I would like to thank Brainwavz for the review sample of R3!
 
Brainwavz R3 is a dual dynamic drivers IEM. It has 2 dynamic drivers in each housing, facing each other into a sound blending chamber. R3 maybe the only IEM I know to use dual dynamic drivers in this configuration. Frankly, when I saw this configuration at the first time for IEM, I'm quite skeptic. I believe best sound for IEM configuration is to place the driver to face eardrum directly, as close as possible, without any nozzle or sound chamber. I'm a huge fan of Front Mounted Micro Driver (FMMD) architecture, where micro driver is placed at the front of the IEM nozzle directly facing the eardrum, to eliminate any coloration and distortion caused by nozzle and chamber. But I'm open to any IEM configuration or architecture, as long as it sounds good.
 
 


Picture from Brainwavz R3 product page.
 
R3 uses passive crossover, so it is a two ways design. I would say the coherency between the low frequency and the high frequency drivers is pretty good, clearly much better coherency than my MEElectronics M-Duo. I don't hear any obvious incoherency from the 2 ways design, maybe only a little, but I would say the 2 drivers blends pretty well. But the issue here, I don't hear much wider frequency coverage expected from a two ways system, compared to a one way, single driver IEM such as the Brainwavz S5. I don't hear extra low bass and upper treble extension on R3, frequency coverage is not better than a good single driver IEM.
 
 
Summary
Smooth organic sound with rather mid centric tonality. Its unique tonality makes some less friendly recordings (bright / harsh) sound friendlier to the ears. R3 might not be the champion for sound quality in this price range, but with the very solid build quality, it is built to last. R3 would be the IEM of choice for those looking for lasting and durable IEM.
 
Pros:
Extremely rugged, build like a tank.
Designed for both straight-down and over the ears wearing style.
Very good, above average noise isolation.
Various type and size of eartips are included, for flexible sound tuning and maximum comfort.
The famous Brainwavz semi-hard earphone case is included.
 
Cons:
The dual dynamic drivers architecture in R3 doesn't proof to be superior compared to a regular properly tuned single driver in the similar price category.
Over the ear cable of the review sample is found not to be properly angled for maximum fit and comfort.
Large housing size might not suit small ears.
Left and Right marking is not easily identified in dimly lit environment. There is no left dot / dimple near the left driver.

 
 

 
 
 
The Build
 

 
The earlier production batch of R3, before May 2014, has received a lot of criticism as having too long memory wire. As for the newer batch of R3, from May 2014 onward, so called R3 Revised Edition or R3 Ver.2, Brainwavz has removed the memory wire completely from R3, which is both good and bad. Good because there is no more ultra-long memory wire, and the plain cable jacket is generally more comfortable than memory wire. The bad, as some users have reported over the Internet, for over the ear wearing style the cable is not always properly angled to make the cable stays on the ear.  For the set I received, I found the left cable often dislodges from my left ear, but the right cable always stays in place. As you can see from the picture below, the left cable is angled outward therefore it is difficult to make the left cable to stays in place. The right cable is properly angled inward, therefore always stays in place. I'm not sure, for all R3, the angle of the left and right cable will always be the same like what I received, or it is different with every piece. If it is different, and you're buying R3, better check the angle of the cable before buying, for maximum comfort.  I think this is part of manufacturing fine-tuning that could have been overlooked by Brainwavz. I hope Brainwavz notices this issue and fix it for the newer production batch.
 
The angle of left and right cable when I let them fall naturally:


 
The preferred angle of the left and right cable for maximum fit & comfort:
 
What I like most from R3 is the build. The full metal housing is really nice. It seems to be the most rugged and durable IEM I've ever seen and have. From the mini jack, to cable, to the earphone housings, all feel very rugged. It seems to be built with military standard, to withstand tough environment and application. I always have to treat with care, my favourite IEM, DUNU DN-1000 and DN-2000. Always have a slight fear that the tiny cable won't last very long to hold the solid and heavy metal housings of the DUNUs. But not with R3. R3 is the IEM for those who simply need a rugged and durable IEM that don't require much care. 
 
The cable is relatively thick and a bit coiling, but the coiling memory effect is not very annoying. There are some IEMs with cable with much worse coiling memory effect.
 
 
R3 is a relatively large IEM. The dual dynamic drivers and the sound chamber do require space. Despite the large housing, I don't have any comfort issue with R3, even for long hours of usage. The large housing can still fit nicely in my ears concha. But please take note, that it might not be the case for everyone as we have large variety of ear shape and size. For my ears, R3 nozzle is long enough to give proper insertion. So for my ears, I don’t have issue with lacking of deep insertion. The nozzle has standard 4.5 mm neck diameter, compatible with many generic eartips. There is also very minimum driver flex when fitting R3 to the ears, so for those who easily irritated by driver flex, no need to worry about driver flex with R3.
 
 
 
 
The wires connecting the second driver are exposed; hopefully it won't reduce the durability of R3 from exposures to sweat and moisture.
 
 

The left and right marking are clear enough in a well-lit environment, but not clear enough in dimly lit environment.


 
 
Sound Quality
 
As for the sound quality, after using it for more than a month and about 100 hours of burn-in, I would say it is around 'Average' to 'Good', depending on the type of recordings. IMHO R3 doesn't perform well for classical and orchestral works, due to the mid centric tonality, slightly lacking of air, and relatively average size imaging. However R3 sounds better for modern music, such as electronic, pop, and other modern genres with closed miked recordings. Tonality is quite natural, leaning towards mid centric. Beside the mild and wide midrange hump, generally the tonal balance is pretty smooth from bass to treble, without any annoying peaks and dips. R3 tonality won't cause ears fatigue for long period of music listening. Although sometime it does sound a bit boring due to slightly lacking of punch, low bass and upper treble extension. R3 sounds smooth and organic, and not for those who prefer analytical sound signature. Its smooth and rather mellow sound signature actually makes it a very good choice for bright / harsh sounding recordings. R3 is generally easy to drive, but it is better to be paired with a rather powerful and slightly analytical sounding player, to improve the dynamic and treble sparkle.
 
Sound Signature: Natural warm, organic sound, & mildly mid-centric.
Freq Irregularity: Smooth, no irregular peaks and dips.
Bass Level & Quality: Average, slightly lacking of low bass extension and bass punch.
Midrange Level & Quality: Average, smooth and warm, but level of midrange detail could be improved.
Treble Level & Quality: Smooth & pleasing, but lacking upper treble extension. Not very good for classical music, slightly lacking of air.
Clarity: Average, below the clarity of Brainwavz S5, but not muddy or veiled.
Spaciousness: Average, doesn't sound very spacious.
Imaging: Average, instruments placement and separation are as clear and focused as Brainwavz S5.
Details & Separation: Average.
Dynamic & Punch: Average, not as good as its single driver brother, the Brainwavz S5.
Recording Recommendation: Modern genres (closed miked recording)
 
I've tried R3 with all the supplied eartips. The Comply T-500 is pretty good for R3, for those who prefer smooth and relax sound. For me, I prefer the default gray eartips for best tonality and comfort. I found eartips selection on R3 is not as critical as on the Brainwavz S5, and it is more to get the best comfort.
 
 
Comparison
 
I mostly compared R3 with its own sibling, the single driver Brainwavz S5. To me, sound quality wise, Brainwavz S5 is clearly the winner. S5 has better dynamic, clarity, detail, bass and treble extension, with wider and more spacious imaging. What disappoint me most is the dynamic. The dual 10 mm drivers don't punch as hard as the single 10 mm driver in Brainwavz S5. Brainwavz S5 as single driver IEM, has better dynamic than R3. Also my old favorite JVC FXD-80, single driver FMMD (Front Mounted Micro Driver), also has better dynamic than R3. So I don't hear any advantage of dual drivers in R3 architecture over a single driver, both from frequency coverage and dynamic. Having said that, R3 doesn't sound bad, but as dual drivers IEM, its performance is not better than some decent single driver dynamic. So I don't hear the benefit of R3 dual drivers configuration.
 
As I've reviewed other dual dynamic drivers IEMs before, and having some of those such as ATH-IM50 and ATH-IM70, TDK IE800, MEElec M-Duo, & Narmoo S1, in my opinion R3 only wins against MEElectronics M-Duo, but not better than the rest of the dual dynamic drivers IEMs in my collection.
 
 
Tonality wise, when paired with good source and amp such my ifi micro iDSD, R3 sounds pretty good. It does need some steroid from powerful amp like the one in micro iDSD to makes it produce some punch.
 
I did read some very good reviews about R3. Some even prefer it over the S5. Here are some links:
http://www.head-fi.org/products/brainwavz-r3-revised-edition
http://www.head-fi.org/t/701034/brainwavz-r3-review
http://www.head-fi.org/t/688928/brainwavz-r3-review
And not to mentioned many 5 stars reviews on Amazon:
http://www.amazon.com/Brainwavz-Dual-Dynamic-Driver-Earphones/dp/B00G4V0QSK#
 
Having read those reviews, it makes me thing that the R3 I received probably doesn't sound as good as theirs. Some reviewers said R3 has clear detailed audio with a clean bass. Which is not what I hear from the set I received, at least compared to Brainwavz S5. Another possibility could be some variation of sound quality from different production batch. Or it could be simply a matter of individual preferences and different preference of recordings. Though sound quality wise R3 is not in the top list of my preferred IEM, Brainwavz R3 has proven itself to attract its own fans from the number of positive reviews.




 
 
Specifications:
Transducers/Drivers: Dual Dynamic, 10mm
Crossover: Passive
Rated Impedance: 32ohms
Sensitivity: 95dB at 1mW
Frequency range: 20Hz ~ 20KHz
Maximum input power:  2mW
Cable length: 1.4m, Y cord, OFC Copper.
Plug: 3.5mm gold plated, 45 degree.
24 months warranty.
 
Included Accessories:
1 x Comply foam T-series tip
6 x Silicone tips
1 x Bi-Flage tip
1 x Tri-Flange tip
1 x 6.3mm to 3.5mm audio adapter
1 x Airplane adapter
1 x Earphone carrying case
1 x Instruction manual

 

 

 

 

 

 

 
 
Equipment used in this review
ifi micro iDSD: Powerful and excellent sounding DAC + HeadAmp combo. Transparent, detailed, and powerful. Slightly lean to analytical sounding.
Audioquest Dragonfly v1.0c: DAC + HeadAmp combo. Marvelous little DAC. Transparent, airy, and powerful. Slightly lean to analytical 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.
 
 
Recordings used for this review

 

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:

 

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:
 

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

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

Pros:​

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

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

Cons:​

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

Suggestions:​

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

Sound Quality​

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


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

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

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

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

Comparisons to Etymotic ER4XR and ER2SE:


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

Equalization to Match EITC-2021​

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

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


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



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

Engineering Quality​

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


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




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




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




Distortion measurement at 104 dB SPL at 500Hz:





The following is my rating criteria:

Fit, Comfort, & Build Quality​

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



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

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

Metal Shell to Ground Pin Connection: No connection​

Recommendation:​

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


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

Advertised Technical Specifications:​

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

 
 
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:

Thanks to Cayin to organize a review tour program for Cayin C5 DAC!
I've given around 2 weeks to use and observe the quality of the C5 DAC. Usually I would need a minimum of 1 month to do a proper review of a DAC, so I hope within the short period I would be able to cover all the the important aspects of the C5 DAC.
 
http://en.cayin.cn/product_view.asp?id=791
 
Some background of CAYIN model naming is explained here:
http://www.head-fi.org/t/768094/new-portable-cayin-spark-c5-dac-amp-released-may-2015/15#post_11650004
 

 
 
 

Summary of Sound Signature:

Neutral, slightly warm, energetic with good dynamic, especially for IEMs & easy to drive headphones.
 
 

Summary of Features:

1. Up to PCM 24bit / 96kHz USB DAC.
2. Multi-platform driver-less USB operation.
3. USB DAC + Headphone amplifier. No dedicated line output, so cannot be used as dedicated DAC without the headphone amplifier.
4. Headphone amplifier. There is a 3.5 mm socket analog line input to use only the headphone amplifier without the DAC (AUX mode). The headphone amplifier is quite powerful and can be considered the strong feature of the C5 DAC.
5. USB to SPDIF (electrical / coaxial) converter.

 
 

Pros:

1. Multi-platform driver-less USB operation.
2. Powerful headphone amplifier.
3. Very good battery life.
4. Very soft On-Off popping noise.
5. Carefully thought accessories.

 
 

Cons:

1. Low gain output is still too high for general IEMs.
2. No line output.
3. No SPDIF input.

 
 

Suggestions for improvements:

1. To reduce the maximum output level at low gain by half, from 2.4 Vrms to around 1.2 Vrms.
2. Line output.
3. SPDIF input.
4. Full metal housing with clearer marking and text.

 
 

 
 
 
 

Sound quality

When I tried C5 DAC for the first time, I connected an IEM, and my first impression was, 'Wow it sounds powerful!'. Probably the main sonic character to be highlighted is the sense of good driving power, especially when driving IEMs. C5 DAC drives most headphones pretty well, but when using high impedance headphones the sense of driving power was not as strong as with lower impedance headphones and IEMs. So it is not yet a replacement for a good desktop setup for high impedance headphones, but quite a powerful DAC+Amp combo for portable setup for IEMs and easy to drive headphones.
 

 
 
The headphone amplifier of C5 DAC is quite powerful and has good dynamic and driving power. When using C5 DAC as headphone amplifier, with ifi micro iDSD as DAC, I can hear some improvements, indicating that the headphone amplifier scales well with better DAC. The following is comparison of RMAA measurement of the C5 DAC as DAC+Amp combo (White), and the headphone amplifier using ifi micro iDSD as DAC with minimum phase setting (Green). We can see that the DAC output of the C5 DAC uses a sharp low pass filter that rolls off quite early before 20 kHz. While the headphone amplifier section reaches beyond 30 kHz when using a better DAC. The 30 kHz is most probably the limitation of my HRT LineStreamer+ that I use as ADC for the RMAA measurement. A good headphone amplifier usually reaches 100 kHz easily.
 

 

 
 
Overall tonality of the C5 DAC as DAC+Amp combo, I perceived as neutral with a touch of warmness. While level of clarity is good, I do prefer a little more transparency and detail resolving power like what I hear from my AudioQuest Dragonfly 1.0c and ifi micro iDSD. Tonality is a little warm, but just a little, don't expect tube warmness here. The extra warmness makes C5 DAC pairs well with neutral to bright IEMs and headphones, for less ear fatigue over long sessions. I tested C5 DAC with 1964 Ears V3, DUNU DN-2000J, Audio-Technica ATH-MSR7/LTD, Philips SHP9500, and Beyerdynamic T1, and they pair well with C5 DAC. I like especially the pairing with Audio-Technica ATH-MSR7/LTD, and I would recommend C5 DAC for ATH-MSR7 users who are looking for portable DAC+Amp.  On the other hand I do find C5 DAC sometime could sound a little boring when driving warmer headphones such as my Shure SRH1540 and Audio-Technica ARH-R70x, where extra transparency is preferred. So my recommendation for C5 DAC is to pair it with neutral to neutral-bright tonality IEMs or headphones.
 

 
 
Stereo imaging is clear and focus, with perceived presentation that is more towards close and intimate. Not congested, but not the wide and spacious type either. For comparison, ifi micro iDSD has a more spacious and holographic imaging. As for detail and clarity, it is presented in a natural way without any emphasize or de-emphasize. Though as mentioned earlier, having used to ifi iDSD micro and other desktop DACs, I do prefer slightly higher detail resolving capability and transparency than what C5 DAC offers.
 
In summary, overall sound quality of C5 DAC is pretty good, neutral warm with very minimum noticeable coloration. The headphone amplifier sound quality seems to be a level better than the DAC section, better detail, clarity, and transparency when paired with higher quality DAC.
 
 
 
 

Features

 
 
Overall build quality is good, but not stellar. I do prefer full metal housing without any plastic parts, but it is just personal preference. The text and signs behind the transparent brown plastic cover are difficult to read in dimly lit environment. There are 2 separate USB inputs, one for data and the other one dedicated as charging port. Although it is possible to use C5 DAC while charging, but it is not recommended to play and charge at the same time.
 

C5 DAC has about the same width and thickness as the Fiio E12DIY, only slightly longer.
 
 
3 main functions of C5 DAC are:
USB DAC + headphone amplifier combo.
Standalone headphone amplifier.
USB DAC to SPDIF (coaxial) converter.
 
For easy multi-platform and driver-less operation, C5 DAC supports only PCM up to 24 bit - 96 kHz resolution. It is sufficient for me as my ears hardly distinguish any sonic improvement from files with higher resolution than 24/96, especially from a portable setup.
 
Within the 2 weeks of testing, I didn't have much chance to test USB DAC compatibility with many platforms or devices. With Windows 7 and 8 everything works fine and very stable. For mobile devices, I only tested it with a few Android devices as the following:
Samsung Galaxy S4 (SHV-E330K - Korea version) - Android 4.4.2 : Not compatible.
Samsung Galaxy S5 (SM-G901F - Singapore version) - Android 5.0.2 : Compatible.
Teclast TPad X89 - Android 4.4.4 : Compatible.
 

 

 
 
Short USB micro B to micro B cable is included in the accessories for connecting C5 DAC to Android smartphone or tablet. But in case longer USB micro B to micro B cable is required, this USB cable I bought from AliExpress has been proven to work for connecting USB DAC to tablet or smartphones:
Straight Micro Male to Micro USB B
 
 

Amplifier Gain

There are 2 level of gain on the headphone amplifier. As we can read on other reviews of C5 DAC, common feedback for the low gain is that the low gain output is way too high for most IEMs. The maximum output voltage of the low gain output is around 2.4 Vrms (2400 millivolt rms), while common IEM listening level is only in the level of up to a few hundred millivolt rms. My listening level for my DUNU hybrids for example (DN-1000, DN-2000, & DN-2000J), is only around 100 mV rms or less. Meaning, the usable volume level for IEMs and easy to drive headphones is very limited, only between 2-3 of the volume level, from the maximum level of 9. And it is a common fact that analogue volume control performs better at medium to high volume level, and best at maximum volume. In this case, for most IEMs, we can only use the volume control at low level, the area where analogue volume control doesn't perform at their best, and suffer from moderate volume imbalance between left and right channels. At low gain, the optimum maximum output is around 1.0 to 1.5 Vrms. I strongly suggest to reduce the maximum output at low gain setting by half, to around 1.2 Vrms, to have wider usable range of the volume control.
 

 
 

Amplifier Power Output & Output Impedance

The maximum output voltage measurement with 600 ohms load:
Lo gain max Vrms: 2.4 V
Hi gain max Vrms: 4.2 V
Max output current at 15 ohms load: 2.074 / 15 = 138 mA
 
Calculated maximum headphone amplifier power output at:
16 ohms: 305 mW
32 ohms: 551 mW
300 ohms: 59 mW
600 ohms: 29 mW
 
Measured output impedance of the headphone amplifier is very low, at around 0.18 ohms.
 
 

Channel Imbalance

Measured volume channel imbalance of the demo unit is between 0.15 dB to 0.53 dB, which is good. Volume level below 2 is practically too soft and not usable, so channel imbalance at volume level 1 can practically be ignored. Channel imbalance below 0.3 dB is very good, and below 1 dB can still considered good performance for analogue volume control.
 
 
 

Noise

On-Off popping noise is very soft on C5 DAC, simply ignore-able. This is for me is very important especially for portable device. Noise floor or background hiss noise if volume dependent. At low volume, below 4, hiss noise is very low and ignore-able even for sensitive IEMs. But as volume goes up, when playing silent, hiss noise is becoming louder and more audible. But even playing music at volume level 3, it is already quite loud for sensitive IEMs, so hiss noise at higher volume is practically not relevant for sensitive IEMs. While headphones are less sensitive to hiss noise, so even at higher volume, practically I didn't have any issue from background hiss noise.
 
My noise measurement for sensitive IEM is at volume level around 100 mV rms, because in average when using sensitive IEMs, my listening level is less than 100 mV. First I played a 0 dBFS 100 Hz Sine wave, and then adjust the volume and measure the headphone output until the output is measured approximately 100 mV. 33 ohms load is used as dummy load for the amplifier. Stop the Sine wave then play silent track. Observe the headphone output using digital oscilloscope, to observe the average value of the noise floor. From my observation, at 100 mV output, C5 DAC headphone output noise floor at low gain is less than 4 mV rms, which low and will be hardly audible even using sensitive IEM such as 1964 Ears V3. Starting from 6 mV rms and above, noise floor will start to be audible on sensitive IEMs.
 

 
 

Temperature

Working temperature is generally only up to the level of warm and C5 DAC never gets hot like my Centrance DACport and LH Geek Out 450. I tested once in a warm environment in Singapore, where room temperature was measured 31.5 degree Celsius, after more than an hour of continuous playing, C5 DAC case temperature only reached a maximum of 38.8 degree Celsius. In a cooler air-conditioned room, it only gets mildly warm. So, practically no heat issue with C5 DAC.
 
 

Battery

According to Cayin, battery life in USB DAC mode is around 9 hours, and around 19 hours in standalone headphone amplifier mode (AUX mode), driving 32 ohms load. I didn't measure the AUX mode, only the USB DAC mode. Continuous playback in USB DAC mode, driving full size headphone ATH-MSR7LTD (35 ohms) at low gain, volume level at 3, the battery last for 9.5 hours. Battery life performance of C5 DAC is really good. But to use the battery until it is totally empty is not recommended. And when the battery is almost flat, C5 DAC relay toggles between on and off intermittently. I suggest for the next version of C5 DAC or other models to use Schmitt trigger circuit for the relay, to avoid the relay toggles intermittently when battery is reaching its minimum operating voltage. 
Some measurement of battery charging using 2A USB charger:
Measured maximum charging current capacity: 3400 mAh (5.1 volt charging voltage)
Measured maximum charging current using 2A USB charger: 1.08 Ampere
Maximum charging time: 5 hours
 

 
 
Please take note that the maximum charging current capacity is measured on 5 volt charging voltage and not directly related to battery maximum current capacity, because the battery voltage is lower at around 3.7 volt. The right calculation should be in Watt, with some power loss on the charging circuit. Without knowing the efficiency rate of the charging circuit there is no way to accurately calculate the real battery capacity. From what I observe, the battery life is very good, and I think Cayin specification is accurate.
 
 

Bass Boost

The bass enhancement feature is pretty well done. The +6 dB bass boost area is wide, so it adds body to the midrange as well. The bass boost is not particularly boosting only some narrow area of the bass, but more like adding fullness and body to the whole tonality. The bass boost sounds quite natural and not artificial sounding like some other bass boost implementation. I guess the bass boost is done using analogue circuit rather than digital DSP, It sounds so natural that when listening to Philips SHP9500 and Beyerdynamic T1 headphones, I prefer to turn on the bass boost most of the time, to make vocal sounds fuller and bass has more body. Below is the RMAA measurement comparing bass boost off and bass boost on.
 

 
 
 
 
At this price category, I would say C5 DAC is a good performer. Not really at the level of a giant killer, but quality per price ratio is pretty good. C5 DAC is recommended for those looking for a portable USB DAC with powerful headphone amplifier to drive neutral to neutral-bright headphones.
 

 
 
 
 
 
 

Equipment used in this review:

 
 
Headphones:
Audio-Technica ATH-R70x
Audio-Technica MSR7LTD
Beyerdynamic T 1
Philips SHP9500
Shure SRH1540
 
Earphones / IEMs:
1964 Ears V3
DUNU DN-2000
DUNU DN-2000J
Jomo4
 
DACs, ADC, & Headphone Amplifiers:
AudioQuest Dragonfly 1.0c
Fiio E12DIY
HRT LineStreamer +
ifi micro iDSD
 
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 Instrument & Application:
Owon VDS3102 Digital Storage Oscilloscope
 
 
 

Some recordings used in this review:

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

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

 

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

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

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

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

 

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

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

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

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

 

 

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

Many thanks to RHA for RHA T20 Tour Program!
The T20 unit in this review is demo unit from the RHA T20 Tour Program:
http://www.head-fi.org/t/770875/rha-t20-tour-program-reviewers-wanted

Product webpage:
http://www.rha-audio.com/us/t20.html


 

Usually I need at least a month to properly review an earphone, this time I only had more than a week to review it, so not going to be a detailed review, but I'll do my best. I was the 3rd in the sequence, and the other 2 reviewers before me already burnt-in the T20 for a total of approximately 4 days. I did another 2 days of burn-in, and I don't hear any difference before and after the 2 days burn-in. So just a small note, that I have no experience of how T20 sounds before burn-in.


 
 

Summary
As usual, I prefer to start my review with summary before going into detail.
I would give 5 stars for the design, build quality, and the precision craftsmanship of the RHA T20. The stainless steel shell looks really nice and seems to be very durable. Cable and headphone jack were of good quality too. Comfort and fit were perfect for me, very comfortable for long period of use. Besides that, noise isolation is very good and effective, better than many other IEMs.

Sound quality wise, in my opinion RHA T20 is more of a fun sounding IEM with excellent build quality and comfort for daily easy listening, and not for those who are looking for accurate sounding IEM for critical listening. T20 is quite enjoyable especially for slow to medium pace of music, but doesn't perform very well on fast pace music and complex orchestra. The tonality is mildly V shape with Reference filter and stock silicone eartips, but tune-able and can be improved to a certain degree by the combination of tuning filters and other eartips. I will describe the tonality in detail later. What I feel a little lacking is dynamic, tightness and control, mainly on the bass. Bass has good volume and body but lacking tightness, control, and texture. I also expect a more spacious and holographic type of stereo imaging, but probably it is not the T20 forte. Stereo imaging is more towards intimate presentation, not very spacious and lacking a bit of depth, but overall not congested and still acceptable. Overall sound quality is pretty good, big bass, fun and enjoyable for some music; just don't expect a giant killer IEM. Pop, EDM, and other modern genres with closed miking recording techniques are recommended for T20. But I don't recommend classical, binaural, and other natural, distant miking recordings. I honestly never been highly impressed by T20 and expect better sound quality from a flagship model, especially in this price category. It doesn’t mean that T20 sounds bad, because it is not. It is just that I expect more of it. Well, we all have different personal preferences, the fun and tune-able tonality of T20 could probably be someone else cup of tea, so YMMV. 

 


Pros:

1. Excellent build quality.
2. Excellent comfort and fit.
3. Very good noise isolation.
4. 3 Sound filters for tonality tuning.
5. No driver flex.
6. Very nice pouch and generous accessories.

Cons:

1. Bass tightness, resolution, and stereo imaging spaciousness are not great for the price category.
2. 1.5 meters (measured) cable could be too long for portable use.

Suggestions for improvements:

1. Dynamic, resolution, and stereo imaging.
2. To include SpinFit and Triple flange eartips as part of stock eartips.

Build Quality & Comfort
Build quality of RHA T20 is really impressive. The stainless steel shell, Y splitter, and headphone jack looks really nice, solid with precision craftsmanship. The shell feels so solid that it should be able to withstand daily usage with ease. Not only solid and excellent craftsmanship, T20 fit and comfort are excellent. I could use it for hours comfortably. It flushes nicely in the ear, so that it can be used on sleeping position. It fits really well on my ears that it always stay nicely in position even when doing a lot of physical activities or exercising. Practically T20 can be used for any activities. T20 is really one of the most comfortable IEM I ever tried. 

 

The cable also feels good, with the right thickness, it feels very durable. The cable jacket is the rubbery type, but it is not coiling at all. At approximately 1.5 meter, I feel the cable is a little too long for on the go, but just nice for desktop use. When using T20 for walking or jogging, I do hear mild microphonics (cable mechanical noise that transmitted to earphones when cable in contact / friction with shirt or other object), but pretty mild, below annoying level. Near the earphone housing there is memory wire for over the ear wearing style. The memory wire is quite soft, with just the right amount of stiffness to keep the shape. In general I prefer soft memory wire (or without memory wire), than the stiffer one.

RHA T20 build quality and comfort are top notch! I would give 5 stars for build quality and comfort.

 



Tuning Filters
Beside the generous eartips, sound tuning filters are probably the most interesting accessories of the T20. The tuning filters are replaceable nozzles with different density of foam damping inside the nozzle.
Treble Filter: No foam damping.
Reference Filter: Medium density foam damping.
Bass Filter: High density foam damping.

 
 
 

Reference and Bass filters are generally my preferred filters. Treble filter has too much treble and treble sounds glaring to me. Performance of each filter will be elaborated in sound quality section.




Sound Quality
With only around 9 days of evaluation period, I couldn't do extensive listening for every filter and test it with various players and eartips. 7 days (9 days minus 2 days burn-in) is practically too short for me to do proper sound quality analysis, so please read it with a pinch of salt.

 

In my philosophy for sound analysis, I'm quite relaxed with various flavours of tonality, as long as it doesn't deviate too much from what I perceived as natural sound. I don't restrict myself to like only a particular tonality. I experienced that bright, bassy, warm, or neutral sounds signature can be musical and enjoyable in their own way, as long as it doesn't go too extreme, and the perceived frequency response is still perceive-ably a smooth curve or close to linear. What I hate most are annoying peaks and dips in the frequency response. If I detect any annoying peaks or dips in the frequency response, I will rate it below 4 stars. Beside the frequency response, there are other very important parameters such as: Perceived level of details, transparency and clarity, instrument separation, spaciousness (holographic imaging), and dynamic. Those parameters are very important and set apart great performers from the average ones. For those parameters, I have less tolerance and expect the best.

In general T20 sounds better on slightly louder volume, as the dynamic improves slightly. Though I don't recommend listening music with loud volume (over 85 dB). With many combinations of sound filters and eartips, RHA T20 provides a wide gamut of sound signatures. It will take weeks to really get familiar to each combination. I've tested it with all the sound filters, the provided eartips, plus some other eartips of mine: SpinFit, triple flange, & Comply T500. Some combination sounds good, but unfortunately from what I've tried so far, I couldn't find any combination that I found highly impressive. Some combinations are quite enjoyable, but not at the level that in my opinion sounds really great. So from my limited experience with T20, honestly I have to say, T20 is not really my cup of tea. It doesn't mean it sounds bad, because it is actually pretty good and enjoyable, and I did enjoy some of my collections with T20, but I have other IEMs that I enjoy more.

 

Beside the various tonality it offers, the following are the general T20 performance for other parameters:
Perceived level of detail & resolution are decent and not lacking, but I would say it is about average in this price range. T20 is not detail monster, and not for those who are looking to hear micro details. There are other IEMs in this price category that offer higher level of details, for example DUNU DN-2000. Please take note that some users might prefer smoother presentation without too much perceived detail for less fatiguing listening experience. So YMMV.
Instrument separation and holographic imaging are ok, around average performance, and improved slightly when using better eartips such as SpinFit and triple flange. Instrument separation of T20 is not sharply focus and defined like what we hear from a good BA or Hybrid IEMs, but I would say pretty decent. Stereo imaging is a little narrow to my liking, but quite decent for a single dynamic driver IEM.
Transparency and clarity are pretty good. Clarity is actually pretty high, but sometime doesn't sound very natural due to mild treble peak around lower treble area at 3 kHz - 5 kHz, but the upper treble extension that creates the sense of transparency and airiness is rolled off a bit too early, and slightly lacking. Treble filter unfortunately doesn't really help, only increase the lower treble peak that makes it sound less natural.
Bass dynamic and texture is a bit lacking. Especially when using the stock silicone eartips, bass is lacking texture and sometime may sounds lazy, cannot cope fast pace bass. But it improves a little with other eartips such as SpinFit.

The dual voice coils dynamic drivers seem need more improvement and tweaking to shine. At least on T20, I don't really hear the advantage of the dual voice coils over regular single coil dynamic. 



Since the tonality differs by the combination of tuning filters and eartips, The following is the tonality observation based on some combination of tuning filters and eartips.

 


Treble Filter (Cooper color)
Treble filter has no damping material in it, so basically just nozzle with no filter. It is the least favorable among the 3 filters. I couldn't find any favorable sound signature with the treble filter. As mentioned before, treble filter doesn't really help to make the treble sounds more linear, but increasing lower treble peak that to me is a bit annoying.



Reference Filter (Silver color)
With the right eartips, reference filter gives the most balanced tonality. Mildly V shape with some emphasize on bass and lower treble region. Bass level is good, mildly bassy with decent low bass extension. Bass is a little boomy and not very tight, as mentioned earlier. T20 is quite eartips dependent, therefore sound quality varies between eartips. The following is the list of some of the eartips I tried with the Reference filter, from the most favourable to the least, top down.

Triple Flange Eartips (from Brainwavz S5)
Best tonal balance, no annoying peaks and dips, smooth sounding, with pretty good dynamic. Slightly better than the stock foam eartips.
Triple flange does magic again. I noticed triple flange eartips often give great improvement to the sound quality on some IEMs (tested on Brainwavz S5, DUNU Titan 1, and now RHAT20). But there is one problem, not many people find it comfortable to use triple flange. So practically it may not be a good option for some people.

SpinFit
SpinFit is my preferred eartips after triple flange. It mildly improves the treble in a nice way. Overall tonality is quite balance and mildly brighter in comparison to the triple flange eartips. I found SpinFit to be a better alternative over the stock silicone eartips. In comparison with stock silicone eartips, SpinFit moves the treble emphasize higher to probably around 7-9 kHz, improving transparency and reducing treble glares.

Stock Foam Eartips
RHA foam eatips is denser and a harder than Comply T500. Comply T500 doesn't sound as good as the stock foam eartips on T20, bass is leaner and overall tonality sounds thinner. Dynamic using Comply T500 is also not as good as stock foam eartip. The stock foam eartips has slightly better performance than the stock grey silicone eartips. Tonality is less V shape, more linear, slightly brighter, bass is more balance and less boomy, and the spaciousness improves slightly. Stock foam eartips is the better choice among other stock eartips.

Stock Double Flange Silicone Eartips
Pretty close to the stock silicone eartips with grey bore, only some minor differences, overall about the same performance, with a tad less sibilant.

Stock Silicone Eartips (grey bore)
IMHO the stock silicone eartips are not the most optimum eartips for T20. Mild V shape tonality, bass sounds full but a little boomy, not tight and lacking texture. Treble is emphasizes more on lower treble area and then started to rolls off at upper treble extension. Transparency is less than SpinFit, about the same as the stock double flange eartips. Treble may sounds a little glaring on some recording, and mild sibilant occurs on some vocal recordings.

 


Bass filter (Black color)
Bass filter has the thickest damping material and reduce some of the treble energy. It improves the bass extension a little, and reducing the treble and the treble peaks, resulting a dark, smooth, and bassy tonality. Overall tonality with bass filter is smoother, less peaky around the treble area than other filters. For those who are allergic to treble peak would probably prefer the bass filter. I found the reference filter and bass filter are the 2 useful filters that I would recommend to use. The following is the list of some of the eartips I tried with the Bass filter, from the most favourable to the least, top down.

SpinFit
I like this combination of bass filter with SpinFit, creating a smooth, slightly darker and bassier tonality. SpinFit improves the clarity to the otherwise rather veiled and muffled signature when using the stock silicone eartips. And the bass filter improves the sub bass extension a little. A pretty good filter for those who prefer smooth and dark signature.

Stock Foam Eartips
About as good as SpinFit, the stock foam eartips is a good match for bass filter. Tonality is smooth, pleasing, and less bassy as other eartips.

Stock Silicone Eartips (grey bore)
Very smooth tonality, but also lacking some transparency and sounds rather veiled. Pretty good for bright recordings, but generally lacking in clarity.

 



Comparison with my reference IEMs
Currently my reference IEMs are 1964 Ears V3 and DUNU DN-2000. Not really a fair comparison due to different technology and design, but those are my reference for evaluating other IEMs. T20 has more bass than those 2 IEMs, and that might be an important consideration for bass lover. But despite the differences in tonality, both 1964 Ears V3 and DUNU DN-2000 are generally less coloured with smoother, more open sounding, and more natural in tonality. Perceived detail and resolution, instrument separation, transparency, holographic imaging, bass texture and tightness, are better on both V3 and DN-2000. At slightly lower price than DN-2000, T20 is still performing quite well, but the technicalities are not yet at the level of DN-2000. 

 



T20 is best described as fun and comfortable IEM with excellent build quality. I hope the next flagship from RHA would maintain the excellent comfort and build quality of T20, with improved sound quality. It is probably the time for RHA to start exploring other design and technology such as dual dynamic drivers and hybrid design. Single dynamic driver without crossover technically is still one of the best approach, but it has its own limitation. Probably push-pull, one way dual dynamic drivers approach such as ATH-CKR series would be one of the better approach for crossover-less design. Whatever the design approach RHA will take, I'm looking forward to hear improvements on RHA future IEMs.

 
 



Specifications:
Drivers: DualCoil™ Dynamic
Frequency range: 16-40,000Hz
Impedance: 16 Ohm
Sensitivity: 90dB
Rated/max powe: 2/5mW
Weight: 39g
Cable: 1.35m, multicore OFC
Connections: 3.5mm, gold plated


Equipment used in this review:

IEMs:
1964 Ears V3
DUNU DN-2000

DACs, DAPs & Headphone Amplifiers:
Fiio X3 2nd gen
Fiio E12DIY (Op-Amp OPA827 + Buffer LME49600)
iBasso DX90
ifi micro iDSD (firmware 4.06)



Some recordings used in this review:

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

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

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

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

Pros:

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

Cons:

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

Suggestions for improvement:

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

 
 
 
 

Sound Quality

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

 
 
 
 

Comparisons

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

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

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

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

 
 
 
 
 

DAPs Pairing

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

Conclusion

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

 

 

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

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.

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

 

 

 

DUNU Titan 1 is a unique semi-open IEM. The shell is made of durable metal, and the 13.5 mm dynamic driver diaphragm is titanium-coated. It’s designed to be worn straight down, but still possible to loop the cable over the ear to reduce microphonics (mechanical cable noise when the IEM cable moves around and rubbing shirt or other object).




BIG thanks to DUNU for the review sample! I have used it for almost 3 months, when posting this review, and have no issue with the quality so far. Titan 1 build quality is very good, and the durability has been proven with more than 2 months of almost daily use.




Though for daily commute I prefer to use full isolating IEM than the semi-open one, but in some circumstances I do need semi-open IEM. For example when in office or casual listening at home, using semi-open IEM let me hear when someone call me, or when my phone ringing. The straight down wearing style is also useful when we need to unplug and plug it back frequently. Faster to wear than the common over the ear IEM. Titan 1 cable is sleeved with braided mesh from headphone jack to the Y split point. The sleeve helps a lot to reduce microphonics. So far I only heard mild microphonics when using Titan 1 while walking, not up to annoying level.




Out of the box, initial impression of the sound quality using stock eartips and iBasso DX90 as player, I had mixed feelings. On one hand, I like the detail, speed, clarity, and tonality around bass to midrange. On the other hand, I was annoyed by the rather metallic treble that causes moderate amount of sibilant. The treble is peaking at more or less around 7 kHz, depending on the eartips. The bass sounds good, good level and quality. The midrange is also good, very clear and detailed, and may sound a little dry with some eartips. Only the treble was rather too much. So to me it is not really a V shape tonality, only a little too much emphasize on the treble. The 13.5 mm Titanium coated drivers seem require some burn-in.

Passed the 200 hours burn-in, the level of sibilant did reduce, but not completely removed. At least now Titan 1 treble is much more acceptable than before burn-in. So during the first week, my early impressions with Titan 1 was pretty good but with some dissatisfaction on the treble, that to me sounds a little metallic and prone to sibilant. It sounds much better now after burn-in and 2+ months of use. I don't like the idea of burn-in, and I do prefer a good sounding IEM out of the box without burn-in, but I just share my experience here. It is not a brain adaptation because I didn't use Titan 1 exclusively during the last 2+ months, but other IEMs as well, such as DN-1000 and DN-2000. And I use the same player, iBasso DX90, most of the time. So, burn-in is a must for Titan 1, not a few days of regular burn-in, but at least a full 8 days to sounds best. Even a full 2 weeks is recommended when possible. But passed those 200 hours, the Titan 1 is quite rewarding, clean sound, good tonal balance with excellent detail and clarity.




During the first few weeks I mostly used the stock eartips, the translucent black medium bore with red core. Then I tried eartip rolling. To my surprise, some eartips significantly improved the sound characteristic of Titan 1. Using triple flange eartips for example, the metallic signature of the treble is practically nonexistent. Treble is smooth, transparent, and extended without any sibilant. Overall tonality is excellent, very good balance from bass to treble. Another excellent sounding eartips for Titan 1 is the double flange. It is just a tad less smooth, but most probably more comfortable for many than the triple flange. Both the triple flange and the double flange sound much better from the stock eartips. From this experience, I consider Titan 1 to be eartip sensitive, and eartip rolling is recommended to achieve the best sound quality.






Summary:
In my opinion, Titan 1 is a really good sounding IEM. With the right eartips, it has very linear and balanced tonality, with excellent detail and spacious imaging. With stock eartips, tonality is not very linear. Using the black wide bore & red core eartips, tonality is natural bright. While with the black green core (Sony Hybrid alike) eartips, Titan 1 sounds a little dark and bassy. The linear tonality is only achieved when using triple & double flange eartips. I would say the linear tonality using triple flange eartips is reference grade tonality, which rarely heard even on IEMs costing many times Titan 1 price. The level of detail retrieval and spaciousness is unlike many other dynamic drivers at this size and price category. Level of detail is comparable to a very good Balanced Armature IEM. And the semi-open design makes it sounds spacious with wide soundstage. The only thing I feel a bit lacking is the dynamic impact, not yet life-like dynamic. But don't get me wrong, Titan 1 is quite lively, and it never sounded lazy. Dynamic is very good, but just not yet life-like level. To me, Titan 1 is lacking a little more oomph on the bass region, not highly engaging for music with high energy. Bass sounds rich, detailed, and extends low, but not really powerful and impactful. But for other genres such as classical, and those which benefit from natural tonality, details, transparency, and spacious imaging, Titan 1 really shines. For me, DUNU Titan 1 is definitely a keeper. Kudos to DUNU!






Highlights:
Semi-open design; below average noise isolation.
200 hours burn-in and eartips rolling are highly recommended.
Quite revealing with excellent level of detail. Reveals sources or players sound signature quite well, and won't hide recording flaws.
Sounds best with Triple flange and Double flange eartips.


Pros:
Excellent detail with spacious imaging.
Very linear tonality with triple flange & double flange eartips.
Good quality durable metal housing.
Good cable construction, only mild microphonics (mechanical cable noise) from straight-down wearing style design.
No driver flex.
Very good design and quality earphone case.


Cons:
Require long period of burnt-in to achieve optimum sound.
Stock eartips are not optimum. Mild to moderate sibilant is expected when using some of the stock eartips. Requires other eartips for optimum sound.
Not suitable for noisy environment due to lacking of noise isolation.


Suggestions for improvement:
To include more eartips for more flexible sonic tuning, such as the triple flange, double flange, foam tips, spinfit, etc.
Factory burn-in to make it sounds good out of the box.
Multi-ways wearing style design, for both straight-down and over-ear wearing style.







Eartip Rolling

Titan 1 nozzle is rather small, only 4.3 mm. Please take note of this small nozzle neck size when getting eartips for Titan 1. Main player used for eartip rolling is iBasso DX90.





Triple Flange - 5 Stars - Reference Tonality



The triple flange I use is the pair I got from Brainwavz S5, similar to many generic large size triple flange. I saw similar triple flange on Amazon sold by Earphones Plus. I have also the triple flange eartips from MEElectronics M-Duo, but it doesn't fit Titan 1, too loose. So far, IMHO, the triple flange from Brainwavz is the best eartips for Titan 1. Sound signature is best described as 'Reference grade’. Perceived as flat and balance to my ears. Bass level is probably a little on the low side, but very tight with good texture. Low bass extension is slightly reduced, and overall bass level is slightly less than what I call realistic bass, but not bass anemic. Midrange and treble are very smooth, almost without coloration, with excellent detail. Gone is the bright and sibilant sensitive treble. Using the triple flange treble is silky smooth and transparent, in perfect balance with the midrange. For vocal, triple flange is the best eartips for Titan 1. Tonal balance is also excellent for pro audio monitoring, where bass level is good, only very slightly behind the midrange, but overall tonality is very natural & balanced. Not warm and not analytical. Very natural sounding to my ears. Detail and dynamic are excellent, vivid & lively. Though some people probably prefer the more fun sound signature with other eartips, I highly recommend purist to try Titan 1 with the triple flange. Probably the cheapest way to get 'Refence Sound Quality' without breaking the bank.




I asked a friend of mine to try Titan 1 with triple flange for more than half an hour. He is a veteran audiophile with more than $100k home speaker system. He said Titan 1 with triple flange has excellent midrange and smooth treble that sound smooth like a planar or electrostatic speaker system. But he prefers to have a little more bass. When I let him tried Titan 1 with SpinFit, he said he prefers the triple flange. I know not many people comfortable with the triple flange. But for those who are comfortable with the triple flange, it is a must try for Titan 1.



Double Flange - 5 Stars - Balanced Tonality



The double flange I used is also the pair from Brainwavz S5 stock eartips. The double flange from DUNU Trident is not compatible with Titan 1, too loose.






Pretty close to the triple flange tonality, double flange midrange and treble sound slightly less smooth. Also a tad brighter sounding than the triple flange. Overall tonality is still very balanced from bass to treble. Although the treble is not as smooth as the triple flange, but still smoother than the stock 'black large bore' & 'red core' eartips. Approximately close to SpinFit treble, just a tad smoother. Kind of in between the smooth treble of triple flange and the sparkling treble of SpinFit. Both triple flange & double flange are excellent eartips for Titan 1. Comfort wise, double flange probably the better choice, since it doesn't insert into the ear canal as deep as the triple flange. Comparing double flange to SpinFit, I prefer the double flange.

I asked another friend of mine, Leonard, a sound engineer, to try Titan 1 with the double flange eartips. He tried it for about 2 hours with various genres, and this is his comment:

"Titan 1 with double flange eartips were truly a sound revelation for my ears! The tonal balance is overall linear with a slightly enhanced treble that creates an open and detail revealing sound without altering the mix in any dramatic way. It shines especially on acoustics that occupies the upper range of the sound spectrum (cymbals, strings, light percussion, etc). I find this combination quite comfortable for prolonged use, making Titan 1 a suitable companion in studio for various mixing situations. It is not usual for me to get quickly impressed by something, but in this case I am beyond words."



SpinFit - 4.5 Stars - Natural & fun sounding with some extra treble sparkle.





Treble is slightly more sparkling with SpinFit, slightly brighter, more transparent, more sparkle, and not as smooth as the bi/triple flange. Bass level is also slightly more than the triple flange. Compared to the triple flange, tonal balance with SpinFit is slightly more V shape. Only slightly, overall can still be considered balanced. SpinFit is the next best eartips for Titan 1 after the double flange & triple flange. SpinFit sounds better than all the stock eartips, more natural with better soundstage, and seems to shift up the treble peak to higher frequency, so treble sounds less peaky and less sibilant than stock eartips ('black large bore' & 'red core').



Comply T500 - 4.3 Stars - Natural sound with excellent comfort.



IMHO not as good as the triple/double flange and SpinFit, but still sounds pretty good. Good option if comfort is an issue with triple/double flange, and SpinFit is difficult to get. Imaging is narrower than SpinFit, and there is a slight emphasize on the upper midrange that makes the midrange presentation is more forward than SpinFit. Treble is good with good extension and sparkles, and not prone to sibilant. No metallic color on the treble, better than stock eartips. Bass is probably same level as the triple flange, less than SpinFit. What is slightly lacking with the foam tips is the spaciousness & dynamic. Imaging is somehow lacking of depth when compared to triple/double flange and SpinFit. Don't get me wrong, the foam tips sounds quite open, not congested, but I don't hear much information of the room acoustic in the recording as good as triple/double flange and SpinFit. The dynamic also less lively, so overall tonal balance is good and natural, but lacking liveliness and dynamic punch. Sometime may sound a bit dull, sounds like the very low bass and the upper treble extension are rolled off a little, not as good as the SpinFit and the triple/double flange.



Comply S400 - 4.0 Stars - Similar to T500, with a tad less bass.

Similar sound signature to T500, with slightly less bass, that makes overall tonality sounds a little dryer. I prefer the T500 over the S400 for foam tips.



Stock Eartips:




Stock eartips: Black large bore - 4.3 Stars – Natural bright, slightly V shape.

The treble peak seems to be shifted up a bit than the red core eartips, somewhere in between red core and SpinFit, so slightly less sibilant than the red core eartips, but slightly more sibilant than SpinFit. Bass is slightly stronger than the red core eartips. Those who like bass the black large bore and the Sony hybrid alike eartips are the better option. Overall performance is about the same, probably slightly better than red core eartips, and slightly less than SpinFit.



Stock eartips: Translucent Red Core (medium bore) - 4.0 Stars – Natural bright, slightly V shape.

Bass sounds fuller with more volume than foam tips and triple flange, about the same as SpinFit. Midrange is slightly recessed and treble is slightly more sibilant than SpinFit. Overall is mildly V shape tonality. The only downside when compared to SpinFit is a little too much emphasize on the treble that makes Titan 1 starting to become prone to sibilant. Cymbals sounds rather glaring, and mild to moderate sibilant on pop recording vocal is expected. Overall tonality is not as natural as SpinFit.



Stock eartips: Black small bore with colorful core (Sony Hybrid Alike) – 4.0 Stars – Natural dark, bass emphasized.

The better stock eartips to avoid sibilant, but also the least transparent. Bass is more emphasized than other eartips, better choice for bass lover. Among the stock eartips this Sony hybrid alike eartips is probably the safest option, especially for those who is allergic to sibilant. Initially, before burn-in, I don't like this eartips, as the tonal balance sounds less natural. But after 200 hours burn-in, it is probably the better option among the other stock eartips for disco and pop music, but not for classical.




My DUNU IEMs:





Comparison

I use what I consider optimum eartips for every IEM in this comparison:

DUNU Titan 1: double flange from Brainwavz. IMHO using double flange for comparison is a more useful due to comfort issue of the triple flange for many people.
DUNU DN-1000: JVC EP-FX8M-B
DUNU DN-2000: Stock translucent grey eartips, with silver ring
Audio-Technica ATH-IM70: Large red bore eartips bought from Lunashop.


Compared to DUNU DN-2000:

DN-2000 sounds warmer, smoother, and more cohesive. Both have very linear tonal balance, but DN-2000 tonality to my ears sounds more balance, while Titan 1 has a little shelf up around the treble region, slightly brighter sounding than DN-2000. DN-2000 has better bass and low bass extension. Vocal sounds fuller and more intimate on DN-2000. DN-2000 also has slightly better instruments separation, especially for complex orchestra piece. Both have comparable spacious imaging. Detail retrieval is comparable as well, with DN-2000 being a little better. DN-2000 somehow manages to retrieve a very high level of micro detail without being analytical sounding. In my opinion, overall DN-2000 sounds better.


Compared to DUNU DN-1000:

DN-1000 is generally less bright and more bassy than Titan 1. Titan 1 sounds slightly leaner than DN-1000. Tonality wise, my personal preference is closer to DN-1000 tonality, I like full bass sound. DN-1000 sounds smoother and slightly more intimate, and overall sounds fuller. Vocal sounds fuller on DN-1000, and a little sterile on Titan 1. But please take note; this is with other eartips other than the triple flange. With triple flange, vocal is smooth natural, and doesn't sound sterile. Titan 1 is slightly more neutral in tonality. Detail retrieval is comparable between the two. DN-1000 is slightly more musically engaging due to fuller bass. But Titan 1 has better bass quality, faster with better detail and texture. Being a single driver IEM, Titan 1 does excel in coherency over the entire frequency spectrum, although DN-1000 can be considered triple drivers IEM with very good coherency, but still, frequency spectrum coherency sounds better on Titan 1. I would say, Titan 1 sounds technically correct, but DN-1000 is more musically engaging.


Compared to Audio-Technica ATH-IM70:

Titan 1 has better clarity, detail, spaciousness and treble extension. While ATH-IM70 sounds warmer and more intimate sounding, with much bigger and more engaging bass. IMHO, Titan is a more neutral sounding, but IM70 has more oomph on vocal and bass. I will take Titan 1 for classical, and IM70 for pop.




Players & Amplifiers Matching

Although Titan 1 has a rather low 90 dB sensitivity, but it is relatively easy to drive. Being a single driver IEM, it is not really affected with high output impedance of player / amplifier. I tested with HifiMeDiy Sabre USB DAC (UAE23) that has 200 ohms output impedance with no issue at all, tonality still sounds balance and natural. This is indicating that Titan 1 impedance is quite linear across the entire frequency spectrum. Also tested with smartphone, my Samsung Galaxy S4, Titan 1 sounds great as well.

Tube amplifier often has good chemistry with the slightly analytic signature of Titan 1. Titan 1 loves my Audio-Technica AT-HA22Tube headphone amplifier. It sounds wonderful with tube amp, especially for vocal, jazz, and pop. While for classical I still prefer my Yulong DA8 headphone output, smooth and detailed.




From all the players & amplifiers I tried, Yulong DA8 is the best sounding DAC+Amp combo for Titan 1. Somehow Yulong DA8 headphone output manages to keep the clarity and transparency at optimum level without any sibilant. Very lively, smooth and transparent. With Yulong DA8, all eartips that don't sound very good with other players, sound quite ok and acceptable. Most logical explanation probably due to the sound signature of Yulong DA8 that is smooth & detailed. Yulong DA8 headphone output with discrete 1 watt class A amplifier also sounds more dynamic and lively.

So far I don't find any issue with players or amplifiers. I tested Titan 1 with various sources, DAPs, DACs, and amplifiers, so far Titan 1 has always been easy to drive and player friendly.



DUNU Titan 1 is a great sounding IEM. A breakthrough of what 13.5 mm large single dynamic driver can achieve. Congrats to DUNU!














Specification (From DUNU’s packaging / website):
Type : Single dynamic driver inner ear monitor
Driver : 13mm dynamic Titanium “nano class” driver
Frequency Range : 10 Hz – 30 Khz
Impedance : 16 ohm
Sensitivity : 90 dB (+/-2 dB)
Headphone jack : 3.5mm gold plated
Cable : 1.2m – Y cable
Weight : 18g
IEM Shell : Polished metal



Equipment used in this review:

Earphones:
DUNU DN-1000
DUNU DN-2000
Audio-Technica ATH- IM70

DACs & Headphone Amplifiers:
Audio-Technica AT-HA22TUBE
Audioquest Dragonfly v1.0c
Bravo V2 Headphone Amplifier
Centrance DACport
iBasso DX90
Fiio X3 2^nd Generation
ifi micro iDSD (firmware 4.06)
ifi micro iCan
Samsung Galaxy S4
Yulong DA8

Computer & Player:
DIY Desktop PC: Gigabyte GA-H77-D3H-MVP motherboard, Intel i7-3770, 16 GB RAM, Windows 7 Home Premium 64 bit SP1.
foobar2000 v1.3.3 (ASIO Proxy 0.7.1.2)



Some recordings used in this review:

Many thanks to Brainwavz for the Brainwavz S3 review sample! There are already some other reviews about Brainwavz S3, so I will make this review concise.
 

 

Brainwavz S3 utilizes single 8 mm dynamic driver with 16 ohms nominal impedance, in full metal housing for over the ear design. But I find that the design can also be worn straight down without any problem. The metal housing though pretty light but feels solid with good build quality. Left and Right markings are clearly printed on the earphone metal housing. The 4.5 mm nozzle size ensures compatibility with many generic eartips. From the housing design perspective my only concern is some edges on the metal housing. The edges around the housing near the nozzle always mildly scratch my ears when inserting S3 into my ear canal. While edges at the back of the housing might potentially scratch my DAP or other items when I put them together in my bag. So my advice is to always keep the S3 in the provided carry case. The smooth, no edges design of S0 and S5 is, IMHO, a safer design approach.

 
 


Brainwavz S3 share similar flat cable design as Brainwavz S0, S1, and S5 that seems to be the trademark for Brainwavz S series. Though flat cable is more tangle proof, but it also increases the thickness of the cable. The cable is equipped with Clearwavz remote that supports Apple iOS Products. For Android devices, the microphone in the remote can be used for phone call, as well as the middle button to play/stop and skip tracks. But the volume buttons don't work for Android. 

 
 
 
 
Pros:
Good detail and clarity, with good midrange and treble response.
Generous accessories with plenty of eartips and a very nice carry case.
 
Cons:
Lean bass. Bass level is moderately lacking.
Edgy metal housing.
 
Suggestions for improvements:
To improve bass response without sacrificing the detail and clarity.
Avoid edges on the earphone housing.
Slimmer cable.
Remote that fully compatible for both iOS and Android devices.
 
 
 

 
 
 

Sound Signature
Sound signature observation was using the stock translucent grey eartips, after over 100 hours of burn-in. I didn’t notice any significant improvement before and after burn-in, so I would say burn-in is not necessary for S3.
 
Clarity is the main sonic signature of S3. It is not a warm sounding IEM, and leans slightly, just a slightly, towards analytic in a good way. Bass is lean, but has decent speed and texture. To my sonic preference, the bass is moderately lacking, and IMHO the main weakness of S3. I find the bass is lacking around 6 dB for most of my test tracks. The lack of bass makes S3 fail to deliver sense of musical engagement. Midrange has good clarity with some mild emphasize around the upper mid that makes midrange presentation quite forward. Treble has mild emphasize on the lower treble, but overall midrange to treble frequency response is pretty good, quite balance with good detail, clarity, and texture, without touching sibilant. I observed there is no annoying peak and dip beside the slight upper mid hum. One good thing is, It doesn't have midrange muffledness that I often found in many IEMs in this price range; detail and clarity are basically S3 main strength. The good clarity of S3 makes it a good communication earphone for smartphone, for better speech intelligibility. If only Brainwavz tuned S3 to have more bass, it could be a very close competitor to S5.
 
I did some simple frequency response measurement using USB measurement microphone MiniDSP UMIK-1 and a DIY acoustic coupler that I made using heat shrink tube. As for the software, I use REW. Brainwavz S3 connected to LH Geek Out 450 headphone output (0.47 ohms), and the earphone side coupled to the measurement microphone as shown in the following pictures. 
 

 
 
 
 
I’ve been experimenting on IEM measurement lately, and I found it to be very complicated. I observed the following:
1. The length and volume of the acoustic coupler greatly affecting the treble response. Longer acoustic coupler will create unnecessary treble peaks.
2. Room temperature greatly affecting 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. Loudness level affecting the smoothness of the overall frequency response. Generally measurement done in louder volume showing smoother frequency response.
 
From my experiments so far, 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. So please take note that this is not a standard measurement, therefore cannot be used as comparison with other measurement. This measurement is only to show the rough estimation of the frequency response, especially to show the lacking of the bass response in comparison to S0 and S5. 
 
I used short acoustic coupler to avoid unnecessary treble peaks. Measurement is done in room temperature around 31 degree Celsius (non air-con room in Singapore). Loudness reference is 105 dB at 500 Hz. 105 dB seems high, but it is due to the distant of the earphone that was placed very close to the microphone. The volume level is actually around 90 dB listening level when used on ears. All measurement were done 3 times, by plugging, unplugging, and re-fitting the earphone to the acoustic coupler, and then averaging the result from the 3 measurements. Psycho acoustic smoothing was applied to all measurement.
 
Besides comparisons with Brainwavz S0 and S5, I also compared S3 with DUNU DN-2000. DN-2000 is so far what I perceived as the flattest sounding IEM that I've ever tried. We might have different preferences for what we call flat / balanced tonality, but for me so far DUNU DN-2000 is what my ears perceived as relatively flat tonality; therefore I use it as my reference for comparison.
 
Measurement result of Left (Blue) and Right (Red) drivers of Brainwavz S3:

 
Averaged frequency response of Brainwavz S3 Left and Right drivers:

 
Frequency response in comparison to Brainwavz S0 (Blue) and S5 (Green):

 
 
Frequency response in comparison to DUNU DN-2000 (Green):

 
 
 

Comparisons with Brainwavz S0 and S5
 

 
Comparisons were done using the stock translucent grey eartips.
 
Brainwavs S0
In short, S0 has more bass with less clarity than S3. S3 wins on clarity and resolution. S0 has some mid bass emphasize that bleeds a little to the midrange, bass is a little bloated and less textured as compared to S3 lean and faster bass. Midrange on S0 is mildly muffled and less textured, and treble is softer and less transparent. S0 is more forgiving and fun sounding, better option for those who prefer smooth and warm sounding signature. While S3 has better clarity, more linear midrange and treble, but lacking the fun part due to the lean bass. S3 might be preferable for those who prefer clarity.
 
Brainwavz S5
S5 has some treble emphasize and sounds brighter and more transparent than S3. S5 has wider frequency range, more extended bass and treble and overall sounds livelier with better detail and dynamic. Beside the slightly smoother treble, S3 is still a level below S5 in almost every aspect. S5 has better resolution and sounds more transparent than S3, with much better bass. Dynamic and speed is also better on S5, faster and more realistic. Though S5 is the better IEM here, but S5 might be a little too bright for the treble sensitive users.
Between S0, S3, and S5, the older and more expensive S5 is clearly the winner for me. With the right eartips such as the triple flange, S5 treble is tamed resulting an excellent lively and balanced sound signature. S0 and S3 serve different category of audience as mentioned above.
 

 
 
 
 
Eartips rolling
S3 comes with plenty of eartips for some degree of sonic tuning. Sonic impression of S3 above was using the stock translucent grey (red core) eartips. The following are comparisons of other eartips with the stock translucent grey eartips.
 

 
 
Black small bore with coloured core ('Sony Hybrid' look alike)
The black small bore eartips is in my opinion the best sounding eartips for S3. It helps to improve the bass response a little, and preferable in comparison to the default larger bore translucent grey red core eartips. Treble also sounds smoother and less peaky using the black small bore eartips. But still, the bass response is less than what I called proper bass level.
 

 

Double Flange
Sounds more or less about the same as the default translucent grey red core eartips. The only improvement I felt was not in the sound department, but in comfort. The double flange covers the edges near the nozzle that usually scratches my ears a little during insertion, therefore more comfortable during insertion to ear canals.
 
Triple Flange
I observed triple flange eartips usually has the largest degree of treble smoothing among other silicone eartips. It could be that it is actually shifted up the treble peak, therefore treble sounds less peaky than other eartips. Treble is a tad smoother than eartips and holographic imaging also improves a little. But unfortunately bass response is the lowest, a tad less from the default translucent grey eartips, therefore the least preferable.
 
Foam - Comply T400
The foam eartips performs quite well, and more or less comparable to the default translucent grey eartips, a tad more linear on the treble region, probably more comfortable to some, but no significant differences in sound quality.
 
 
 
 
Competition in this price range is tough and crowded with a lot of options, and S3 sits in the category around average to good. For sub $100, some of my most favorite IEMs are LZ-A2, Puro Sound Labs IEM500, Alpha & Delta AD01, and Narmoo S1. I hope in the near future Brainwavz would come up with some giant killer IEMs that would compete well with those IEMs.
 
 
 
 

 
 
 
 
 

 

Specifications:

1. Drivers: Dynamic, 8 mm
2. Rated Impedance: 16 Ω
3. Frequency Range: 16 Hz ~ 22 kHz
4. Sensitivity: 96 dB at 1 mW
5. Rated Input Power: 10 mW
6. Cable: 1.3 m Y-Cord, Copper
7. Plug: 3.5 mm, Gold Plated

 

Included Accessories:

1. Earphone Hardcase
2. 3 sets of Silicone Ear Tips (S M L)
3. 1 set of Comply™ Foam Tips T-400
4. 1 Shirt Clip
5. 1 set of Silicone Bi-Flange Eartips
6. 1 set of Silicone Tri-Flange Eartips
7. Velcro Cable Tie
8. Instruction Manual & Warranty Card (24 month warranty)

 
 
 
Equipment Used In This Review:
 
Earphones / IEMs:
Brainwavz S0
Brainwavz S5
DUNU DN-2000
 
DACs, DAPs & Headphone Amplifiers:
LH Geek Out 450
Fiio X3ii
Onkyo DP-X1
Superlux HA3D
Some recordings used in this review:

 
 
 

Some recordings used in this review:

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

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

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

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




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

Pros:

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

Cons:

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

Suggestions for Improvement:

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

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






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

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




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

Frequency Response Using Different Ear Tips:



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

Left & Right Drivers Consistency:



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




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

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

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




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

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




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


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

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






Comparisons:

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


1MORE's Triple Driver


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



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



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




iBasso IT03


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




DUNU DN-1000 and DN-2000


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

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




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






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



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

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




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

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






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

Kudos to Creative!




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

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

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


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






Equipment used in this review:

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

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




Some recordings used in this review:

 

 
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:
 
 

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


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

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




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

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






Pros:

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

Cons:

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

Suggestions for Improvement:

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

Recommendation:

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

Sound Quality

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




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

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

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

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



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




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




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

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

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




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






Compared to DUNU DK-3001


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





Compared to AK T8iE Mk2


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




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





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







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





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





Equipment used in this review:

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

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


Some recordings used in this review:

Thanks Brainwavz for the review sample of Brainwavz S0!
 
 
 

 
Designed to be the little brother of Brainwavz S5, Brainwavz S0 uses single 9 mm dynamic driver that is slightly smaller than the 10 mm driver in Brainwavz S5. At about half the price of the S5, thanks to Brainwavz, the sound quality of S0 is much more than half of the sound quality of S5.
 
 

 
In this review, I will use S5 as a reference for comparison.
 
 

 
Smaller than S5, S0 also has full metal body which is sleek and durable. Unlike S5 that is designed to be worn over the ears, S0 symmetrical housing design can be worn both ways, straight down and over the ears. This is a good feature for those who are not used to wear IEM over the ears. S0 has similar flat cable as S5, but with improved, smaller and sleeker, IMHO much nicer, Y splitter.
 
 
 

 
One thing to be noted, probably due to the position of bass tuning vent that is located at the back of the IEM, S0 has less than average noise isolation. Less noise isolation than S5. Not necessarily a bad thing, occasionally I do need less isolating IEM. But those who require high level of noise isolation, S5 is the better choice.
 
 

 
My experience with S0, from new till now, for about a month, has been quite consistent. Rather different than my experience with S5, as I mentioned in my review of S5, that S5 was pretty bright when new, and suddenly turned to be natural sounding IEM for unknown reason. S0 sound signature has been consistent, only smoother after about 4 days of burn-in.  I do recommend a few days of burn-in for S0, that though the improvement was not drastic, S0 sounds smoother and more relax after burn-in.
 
 

 
S0 is more forgiving than S5, to changes of sound signature by different eartips. But it doesn't mean all eartips sound the same. It is still important to try all the supplied eartips to get the best sonic performance and comfort. My favourite eartips for S0 is the default large bore, translucent gray eartips with red centre cylinder. S0 comes with some different set of eartips than S5. The tri-flanges and bi-flanges are the same, but the Comply foam tip is S-400 instead of T-400. Tested the comply S-400, I still prefer the sound using the default silicone eartips. The rest of the silicon eartips are also different. 3 sizes of large bore translucent eartips with nice red color center part, and 3 sizes of smaller bore eartips that looks like Sony Hybrid eartips. S0 nozzle size is the standard 4.5 mm that widely compatible with common generic eartips.
 
 

 
 
Pros:
Good quality, durable & solid full metal housing.
Designed for both straight-down and over the ears wearing style.
Various types and sizes of eartips are included, for flexible sound tuning and maximum comfort.
The famous Brainwavz semi-hard earphone case is included.
 
 
Cons:
Below average noise isolation.
The white colour Left and Right marking is not easily identified in dimly lit environment. There is no left dot / dimple near the left driver. Probably it would be easier if the Left and Right marking are using different colour, for example white and red.
 
 
Suggestions for improvement:
Bass and Treble extension, and level of detail.
As many people these days using their smart-phones to listen to music, to include a microphone is probably a value add that can be considered.
 
 
 
Sound Signature
 
Smooth-warm, balanced, and forgiving, are the main sonic characters of Brainwavz S0. Slightly mid-centric due to lacking of some low bass and upper treble extension. While S5 has higher level of detail and wider frequency extension, with better overall sound quality, S5 is also less forgiving to recording imperfection. S0 on the other hand is a much more forgiving IEM. Overall sonic character is quite smooth and balanced from bass to treble without any annoying peaks and dips on the frequency response. Only some very gentle emphasized around upper mid - treble area that adds perceived clarity. In comparison to S5, the lacking of low bass rumble and upper treble extension in S0 makes it sounds less lively than S5, and sometime a bit boring, especially for classical music. I prefer modern genres (closed miked recordings) for S0, as they match the sound characteristic of S0 better.
 
There is some mid bass emphasized that bleeds a little to the midrange. Probably the lacking of low bass extension giving the impression that the mid bass is slightly emphasized. Bass, especially mid bass level and impact are pretty good. Bass level is good and never sounds bass anaemic, but not yet at the level for bass lover and basshead. The bass is rather boomy, especially on the mid bass area, and bass texture is not very clear, but for a sub $ 50 IEM, IMHO the bass is pretty good.
 
Midrange sounds smooth-warm and quite natural, which is good. Sometime may sound a bit too smooth for my taste, and may sounds a little muffled, as I prefer higher level of detail on the midrange. Vocal, both male and female sounds natural. Vocal presentation is not forward nor laid back. I imagine it would be much better if midrange detail could be as detailed as S5.
 
Treble is on the soft side, good enough to gives a good perceived clarity, but not at the level and quality of S5 treble. I prefer the sparkling and airy treble of S5, but S0 treble is smoother and much more forgiving. Bright recordings or high pitch female vocal would probably sound less offensive on S0. I would say it boils down to personal preferences, some prefer a more lively treble; some prefer smoother and more forgiving treble.
 
Level of detail and clarity of S0 are pretty good for sub $ 50 IEM, but again, when compared to S5, not yet as realistic as S5. Level of dynamic and transient are on the average level of an IEM in this price category, not a very fast and impactful IEM. I would say level of detail is comparable with the famous Zero Audio Carbo Tenore, with slightly better perceived clarity, which is good.
 
Instrument separation though pretty good, not the best that I've heard from an IEM in this price category. Imaging size is average, not the wide and spacious type, but also not annoyingly congested. For classical, binaural recordings, and other type of recordings which use distant stereo miking techniques for a more realistic space virtualization, S0 is not able to give real sense of space, which is expected for an IEM in this price range.  As mentioned before, modern genres recording with closed miking, or electronic, match better with S0 characteristic.
 
As for players, I do prefer to pair S0 with detailed, rather analytical sounding player. From the equipment used in this review, Fiio X3, Dragonfly, and ifi Micro iDSD, match pretty well with S0. S0 is slightly less sensitive than S5, but generally easy to drive, so smart-phones have no issue to drive S0.
 
 

 
The fact is, sub $50 IEM is very crowded with choices. I do have some collection of good sub $50 IEMs, and have tried quite many of them. Based on my experience, I would rank Brainwavz S0 as a ‘Good’ sub $50 IEM. Not yet a ‘Giant Killer’ IEM. The big brother S5, in my opinion, has better sound quality, but at double the price. In some user comments, some people might even prefer S0 over S5. So it is again boils down to personal preferences. In fact, S0 sounds better than some good models in my collection, to name a few, ATH-CKM300iS, MEElec M-Duo, & TDK LoR "CLEF-Premium P" MEGA BASS Tuning. That shows that Brainwavz S0 competes quite well in the sub $50 category.
 
 
Brainwavz S0 is a nice, friendly sounding, affordable IEM from Brainwavz. But I do hope that in the near future, Brainwavz will come up with a better, ‘Giant Killer’ sub $50 IEM. Jiayou Brainwavz!  
 
 
 
Specifications:
Transducers/Drivers: Single Dynamic, 9 mm
Rated Impedance: 16 ohms
Sensitivity: 100 dB at 1mW
Frequency range: 18Hz - 18kHz
Cable length: 1.2m, Y cord, Flat, Copper.
Plug: 3.5mm gold plated, straight.
 

 
Included Accessories:
1 x Comply foam S-400 eartip
6 x Silicone tips
1 x Bi-Flage tip
1 x Tri-Flange tip
1 x Shirt clip
1 x Earphone carrying case
1 x Instruction manual
 
 
 

 
 
Equipment used in this review:
ifi micro iDSD: Powerful and excellent sounding DAC + HeadAmp combo. Transparent, detailed, and powerful. Slightly lean to analytical sounding.
Audioquest Dragonfly v1.0c: DAC + HeadAmp combo. Marvelous little DAC. Transparent, airy, and powerful. Slightly lean to analytical sounding.
iBasso DX90: Portable player. Natural sounding, not warm and not analytical. Good dynamic, detail and resolution.
Fiio X3: Portable player. Powerful, balanced sounding with good bass and sparkling treble.
 
 
Recordings used for this review: