Many thanks to Brainwavz for the review sample of Brainwavz Omega!

Brainwavz Omega is budget IEM from Brainwavz, similarly priced to Brainwavz Jive. Unfortunately I don't have Brainwavz Jive to be compared with, but I will compare it with other IEMs in the similar price category.
 
Product webpage:
http://www.brainwavzaudio.com/products/omega-iem-noise-isolating-earphones-with-microphone-remote
 
Quite often people ask my recommendation for budget IEM. And I'm glad I've seen sound quality improvement in the last few years on budget IEMs, and the number of options seems to be growing. Many budget IEMs I have and have tried, often have similar flaws, which is lacking in clarity that makes vocal sounds dull and muffled, and sometime they sound overly bassy and fatiguing. I'm glad to say that Brainwavz Omega doesn't have those flaws. Omega has pretty good overall clarity, with clear sounding vocal. It also has decent bass, good level with good sub-bass extension, and not the overblown fatiguing type of bass. Is Omega a giant killer? It is not, but it certainly offers a lot for the money. In summary, Brainwavz Omega is among the best budget IEMs around the $15 bracket, and now it is in the list of my recommended budget IEMs.
 

 
 
 
Pros:
Fun tonality and good clarity.
Small earphone housing for easy fit and better comfort.
 
Cons:
Poor microphone quality.
 
Suggestions for Improvements:
Microphone quality.
 
 

Brainwavz Omega features 6 mm single micro dynamic driver, equipped with microphone and remote for communication. I'm a fan of dynamic micro driver that usually categories as dynamic driver with size 6 mm or less. Currently I have around 15 micro driver IEMs in my collection. Micro driver allows small simple housing that fits easily into most people ear canal. Not only for fitting purpose, from what I've observed so far, small and minimum housing like the Omega housing has minimal IEM housing resonant, less sound reflection inside the housing, for less distortion from the IEM housing, resulting better clarity and perceive level of detail. Some better design like JVC micro driver IEMs placed the driver right at the front part of the nozzle, avoiding possible sound reflections in the nozzle cavity. The disadvantage of placing the micro driver at the front part of the nozzle is the size of the nozzle become larger than the common 4.5 - 5.5 mm nozzle size, and sometime causing fitting issue for smaller ear canal. Brainwavz Omega placed the micro driver inside the housing behind the nozzle for better universal fitting and compatibility with generic eartips. The nozzle size is 4.5 mm. So far I don't hear any obvious housing or nozzle distortion. The small housing and short nozzle seems to be well designed to keep housing distortion at minimum. The small and simple cylinder housing allows both straight down and over the ears wearing style.
 
I like the slightly thick 2.5 mm cable. It feels durable and doesn't coil. The 3.5 mm TRRS jack is angled, probably around 60 degrees, feels sturdy and durable as well. Overall build quality is good, and I have nothing to complain. The only improvement I would like to see is only on the quality of the microphone that lacks clarity and sounds a little muffled, but still usable. The remote works well on my Android phone, Samsung Galaxy S4. Volume, play, stop, skip track all function well. I didn't test it with iPhone, but it should be compatible with iPhone as well. The middle play / stop button works for skipping track, press twice for next track, and press thrice to go to previous track.
 

 
 
 
 
Sound Quality
 
Having heard quite a number of IEMs in this price range, in my opinion Brainwavz Omega has pretty good tonality without any annoying coloration and emphasize or de-emphasized on any frequency region. It has fun, mild V shape tonality, with slightly more emphasize on the bass region than the treble region. So it is a little bassy with the stock silicone eartips, but not too much. Bass is decent with satisfying level, not anemic and not overly bassy. A bit loose, but IMHO still pretty good for the price. Although Omega tonality is rather bassy, but bass level is not yet basshead level of bass. When it is preferable to reduce the bass level, use the provided Comply S-400 foam eartips. The foam eartips also smoothen the treble a little bit. Omega has good low sub-bass extension and reaches very low. 20 Hz tone can be heard clearly at normal listening level, and it pass 'Earfonia Risset Drum 20-60Hz' test track without any obvious distortion. Don't expect a very fast, tight, and well textured bass quality like from higher quality IEMs many times of the Omega's price, but for an IEM at this price category, Omega's bass is certainly pretty good. Midrange and treble has good clarity, good enough for me to enjoy classical recordings that usually sound dull on many budget IEMs. For those who are used to warm sounding IEMs, Omega might probably sounds a little bright. But for some who are used with more analytical sounding IEMs, Omega is certainly not bright at all. It has some mild treble emphasize to help to boost the perceived clarity. Treble could sound a bit grainy sometime, but not sibilant. Detail and dynamic are surprisingly pretty good as well, music sounds quite lively.
 
In summary, sound quality is good, and it is a pretty good all-rounder IEM. Value wise, Omega is very good. Good tonality with decent level of clarity and perceived detail for such an affordable price tag. Some comparisons below might help to get a better picture of the Omega's sound signature.
 
I’ve been experimenting on IEM frequency response measurement lately, and I found it to be very complicated. I don't have standard measurement equipment. I use USB measurement microphone, MiniDSP UMIK-1 and a DIY acoustic coupler that I made from heat shrink tubing. I use Room EQ Wizard (REW) program to do the measurement. So far I observed the following:
 

• The length and volume of the acoustic coupler affects the upper treble response. Longer acoustic coupler will create unnecessary treble peaks above 10 kHz.
• Room temperature affects the bass response. Similar measurement done in 25 degree Celsius and 31 degree Celsius room temperature consistently showing around 6 dB differences in bass response. Bass response is higher in lower room temperature.
• Level of loudness during measurement affects the smoothness of the overall frequency response. Generally measurement done in louder volume showing smoother frequency response.
• The equipment that I use doesn't seem to be accurate for the upper treble region, therefore only useful for up to around 9 kHz. Measurement from 9 kHz onward can be ignored.

 
From what I've observed 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 all the frequency response measurement shown here is not a standard measurement, therefore cannot be used for comparison with other measurement. This measurement is only to show comparison of estimated frequency response of the IEMs that were measured in the same environment using the same equipment.
 
MiniDSP UMIK-1 & Dayton Audio UMM-6 measurement microphones with the DIY acoustic coupler:

 

 
Unfortunately my Dayton UMM-6 spoilt when I tried to fix mic capsule isolation, so now I only have the UMIK-1 for measurement.
 
As of now, DUNU DN-2000 is my baseline or reference for flat tonality. DN-2000 tonality is pretty close to what I perceived as flat tonality, only lacking slightly on the level of upper treble region. For the measurement, I usually take at least 3 measurements per channel, then average the 3 measurement. I applied Psychoacoustic Smoothing for the reason that the measurement is only useful for rough estimation of the frequency response. Loudness reference is 100 dB at 500 Hz. 100 dB seems louder than normal listening volume, but it is due to the length of the canal of the acoustic couple that I use is much shorter than average length of human ear canal, therefore the IEM is placed much closer to the microphone, resulting higher reading of loudness. All measurement was done at 25 degree Celsius room temperature. As I mentioned earlier, bass response will be lower when room temperature is higher.
 
Frequency response of Brainwavz Omega Left (blue) and Right (red) drivers:

 
 
Average frequency response of Brainwavz Omega (purple) in comparison to DUNU DN-2000 (yellow):

 
 
 
 
Comparisons
 
For this comparison sometime I used larger bore eartips, and sometime the stock silicone eartips. I don’t hear any significant differences between them, so both are recommended. I used Superlux HA3D headphone amplifier that has 3 outputs, to be able to compare 3 IEMs at the same time, for quicker and more accurate impressions.
 

 
Xiaomi Piston IF Commemorative Edition (similar to Piston 2.0)
Piston IF Commemorative Edition, which is said to have similar sound and design with the well-known Piston 2.0, sounds a tad more refined with a more linear tonality. Both have mildly V shape tonality. Though not the same, Brainwavz Omega has some similarity to Piston IF sound signature. Omega has slightly thicker lower mids and slightly stronger and boomier bass. Vocal sounds slightly fuller and smoother on Omega, but clearer and more detailed on Piston. Treble level is pretty close, with the Piston sounds just a tad brighter but smoother. I think Xiaomi Piston is marginally better than the Omega with slightly better detail and clarity. But the Omega would be a good choice to those who prefer fuller midrange and slightly more bass. 
 
Frequency response comparison between Brainwavz Omega (purple) and Xiaomi Piston IF Edition (green):

 
Design wise, I prefer the smaller cylinder housing of Omega that generally fits easier in the ear canal. The smaller housing allows deeper insertion to the ear canal. The Piston cable has short Y split part that is too short for over the ears wearing style. While the Omega has proper length of cable from the split point up to the drivers, that is suitable for both straight down and over the ears wearing style. Besides that, the Piston's stock eartips simply don't work for me. The stock eartips are too soft and slippery; I couldn't get proper fit and good sound isolation using the Piston's stock eartips. I have to use other eartips for the Piston to get better fitting. While the Omega's stock eartips are good and comfortable, and it also comes with Comply foam eartips. Another concern when getting the Xiaomi Piston 2 is the fake model of Xiaomi Piston 2 is like everywhere on the online market. I bought one of the fake Piston 2 that looks quite similar, and the sound quality is simply terrible. So I only buy Xiaomi product direct from their website in Singapore.
 
 
Xiaomi Hybrid
Xiaomi Hybrid to me is a bit disappointing. IMHO both Xiaomi Piston IF Edition and Brainwavz Omega sound better than the new Xiaomi Hybrid. Xiaomi Hybrid main flaw is the muffled midrange. Vocal sounds muffled and not natural. There is something wrong on Xiaomi Hybrid tonality at around midrange area. Coherency between the dynamic driver and the BA driver is also rather poor, both drivers don't blend nicely. The treble from the BA driver is actually pretty good, but unfortunately doesn't blend well with the lower frequency.  There is some moderate emphasize around the bass and lower midrange, and then an obvious dip around the upper mid to treble area that makes vocal sounds muffled, and then continue with a pretty good treble quality. The dip around the upper mid, to me, is unforgivable. Therefore tonality wise, I prefer Brainwavz Omega than the Xiaomi Hybrid.
 
 
Remax RM-565i
Remax RM-565i has lots of similarity with Brainwavz Omega. Overall housing design looks quite similar but not exactly the same. Remax RM-565i housing is a little longer than the Omega's housing. Remax RM-565i seems to use micro dynamic driver as well, and they both have 16 ohms nominal impedance. Sound wise they share a lot of similarities, but not exactly the same. Omega sounds a tad clearer than the Remax RM-565i, just a tad. Beside the level of clarity both have quite a similar sound tonality. Both are also more or less in the $15 price category. Remax RM-565i has flat cable, while the Omega has regular round cable. The quite obvious different is the quality of the microphone, which sounds much better on the Remax RM-565i. Remax RM-565i microphone sounds clearer, while the Omega's microphone sounds a little muffled. But Remax RM-565i remote doesn't have the volume buttons, only the play / stop button. As for the sound quality of the earphone, I slightly prefer the Omega for the slightly better dynamic and clarity. But the differences are pretty small. They are quite similar but not the same. Value wise both offer excellent value and highly recommended in my book.
 

 

 

 
Frequency response comparison between Brainwavz Omega (purple) and Remax RM-565i (teal):

 
 
Remax RM-610D
Remax RM-610D sounds slightly warmer than Omega, and slightly lacks the sub bass and upper treble extension. Omega has wider frequency response than RM-610D. The Omega also has better dynamic, perceived clarity and detail. I still consider RM-610D a good sounding budget IEM, and probably a better choice for some people who prefer simple straight down wearing style and shallow insertion into the ear canal, but to me the Omega sounds better and livelier. RM-610D has flat cable with remote that has volume buttons, and designed only for straight down wearing style, so expect some microphonics. RM-610D microphone quality is pretty close to Omega microphone, a little muffled and not as clear as RM-565i microphone, but perfectly usable for communication.
 
 
 

 
Brainwavz S0
I happen to have Brainwavz S0, S3, and S5 as well, but I'm not going to compare all of them as they are in different price category. I will only compare the Omega to S0, for Brainwavz users to have better idea of the Omega sound signature. The Omega being a lot cheaper than S0, surprisingly comes pretty close to S0 in sound quality comparison. S0 sounds smoother and slightly warmer, while Omega sounds a little more V shape in comparison to S0. Omega has slightly stronger bass and more sparkly treble. S0 sounds nicer on vocal with smoother and fuller midrange, while Omega sounds livelier on instrumental and orchestral work, thanks to the mildly V shape tonality. 
 
 
Rock Zircon
Rock Zircon is one my favourite budget IEM, and sound quality wise it is quite comparable to Brainwavz Omega. Rock Zircon has fun and lively sound signature. Zircon tonality is slightly more V shape than Omega, slightly stronger bass and slightly more pronounced treble. Omega tonality might be perceived as more linear than Zircon, and overall sounds a little more refined. Zircon is a very good budget IEM with excellent build quality. The Zirconium crystal housing of Zircon is definitely looks and feels better than the modest Omega metal housing. But if I have to choose the sound quality between the two, I still marginally prefer the Omega for being a little more linear in tonality.
 
 
 

 
KZ ATE
From my collection KZ IEMs, KZ ATE and ED9 are among my favourite budget IEMs. KZ ATE sounds a little smoother, with some emphasize on upper midrange. Vocal sounds more forward on ATE. Omega has stronger bass and better low bass extension than ATE, and slightly wider perceived frequency range. ATE sounds nice, but the mild emphasize on the upper midrange makes it sounds a little colored. ATE midrange and treble sound smoother, and sound nicer on vocal. While Omega sounds livelier on instrumental and electronic music. But ATE housing shape and design might not fit everyone. The Omega small housing is much easier to wear. Both are excellent budget IEMs.
 
 
KZ ED9
For this comparison I use the gold nozzle / sound filter on ED9. KZ ED9 so far has been my favorite KZ IEM and I like it better than ATE, ED10, Micro Ring, & ZS1. In comparison to Omega, ED9 sounds smoother and slightly more spacious in stereo imaging. Tonality wise ED9 sounds quite linear, probably slightly more linear than Omega. The smooth and linear tonality of ED9 is really nice on vocal. Vocal sounds nicer on ED9 than Omega. Bass level is about the same, slightly stronger on the Omega. When it comes to pounding bass, Omega bass sounds a little faster and tighter with better punch. ED9 bass is a little slower and less tight. Midrange and treble sound smoother and nicer on ED9. Overall ED9 sounds nicer on most vocal and jazz tracks, and the smooth presentation of ED9 sounds more enjoyable. While Omega wins on the more energetic tracks with punchier and stronger bass. Both really offer a lot for the money.
 
Frequency response comparison between Brainwavz Omega (purple) and KZ ED9 (orange):

 
 
 
 
From the entire budget IEMs in comparison, my favourites are the Brainwavz Omega, Remax RM-565i, Xiaomi Piston IF Edition, and KZ ED9. They are some of the best budget IEMs I've ever tried. Once again thanks to Brainwavz for offering such a good quality budget IEM!
 
 
 

 

 

 

 

 
 
 

Specifications:
Drivers: Dynamic, 6 mm
Rated Impedance: 16 Ω
Frequency Range: 20 Hz - 20 kHz
Sensitivity: 98 dB at 1 mW
Rated Input Power: 3 mW
Cable: 1.2 m Y-Cord, Copper
Plug: 3.5 mm, Gold plated
 
Included Accessories:
3 sets of Silicone Ear Tips (S M L)
1 set of Comply™ Foam Tips S-400
1 Shirt Clip
Velcro Cable Tie
Instruction Manual & Warranty Card (24 month warranty)
 
 
 
Equipment Used In This Review:
Earphones / IEMs:
Brainwavz S0
DUNU DN-2000
KZ ATE
KZ ED9
Remax RM-565i
Remax RM-610D
Rock Zircon
Xiaomi Piston IF Commemorative Edition
Xiaomi Hybrid
 
DACs, DAPs & Headphone Amplifiers:
Centrance DACport Slim
Fiio X3ii
ifi micro iDSD
Superlux HA3D
 
Other Equipment:
MiniDSP UMIK-1 measurement microphone
 
Software:
Room EQ Wizard (REW)
 
 
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:

This is only the summary part of an in-depth review of this headphone amplifier. Please visit this link for a more in-depth review (comparisons, features, measurement, and tube rolling) of AT-HA22TUBE:

Audio-Technica AT-HA22TUBE In-Depth Review
 

 
 
It was during last year (2014) Audio-Technica event in Singapore, that I had the opportunity to audition the AT-HA22TUBE headphone amplifier. Tested it with a few headphones, I was quite impressed with the sound signature. Few months later, I get a unit for myself. I've started drafting this review many months back, and it has been delayed due to unforeseen tight schedules. Glad that I finally manage to post the review of this wonderful small desktop tube amplifier.
 
http://www.audio-technica.com.sg/products/amplifiers/at-ha22tube
 
 

 

 
AT-HA22TUBE is a small desktop hybrid headphone amplifier. The gain stage is using modern tube, JJ E88CC, and solid state power transistors are used for the output stage. This configuration is aimed to combine the rich & smooth tube signature with the drive ability and transparency of solid state transistor, to get the best of both worlds. The tube is on socket, therefore can be easily replaced by other compatible E88CC / 6922 tube transistors.
 
The following is a nice Audio-Technica advertisement video (in Japanese). The video shows the circuit board of the AT-HA22TUBE. All discrete components without any Op-Amp.
 
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-XRdnHldMEs

 
 

 
The case is solid and well made, made of aluminium alloy with die-cast front panel. On top, die cast tube cover is to protect the tubes, which can be removed for tube replacement. Overall build quality is solid and very good.
 
 

 
Before getting into details here are some points of Pros, Cons, and some suggestions for improvement.
 
 
Pros:
Great sound quality. Neutral, lively & musical sounding.
Rollable tube.
Earphone friendly -12 dB attenuation feature.
 
 
Cons:
Amplifier casing doesn't seem to be properly grounded and headphone output may get EMI noise when the amplifier is placed in close proximity to EMI transmitting devices such as cordless DECT phone.
 
 
Suggestions for improvements:
Improve power supply with properly grounded power supply and casing to improve EMI immunity.
Higher output power.
 
 
 
 
 

Sound Quality

 
The sound signature described here is based on the stock tube JJ E88CC. DACs that I used most for this review are ifi micro iDSD and LH Geek Pulse XFi. As for headphones, ATH-MSR7LTD, Beyerdynamic T1, and Sennheiser HD800 are my references for sound signature evaluation. I used other headphones and IEMs as well, but those three are the main headphones for evaluation.
 
 

 
Neutral, smooth, and spacious is how I perceived the AT-HA22TUBE sound signature. AT-HA22TUBE is not the type of tube amplifier with very warm and mellow sound signature. It doesn't really sound tubish from tube amp perspective. In fact, AT-HA22TUBE is quite a transparent and neutral sounding tube amplifier, but not at the transparency level of an analytical sounding solid state amplifier. It has mild tube warmness and richness, effective enough to smoothen edgy treble without giving too much colouration or sacrificing details. It has the combination of smoothness of a tube amp and transparency of a solid state amp in a nice proportion. AT-HA22TUBE let me hear the characteristic of the various DAC output quite easily, which is a sign of a good headphone amplifier. While it does has tube flavour in its signature, but it does it in a transparent way, and still reveals the character of the source quite clearly.
 
 

 
Bass sounds full with good weight and punch, but the speed is around average. Not very fast but not slow either. When the tube replaced to Genalex Gold Lion E88CC, bass tightness and speed improves slightly. Midrange is mildly warm and smooth with good tonal density. And the treble is smooth and transparent. Transient and dynamic are good. Though I don't consider the AT-HA22TUBE as super-fast and punchy, but I never felt the dynamic is lazy or lacking speed. It is quite lively sounding with good dynamic. Decay sounds quite natural, and a tad longer, less dry than my Violectric HPA V200 which sounds a little dry in comparison. Perceived level of detail is very good, realistic enough without being over emphasized. But it is clearly not an analytical sounding amplifier.
 
What I like most is the level of holographic imaging and spaciousness that beats my Violectric HPA V200 desktop amplifier that cost a few times AT-HA22TUBE. And that alone speaks a lot of how good this little tube amp is. For those looking for a tube amp with strong tube flavour, AT-HA22TUBE might not be the right choice, at least with the stock tube. Though AT-HA22TUBE may have stronger tube flavour with different tube, the stock tube only gives mild tube flavour, which is actually just nice to make AT-HA22TUBE a good all-rounder amp, which goes well with wide variety of headphones and recording genres. AT-HA22TUBE sound signature matches quite well with my personal preference and after using it for almost a year; I honestly like it a lot. I do wish the bass could be tightened a little bit, I'm a fan of fast and tight bass, but for the price there is nothing to be complained of. The bass is fast and tight enough to make me toe tapping.
 
 

 
I find AT-HA22TUBE matches easily with many headphones and IEMs, but especially good with neutral to bright sounding ones like ATH-MSR7/LTD, Beyerdynamic T1, and Sennheiser HD800. ATH-W1000Z was also sounded very good and enjoyable with AT-HA22TUBE when I reviewed it a while ago. As for IEMs, I really like how my DUNU DN-1000, DN-2000, DN-2000J and 1964 Ears V3 sound when paired with AT-HA22TUBE. I can hear a soft hiss noise on 1964 Ears V3, but hiss noise on IEM Is pretty low and at acceptable level. No audible hiss noise on dynamic drive IEMs that I tried. Especially for DN-2000J, so far I haven't found better amp or DAPs in my collection that matches DN-2000J better than AT-HA22TUBE. AT-HA22TUBE is simply a very musical and enjoyable little desktop tube amplifier.
 
 
 
 
Personally I'm not a great fan of tube amplifiers with strong tube flavour, or those that sounding too warm and mellow. I prefer fast, detailed, and dynamic sounding amplifier with spacious holographic imaging, that doesn't sound harsh or analytical. AT-HA22TUBE being a hybrid amplifier is surprisingly has the sound signature that is pretty close to my personal preference. For the price, it is a steal! Kudos Audio-Technica!
 

 
 
 
 
For more information about comparisons, features, measurement and tube rolling, please visit:

Audio-Technica AT-HA22TUBE In-Depth Review

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

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

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

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

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

 
 
 
 
Comparisons
 

 

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

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

 

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

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

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

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

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

 

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

Some recordings used in this review:

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

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


 

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

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

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


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

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


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

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


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

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


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


 
 
 
 

Equipment used in this review:

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

DAPs & DACs:

Fiio X3 2nd gen
iBasso DX90
Samsung Galaxy S4
 
 
 
 

Some recordings used in this review:

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:

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:

Many thanks to Brainwavz for the BLU-100 review sample!
http://brainwavzaudio.com/blu100.html
 
 

 


Brainwavz BLU-100 is a Bluetooth earphone compatible with Bluetooth version 4.0 with aptX for lower latency and better quality audio. Looking at the size of BLU-100 that is approximately about the same size as UE TripleFi 10, and knowing that it houses a rechargeable battery, Bluetooth receiver, DAC, headphone amplifier, and an 8mm dynamic driver, I didn't expect much of its performance. After fully charged the battery, paired it with my phone, wow! It sounds good! Better than what I expected from such a miniature battery powered system.


 
 

Before going into details, here is the summary of my observation when using Brainwavz BLU-100:

Pros:
Very good sound quality for the size and price category.
Relatively small size with good fit and comfort.
Decent battery life from such a small battery.

Cons:
Poor Bluetooth receiver sensitivity.
Placement of charging LED indicator is obscured and difficult to see.

Battery:
Base on my observation:
Continuous usage: approximately 3.5 - 4.0 hours
Charging time: approximately 1 hour

Suggestions for improvements:
Bluetooth receiver sensitivity.
Better placement of charging LED indicator.
USB charging port to be moved to the remote control part. This way the earphone still can be used while charging, and doesn't look awkward.
 


 


 
 

Sound Quality
BLU-100 surprised me with its sound quality. I didn't expect such a small battery and amplifier housed in relatively small earphone housing could sound quite powerful with pretty good dynamic. BLU-100 manages to produce pretty good and decent bass, with good bass punch and body, and decent sub bass extension. Bass is quite snappy and has good speed. I would say the bass power and quality is almost as good as connecting Xiaomi Piston 2 directly to my Galaxy S4 smartphone. In fact, BLU-100 is a little punchier than Xiaomi Piston 2. Quite impressive considering the size and price of the whole system.
 
 

Overall tonality is quite balanced. No annoying peaks and dips in the frequency response. Sound signature is best described as balanced and fun. I love good quality bass, and BLU-100 bass is satisfying enough for me, enough punch and power from such a small amp and battery, and most important, bass doesn't sound bloated. Treble has good sparkle and clarity without touching sibilant, and in good balanced with the midrange. My regular test songs are mostly audiophile recordings, some pops, jazz, and classical, no sibilant issue so far. Midrange has good clarity, and never sounded muffled or muddy. Well, not the smooth and highly refined kind of midrange, but I would say the midrange is pretty good and enjoyable, without any annoying coloration. Overall tonality is quite natural, not warm nor analytical. I have no complaint on the tonality, in fact, I quite like it. Bass, midrange, and treble are in good balance. Purist might think it is a little bassy, but that's the level of bass that I consider natural and lively. To me flat sounding bass doesn't sound natural.

Overall clarity is good, which is a must for phone call, but clarity is not over emphasized. Detail is pretty good, even with complex music BLU-100 manages to resolved decent level of detail. Overall sound quality is very good for an IEM at this price point, musical and engaging, with good balanced tonality. Considering the price, I would give 4.5 stars for the sound quality.

Microphone quality on the other hand is just average. Not outstanding, but not bad either. Good enough to make phone call, but in many cases, in a not so quiet environment, we need to bring it closer to the mouth for clearer reception.
 
 
 

 

Features & Operation
Power On, Power Off, and Bluetooth pairing indicator is by voice announcement through the earphone. Bluetooth pairing is easy and straight forward, tested with Samsung Galaxy S4 and ASUS Zenfone 5. Battery life is decent at around 3.5 hours of continuous usage. Charging using 1A or 2A charger is pretty quick, only takes around 1 hour to fully charge the battery. But LED indicator for charging is very small and obscured in the remote control housing. This is something to be improved; it is rather difficult to see the charging LED.
 
 


I suggest to move the USB charging port to the remote control part (control buttons and microphone part), rather than on the back side of the right earphone. When the battery flat, but we need to use the earphone while charging it using a portable battery, it looks awkward and uncomfortable to have USB charging cable sticking out from the earphone. But when the USB charging cable is connected to the remote control case, it is a much better and comfortable setup.
 
 


My main concern is the Bluetooth receiver sensitivity which is quite poor in my experience. I got Bluetooth signal cut-off quite often in daily general scenarios. Even in simple scenario of placing my mobile phone in my jeans front pocket, then walk for about 500 meters (which I do daily), in average I experienced cut-off more than 5 times, which is quite annoying. Other scenario, when mobile phone is on a desk and I work around the desk, Bluetooth signal cut-off also happens once and a while. I don't have other similar size Bluetooth earphone to be compared with, only Creative Hitz WP380 Bluetooth headset which is a larger on-ear headset. Using Creative WP380 on similar scenarios, I seldom experienced any Bluetooth signal cut-off. Especially for walking, where the mobile phone is relatively close to the Bluetooth headphone, I never experienced any signal cut-off when using WP380.

I like the balance and fun sound character of BLU-100, and would easily give it an overall rating of 4.5 stars for it, considering the size and price, but the poor Bluetooth receiver sensitivity in my opinion is quite annoying. Because of the poor Bluetooth sensitivity, I rate it 3.5 stars. I hope Brainwavz would improve it in the next model of Brainwavz Bluetooth earphone.
 
 

 
Beside the suggestion to improve the Bluetooth receiver sensitivity for the new model, since the quality of the dynamic driver and the shell design is very good, I would like to suggest to Brainwavz to develop a regular wired IEM using the same 8mm dynamic driver and smaller metal shell. By removing the active components and batteries, probably Brainwavz could cut the cost by more than half, and priced the IEM at the budget IEM category. If the sound quality of the new budget IEM is similar than BLU-100, I believe it could hit the market and potentially become a giant killer IEM.
 
 
 
 
Specifications:
Drivers: Dynamic 8mm
Rated Impedance: 30Ω closed Dynamic
Frequency Range: 20Hz ~ 20kHz
Sensitivity: 110 dB @ 1 mW
Bluetooth: 4.0
Codec: aptX™
Max Distance: 10mt(30ft)
Battery: 60mAh
Playtime/Standby: 4hrs/100hrs
Charge Time: 2hrs(USB)
Noise Cancellation: CVC echo/noise
Voice Prompt: Yes
Profiles: HFP HSP A2DP
Pairing: Dual Pairing
In-Line: Remote/Mic
Cable length from left driver to right driver: 60 cm
 
Can be purchased from:
Brainwavz BLU-100 Sport Bluetooth 4.0 APTX Headphones

 
 
 
 
 
 

First of all, big thanks to Lend Me UR Ears (LMUE) for the review sample of Alpha & Delta AD01!
Alpha & Delta is LMUE house brand, and AD01 is their first product.
 
http://www.lendmeurears.com/alpha-delta-ad01-black/
 

 
 
 
Through my journey in head-fi world, I've heard of IEMs that are technically superior but lacking of the subjective musical enjoyment. On the other hand, there are IEMs that may not sound technically outstanding, but musically pleasing, and highly enjoyable. Alpha & Delta AD01 is leaning more to the later, while still being technically excellent.
 
Alpha & Delta AD01 is a two ways IEM, using dual dynamic drivers on dual concentric configuration. It uses 9.8mm and 6.0mm dynamic drivers, with rated overall impedance of 9 ohms. The cable is detachable using 2mm DC connector, the same type as older Nokia phone DC connector for charging, so durability has been proven. There are not many IEMs in this price category to feature detachable cable, so a plus point for the features. My usual concern for multi-driver IEMs is coherency between the drivers. But after extensive listening, I don't hear any coherency distortion from AD01. The 2 drivers are very coherent, and sounding like a single driver configuration.
 

 
 
Before going into details, I like to start my review with summary. Please take note the scores below is based on the best matching setup that I've tried, which is using AudioQuest Dragonfly 1.0c DAC, iBasso DX90, and Fiio X3 2nd generation, the copper colour upgrade cable for AD01, stock white foam eartips, Comply T500 foam eartips, and large bore (red core) eartips (from Lunashop).
 

 
 
 
Estimated Sound Quality: 4/5 (Very Good)
Estimated Value (SQ/Price): 5/5 (Excellent)
Features & Build Quality: 5/5 (Excellent)
Noise Isolation: 3/5 (Good)
Microphone: No
Other Features: Detachable cable
 
Perceived level of:
Naturalness & musicality: 4/5 (Very Good)
Clarity: 4/5 (Very Good)
Detail & Separation: 4/5 (Very Good)
Holographic Imaging & Spaciousness: 4/5 (Very Good)
Dynamic & Transient: 4/5 (Very Good)
 
Silicone eartips:
Treble level in comparison to midrange: -1
Bass level in comparison to midrange: +1
Relax (-) to Analytical (+) balance: -1
 
Foam Comply T500 foam eartips:
Treble level in comparison to midrange: 0
Bass level in comparison to midrange: 0
Relax (-) to Analytical (+) balance: -1
 
Scores and levels:
 
5 - Excellent
4 - Very Good
3 - Good
2 - Acceptable
1 - Poor
 
+/- 1: Mild - Still within acceptable range for most recordings.
+/- 2: Moderate - Generally acceptable, but may start to sound a little too much on some recordings.
+/- 3: Strong - Generally sounds unnatural and too strong for most recordings.
 
 

Pros:

1. Excellent value, can be considered a giant killer IEM for bass lover. Deep and tuneful bass with good midrange and treble clarity.
2. Wide frequency response.
3. Detachable cable.
4. Various eartips for flexible sound tuning.
5. No driver flex.
6. Sounds good out of the box, no burn-in required.

 
 

Cons:

1. Left & Right markings are not clear.

 
 

Suggestions for improvements:

1. Clearer Left & Right marking for the drivers.
2. To include good quality large bore silicone ear tips and more variety of foam ear tips for various sound tuning.

 
 

Summary of Sound Quality:

1. Excellent smooth and full sounding all-rounder IEM.
2. Relatively balance tonality with some mild to moderate bass emphasize (eartips dependent).
3. Lively dynamic with beautiful bass. Bass sounds deep with powerful sub bass rumble for realistic live performance or cinematic experience.
4. Smooth and pleasing tonality with no irregular peaks and dips in the frequency response, mildly warm, with good level of clarity, detail, and upper treble extension.
5. Treble has decent sparkle, and quite immune to sibilant.
6. Very good stereo imaging for realistic cinematic holographic illusion.

 
 

Recommendation:

1. AD01 tonality is rather bassy, therefore it is not for those who prefer neutral transparent sound signature with lean, flat level of bass, but more for those who are looking for full and lively sounding IEM, with realistic powerful bass and good clarity.
2. Highly recommended for both music and movie, and probably one of the best IEM for realistic cinematic experience.
3. Large bore eartips and Foam eartips such as the Comply T series are recommended for a more neutral, less bassy tonality.
4. Need decent source or player to sound best, bass may sound a little loose and boomy from lower quality player such as mobile phone.

 
 

Fit and comfort:

Generally very good, no issues with fit and comfort so far. Bullet shape design is generally more flexible, can be worn both over the ear or straight down, and can be easily inserted deep into the ear canals.
 
 
 

 
 
 
 
[size=24.57px]Sound Quality[/size]
 
The way reviewer describe sound quality will be more or less influenced by his/her personal preferences, recordings they use, and other equipment used for the review. Definition of balance perceived tonality has some degree of variation between different people. My personal preference on tonality, I prefer balance sound that has good amount of bass and sub bass, natural sounding midrange (not too warm or analytic), with smooth and transparent treble. I don't consider neutral tonality with lean flat bass that sometime called as 'reference' or 'purist' tonality, as balance, as I mostly perceive it as thin sounding. I like good quality bass at realistic level, with deep sub bass rumble and extension. But as much as I love good quality bass at realistic level, I really hate loose, boomy, and bloated bass. To me both bass quality and quantity are equally important. The same goes for midrange and treble, good balance and natural sounding clarity is a must. But too much clarity that sounds unnatural and analytic is not pleasant and I consider as bad remarks. Midrange and treble must be pleasantly smooth and transparent with good level of detail.
 
So far, I tried not to be restricted too much into a particular sound signature, and learn to appreciate wider variety of sound signature. I try my best to evaluate IEMs or headphones by considering their unique sound signature. For example, bassy IEMs are to be evaluated as bassy IEMs, and how they perform within their category of sound signature. For example, if personally I prefer analytical sound signature, and I judge an excellent bassy IEM as bad because they are bassy and are not matching my personal preferences, I think it is more of a personal opinion, and not a fair judgement for a review.
 

 
 
Now let's discuss a little of how human ears perceive balance tonality. When looking into various equal loudness contour graphs, there are quite great differences between the older Fletcher-Munson graph (1933) and the newer and updated ISO 226:2003 graph (2003).
http://www.macfreek.nl/memory/Sound_Level
 
For example, looking at the graph for 80 phon loudness (my average music listening level), at 63 Hz which is the bass area, Fletcher-Munson curve is indicating 88.0 dB (SPL) and the ISO 226:2003 curve is indicating 98.4 dB (SPL). That is more than 10 dB (SPL) of differences which is quite significant. My definition of balance tonality, especially for bass area, is most probably closer to ISO 226:2003 curve than the Fletcher-Munson curve.
 
Another interesting observation is the 'Golden Ears Target Curve':
http://en.goldenears.net/419
Golden Ears applies around 6 dB of bass boost in its target curve for earphones and headphones, as compared to the flat target curve for speaker. So, it seems that my preference of mild bass boost for earphones and headphones is in line with Golden Ears target curve.
 
From all the IEMs that I have, and have tried, 1964 Ears V3 tonality is so far the closest to what I perceived as balanced tonality, followed by DUNU DN-2000. 1964 Ears V3 probably has around 2 dB higher level of bass than DN-2000. And AD01 has around 4 dB more bass than DN-2000. So AD01 bass is only around 2 dB higher than 1964 V3, but with stronger sub-bass.
 
Thanks to InnerFidelity for the measurement of AD01:
http://www.innerfidelity.com/images/AlphaandDeltaAD01.pdf
Compared to DUNU DN-2000 measurement:
http://www.innerfidelity.com/images/DunuDN2000.pdf
 
The bass level in comparison to 1 kHz on AD01 is around +13 dB higher, while on DN-2000 it is around +9 dB. And treble level of AD01 is about -3 dB less than DN-2000.
 

 
 

Bass

Some AD01 users described AD01 as bass heavy, some said a bit bassy, it's all boils down to personal preferences of bass level. To me, it is a bassy IEM, but only mildly bassy. I won't say AD01 is a basshead IEM, because the overall tonal balance is still more or less quite balance in my book, with only a few dBs of bass emphasize, not yet in the category of bass heavy IEM such as Future Sonics G10 for example. And the bass can be reduced a little by using larger bore silicone eartips, or foam eartips, such as Comply T series, for more bass reduction. The small bore stock eartips is rather bassy and cut a little bit of the treble. Using wider bore ear silicone eartips make AD01 sounds more balance with better treble clarity. Speed and texture of the bass are good, not the best, but good enough and doesn't sound lazy and bloated. The sub bass extension is simply one of the strength of AD01. We can hear realistic sub bass rumble and vibration which is important especially for movie, or listening to church pipe organ recordings. Even many much more expensive IEMs rarely have such good sub bass quality. So, though it has some emphasize on bass, but AD01 does it in a nice and tuneful way, not the brute force boomy and bloated kind of emphasize. AD01 bass is beautiful, powerful, and addictive. And I consider it as the strength of AD01. Comply T series foam ear tips reduces the bass by probably around 2-3 dB, brings it to a more neutral level. The stock white foam ear tips, though sounds good, but it has stronger bass than Comply T series. I'm not a fan of foam ear tips, but this time, it works really well on AD01, and highly recommended when bass level reduction is preferable.
 

 

 
 

Midrange

The midrange is natural and smooth sounding, but not overly smooth. I can still observe the different level of smoothness from different amplifier using AD01, and that means the midrange detail is actually pretty good. Midrange sounds full, but not warm, and not analytical either. The bass does creep a little bit into the midrange adding some fullness to the midrange, but it doesn't ruin the midrange detail and clarity. Vocal has good clarity and a little laid back in presentation. To me the midrange simply sounds natural with minimum coloration. A little smooth and relax, but still with good level of detail, texture, and dynamic.
 

Treble

The treble is smooth and linear with good level of extension, clarity and sparkle. Not for treble lover, because the level of treble is slightly below the midrange, and may be perceived as slightly soft, but not lacking either. The good thing is, the treble has good upper treble extension, reaching quite high, and free from peaks and sibilant. So this is a friendly IEM for treble sensitive people.
 
Another interesting signature of AD01 is the sensation of sounding big, a holographic illusion of big space, with clear and distinct instrument separation. Though AD01 sound signature is not the transparent type, but stereo imaging is spacious, good depth with impressive holographic imaging. It is quite rare an IEM with smooth and bassy sound signature like AD01 to have such a spacious stereo imaging. Beside the bass, this is another character of AD01 that I like most. Deep good bass with spacious holographic imaging are really good recipe for realistic cinematic experience for movie.
 

 
 
What I like most from AD01 is its liveliness and musicality. It practically sounds good and highly enjoyable to almost any recordings I tried. Sometime bassy IEM like AD01 is not very suitable for large scale orchestra where we need to hear plenty of detail, clear instrument separation, and most important spacious holographic imaging. But to my surprise, AD01 done it quite well. From classical to modern large scale orchestra, AD01 put a smile on my face. Not only the bass is so addictive, AD01 spacious holographic imaging is also very impressive. Presentation is big and spacious. Only on some Chesky binaural recordings that I found AD01 is lacking a little bit of airiness and transparency. But other than that, it is a great all-rounder, especially for bass lover.
 
 
AD01 performs differently using different players. I can hear clearly the difference of sound quality using different DACs and player. This is a good indicator, indicating that AD01 has good capability to reveal the sound quality of other components. I found that my desktop DAC, Yulong DA8 is a little too warm and bassy for AD01. With source like Yulong DA8, I agree that AD01 is a little too bassy, but AD01 performs differently with different source, so it is not always too bassy. Though my Samsung Galaxy S4 smartphone drives AD01 adequately, it is clearly not the best player for AD01. From Galaxy S4, AD01 bass sounds loose and a bit boomy, lacking of speed and tightness. I found that the 10 ohms output impedance of Centrance DACport reduces the bass a little bit, making the AD01 less bassy. Cayin C5 DAC also controls the AD01 bass pretty well, but the midrange and treble are a tad grainy. Bass is tightest and fastest on AudioQuest Dragonfly 1.0c DAC. Treble is also more transparent with better overall imaging and spaciousness. On the go, iBAsso DX90 and Fiio X3 2nd generation are good match for AD01. Generally AD01 is easy to drive, but demand matching player to sound best.
 

 
 
 
 

Comparisons

 

 
 

Comparison with my current reference IEM, 1964 Ears V3 (universal fit)

Tonality wise, there is some similarities between the two. 1964 Ears V3 is more linear and balance, like AD01 with around 2 dB less bass and around 2 dB more treble. Bass it tighter, faster, with better texture on 1964 Ears V3, and treble is more sparkling with better texture as well. Most obvious is the level of perceived detail and clarity that, as expected, is better on the 1964 Ears V3. For movie, AD01 wins the low bass rumble. While 1964 Ears V3 is better on other sonic characters. Beside the different emphasize of the tonality, what I like from both are the smooth frequency response that sounds natural to my ears.
 
 

Comparison with other dual dynamic drivers IEMs

 

 
Comparison with ATH-IM50 (one way dual dynamic)
Those who like ATH-IM50 sound signature will most probably like AD01 as well. They share the natural bassy signature, with more or less similar level of bass emphasize. IM50 emphasizes more on the mid bass, faster attack and punch harder with slightly better bass dynamic, while AD01 has more sub bass, therefore bass sounds bigger with more sub bass rumble, but slightly slower. For movie, I slightly prefer the AD01 bass signature that sounds bigger and reaches lower. ATH-IM50 mids is more forward and intimate, while AD01 mids is more laid back. ATH-IM50 treble is a little rolled off on the upper end and slightly less sparkling than AD01 treble. If AD01 perceived as balanced, than ATH-IM50 is slightly 'n' shape with less sub bass and upper treble extension. But if we perceived ATH-IM50 as the balance reference, than AD01 is slightly V shape. Both are more or less are quite balance in my book. My personal preference leans slightly to the AD01. The slightly laid back presentation and the extra low end and upper end coverage makes the overall presentation bigger and more spacious. AD01 also has slightly smoother texture.
 
Comparison with ATH-IM70 (one way dual dynamic)
ATH-IM70 and ATH-IM50 sound pretty close. IM70 is only a tad more refined, a tad smoother treble. There rest are about the same. Beside the differences described above, one important thing to be mentioned is the fit and comfort. Both ATH-IM50 and ATH-IM70 are design to be worn over the ears, and due to the design, some people have issue with the fitting. AD01 conventional bullet shape design is actually more flexible for any wearing style, and also allow deeper insertion into ear canal. Therefore AD01 will be most likely has less fitting issue.
 
 
 

 
Comparison with Narmoo S1 (two ways dual dynamic)
When I tried AD01 for the first time, it immediately reminded my of one of my favorite IEM, the Narmoo S1. When I compared them, I was right, they surprisingly sound really close. So close that I guess they must be designed by the same IEM engineer, or at least using the same drivers. According the their website Narmoo S1 is using 10 mm woofer and 6 mm tweeter, while AD01 is using 9.8 mm woofer and 6.0 mm tweeter. They have the same sensitivity at 102dB/1mW (S.P.L at 1KHz), so I don't have to do any volume adjustment when comparing them. Most probably they utilize the same drivers. There is a slight difference in impedance; Narmoo S1 is rated at 10 ohms, while AD01 is 9 ohms.  Anyway, they sound surprisingly very close to my ears. After comparing them for hours using the same large bore ear tips, I would say their tonal balance is really close, like 95% similar. AD01 is like a tad smoother and more refined, slightly deeper sub bass, and has a few percents improvement in dynamic. There is a very slight difference in presentation, where Narmoo S1 is a little more forward than AD01. Besides that, other physical differences are, Narmoo S1 shell feels very light and some users reported slight discomfort from the knurling texture. AD01 shell feels heavier, smoother surface, and more solid. AD01 cable is detachable, and Narmoo S1 cable is not. I experienced driver flex with Narmoo S1, while there is no driver flex with AD01. So, are those differences justify the price difference? Depend on the priority. Some people prefer detachable cable, and some allergic to driver flex, so the price difference is justifiable. But those on tight budget, Narmoo S1 is really a good alternative for those looking for a fun sounding IEM with deep and good bass. Both are highly recommended in my book.
 

 
 
Comparison with MEElectronics M-Duo (two ways dual dynamic)
There is no contest here, AD01 sounds way better than M-Duo. M-Duo tonal balance is not natural, the midrange sounds muffled, bass is boomy and loose, the mid bass is over emphasized, and the high frequency driver doesn't sound coherent with the low frequency driver. I don't have to write further, AD01 is a clear winner here.
 
Comparison with TDK IE800 (two ways dual dynamic)
Though TDK IE800 is a dual dynamic drivers IEM, somehow I always have the impression that TDK IE800 sounds like an excellent dual balanced armature drivers IEM. IE800 has good micro detail, and share some signature of balanced armature IEM. IE800 has neutral, flat frequency response, especially from mids to treble. Bass level is slightly lower than my personal preference. Perceived like Bass -1 and Treble 0 in comparison to the midrange. IE800 has slightly better perceived detail and clarity as compared to the AD01, but lacking in dynamic, and also lacking in bass. IE800 always sound like it is a hard to drive IEM. Very good tonal balance but rather lacking in dynamic, similar to what I often hear from a good dual BA IEMs. Though tonality wise AD01 is not as neutral as IE800, AD01 offers a lot more power and oomph. Many recordings sound good on IE800, but for certain music like EDM, good dynamic is a must. IE800 sounds very good, but AD01 sounds more enjoyable.
 
 
 

Comparison with other IEMs in similar price category

 

 
Comparison with Yamaha EPH-100
Yamaha EPH-100 has a smooth 'dark chocolate' type of sound signature, some mild emphasize on the lower midrange with nice smooth chocolaty texture. A little more colored than AD01. EPH-100 is slightly darker than AD01, the upper treble rolls off earlier. AD01 has better frequency extension than EPH-100, more sub bass and more transparent upper treble. Bass to mid bass level is approximately about the same, but AD01 bass extends lower. EPH-100 tonality is somewhere close to ATH-IM50 and ATH-IM70, but with slightly less treble extension. EPH-100 has about the same smooth texture as the AD01. EPH-100 was one of my favorite front mounted micro driver IEM, but now I prefer AD01 over EPH-100 for a more spacious imaging and a more extended frequency response.
 
Comparison with Brainwavz S5
Brainwavz S5 emphasizes more on clarity, and sounds brighter. Perceived detail and clarity are better on S5. Bass is faster and punchier on S5, but also slightly thinner and doesn't have sub bass rumble as good as AD01. Bass is not lacking on S5, but clearly less emphasized. Both have smooth frequency response, but different emphasize. I indicated AD01 Bass as +1 and Treble as -1 with comparison to the midrange, and S5 would be Bass -1 and Treble +1. Both are very good IEMs, about in the same class, only different emphasize in tonality. Both represent my tolerable margin for bassy or bright IEMs. More bassy than AD01 I would call too bassy, and brighter than S5 I would call too bright. Currently 1964 Ears V3 is my reference for 0, or flat tonality. For movie and EDM, AD01 would be my choice. While for classical music, Brainwavz S5 is the better choice.
 
 
 
 

Features and Specifications

 
The stock black cable is a little coiling, and the upgrade copper color cable is more flexible and doesn't coil as much. As for the sound quality between the 2 cables, the difference is minimal. From what I can hear, the upgrade cable is only a tad more transparent and smoother, just a tad. While the black cable is a tad dryer in texture. I asked a friend of mine to compare the 2 cables, and he has more or less the same impression. Honestly the difference is very little, and not at the level that I might be able to pass in a blind test. IMHO, the benefit from the upgrade cable is more on the flexibility and the quality of the cable's jacket which does feel much better than the stock black cable.
 

 

 
 
I like the 2mm DC connector for the connection to the driver. The main benefit as compared to 2 pins connector, the cylindrical DC connector is rotate-able, so when wearing the earphones over the ears, we can just rotate it to adjust the cable placement on the ear to make the cable stays nicely on the ear. MMCX connector is also rotate-able but a bit loose, while the 2mm DC connector is more firm and doesn't rotate loosely like MMCX.
 
 

 

 
 

Specification:

Driver unit: 9.8mm and 6.0mm Dual Dynamic Driver
Rated Impedance: 9 Ohm
Sensitivity: 102 dB/mW
Frequency response: 10Hz- 25KHz
Rated power: 10 mW
Maximum input power: 30 mW
Plug: 3.5mm dual-channel plug
Cable: Detachable Y cable, 1.30 m, 18N OFC cable
Nozzle size: 4.5 mm
Colour: Black and Silver
 
 
 
I consider Alpha and Delta AD01 a successful beginning of LMUE house brand. I'm saying this not just for the sake of review, but I've been observing myself that since I have AD01, I've been reaching to it quite often, more than my other IEMs. Probably I'm in the mood for good bass. But to be honest, I like it a lot, and I placed AD01 in my list of highly recommended IEMs. Clearly one of the best bassy IEM I ever had. Kudos to Lend Me UR Ears!
 

 
 
 
 

Equipment used in this review:

 

[size=20.007px]Earphones / IEMs:[/size]

1964 Ears V3
Audio-Technica ATH-IM50
Audio-Technica ATH-IM70
DUNU DN-2000
MEElectronics M-Duo
Narmoo S1
TDK IE800
Brainwavz S5
Yamaha EPH-100
 

DAPs & DACs:

AudioQuest Dragonfly 1.0c
Cayin C5 DAC
Centrance DACport
Fiio X3 2nd gen
iBasso DX90
Samsung Galaxy S4
 

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
 
 
 

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.

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:

 

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

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

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

 
 
 
 

Summary:

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

 
 
 

Pros:

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

Cons:

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

Suggestions For Improvement:

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

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:

 
 
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

 

 

 

Thanks to Brainwavz for the review samples of the HM5 pleather and velour earpads replacement!
 

 
 
These replacement earpads are meant for Brainwavz HM5 headphone, but Brainwavz told me, size wise, they are compatible with other headphones from other brands, such as Audio-Technica ATH-M50 and the variant. I tried, the earpads, size wise also compatible with ATH-MSR7.
 
I don't have Brainwavz HM5 headphone, so I will test it with ATH-M50LE and ATH-MSR7.
 

 

 
 
Sorry the color of the pleather pad is rather off on the pictures. The correct brown color of the earpad is close to the first picture.  Both the pleather and velour earpads are the same size, and they are larger and thicker than the M50LE and MSR7 original earpads.
 
 

 

 

 

 
 
Size wise they are compatible with both ATH-M50LE and ATH-MSR7, and due to larger size and thicker pads, they are generally more comfortable than the stock earpads. The velour earpad is more comfortable than the pleather earpad, but generally both are comfortable.
 
 
 
 
Sound Quality on ATH-M50LE and ATH-MSR7
 
Pleather earpad on ATH-MSR7
Reduces the overall loudness by around 3 dB.
Reduces the midrange level, and a little bit of bass. Midrange sounds recessed, resulting a V shape tonality. Vocal becomes slightly more prone to sibilant. 
Overall tonal balance is still relatively acceptable.
 
Velour earpad on ATH-MSR7
Reduce the overall loudness by around 5 dB.
Reduce the bass and lower midrange area quite significantly, around 6 dB, resulting bright tonality, with thin and bright midrange, and lacking in bass.
Overall tonal balance is not acceptable.
 
Pleather earpad on ATH-M50
Reduces the overall loudness by around 2 dB.
Reduces the midrange level, and a little bit of low bass. Midrange sounds recessed, resulting a V shape tonality. Vocal becomes slightly more prone to sibilant. But the effect is less than when compared to the Pleather earpad on MSR7, less V shape tonality.
Overall tonal balance is still acceptable, more acceptable than the sonic changes by the pleather earpad on MSR7.

 
Velour earpad on ATH-M50
Reduce the overall loudness by around 4 dB.
Reduce the bass and lower midrange area quite significantly, around 6 dB, resulting bright tonality, with thin and bright midrange, and lacking in bass.
Overall tonal balance is not acceptable.

 
 
Sound wise, the sonic changes by the pleather earpad is generally more acceptable than the velour earpad. The velour earpad makes the M50LE and MSR7 sound too bright.
 
 
Those are good quality earpads, and designed best for Brainwavz HM5 headphone.

First of all, a very Big Thanks to Audio-Technica Singapore for the loan of the demo unit of ATH-W1000Z, The Maestoso!
 
Website:
http://www.audio-technica.com/cms/headphones/6664e5258c491bd1/index.html
 

 
 
 
ATH-W1000Z, the Maestoso, is the 11th generation of Audio-Technica's W Series. It shares some similarities with the predecessor, ATH-W1000X, the Grandioso, the 10th generation of Audio-Technica's W Series. Similar 53 mm driver size, similar range of frequency response, similar maximum input power, and also similarly priced. For those who are familiar with Grandioso, Maestoso is not a new headphone with new characteristics, but more of an upgrade or improved version of the Grandioso.
 
I would categorize the Maestoso as a boutique headphone. Like boutique microphones that are sought after for their unique sound signature, the Maestoso also has its own unique, lightly flavored sound signature. Compared to the Grandioso from memory recollection, the Maestoso is more natural sounding with milder sonic flavor, and would probably reach wider audiences while still faithful to the Audio-Technica house sound.
 
As always, it’s pretty much depending on individual preferences, those who enjoy the discontinued Grandioso would probably give the new Maestoso 5 stars rating due to the improvement in sound. But professional audio engineers who expect a headphone with plain vanilla sonic characteristic for mixing and mastering, would probably rate it less. I rate it 4 stars for the sound quality, as I reserve 4.5 to 5 stars for headphones with less flavored sonic signature. But I would give 4.5 stars for the design, the beautiful wooden cup, excellent build, classy looks, and innovative design.  IMHO the Maestoso is more for audiophile and headphone aficionado, who like to own a unique and good quality headphone, and appreciate various flavors of sonic signatures.
 

 
 
I had the Maestoso for more than a month, and had quite a good time with it, long enough to know its sound signature pretty well (not a 15 minutes test on a local headphone shop). A friend of mine once said, first impression matters most (in context of testing audio equipment). I disagree. From years of experience of testing audio equipment, It is really not fair to judge an equipment sound quality base on first impression or short period of audition. Generally I need weeks with hours of listening, mix and match with other equipment, to give a fair judgement of the sound quality of an audio equipment. Sometime we probably impressed at first impression, but after sometime the excitement subside, or probably turn to dislike. It can be the other way around, negative first impression, but after sometime the excitement grows positive. After spending weeks with the Maestoso, I would say, I enjoyed it. The Maestoso is really a beautifully designed headphone, lightweight and comfortable thanks to the 3D wing support mechanism, and most important, it has an enjoyable sound signature!
 
Currawong posted the unboxing video of ATH-W1000Z here:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QtY8kjBnzpE
 
The build quality of ATH-W1000Z is excellent. The Teak wooden cup is really elegant and very well made. Instead of the American Black Cherry wood used for the ATH-W1000X, the ATH-W1000Z uses Teak wood. Colour wise, it is not as bright & vibrant as the ATH-W1000X Cherry wood, but darker, pretty close to the brown colour of milk chocolate. My old Panasonic GF1 camera tends to produce brighter brown than the brown colour of the W1000Z Teak wooden cup. So I did spend some time on Photoshop to adjust the colour, to make the brown colour matches as close as possible to the real Teak wooden cup, at least on my monitor.
 

 
 
Although size wise ATH-W1000Z has larger ear cups than Beyerdynamic T1, but ATH-W1000Z is lighter in weight, lighter than both T1 and HD800, and only slightly heavier than the ultra-light Shure SRH1540. Ergonomically, it fits my head quite well. The different thickness on some area of the ear pads fits nicely, as well as the 3D wing support mechanism. Headband pressure is comparable to T1 and HD800, but due to the wide area of the ear pads, the headband pressure is distributed to wider area, therefore feels slightly lighter. The leather ear pads of ATH-W1000X feel very nice and quite comfortable for me. But we all have different head size, so comfort wise, YMMV. For smaller size heads, I read that the 3D wings support might not provide an adequate support. I guess a simple elastic strap between the 3D wings might improve the support. Just an idea, to be tested.
 

 
 
The cable is made of 4 cores 6N OFC. 4 cores are better than 3 cores, because the ground wire for the left and right drivers are separated to reduce crosstalk. The cable size and flexibility is good, and not easily tangled. But the 3 meters length is too long for me. I do prefer detachable cable for a headphone at this calibre. From practical reasons that we need different length of cable for different circumstances, and easy replacement when the cable is faulty, to a more advance reasons like to use better cables and to be able to drive it in balance. I hope the next generation of the W series would adopt detachable cable. The headphone jack is the 6.5 mm (1/4") size with wooden barrel, and no adapter to 3.5 mm is included. The Maestoso is actually telling us, don't try to plug me to your smartphone or portable devices, I need proper desktop amplifier. This is quite true. Even though Maestoso is relatively easy to drive, it does require a good quality matching amplifier to shine.
 

 
 
 
Highlights:
Successful upgrade of ATH-W1000X.
Sweet and smooth tonality with some emphasize on clarity.
Sounds best with vocal, jazz, & classical chamber music recordings.
Good quality and matching amplifier is required for best performance. Preferably tube or hybrid amplifier.
 
Pros:
Excellent build with elegant design.
Light weight and comfortable.
 
Cons:
Non-detachable cable.
 
Suggestions for improvement:
Improve bass speed and texture.
Detachable cable.
Removable elastic strap between the 3D wings, to improve support for smaller size head.
 

 
 
 
 
Sound Quality
 
For about a couple of years, I had the Grandioso, ATH-W1000X a few years ago, till I sold it. From memory recollection of the Grandioso, the Maestoso still carries some of the Grandioso sound signature, the refined clarity, forward midrange presentation, and spacious imaging. But Maestoso bass has improved from Grandioso. I sold my Grandioso simply because it doesn't have enough bass to my liking. Maestoso has taken a more balanced approach, and no longer bass shy. Maestoso is still slightly mid-centric, slight emphasize on the midrange area like many of the AT Woodies, but overall tonal balance is more balanced, more linear than the Grandioso. I don't hear any annoying frequency irregularity, overall tonal balance is quite smooth from bass to treble, with only mild emphasized around the midrange area, as expected from the AT wooden series.
 
The ATH-W1000X Grandioso I had a few years ago:

 
 
Bass level though still slightly behind the midrange level, but doesn't sound anaemic. Bass level is slightly less than the new ATH-MSR7 I reviewed recently, but better than the old Grandioso. Pretty close, to the bass level of Beyerdynamic T1, with T1 bass has slightly better speed, texture, and impact, and the Maestoso bass has slightly better bass body. Good bass quality with sufficient bass level to me is a must for good headphone, and Maestoso bass, I would say is sufficient though still slightly less from what I call realistic bass level. Bass quality is pretty good, with sufficient low bass extension. Though I would like to hear better bass texture and speed for a headphone at this price range. I know some people that like Grandioso tonality, and I think Grandioso fans won't be disappointed with the bass tuning of W1000Z, because the increase of the bass level is not drastic, just nice to improve the overall tonal balance.
 
Midrange is silky smooth and sounds very refined. Midrange to lower treble area is mildly emphasized, sounds like wide 3 dB hump at around 300 Hz to 5 kHz area, slightly higher at around 1.5kHz - 3.5kHz. Even though the 1.5kHz - 3.5kHz is slightly emphasized, but vocal is very smooth, with a touch of warmness, and I can safely say that the Maestoso although not immune, but it is not prone to sibilant. Vocal clarity is slightly emphasized without adding sibilant. Excellent! Maestoso also leaves plenty of room to be paired with good tube amplifier for additional warmness. I tested Maestoso with Audio-Technica flagship headphone amplifier, AT-HA5050H that has tube stage, also with my favourite hybrid tube amp, AT-HA22TUBE, vocal sounds wonderful, warm, intimate, yet transparent, without sounding overly warm and muddy. The mild emphasize on midrange gives forward presentation to the vocal, but can still be considered a natural presentation, not too forward. I guess fans of AT woodies will love the lightly flavoured, clear and smooth vocal of the Maestoso.
 
The treble is like the bass, has excellent coherency with the midrange. Silky smooth, detailed & transparent, only slightly behind the midrange level. Treble is well extended and has good transparency. Treble always sounds clear and transparent, and not prone to sibilant. Although it won't hide or smoothen out sibilant, but so far I don't have problem with sibilant. The lower treble is slightly more emphasized than the upper treble, I guess due to the smooth transition from the upper midrange.
 

 
 
I like the imaging on Maestoso, relatively wide and spacious for a closed back headphone. Never sound congested with all the setups that I tried. Instrument separation and localization are good and clear.
 
Perceived detail and clarity are very good, the clarity from the Audio-Technica house sound helps to improve the perceived detail. Maestoso has higher clarity and perceived detail than my Shure SRH1540. Though on some recording, especially female vocal, the clarity can be sometime a bit too emphasized for my taste. That's where the warm tube amplifier plays its role, to tame down the slightly over emphasized clarity. Though overall perceived detail is excellent, but the level of detail is slightly reduced on the bass area. Something to be improved on the next model.
 
I prefer to play smooth and relax type of music on Maestoso. In my opinion, Maestoso is not the best choice for fast pace music with too complex fast passages and energetic bass. Audiophile vocal, relax Jazz tracks, and classical chamber music are what the Maestoso does best. The Maestoso might not be the best all-rounder, but it does really well on what it does best.
 
 
 
 
Amplifier Matching
 
The 43 ohms (101 dB/mW) ATH-W1000Z doesn't require high voltage output amplifier. My normal listening, when measured at 0 dBFS sine wave, only in the range of 0.3-0.5 Vrms, and so far doesn't exceed 0.7 Vrms. Any amplifier with up to 1 Vrms output would be sufficient for ATH-W1000Z, which is practically most amps and players. But, big BUT, the Maestoso does need good quality matching amp to perform well. The 6.5 mm jack is suggesting that Maestoso is to be driven by desktop amplifier, not portable devices.
 
The sound signature of the amplifier is more important for the Maestoso. Warm and full sounding amplifier with tight & good bass is preferable to improve the lower mid and bass area. Combined with the clarity of the Maestoso, they will create an enjoyable mix. But not all warm sounding amplifier is good for Maestoso, it must be the one with good level of detail and tight bass. Bass area of the Maestoso is not very detailed, so mellow sounding amp with loose bass will make it worst. Good quality tube amplifier would be the better choice for Maestoso.
 

 
 
I had the chance to loan and review the pre-production unit of Audio-Technica flagship, AT-HA5050H. AT-HA5050H is one of the best amplifier for the Maestoso. But AT-HA5050H is not yet available on the market. And at around $ 6k it would be out of radar for many audiophiles. Other good and simple setup is my Yulong DA8 headphone output which is natural sounding, detailed, with a touch of warmness.  With Yulong DA8 headphone output, I can hear pretty good bass texture and speed from Maestoso. Connecting the AT-HA22TUBE amplifier to the line output of Yulong DA8 is another good setup that I like. Smoother and more intimate vocal, but bass texture is slightly less compared to Yulong DA8 headphone output. Pretty similar result from ifi micro iDSD + AT-HA22TUBE. Yulong DA8 + Yulong A28 using balanced connection is also works well for Maestoso. The rather dark and warm signature of Yulong A28 matches quite well with Maestoso. The extra clarity tamed down nicely by the Yulong A28. Though the tonality is nice, but the soundstage slightly reduced, not as wide and spacious as other setups.
 

 
 
Beside the above setups, I would highly recommend the ifi stacks for the Maestoso:
ifi micro iDSD >> ifi micro iTube >> ifi micro iCan >> Maestoso
ifi micro iDSD settings: Filter: Bit-Perfect, Power mode: Normal, Line Out: Direct.
ifi micro iTube set as buffer (0 dB).
ifi micro iCan set at 0 dB gain.
 

 
 
Smooth & detailed, warm, organic sounding, good bass, clean and transparent high, and spacious imaging. Music is presented with more energy and very musically engaging. And the bass is so good, tight with good punch, better when compared to other setups I tried. The ifi stacks is simply an awesome setup for Maestoso! Also tried direct from the micro iDSD headphone output, unfortunately micro iDSD headphone output is not good enough for Maestoso, flat and thin sounding, lacking of depth and dynamic. Bypassed the micro iTube, using only iDSD and iCan, pretty good, but tonal density, warmness, and bass not as good as when the whole three ifi micros work together. So all the three micros are essential to get the most from the Maestoso. Highly recommended!
 
All mentioned setups sound enjoyable. The Maestoso is easy to drive, but scales up really well with good and matching amplifier. Smart phones and low power portable devices simply don't do justice to Maestoso. When planning to buy the Maestoso, I strongly advise to plan for a good quality tube / hybrid amplifier as well, if you don't have any. The Maestoso is not a good investment without good quality matching amplifier.
 
 
 
 
Comparisons
 
Honestly, I cannot do fair comparisons for Maestoso, because I don't have other 'boutique' closed back headphones in my collection. Most of my collections are more of the professional audio monitoring headphones.  Probably HE5-LE can be considered as a boutique headphone, but it is an open back. So just for the sake of comparison, I will compare the Maestoso with some of my reference headphones.
 

 
 
Shure SRH1540
SRH1540 is more laidback, while Maestoso is slightly more forward than natural. Different presentation, but both are enjoyable, depending on personal preference. As for my preference, sometime the Maestoso is a bit too forward on some recordings. Maestoso emphasizes more on the upper midrange - treble area, while SRH1540 emphasizes more on the lower midrange - bass area. Maestoso has higher perceived clarity, faster transient, more impactful, with a more lively presentation. Also higher perceived details. SRH1540 sounds warmer, more relax and laid back, with more powerful bass and better low bass extension. Even though SRH1540 is positioned as a professional monitoring headphones, to my ears both SRH1540 and Maestoso are mildly flavored tonally, not yet as linear sounding as Beyerdynamic T1. At least to my ears. So, again depending on personal preferences of sonic flavors, and which headphone match better with the available setup.
 
Both Maestoso and SRH1540 have very good imaging. Maestoso with clearer presentation easily perceived as having clearer and more spacious imaging. I would say the Maestoso is slightly better on imaging, more spacious and clearer instrument separation.
 
As for comfort, the ultra-light SRH1540 with Alcantara ear pads is among the most comfortable closed back headphone I've ever tried. The Maestoso is comfortable, and I have no comfort problem with it. I wore the Maestoso for hours with no comfort issue. But SRH1540 is slightly more comfortable.
 
Beyerdynamic T1
Beyerdynamic T1 is currently my main reference headphone. T1 is open back design, so not an apple to apple comparison with the Maestoso. So I will just compare the tonality and detail, without the soundstage. As a professional headphone, T1 sounds more linear tonally. When paired with a matching amplifier, T1 sounds linear, and I don't hear any peaks and dips on the frequency response. When I reviewed T1 in 2010, I was expecting slightly more bass from T1. But recently, when I tested T1 with AT-HA5050H headphone amplifier, the bass level was perfect. So matching amplifier is the key to get the most from our headphone.
 
Tonally, both Maestoso and T1 sound smooth and refined. As described previously, the Maestoso has wide and shallow midrange hump when compared to T1. Bass level is pretty close, being closed back, the Maestoso has slightly fuller bass body. Treble quality, T1 wins. T1 treble is more linear, airy and transparent. But most probably due to the open back design. So not really a fair comparison. Maestoso treble, as a closed back headphone, is superb. Well extended and transparent. So if the closed back design is taken into consideration, I would say Maestoso treble is comparable to T1.
 
Perceived detail and clarity are the strength of both headphones. Both are very detailed and super clear sounding. And sometime the clarity sounds a bit too emphasized, and I will need to soften the clarity using good quality tube amp. Both Maestoso and T1 love good tube amplifiers.
 
Sennheiser HD800
Similar to T1, HD800 being an open back headphone is not really a compatible comparison for Maestoso. So the comparison is strickly on the tonality and perceived detail, since many know HD800, comparison of the tonality might be useful.
 
Honestly I often annoyed by the HD800 treble peak, so I have much longer head hour with T1 than HD800. I know it can be solved by some modification. But after modification, it is not the original HD800 anymore, and it makes me difficult to do a fair comparison with others for review. In short, HD800 treble is often too hot for me, even when using tube amps. I've a friend who uses HD800 for hours while working at home. We bought the HD800 together, same batch with close serial number. So, we do hear things differently, some people are not that sensitive to the HD800 treble. Or probably I'm too sensitive to hot treble. Either way, I hope readers can gauge from my explanation. I use to cut the 7 kHz peak at foobar around 6 dB to make the treble level sounds acceptable to me (comparable treble level to T1). My foobar equalizer for HD800:
 

 
 
Beside the 7 kHz treble peak, HD800 has more linear, flatter tonal balance in other areas. As mentioned earlier, Maestoso emphasized on different frequency area, which is around 300Hz to 5kHz, a wide hump instead of a peak. HD800, being an open back, sounds more airy and transparent. The Maestoso sounds smoother and more intimate. If I would use equalizer to flatten the tonality (though it is also nice without eq), here is 'roughly' my foobar equalizer for Maestoso (slightly different for different recordings):
 

 
 
Bass level is comparable; Maestoso is a tad fuller, while HD800 bass is tighter, punchier, with better detail and texture. It doesn't mean that Maestoso bass is lacking in texture, but HD800 bass has better texture, and hits harder.
 
HD800 is king of detail. As expected, HD800 level of detail is higher than Maestoso. But higher level of detail it doesn't mean than HD800 is more musical. Sometime the high level of detail combined with the treble peak, might easily causes ears fatigue. Although not as detailed as HD800, Maestoso has good level of detail, sound smoother, and more relaxing.
 
Comparing the two, it is really boils down to individual preference, for more airy and transparent, or smoother and intimate sounding. Both have very different sound signature, and are great in their own way.
 
 
 
 
In summary, ATH-W1000Z, the Maestoso, is a successful upgrade from the previous model, ATH-W1000X, the Grandioso. It has excellent build quality, classy looking headphone that nicely combined the classic look of the wooden housings and modern design of the headband. Very enjoyable sound signature with the right setup. The Maestoso is truly an elegant boutique headphone that is a must have for headphone collectors and aficionados.
 
 
 
 
Disclaimer:
I am not affiliated to Audio-Technica in any way. I often get loan of Audio-Technica products because I have some friends from Audio-Technica Singapore that often generously loan me their products.
 
 
 
 

 
 
Specifications:
Type: Closed-back Dynamic
Driver Diameter: 53 mm
Voice Coil: OFC-6N
Frequency Response: 5 – 42,000 Hz
Maximum Input Power: 2,000 mW
Sensitivity: 101 dB/mW
Impedance: 43 ohms
Weight: 320 g
Cable: 3.0 m (dual-sided), 4-core parallel cable/OFC6N + OFC/Elastomer sheath
Connector: 6.3 mm (1/4") gold-plated plug with wooden sleeve
HOUSING: Teak
 
 
Equipment used in this review:
 
Headphones:
Audio-Technica W1000Z (loan)
Audio-Technica MSR7LTD
Beyerdynamic T1
Sennheiser HD 800
Shure SRH1540
 
DACs & Headphone Amplifiers:
Audio-Technica AT-HA5050H
Audio-Technica AT-HA22TUBE
ifi micro iDSD
ifi micro iTube (loan, thanks to @igndenny)
ifi micro iCan
Yulong DA8
Yulong A28
 
Cables:
AmazonBasics USB 3.0 A-Male to A-Female Extension Cable - 2 meters
Atlas Equator MKIII Integra RCA cable (0.5m)
Better Cables RCA cable - Silver Serpent Anniversary Edition (6 inch)
Pangea Audio - USB cable - PCOCC & 4% silver - 2 Meters
QED Reference Audio Evolution XLR cable (DIY 40 cm cable)
Wireworld Equinox XLR cable (DIY 40 cm cable)
 
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:
 

Last October 2014, Audio Technica Singapore informed me about their plan for their new products launch. When we met, i had the chance to test the new ATH-MSR7. Connected it to my iBasso DX90, I was immediately impressed with it. Sounds good looks good. Probably one of the best looking AT headphone from modern design perspective, MSR7 is simply gorgeous and elegant. The housing is made of a mix of aluminum and magnesium, and some plastic parts. Build quality is excellent with premium feel. MSR7 is available in 3 colors, Black, Gunmetal, and Red for the MSR7LTD. The MSR7LTD with red colour and gold accent must be Tony Stark favorite headphone. 5 stars for the design.
 
http://www.audio-technica.com/cms/headphones/9f55d2de9afd8f31/index.html
http://www.audio-technica.com.sg/node/799
 
Discussion thread:
http://www.head-fi.org/t/738758/new-audio-technica-ath-msr7-and-ath-msr7ltd


 

 

 

 
 
Curious how's MSR7 performs, I borrowed it from AT Singapore for review, together with the ATH-M50LE & ATH-M50x for comparison.  
Our perception of what we consider as natural tonal balance, tonal balance that we perceived as having balance composition across the audible spectrum of frequency, might be varied one to another. Beside influenced by personal preferences, the way we perceive tonal balance of a pair of headphones also depend a lot on the recordings we use for evaluation. So, in my opinion, 'perceived natural tonal balance' is not something exact like measured frequency response, but to be understood with some degree of variation in mind. Comparing the 3 models, MSR7, M50x, and M50LE, though having different sound signature, their tonality is more or less still in the range of relatively balanced tonal balance. Each has slight different emphasize on certain frequency regions creating different sonic characters. I would say, sound quality wise they are about in the same league. Truly great performer headphones from Audio Technica. They also have similar size. Comparing the three, it is not about which one is a better headphones, but which one matches better with ones personal preference and their system. Since many might be familiar with M50LE and M50x sound signatures, it would be easier to describe MSR7 sound signature, using the older models as comparison. Design wise, MSR7 is distinctively different (subjectively nicer) from the professional look of M50LE and M50x. But sound signature wise, they are complementing each other to accommodate various individual preferences.
 

 
 

 
Pros:
Very nice design, modern and elegant with premium feel.
Metal aluminum/magnesium mix housing, for lightweight and rigid housing structure.
Very reasonably priced for the sound quality and build. Excellent value!
 
Cons:
Sound signature is sensitive to pairing with different amplifier or player. Careful pairing to get matching amplifier or player is recommended. May sounds analytical with moderate level of sibilant when paired with analytical sounding amplifier. Warm sounding amplifier, such as tube amplifier, is highly recommended for MSR7.  
Suggestions For Improvement:
To adopt 4 pins / poles connector at the headphone end to separate ground wire for the left and right drivers.
Slightly deeper and more spacious ear pad for larger ears.
 
 
 
Sound Signature
 
As good as it looks, MSR7 doesn't dissapoint. It sounds relatively balanced with some emphasize on clarity. Wide frequency coverage, good low bass and upper treble extension, with mild emphasize around the upper mid area (around 3-4 dB @ 3 kHz). It leans more towards clarity, and may close to borderline of analytical sounding when paired with analytical sounding amplifier. With some extra clarity, MSR7 loves tube amps and other smooth and warm sounding source such as my Centrance DACport. Also tested, that MSR7 pairs wonderfully with Audio Technica AT-HA22TUBE amplifier. With matching amp, MSR7 sounds balanced and natural, and I don't consider it analytical. But clearly not for those looking for warm and intimate sounding headphone.
 
I learned that MSR7 sound signature may varies greatly with different amplifiers and players. This is one factor that MSR7 is quite different from M50LE and M50x, that MSR7 is more sensitive to pairing, while M50LE and M50x are relatively more amplifier friendly. During the review, the pairing factor is significant enough to make me dislike it, or like it. For example, I don't like MSR7 to be driven directly from my ifi iDSD Micro headphone output, rather analytical, edgy, and the upper mid hump sounds too obvious. Both are excellent products, but they simply don't match. When MSR7 is driven by DACport or AT-HA22TUBE, MSR7 sounds wonderful & pleasing, music to my ears. So don't give up too quickly when you try MSR7 and it doesn't sound very good, probably it hasn't met the right partner. Do consider to try it with warmer sounding amp or player. Choosing the right amp or player for MSR7 should be seriously taken into consideration when testing or buying MSR7. Impression in this review is based on the setups that sound good to me, mostly with my DACport and Yulong DA8. My Fiio E12DIY with AD8599 Op-Amp + LME49600 buffer also matches MSR7 sound signature quite well. In the recent Audio Technica product launch event in Singapore, the setup of AT-HA90USB (DAC) > AT-HA22TUBE (Amp) > MSR7, really amazed me. 
 
 
 

With various amplifiers, players, and DACs I've tried, MSR7 sound quality would be ranging from 3.5 to 4.5 stars. 4.5 stars is for setups with very well matching amplifier or DAC, like the AT-HA22TUBE and Centrance DACport. I strongly suggest for MSR7 user to try AT-HA22TUBE. From all the setups I tried, MSR7 sounds best with AT-HA22TUBE, they seems to be designed to compliment each other. The pair sounds wonderfully musical! MSR7 bass sounds so good and full bodied, stronger than when paired with other system. Vocal sounds fuller and smoother with nice clarity. ATH-MSR7 + AT-HA22TUBE simply sounds a few times their price. When you plan to buy MSR7, spare some budget to buy AT-HA22TUBE as well. Trust me, it's worth it. 
 

 

 
 
MSR7 is relatively easy to drive, but the 35 ohms needs a little more voltage than average IEMs, and does benefit and scales well with proper amping. Though generally smartphones will be able to produce enough loudness, but they won't be able to show the true potential of MSR7.  
When comparing with the older model, the well known M50LE, MSR7 has around 3 dB less bass, and 3 dB more upper mid than M50LE. While M50x has slightly more V shape tonality, with slightly more bass and sparkling treble than M50LE. The slightly less bass and higher upper mid on MSR7 make it more forward sounding with higher perceived clarity than M50LE. Acoustic guitar recordings for example, sounds fantastic on MSR7, as well as other instrumental recordings.  
Using EQ (Reaper ReaEQ) to adjust the tonality of the MSR7 to make it closer to M50LE tonality, here is what I got:  
 
 
 
 
 
Please note, the above EQ doesn't make the MSR7 sounds like M50LE, only to bring the tonal balance of MSR7 closer to M50LE. The difference is only around 3 dB on some frequency regions, not much.  
 
Some simplified comparisons between the 3 models:  
Perceived linear tonal balance, more linear to less linear:
M50LE
MSR7, slightly more upper mid and less bass.
M50x, slightly more V shape tonality, with more bass and sparkling treble.  
Perceived clarity, higher to lesser:
MSR7
M50x
M50LE  
Bass volume, more to less:
M50x
M50LE
MSR7  
Presentation, Forward to Laidback:
MSR7
M50x
M50LE  
 
Although from the comparison above, some might concern that MSR7 doesn't have enough bass, MSR7 is definitely not bass anemic. But also clearly not for basshead. My personal preference for bass level is closer to M50LE, but I don't consider the MSR7 bass is lacking either. 3 dB different is not much. Especially with AT-HA22TUBE, bass sounds full bodied and musically engaging. MSR7 bass level is good and natural, with good detail, texture, and rich low bass extension, but MSR7 tonality is rather emphasized more on clarity than bass.  
Midrange sounds natural, and as mentioned above, rather forward sounding. Those who prefer Audio Technica forward vocal might like MSR7 vocal, while those who prefer laidback vocal will most likely prefer the M50LE vocal.  
The mild hump on the upper mid brings up a little the lower treble region as well. Pretty good for instrumental, but the lower treble emphasize makes MSR7 sounds a tad less airy than M50LE and M50x, especially on classical orchestra.  
Level of detail, dynamic, and imaging, on those 3 models are pretty close, and about in the same league. Very good level of detail, engaging dynamic, with reasonably spacious imaging for closed dynamic headphones. Noise isolation is excellent, most probably due to firm headband, good quality ear pad, and rigid metal housing.  
 



 
 
Design and Comfort  
Similar to M50LE and M50x, MSR7 can be folded and stored flat. This is a very useful feature, especially for traveling, to make it less bulky and takes less space in a bag.  
 
 
 
The headband clamping force / pressure is quite firm, more or less similar than M50LE and M50x. The MSR7 stays firm on head with very good noise isolation. The headband pressure level doesn't cause discomfort to me even after long period of wearing. But some people, especially ladies, might prefer lighter pressure headband. So for those sensitive with headband pressure, be sure to try it before buying. Please take note, similar with other closed headphones, proper fit is crucial for optimum bass response. Leaks by improper fit will reduce bass level.  
Ear pad size is quite similar to M50LE and M50x, but slightly shallower. It mildly touches my pinna (outer part of the ear) when I wear it. I do prefer larger and deeper pad.  
 
 
The drivers are angled toward the ears, again, similar to M50LE and M50x.  
 
 
 
Cable
MSR7 cable is detachable. It uses common stereo 3.5 mm stereo mini plug for connection at the headphone's side. But not any cable with 3.5 mm stereo mini plug can be used, it requires stereo mini plug with beveled step, for proper insertion. Stereo mini plug without beveled step cannot be properly inserted. I tried Oyaide HPC35 cable that I use for my Philips Fidelio X1, with MSR7. While Oyaide HPC35 matches really well with Fidelio X1, the slightly bright character of the cable doesn't match well with MSR7, a bit too much emphasize on clarity. For MSR7, I would prefer to use a more organic sounding cable rather than the analytical one.  
 
 
 
 
With Oyaide HPC35 cable.
 
 
The MSR7 unit I tried is a demo sample, without the box and complete accessories. According to Audio Technica website, 3 cables are provided, one with microphone for smartphones use.  
I actually prefer a separate ground wire for each left and right driver. Stereo 3.5 mm plug for connection to the headphone side doesn't separate the ground wire for the left and right drivers. Single shared ground wire for both drivers causes high level of crosstalk. I did some test and recabling for my ATH-M50 a while ago, to show that it is important to separate the ground wire for each driver, to reduce the level of crosstalk:
http://www.head-fi.org/t/484744/crosstalk-on-audio-technica-m50#post_6601078  
I believe that Audio Technica implemented 3.5 mm plug on the headphone side of MSR7 is simply for practical purpose. Easy for user to get replacement cable when the original cable is faulty. But single shared ground connection is not the best implementation for maximum sonic performance. 4 poles / pins connector that separate the ground wire for each driver is the better approach. Hopefully in the future Audio Technica will adopt 4 pins / poles connector for the headphone end, to separate the ground wire for each driver.  
 
 
Summary
ATH-MSR7 is a great performer from Audio Technica, with natural sound signature that inherited the clarity from Audio Technica house sound. Gorgeous design that simply looks good and sounds good. Kudos Audio Technica!  
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
Features and Specification:  
45mm ‘True Motion’ Hi-Res audio driver
Unique Dual-layer Air-control technology controls the air stream in the housings
Triple-venting acoustic airflow design
Layered metal structure to reduce unwanted resonance
Soft memory foam earpads for long-term listening comfort
Available in black (BK), gun metal (GM) and limited edition red (LTD)
 
Driver Diameter: 45mm
Maximum Input Power: 2000 mW
Frequency Response: 5 ~ 40,000 Hz
Sensitivity: 100 dB 
Impedance: 35 ohms
Weight: 290g
Connector: 3.5 mm gold-plated stereo mini plug
Cable: 1.2 m, 3.0m and 1.2m with mic for smartphones
Accessories Included: Pouch
 
 
Equipment used in this review:
 
Audio Technica AT-HA22TUBE: Very good sounding tube amplifier. Warm yet detailed.
Audio Technica AT-HA90USB: Mini desktop DAC with MUSES Op-Amp.
Audioquest Dragonfly v1.0c: DAC + HeadAmp combo. Marvelous little DAC. Transparent, airy, and powerful. Slightly lean to analytical sounding.
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.
Fiio E12DIY with AD8599 Op-Amp + LME49600 buffer: Portable headphone amplifier. One of my favorite portable headphone amplifier. Quiet, black background, clean and powerful sounding. AD8599 sounds smooth with good depth and spacious imaging, slightly dark, very smooth treble with very good and powerful bass. AD8599 is one of my favorite Op-Amp.
iBasso DX90: Portable player. Natural sounding, not warm and not analytical. Good dynamic, detail and resolution.
Yulong Sabre DA8: DAC + HeadAmp combo. My reference DAC beside my Mytek Stereo 192-DSD. One of the best DAC + HeadAmp combo I've ever heard. Very spacious, detailed, smooth, full bodied, realistic dynamic, and very musical.
Samsung Galaxy S4
 
 
Some recordings used in this review:
 
 
 
 

Disclaimer: I'm not working for, or affiliated with Audio Technica.
 
 
 
2015-10-08 Update:
After using MSR7LTD for a longer period, I increase the rating from 4 stars to 4.5 stars.
ATH-MSR7/LTD is really a great headphone, superb detail and resolution with good dynamic. Very transparent and revealing. Excellent for Pro Audio monitoring. Despite the rather bright tonality and strong headband clamping force, this model is actually an excellent headphone for Pro Audio, and those who like detail and transparency. It grows on me as I realizing, more of its potential, therefore I think it is deserve a better rating.

 

 
Brainwavz AP001 surely has the cute factor, from its small size and unique contemporary design. But that's for the look. As for features, we might wonder, why Brainwavz designed a headphone amplifier with no volume control, and 'always ON' bass enhancement. Honestly, though AP001 sounds fun and enjoyable, I would rate it 2 stars if I have to review it as a headphone amplifier, due to the missing of volume control and the 'always ON' bass enhancement feature. But from the beginning, I don't see AP001 as a headphone amplifier, but as headphone output 'Active Splitter'. That's where the 3.5 stars came from.
 
 
 

 
For those looking for real full featured headphone amplifier, you might look elsewhere, AP001 is not for you.  AP001 is a simple and good sounding headphone output active splitter. No button to press, and practically to be used like a passive splitter. The difference is, AP001 is an active splitter, with build-in battery and 2 separate amplifiers for the 2 headphone outputs, and input signal detector for auto switch ON when there is audio signal detected at the input.
 
 
 
Summary:
Unique, small, and simple to use headphone output active splitter. Pretty good sounding for the size and price, but quite prone to EMI.  
Pros:
Unique & innovative product. It is not very common to see such a small, light, and battery powered active splitter in the market.
Good battery life.
Pleasing, fun, and enjoyable sound. Especially for such a small device with small battery, at this price range.  
Cons:
Advertised as headphone amplifier, but without basic features of a headphone amplifier (volume control, bypass option for any tone control).
No option to bypass bass enhancement.
Slightly high noise floor, audible when using sensitive IEM.
Prone to EMI.
No soft start, a bit peaking when it switches ON.
Sometime not easily switched ON when a song started at low volume.
Max voltage output (~ 2.7 Vp-p on 33 ohm load) only suitable for easy to drive earphones and headphones.  
Suggestions for improvement:
Should be advertised as headphone active splitter, instead of headphone amplifier.
To use soft start to 'fade in' the music when it switches ON. A small switch to turn it ON, in my opinion is much better and more ear friendly than an automatic switch. The OFF timer is good, but to turn it ON, a dedicated switch with soft start is better.
Lower noise amplifier.
Option to turn OFF any tone control.
Full metal casing to reduce EMI noise.
 
 
 
Let me be clear from the beginning, that 3.5 stars rating I gave to AP001 is mostly for its unique and innovative design as a small, active headphone splitter, that is truly unique in the market. As for sound quality, it sounds surprisingly fun and enjoyable from such a small active device, but unfortunately prone to EMI. The interference noise from other electronic devices and mobile phones occasionally can be very annoying. If Brainwavz will continue AP001 product line, i strongly suggest using metal casing to reduce EMI noise. Otherwise the usage is limited to low EMI emitting devices.
 
 
 
 
Sound quality
AP001 sounds enjoyable when there is no EMI noise. Sound signature leans toward warm and organic sounding, with some moderate bass enhancement. Clarity is pretty good, but if Brainwavz can improve the clarity further, it would be great. AP001 has fun and enjoyable sound character, but not for those looking for highly detailed and clear sounding type of amplifier.
 
Bass enhancement is 'Always ON', comparing the peak to peak voltage of 100 Hz and 1kHz output, there is about 5.34 dB boost at around 100 Hz area (average measurement from both output 1 and 2).
 
Output 1 measurement:
 
 
The slight volume imbalance shown on the pictures is from the source, my laptop headphone output, not from AP100.

 
Bass to midrange area is the strong character of AP001. Bass and midrange are good, warm sounding and full bodied. Really good for thin sounding sources or recordings, as AP001 adds some bass enhancement and fuller sounding midrange. Although midrange is not very detailed, but midrange sounds good, warm and organic sounding, really nice on vocal. Bass is quite present, not very fast and punchy, but not boomy either. Bass enhancement is at moderate level, and doesn't ruin the midrange. I would say Brainwavz done it right for the bass boost, it sounds pretty good especially for thin bass recordings or system. Detail and and clarity are good but not AP001 main character, and I do prefer slightly more detail and airiness for classical music. Treble is on the soft side, and sounds pleasing to the ears, specially for modern genres.
 
 
 
Headphone Outputs
Maximum peak to peak output voltage is around 2.7 volts on 33 ohm load. Higher than my Samsung Galaxy S4 (1.03 volts), but generally not high enough for high impedance headphones. So usage would be around easy to drive low impedance headphones and earphones. Measured average headphone output impedance is 2.58 ohms.
 
Both outputs have dedicated amplifier. It is shown here, where output 1 Left channel is connected to 33 ohm load, and output 2 Left channel is connected to high impedance 1 Mega ohm load. The output voltage reading from the 2 outputs are different, indicating those outputs are driven by separate amplifiers.
 
 

 
Main Concerns
In my opinion, there are 2 things to be improved:
1. EMI immunity
2. Peaky start  
The EMI noise honestly quite annoying on AP001. AP001 is rather too prone to EMI. Too much EMI noise when used with mobile phone or other EMI emitting devices, including laptop computer. So far I prefer to use it with portable players that emits low EMI. AP001 vulnerability to EMI is something that has to be addressed immediately by Brainwavz.
 
AP001 doesn't have soft start feature, and the switch ON sensitivity is sometime a bit too low for song that starts with low volume. So when we have our IEM plugged into our ears, AP001 sounds peaky to the ears when it automatically switches ON. A bit uncomfortable for me. Usually I let it switched ON first by playing some music, before I plug in the IEM. I suggest to use soft start to 'fade in' the music, and to increase the switch ON sensitivity by lowering the level of input signal to triggers the automatic switch. Or even better, to use 'press to ON' switch on the next model of Brainwavz active splitter.
 
Blue LED for 'ON' indicator. When charging, the LED turns orange color.

 
 
 
After using it for a few days, I would say the AP001 sounds quite enjoyable, especially for modern genres recordings. I've used it for hours and I do like the fun sound signature. Hopefully Brainwavz would improve it on the next model, for a more powerful active splitter that is more immune to EMI.  
AP001 is all about fun and simplicity. It's a simple device when we need two headphone outputs. It sounds fun and enjoyable (when there is no annoying EMI noise). It shouldn't be considered as a proper headphone amplifier, but as an active splitter to replace regular passive splitter. Although AP001 might not pass audiophile criteria for a highly accurate active splitter, but in fact it is a fun and simple device for everyone to easily get more headphone outputs from their device. AP001 is truly a unique and innovative product from Brainwavz!
 

 
 
 
 

 
Specifications:
Battery-Rechargable: 3.7 V,120 mA
Playback time: >12 hours (at 50% Volume)
Charging port: Micro USB
Earphone outputs: 2 x 3.5mm Jacks
Line In: 3.5 mm Phone Jack
Frequency Response: 10Hz - 100 kHz
SNR: 100 dB (A Weight)
Headphone Output: 50 mW
HP Impedance: 16 Ω - 150 Ω
Current Consumption: 8 mA (Power On)
Current Consumption: 10uA (Power Off)
Dimension: 38 mm x 38 mm x 12.7 mm
Weight: 15.5 g
 
Equipment used in this review:
iBasso DX90
Samsung Galaxy S4
Audioquest Dragonfly v1.0c
Brainwavz S5
Brainwavz S0
DUNU DN-1000
Audio Technica ATH-IM70
Velleman PCSU200 (Digital Oscilloscope)

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:

 
 
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: