm)Headphone Out
1 x 1/4" (6.3mm)Headphone Out
USB HOST :
1 x Type A USB Host Port - Device Audio Stream & Charging
Headphone Amp
Up to 600 Ohms
Max Channel Output
5.1 Channels, Stereo Amplified
 


Unboxing & Accessories

 

 

 

 

 
This is my first Brainwavz earphones, many thanks to Brainwavz for the review sample!
 
When I wrote this review, I have used it for almost 2 weeks, around 2 hours daily. A happy ending journey, that was started with a not so happy beginning.
 
Out of the box, first impression, S5 sounded bright to me. Rather too bright for my liking. Owning some other bright headphones and earphones, I thought S5 is tuned as a clear and bright sounding IEM. Then i let it burn-in for about 2 days.
 
After 2 days burn-in, i didn't hear any improvement, basically still bright sounding. 'V' shape sounding that is more like a checkmark '✓ ' shape, where the treble boost around 5-7 kHz is much more pronounced than the bass boost. I brought it to office, to let a friend of mine who is a sound engineer, to try it. After a few hours with S5, same impression, S5 was too bright for him as well. I started to wonders, as some other reviewers here didn't hear S5 as bright earphones.
http://www.head-fi.org/t/725340/brainwavz-s5-iem-headphones-review/330#post_10735721
 
The next day, i tried different eartips. First, the tri-flanges.  Wow wow wow!  I was really surprised with the changes. The S5 now sounds very balanced, not bright anymore. I let my friend tried it again; he thought i gave him a different set of earphones. We were really surprised with the changes.
 
Curious with the drastic changes, i tried back the stock grey tips, and no more excessive treble...! What was wrong initially??? We did feel proper seal, and the slightly boosted bass confirming that it wasn't seal problem. but initially the treble was too much. After eartips replacement, the sound became balanced, and i couldn't reproduce the bright sound character anymore. Was it because the grey eartips were not properly fitted from the factory, or S5 suddenly changed its tonal balance after around 3 days of burn-in and use?  I'm not sure what was the cause of the 4-5 dB excessive treble initially, and what caused the sudden changed of the treble level. It remains a mystery to me and my friend.
 
From a review by [color=rgb(34, 34, 156)]shotgunshane[/color] here:
http://www.head-fi.org/products/brainwavz-s5-in-ear-headphones/reviews/11349 
I have the impression that his S5 is also the bright sounding one, and still bright sounding.  While my S5 has changed its tonality becoming a more balanced sounding IEM.
 
From my experience, if it happens that you feel your S5 is bright sounding, I suggest the following:
1. Try different eartips.
2. Continuous burn-In for around 3-4 days.
 
Now, with all the supplied eartips, S5 sound signature is relatively balanced, only slightly bright. Best sound achieved with the tri-flanges, which sound SO MUCH better than other eartips. I've read many other reviews of Brainwavz S5, and some impressions are varied quite significantly. So 'Your Millage Might Vary'. To be fair to Brainwavz, my evaluation in this review will be based on the best performance the S5 can achieve during the evaluation period.
 
 
 

 
 
Summary (based on Tri-flanges eartips)

Balanced & transparent is the best way to describe Brainwavz S5 tonality. Brainwavz S5 is neither warm sounding, nor analytical. Tonality sounds quite natural, slightly V shape, in between warm and analytical, lean slightly to the analytical side. I don't hear any annoying peaks and dips on the tonality, pretty smooth from bass to treble. Bass has good power and punch, mids and treble are clean, clear, and transparent.  Detail and clarity are good, no veil at all, music always sound clear and detailed, although S5 is not yet into the level of ultra-revealing IEM. 
 
With tri-flanges eartips, imaging is quite wide and spacious. Almost at the level of ATH-IM02 wide and spacious imaging. With other eartips, imaging is not as spacious, but still reasonably spacious and never sound congested.
 
Tri-flanges eartip is the absolute necessity to get the highest level of sound quality from S5.
 
Though relatively easy to drive, S5 does require gear matching to sounds best, and scales up pretty well with good sources.
 
In summary, Brainwavz S5 strikes a good balanced in tonality, and has very good dynamic, detail, and imaging. A balanced, transparent, and musical sounding earphones, that is simply an excellent all-rounder in its class.
 
 
Performance score for sub $100 IEM category:
4.5 stars out of 5 stars at its best performance, with the tri-flanges eartips and matching players.
3.5 stars out of 5 stars at its worst performance.
 
 
 
Equipment
 
 

 
Centrance DACport: DAC + HeadAmp combo. Very organic and musical sounding. very smooth sounding treble, pretty close to AD8599. Always match very well with bright or analytical sounding earphones & headphones.
Audioquest Dragonfly v1.0c: DAC + HeadAmp combo. Marvelous little DAC. Transparent, airy, and powerful. Slightly lean to analytical sounding.
Light Harmonic Geek Out 450 v10.02: DAC + HeadAmp combo. Newest mini DAC in my arsenal, very powerful and detailed sounding. Sound signature is closer to the Dragonfly than to DACport. Lean a little bit to sterile sounding.
iBasso DX90: Portable player. Natural sounding, not warm and not analytical. Good dynamic, detail and resolution.
Fiio X5: Portable player. Natural warm, very smooth & musical. Sounds a tad warmer than DX90. Good dynamic, detail and resolution.
Fiio X3: Portable player. Powerful, balanced sounding with good bass and sparkling treble.
 
 
 
Sound Signature (using Tri-flanges eartips & AudioQuest Dragonfly 1.0c)
 
S5 Clarity and detail are very good, although not yet at the level of highly revealing IEM. Clarity and transparency varies significantly between players and DACs, best transparency I heard is from AudioQuest Dragonfly. But even with the lowest transparency setup, clarity and detail are not lacking. I do prefer more detail when listening to Chesky binaural recordings, so Dragonfly will be my DAC of choice. But for other close miked modern recordings, I might pair it with warmer sounding DAC such as the DACport. As a single dynamic driver, S5 clarity and detail is better than my ATH-IM50 and ATH-IM70. That is a very good achievement from a single dynamic driver. Paired with Dragonfly, detail and clarity almost reaching the level of detail & clarity of BA drivers IEMs such as ATH-IM02 or DUNU DN-1000.  I consider the level of detail and clarity of S5 are excellent at this price category.
 
Imaging is wide and spacious, sounds more spacious than ATH-IM50, ATH-IM70, and TDK IE800. But not as spacious as ATH-IM02, DUNU DN-1000, and DUNU DN-2000. Especially using the tri-flanges, imaging and spaciousness are pretty awesome. Although other eatips don't sound as spacious, S5 never sounds congested.
 
S5 has very good dynamic to make music sounds realistic. Better than TDK IE800 and Fostex TE-05 dynamic, but not yet at the level of ATH-CKR9 dynamic. Listening to 'Mombasa', movie soundtrack from Inception, I heard much better bass impact and dynamic on S5 than TE-05. About the same level of dynamic as UE TF10, and only slightly less when compared to ATH-IM50 and ATH-IM70. When it comes to dynamic it's hard to beat the dual dynamic drivers IEMs from Audio Technica, such as the IM50, IM70, CKR9, and CKR10 that I've reviewed earlier. But having said that, the single dynamic in S5 is no slouch either, and could deliver pretty good level of dynamic.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pUwszL6J81I
 
Bass is slightly on the upper side of what often perceived as neutral. To me this is the bass level that I like, realistic bass, not bland and boring bass. I don't like bass level that is lower than S5 bass level. Bass has pretty good power and punch, but not extraordinary tight and punchy. Bass doesn't colour the midrange and nicely blends with the mids. S5 is not considered as a bassy IEM. Bass level is not as strong as ATH-IM50 and ATH-IM70 bass. Bass lover may better go with ATH-IM50 and ATH-IM70. S5 bass is more or less pretty close to UE TF10 bass level, but bass emphasis is on different area. TF10 emphasizes more on mid-bass, S5 more on bass to low bass area. S5 low bass extension is very good. I tested using my 20Hz - 60Hz Risset-Drum beats I created using Audacity, S5 performs flawlessly. Clean and clear down to 20 Hz. Very good quality bass.
 
Midrange is smooth and clear. Slightly on the lean side of natural, vocal sounds smooth and clear, instead of warm and full bodied. When we are used to IEM with warm and full bodied mids, S5 midrange might sounds a little recessed. But those from the analytical side might consider S5 mids level quite natural. The good thing is, the mids sounds quite smooth & natural, without any annoying peaks and dips on its spectrum. And that is very important. I won't bother to review and spend my time on any IEM with highly coloured midrange. Smooth and relatively natural sounding midrange is the first criteria for me to choose an IEM, and S5 pass with pretty good result.
 
Treble is sparkling rich, with very good transparency. I use classical music to evaluate transparency, and usually avoid any IEM that is lacking in transparency for classical music. S5 transparency is excellent for classical music. Enough air and upper treble extension for classical music to be enjoyable. S5 transparency is better than TDK IE800, ATH-IM50 and ATH-IM70, but may not as transparent as ATH-IM02. Somewhere in between, pretty close to ATH-IM02. Tri-flanges eartips greatly improves S5 transparency and clarity, better than other eartips.
 
Probably one of the most important topic for treble is sibilance. For those who have Celine Dion album 'All the Way...A Decade of Song', might agree that the mix is quite bright, and better played using slightly dark and warm sounding IEM. Surprisingly, S5 with the tri-flanges, while still renders the transparency of the mix quite well, also manage the high level of treble really well without sounding ear-piercing. Only mild sibilance with 'vibrant treble' recordings. Amazing! But expect higher level of sibilance with other eartips.
After the treble metamorphosis mentioned earlier, S5 treble is more towards the silky smooth type of treble rather than the metallic and ear-piercing type. With tri-flanges eartips, S5 treble always clear and transparent with excellent sibilance management.
 
Comfort and noise isolation:
Comfort is good from my perspective. I always wear it over the ears, although it is possible to wear them straight down. I don't find any comfort issue so far, though I think round cable is nicer than the rather big flat cable. Cable microphonics is minimum when worn over the ears.
Most of the time I use tri-flanges eatips with no comfort issue.
Noise isolation is very good, better than average I would say. Maybe also due to the tri-flanges eartips that I use.
 
 
 
Gears and Music selection

Brainwavz S5 is generally a good all-rounder, pretty good performer from classical to modern genres recordings. But players or sources also play a great role here. With Light Harmonic Geek Out 450 and Centrance DACport for example, I have better impressions with modern genres recordings, especially those close miked recordings, like for pops, my Stockfisch albums, and other guitar-oriented recordings. With those DACs, Acoustic guitar sounds naturally sparkling and detailed without getting to the level of fatiguing. Simply beautiful. But with those DACs, S5 might not transparent enough for classical and binaural recordings (at least for my preferences). Paired with AudioQuest Dragonfly, S5 sounds clearer and more transparent, maybe a bit too clear for pop albums, but much better for binaural recordings like the Chesky binaural albums, and classical recordings. So I mix and match the DACs and the recordings, to get the most optimum sonic performance from Brainwavz S5. When gears and recording properly match, sonic performance is nothing short of amazing. I have the tendency to use S5 more for orchestral works and binaural recordings, I like the transparency and the immersive 3D imaging properties of S5, especially when using tri-flanges and AudioQuest Dragonfly.
 
From the 3 DACs I used in this review, Dragonfly is my favorite for Brainwavz S5. Open and spacious sounding, with immersive 3D imaging. The level of 3D imaging on this setup is quite remarkable, almost unbelievable from a $99.9 IEM. From memory, this 3D imaging is pretty close to ATH-IM02.  I bought my Dragonfly 1.0c from Amazon for $99, so this is simply one of the best 3D imaging performance I could get from a $200 setup. Amazing!
 
 

 
With the DAPs, I found Fiio X3 and iBasso DX90 have good synergy with Brainwavz S5. I vote for Fiio X3 + Brainwavz S5 (using the Tri-flanges) to be one of the best $300 portable setup, especially for those looking for natural, lively, clear and transparent sound signature.
 
 

 
 
 
Eartips
 
 

From my experience and observation, eartips play a great role in IEM sound quality. It is absolutely necessary to find the right eartips that sound best and give maximum comfort. Brainwavz S5 has 4.5 mm nozzle neck diameter. Quite a standard size for generic eartips replacement.
Understand that tri-flanges tip is quite big and long, and might not fit everyone ear canal, so impressions with other eartips are also important. Comparisons below is using the tri-flanges as the reference.
 
 
Tri-flanges
Ultimate best sound quality for Brainwavz S5. It brings S5 sound quality above Fostex TE-05 and TDK IE800. Detail and clarity exceed ATH-IM50 and ATH-IM70. S5 sound quality leaps up with the tri-flanges, as compared to other eartips in the package.
 
 

 
Bi-flanges
Tonality not so much different than tri-flanges, but the upper treble extension and low bass extension are not as extended as the tri-flanges. Overall tonality is less airy and imaging is less spacious, a bit congested as compared to the tri-flanges. The bi-flanges also slightly more prone to sibilance
 
 

 
Mono-flange grey
Like the bi-flanges, the stock grey eartips also have less lower bass and upper treble extension, less airy, and less spacious, lacking of depth. Not only that, the level of detail and clarity also reduce, especially midrange detail, and even more prone to sibilance than the bi-flanges. Bi-flanges is slightly better than the grey eartips.
 
 

 
Mono-flange black
IMHO the black tips sounds worse than the rest. Tonality is less natural, midrange a bit veiled, and then suddenly the treble peaks that makes the black tips the most sibilant eartips.
 
 

 
Comply T-400
Foam tips usually have good properties to manage sibilance. But with S5, T-400 has higher level of sibilance than the tri-flanges, about the same level as the grey tips. Also lacking of spaciousness and depth. Bass level is the lowest on T-400. I still prefer the grey tips as compared to the T-400.
 
 

 
 
Comparisons
 
 

 
For this comparison, I used AudioQuest Dragonfly DAC v1.0c. Low output impedance headphone output from the Dragonfly is required especially for UE TF10. TF10 hates high output impedance output, it makes TF10 sounds muddy and lacking in clarity.
 
Ultimate Ears TripleFi 10 (stock eartips)
S5 sound rather V shape when compared to UE TF10. UE TF 10 has better and fuller midrange body. As expected, TF10 vocal sounds fuller and slightly warmer. Although less full bodied, I don't consider S5 midrange as recessed. S5 mids still sounds natural, but on the leaner side of natural. S5 with the tri-flanges has airier presentation than TF10, which is slightly better for classical orchestra.
TF10 has more and punchier mid-bass, but not too much different. While low bass extension is about the same, slightly better on S5. As mentioned before, for bass, TF10 emphasizes more on mid-bass, S5 more on bass to low bass area.
Clarity, about the same for S5 with tri-flanges. When using the grey tips, TF10 has better clarity.
Treble level and quality is about the same level. Slightly better and more transparent treble on S5, when using tri-flanges eartips.
Overall sound quality of the S5 with tri-flanges eartips is not far behind TF10. Only different character, mainly on the level of midrange. But S5 sound performance decreases with different eartips. 
Personal preference: I like both equally.
 
Fostex TE-05 (stock eartips)
TE-05 has smoother midrange, but that's about it. Everything else S5 sounds better to my ears. Bass is much better on S5, more powerful with better texture & dynamic. Midrange is smoother and slightly fuller on TE-05, while S5 has clearer and more transparent mids. S5 with tri-flanges has better treble clarity and upper treble extension, sounds more open and transparent. TE-05 treble is slightly softer, less bright. TE-05 has poor noise isolation, S5 noise isolation is much better. But what S5 excels most comparing to TE-05 is the dynamic. I hear much better dynamic on S5, much wider range of dynamic from soft to louder part of the recording. Overall, music sounds more realistic on S5. I guess I haven't found the right eartips for TE-05. TE-05 does benefit from S5 tri-flanges eartips, improve isolation and dynamic, but the tonality not so good with the tri-flanges, too much mids. At least with its standard stock eartips, TE-05 doesn't sound better than S5.
Personal preference: Brainwavz S5.
 
Audio Technica ATH-IM70 (stock eartips)
IM70 has bigger bass (not much), thicker mids, and softer treble, less clarity. S5 sounds clearer and more transparent, better upper treble extension. In this comparison, I think S5 sounds closer to natural sound. S5 also sounds more spacious than IM70. Between the 2, my general sonic preferences is actually closer to the S5 sonic character, more spacious, open and transparent sound. But depending on the recordings. Those looking for warm and intimate sounding vocal would probably prefer the IM70. Both are really good in their own way.
Personal preference: I like both equally, for different type of recordings.
 
TDK IE800 (RHA eartips, larger bore to improve clarity)
S5 sounds more open, spacious, and transparent than TDK IE800. Switching from IE800 to S5, the S5 sounds rather bright. The other way around, once I get used to S5, switching to IE800 I feel IE800 is lacking in clarity and transparency. In fact they just have different level of treble, around 4 dB difference around 7 kHz onward. IE800 overall sounds smoother, more refined, with fuller midrange. S5 sounds clearer, more transparent, more spacious sounding, and a bit more lively. S5 has better bass than IE800, better level, better low bass extension, and better dynamic. S5 also sounds more lively with better dynamic, while IE800 sounds a bit compressed in comparison. IE800 requires much higher voltage to drive it, and S5 is easier to drive. This is important for smartphone that has low voltage swing. For me, I tend to like the S5 lively, open and transparent sounds better. But that's just my personal preference since I listen a lot to classical. For some 'rather bright' recordings, IE800 might be a better choice.
Personal preference: Brainwavz S5.
 
 
 
Pros:
Very nice blend of balanced tonality, transparency, detail, and dynamic.
No Driver Flex.
Various eartips included for flexible sound tuning and maximum comfort.
 
Cons:
Requires the tri-flanges eartips to sound best, which might not suit smaller ear canals.
Left and Right marking is too small and not clear. No left dot / dimple to identify the left driver in dimly lit environment.
The rounded back housing shape makes it a bit difficult to push the IEM into the ear canal while pulling ear's pinna with one hand.
 
 

 
 
Suggestion for improvement:
Bass punch and tightness.
Slightly warmer mids would be nice.
To achieve the sound quality as when using the tri-flanges eartips, with the regular mono-flange eartips.
To include more sizes of the tri-flanges eartips.
Round shape cable seems more user friendly for over the ear wearing style.
Clearer Left and Right marking, and to include Left dot / dimple for easy identification in dimly lit environment.
Flat back housing (like Brainwavz S1) for easier insertion to the ear canal.
 
 
 
I'm glad I found another reference IEM at this price level.  This IEM is definitely a keeper for me, and I will use it as one of my reference IEM for my future reviews.
Congrats to Brainwavz!
 
 
 
Features: 
 
    All metal housing in a over the ear design. 
    Flat cable for less tangle. 
    Comply foam tips included. 
 
Specifications: 
 
    Transducers/Drivers: 10mm 
    Rated Impedance: 16ohms 
    Sensitivity: 110dB at 1mW 
    Frequency range: 18Hz ~ 24KHz 
    Maximum input power:  40mW 
    Cable length: 1.3m, Y cord, OFC Copper, flat cable. 
    Plug: 3.5mm gold plated, Straight. 
    24 month warranty. 
 
Included Accessories: 
 
    1 x Comply foam T-400 medium series tip 
    6 x Silicone tips 
    1 x Bi-Flage tip 
    1 x Tri-Flange tip 
    1 x 6.3mm audio adapter 
    1 x Earphone carrying case 
    1 x Instruction manual 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 

 
 
Recordings mostly used in this review:
 
 

I would like to thank Creative Singapore for the loan of Creative Aurvana Live 2 demo sample!

http://sg.creative.com/p/headphones-headsets/creative-aurvana-live2
 

 
 
Launched in 2013, Creative Aurvana Live! 2 is a matured model that is still going strong competing with other models in this price category. There are around 10 reviews here in Head-Fi, so Aurvana Live! 2 that often called as CAL2 needs no more introduction, and I will try to write this review short and concise.
 

 
 
 
Summary:
Estimated Sound Quality: 4/5 Very Good
Estimated Value (SQ/Price): 5/5 Excellent
Build Quality: 4/5 Very Good
Noise Isolation: 3/5 Good
 
Perceived level of:
Naturalness: 5/5 Excellent
Clarity: 4/5 Very Good
Detail & Separation: 4/5 Very Good
Holographic Imaging & Spaciousness: 4/5 Very Good
Dynamic & Transient: 3/5 Good
Treble level in comparison to midrange: 0
Bass level in comparison to midrange: 0
Relax (-) to Analytical (+) balance: -1
 
 
Score
5 - Excellent
4 - Very Good
3 - Good
2 - Acceptable
1 - Poor
 
Balanced Level:
+/- 1 : Mild - Still within acceptable range for most recordings.
+/- 2 : Moderate - Generally acceptable, but may start to sound a little too much on some recordings.
+/- 3 : Strong - Generally sounds unnatural and too strong for most recordings.
 
 
Suggestions for improvements:
To include higher quality cable without microphone & volume control.
 

 
 
 
 
 
Sound Quality
CAL2 has a very pleasing, intimate, and smooth sound character that goes well with almost any kind of recording, especially modern genres. Tonality is balanced with no significant emphasize on any area of the frequency response, slightly south of neutral, so not on the analytical side. Probably very mild emphasize around bass area to create the sensation of warm and full sounding, but just a mild emphasize. If I need to choose a few words to describe CAL2 sound signature, it would be: Smooth, balanced, pleasing, musical, and fun. No detected annoying peaks and dips across the frequency spectrum.
 
Bass is mildly emphasized. Slight emphasize around bass to mid bass area, good and punchy bass with good low bass extension. Low bass rumble is good but not emphasized. Meaning, low bass rumble is not very strong for realistic cinematic experience, but it is there, and not lacking. Bass speed and tightness are decent, not boomy, but not the fast hard hitting type. In my opinion, it would be better if bass dynamic can be improved further.
 
Midrange is natural sounding with a touch of warmness. Vocal is clear with minimum coloration. Good detail and clarity without any over emphasized in clarity. Vocal sounds smooth and pleasing with good clarity.
 
Treble is smooth and extended, and very pleasing for long period of listening. Treble has good extension and transparent enough for classical, but overall tuning is probably more suitable for modern genres. This is a safe headphone for people that are sensitive to bright treble but doesn't want to sacrifice clarity.
 
Stereo imaging is good, about average in size and depth, not congested and not particularly spacious. Instrument separation is clear enough and doesn't sound cluttered.
 
Dynamic is decent, not the most realistic dynamic, but lively enough, and definitely not sloppy or lazy. At this price point dynamic performance is pretty good, though if improved further it could be a giant killer.
 
IMHO CAL2 is more suitable for modern music, Pop, EDM, and other modern genre recordings with close miking. Though CAL2 performs quite well on classical and audiophile binaural recordings as well, but to my ears those natural distant miking recordings are not its forte. I prefer headphones with higher level of transparency and airiness, a little more analytical, for those natural recordings.
 

 
 
 
 
Comparisons
 

 

Comparison with ATH-MSR7LTD
ATH-MSR7LTD is clarity king, therefore MSR7LTD has higher perceived clarity and detail. Tonality wise MSR7LTD is relatively a bright headphone, therefore might not be suitable for treble sensitive user. MSR7LTD has more emphasize on treble and has more upper treble extension. Dynamic is also better on MSR7LTD, bass is tighter and punchier. Holographic imaging is wider and more spacious on MSR7LTD. MSR7LTD wins on technicalities, but not necessary more musically pleasing especially for long session. Using MSR7LTD for long period will be more tiring than CAL2. MSR7LTD also known to have stronger headband clamping force. CAL2 headband clamping force is just nice, not as strong as on MRS7LTD. MSR7LTD sound quality wise, in my opinion is more suitable to be positioned as professional monitoring headphone. Technically excellent for critical listening, but can be a little tiring for long session. CAL2 is a smooth and pleasing sounding headphone, with a friendlier sound signature for long period of use, more suitable for casual listening, with better listening comfort.
 

 
 
Comparison with ATH-M50
ATH-M50 has slightly higher perceived clarity with slightly less bass. CAL2 sounds a little warmer when compared to M50. M50 has slightly more emphasize on upper midrange, and more forward in presentation. While CAL2 midrange is a little more laid back and more relax than M50. Treble quality and extension is more or less the same. Both have smooth treble and are safe for treble sensitive users. Bass is a little punchier and more powerful on M50, slightly better bass dynamic, though bass balance in comparison to the midrange is about the same. So bass level is approximately the same, but M50 bass has better dynamic. Stereo imaging quality is approximately the same. Users prefer a more dynamic sound will probably like the M50 better, while those looking for smooth and relax kind of sound signature will prefer CAL2.
 
 
 
 
Features, Build Quality, & Comfort
Rated at 32 ohms, CAL2 is easy to drive; my old smartphone Galaxy S4 is powerful enough to drive it up to my normal listening loudness with good sound quality. I know some people might prefer to listen louder, for that a good DAP or an amp will be necessary. Comparing the sound quality between driving CAL2 using Galaxy S4 and ifi micro iDSD, though there is some improvement, but not a night and day kind of improvement. Meaning, CAL2 is quite user friendly, designed for daily use with practically any devices, and doesn't demand dedicated high-end equipment to drives it. 
 

 

Fostex 40mm driver with composite Bio-Cellulose diaphragm
 
 
Overall build quality is good, pretty stylish, though a bit plasticky. CAL2 earcups can be swiveled and stored flat. This is a very useful feature, especially for traveling. 
 

 
 
The cable is detachable, and the interesting part is the cable 2.5mm TRRS connection to the headphone's drivers. Creative knows it is important to separate the ground wire between the left and right driver to minimize crosstalk, therefore they use TRRS connection instead of TRS. Beside minimizing crosstalk, since the ground wire for left and right drivers are already separated, it is easier to make a DIY cable for balanced connection, to connect CAL2 to balanced output such as balanced headphone amplifier or balanced DAP like some models of the AK players.
 
 
  
 
 
Microphone quality is on the average, clear enough for phone call, but I actually expect something better. Beside that, there is a volume adjustment on the cable that though practical, technically it is not preferable for sonic purity. For purely music listening, I would suggest to Creative to consider to include a better cable without mic and volume adjustment. I believe when using a better quality cable without the volume control on the cable, the dynamic can be improved further.
 

 
 
I have no issue with comfort, earpads are large enough, and headband pressure is just nice, not hard. At 255 grams CAL2 is pretty light. CAL2 performs very well in comfort department. 
 
 
 

In summary, CAL2 is an enjoyable and friendly sounding headphone that is both comfortable and easy to drive. An enjoyable companion for everyone, an excellent offering from Creative Technologies!
 

 
 
 
 
Specification:
Size: Over-the-Ear
Weight: 255g (9oz)
Main Features: Inline Control, Volume Control
Driver Size: 40mm (1.57 inches) Neodymium magnet with composite Bio-Cellulose diaphragm
Impedance: 32 ohms
Frequency Response: 10Hz ~ 30KHz
Cable Length: 1.2m / 3.9ft, Detachable cable
Microphone: Yes
Color: Black & Red-Black
 

 

 
 
 
 
Equipment used in this review:
 
Headphones:
Audio-Technica MSR7LTD
Audio-Technica M50
 
DACs & DAPs:
Fiio X3 2nd gen
iBasso DX90
ifi micro iDSD (firmware 4.06)
 
 
 
 

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: