Reviews by MikePortnoy | Headphone Reviews and Discussion - Head-Fi.org

Introduction:

The IFI is a co-brand of AMR Audio that is known by its famous audio gears such as DP-777. They produce many different audio components: digital audio converters, amplifications, speakers, cables, and active noise cancelation units. The IFI provides four main product lines: Nano, Micro, Retro and Pro. In the Nano Line, there are smaller units compared to the Micro Line. In the Pro Line, they offer Pro iCAN tube amplifier and there are stereo components in the Retro Line. IPurifier2, Gemini and Mercury cables that are included to this review can be seen in the accessories and power sections in the IFI website.

The IFI provides a large product range most of which are multi-functional with multiple outputs and inputs. It is highly possible to find beneficial and cheap solutions to close the gaps of the portable systems. As we all know, a system is no stronger than its weakest part.

IFI IEMatch:

IEMatch is one of the IFI’s newest units. According to the company, it removes hiss and provides a more dynamic presentation.

It offers a balanced plug that allows using it on sources that have balanced outputs. In addition, there is a switch on the plug for a range of output style from single ended to balanced.

On the male part of IEMatch, there is a 3.5 input and a sensitivity switch. When IEMatch is plugged to the source, earphones may need more driving power due tothe extra resistance created by IEMatch. On the ultra mode that is suitable for very high sensitive earphones, some smartphones may not reach enough loudness and driving power due to too increased ohm value. On the other hand, that wouldn't be problem for sources that are already very powerful such as desktop amps.

The plug and the male part of IEMatch have an aluminum body, but the switches might be a little stronger. According to the website, IFI utilizes silver-copper conductors for a better sound transmission.

In the package, there are a soft carrying case, an airplane adapter, and earplugs. In this regard, IFI offers rich accessories for those who frequently travel via airplane.

I tested IFI IEMatch on Chord Hugo, Lotoo Paw Gold, and IPhone 6. The tests maintain similar results; IEMatch relatively eliminates hiss arising out of the source with a slight change in the sound.

Some results from different custom monitors:

Please note that the differences are not significant.

Westone ES60: The space around instruments becomes cleaner by a small margin.

HUM Pristine: The midrange becomes a little laid-back.

Noble Audio Katana: The mid-bass now has more control.

AAW W500 AHMorph: The high frequency becomes smoother and sub-bass is slightly tighter. The space around instruments becomes cleaner.

Final Words:

IFI IEMatch is a nice travel accessory that can be purchased for $49. It is easy to use and can be considered as a daily unit. Although it increases the resistance by a significant value, it eliminates hiss considerably. Please check the IFI website for more information about IEMatch.

Introduction:

The Effect Audio is a Singapore brand that is known with famous aftermarket cables. They offer Ares and Thor series headphone/IEM cables as well as Piccolino Ultimate and Eros Reference units. In addition, there is the Mars cable from Premium series and finally the Leonidas from Heritage class. In the accessory section of the Effect Audio website, there is a rich product range including some mini interconnects, digital cables, and connector options. As it can be seen in the website, the Effect Audio has started to collaborate with custom in ear monitor makers such as Cosmic Ears, Empire Ears, Vision Ears, and Custom Art.

The Effect Audio has a very responsive and helpful customer service. I have been in contact with their marketing manager Eric Chong and he has replied to my mails quite fast.

I am very happy with the Effect Audio’s Leonidas that I had reviewed a while ago. Now, it is time to take a look to the Effect Audio’s Eros II+ from Premium series. Eros II+ is described as an upgraded version of the Ares cable. It is a hybrid cable consisting of four conductors as standard feature. However, its eight-wired version can be ordered by a special application.

Build Quality and Accessories:

The Effect Audio utilizes two copper and two silver litz conductors as well as a single encapsulation in the production of Eros II+. The reviewed cable has traditional 2 pin connectors that have red and blue marks, but it is possible to order Eros II+ with almost all types of pins used in the industry.

The reviewed Eros II+ has a special 3.5 mm straight plug and a Y splitter that seems quite premium. In the Effect Audio ordering page, there are also 3.5mm angled, 2.5 mm balanced and RSA type plugs. The cable has a memory wire that is not disturbing. Eros II+ can be described as flexible, but it is not the best in the industry. Still, it offers a good flexibility in its price range and it is more flexible than some other aftermarket cables that are much more expensive.

It comes with a cardboard case that looks good. However, Effect Audio provides some best looking packages that I have ever seen in the market so far. One of them is the Leonidas’ leather case which is impressively premium.

Sound:

Note: In the sound part, Eros II+ is named as ‘’Eros’’.

Eros’ sub-bass is not only tighter and deeper, but also it is better textured. In accordance with its tightness, Eros seems to provide slightly more power in the sub-bass region. The stock cable has a more prominent mid-bass presentation, but it is significantly messy in comparison. Eros offers more control as well as a higher level of resolution. In addition, Eros maintains a more airy bass room without reducing the body of the general presentation.

Eros seems to put the midrange slightly forward compared to the stock cable due to the dynamism difference between the two. However, Eros may be a little fatiguing with earphones that are already midrange oriented. On the other hand, instruments are created in a more dynamic and transparent way; the resolution level is also better in comparison with the stock cable. Eros offers an alive and more detailed upper midrange, but it may be slightly problematic when it is paired with already energetic upper-mid notes.

Vocals are not presented too forward, but still they are intimate and more full-bodied by a small margin. Due to the body difference, vocals are more three-dimensional with Eros. In addition, Eros provides a clear and grander space around vocals, while the stock cable sounds congested.

In general, Eros has a more transparent and detailed treble presentation compared to the stock cable. Its tonality is neither piercing nor unnatural, but it is not the best. Overall treble presentation is clean, clear, and easy to listen.

Eros doesn't offer a very wide stage, but it improves the depth of the presentation. In accordance with its background position and the stage depth, it provides a better layering. Eros betters the stock cable in terms of the separation and puts a clearer space between instruments.

Final Words

The Effect Audio Eros II+ sounds dynamic and transparent. The overall presentation is natural and it provides a quite good performance for its price. As for the craftsmanship, the Effect Audio did a good job again. In the Leonidas case, I found the craftsmanship very impressive. Considering its price, Eros II+ has a very strong build quality. Lastly, Eros II+ is priced at $349.

Please check the link below for more information about Effect Audio Eros II+

http://www.effectaudio.com/upgrade-cables/iem-cables/iem-premium-series/eros-ii-843.html

Note: During tests, Chord Hugo, M-Fidelity Sa-43 and its stock cable is used.

I have one on the way. Definitely excited to hear it and it sounds like it would pair well with my Grace. Thank you for the review!

Introduction:

The Effect Audio is a Singapore brand that is known by some famous aftermarket cables. They offer Ares and Thor series headphone/IEM cables as well as Piccolino Ultimate and Eros Reference units. In addition, there is Mars cable from Premium series and finally the Leonidas from Heritage class. In the accessory section of the Effect Audio website, there is a rich product range including some mini interconnects, digital cables, and connector options. As it can be seen in the website, the Effect Audio has started to collaborate with custom in ear monitor makers such as Cosmic Ears, Empire Ears, Vision Ears, and Custom Art.

The Effect Audio has a very responsive and helpful customer service. I have been in contact with their marketing manager Eric Chong and he replied my mails quite fast. In addition, Effect Audio has many dealers worldwide such as Jaben in Indonesia, AV One and Music Sanctuary in Singapore, Crystal Sound Audio in Hong Kong, Munkong Gadget in Thailand and Just 4 Ear in China. Also the Effect Audio representatives can be visited in their Headquarters by appointment.

Build Quality and Accessories:

The Effect Audio utilizes four silver/gold conductors, Mundorf gold solder and Litz woven technique in the production of the Leonidas. The reviewed cable has traditional 2 pin connectors, but it is possible to order the Leonidas with almost all types of pins used in the industry.

The reviewed Leonidas has a special 3.5 mm straight plug and Y splitter that seems quite premium. In the Effect Audio ordering page, there are also 3.5mm angled, 2.5 mm balanced and RSA type plugs. The cable doesn't have a stiff memory wire part. Which in fact is not necessary, since the conductors are flexible enough to take the shape.

The Leonidas is quite flexible. It is very easy to wrap and use it outdoors. It comes with a leather case that looks very cool and this combination gives a premium feeling to customers. In sum, Effect Audio provides one of the best looking packages that I have ever seen in this hobby.

Sound:

The Leonidas sounds natural and can be considered as neutral in terms of the quantity balance, with the exception of its little fullness in low and mid frequencies. It doesn't put any frequency significantly forward compared to the stock cable and it also reduces the stress on the presentation.

Both cables have similar amount of sub-bas, but the Leonidas provides better texture and it hits from a more distant area in the stage. It has a little more quantity in mid-bass region, but the Leonidas provides a better resolution and a more refined mid-bass presentation. In comparison, the stock cable sounds colder, while the Leonidas is more emotional rather than warmer.

The midrange position is similar in both cables, but Leonidas sounds a bit bolder and has provides more body in the lower harmonic range. In this regard, the Leonidas takes the advantage in the tonality, while the stock cable sounds slightly leaner. In addition, the average note thickness is better on the Leonidas with a more effortless mid-range presentation. In upper midrange, the Leonidas is slightly smoother and the stock cable tends to sibilance more.

Both cables have similar amount of treble, but the Leonidas sounds more natural and smoother. In this regard, the Leonidas is a very good alternative to already bright sounding IEMs. In accordance with the depth advantage, the Leonidas’ treble creates more spacious stage compared to the stock cable. Also, the Leonidas keeps up the detailed presentation in a smoother way.

The Leonidas doesn't change overall stage width, but it has a deeper presentation and it locates the background slightly more distant than the stock cable. The Leonidas has clearer and cleaner spaces around instruments and that results in a little better instrument separation compared to the stock cable.

Note: The stock cable used in this review is the Lear’s C2 cable.

Final Words:

The Effect Audio Leonidas sounds natural and slightly neutral. It doesn't color the overall presentation much and keeps up a detailed note releasing. As for the craftsmanship, it is really good and the Leonidas is one of the best-looking cables that I have ever seen. I would highly recommend it to the audience who are looking for a cable that doesn't brighten a specific frequency. Lastly, the Leonidas is priced at 799 USD.

Please check the link below for more information about Effect Audio Leonidas:

http://www.effectaudio.com/upgrade-cables/iem-cables/iem-heritage-series.html

OMG. 799... Thats more tan double the cost of my portable set up. hahahhaha.

Introduction:

plusSound is an American cable maker located in California, US. They have a good reputation among audiophiles. They offer many different cables such as headphone and IEM upgrade cables, and interconnects. They also offer the high-class amplifier Cloud Nine, Audeze headphones as well as a wide variety of DIY parts in their store.

The plusSound IEM cable selection is very rich; providing the option of both sleeving/insulation type and different cable materials in almost all models. For example, the Dionysian series can be made with both copper and silver conductors as well as many other wiring combinations. Like the conductor selection, there are many options to customize the cable.

Christian, the representative of plusSound is a very nice person and superbly responsive. He always replies to my mails within the hour. I have to say that he is one of the most responsive representatives in the industry.

I have reviewed the plusSound Apollonian+ and Exo series cables a while ago, which are two of my favorite cables in my inventory. This review consists of X6 series made by 6 silver plated copper conductors.

For those interested in the Apollonian+ pure copper cable, please check the review link below:

http://www.head-fi.org/products/plussound-apollonian-iem-cable/reviews/13433

For anyone interested in the Exo series silver/gold cable, please check the review link below:

http://www.head-fi.org/products/plussound-exo-series-cable/reviews/14640

Build Quality:

X6 utilizes 6 silver plated copper (Type 6 Litz) conductors that are cryo-treated. Considering its 6 braided build, it can be seen as a heavyweight cable, but the overall build is not very stiff. Indeed, the X6 is flexible enough for 6-braided cable.

The most beautiful point of X6 is its pins. The pins are in a green and purple color with the PS logo on them. The quality of the pins is quite good. Additionally, there is no memory wire here. In fact there’s no need for it, since it has a very good shape and is built to stay firm. The reviewed X6 has a gold-plated straight plug and the braid craftsmanship of the cable is very nice and good looking.

As can be seen on the plusSound website, there are rich customization options as well as one button in-line microphone option to be used with smartphones.

Sound:

X6 silver-plated copper cable sounds a bit warm and it has a very slightly forward and bolder midrange than the stock cable. In comparison, X6 is significantly more natural and has a little bit darker note reproduction.

The review and comparisons have been determined using the Lear LCM-BD4.2 custom in ear monitor and its stock cable.

Low Frequency:

X6 has more authority in bass room and it is more resolving and textured than the stock cable. X6 sounds more emotional with slightly deeper and more three- dimensional hits, while Lear’s stock has less power in sub-bass region.

Also, the X6 has a weightier presentation due to the difference in mid-bass body. Both cables don't tighten the stage. Even if the X6 has more quantity in the mid-bass region, it doesn't create a possible thump depending on tracks.

Mid Frequency:

The X6 has slightly forward mids with thicker note reproduction. The Lear sounds a bit metallic, while the X6 has a more natural presentation with a higher amount of resolution. In addition, the X6 is more dynamic with bolder attacks in accordance with quantitative difference in the low frequency presentation, while Lear’s stock sounds brighter and leaner overall. The X6 provides a deeper and vertically bigger midrange picture.

In the upper midrange, Lear’s stock cable is still brighter, while the X6 releases slightly smoother notes. Also, the X6 has a bit weightier and more resolved vocals. By using a bolder presentation advantage, the X6 recreates a more three-dimensional midrange with deeper note locating.

High Frequency:

Both cables have similar treble quantity, but the X6 is smoother and has a more forgiving presentation here. Also, the X6 is more controlled and refined, while Lear’s stock sounds somehow messy. The X6 has slightly weightier and more natural notes, while the Lear sounds metallic and slightly brighter in comparison.

Soundstage and Separation:

X6 doesn't have an overly wide stage, but it is effectively wider and deeper than Lear’s stage; it provides a bigger and more refined picture. The X6 uses a slightly larger area and bolder instruments. That aids the X6 to provide better imaging and more three-dimensional instruments. Also, the X6’ background is located a bit more distantly, while also being blacker with a more stable background compared to Lear’s stock cable. Focusing and coherence is similar on both cables.

Final Words:

The plusSound X6 cable provides a full-bodied sound with refined and three-dimensional instruments. It has good synergy with monitors that already have a bright and lean presentation. As always, the X6 has really good craftsmanship and plusSound’s customer service is one of the best in the industry. The reviewed cable is priced at 330 USD; and different wires such as tri-metal, silver/gold, or gold-plated copper can be selected at an extra cost.

hi exo gold silver vs x6 silver palted copper which one better sound??

Introduction:

Opus#1 is a pretty new and recently launched digital audio player from the BIT company that is located in Seoul, Korea. The BIT (the Best Internet Technology) is established in 2004. They have been developing the ICT devices such as Navi, Digital TV and PMP since the beginning. They have also supplied to Samsung, Best Buy and Sandisk in the States, as well as possessing solutions for ARM, Android, Linux etc. As it can be seen, the BIT built a strong background before designing and launching their player, Opus#1.

So far, the BIT has launched only Opus#1. They expect to launch an ultra slim portable amplifier that is called as Opus#11 in the first quarter of 2016. Regarding their portfolio on the website, they are planning to launch a high-end player as well as a high-end portable amplifier in future. Opus#1 has a really good audio performance; I can’t wait to hear Opus#2.

The reviewed unit is a sample provided by Turkish local distributor. I would like to personally thank to both local distributor and the BIT company for this review sample.

Build Quality and Firmware:

Nowadays, players that carry aluminum body are quite popular and they look premium. In contrast with this popular approach, Opus has a plastic main body, but the material they use and the quality is quite good; operation of cutting the material is very well determined. Just by seeing it without holding it in our hands, we might actually think it has a metallic body.

On the right side, there are next song/previous song and play/pause buttons. On the left side of the player, volume level buttons are located and there is power button at the top. The quality of the buttons is quite good and they work without a problem. Opus utilizes two micro SD card slots as well as having 32 GB of internal storage. Opus supports memory cards up to 200 GB and we may have a total of 432 GB maximum storage, at least theoretically.

The screen quality and resolution is very good, one of the best that I have ever tested. Sensitivity of the touch screen is very well and it responses quite fast. However, there is slowness during play/pause operations. I think this is about the firmware and the processor; the BIT may take care of it.

The operation system is Android based and the BIT is fast in releasing new firmware updates. Although the player is quite new to the market, they already released a firmware update to fix some bugs. However the operation system still has some bugs to fix and I believe the company will solve all the problems about the firmware in close future. Opus has a native DSD playback function and also supports many popular formats including 24 bit recordings. There are 10 bands of EQ, but I didn’t play with the EQ. I have to say that I am not of a fan of EQ’ing.

The battery life is approximately 8 hours with the high bitrate formats, but it can reach to 9-10 hours when playing on low volume levels.

Opus has two outputs: 3.5 single ended and 2.5 mm balanced. I haven’t gotten a chance to review the balanced output due to the absence of 2.5mm TRRS cable in my inventory; so the review is determined with 3.5mm single ended output. The volume has 150 steps and the player warns us about high listening levels’ possible damage on hearing after 120^th step. The power of Opus is good enough. Mostly, I listen to my customs between 80 and 110. It is able to create enough power for SA-43 that is my most difficult iem to drive.

Main Screen:

Settings Screen:

Song and Folder Selection:

General Specs:

§ 24bit / 192kHz High Resolution Sound

§ 32bit processor core

§ Cirrus Logic CS4398 x 2EA Dual DAC

§ ARM Cortex-A9 1.4GHz, Quad-Core CPU DDR3 1GB

§ SNR 115dB, THD+N 0.0007%, Crosstalk – 130dB, Output 2Vmrs

§ Low-clock-jitter sensitivity: 50ps(Typ)

§ 4inch TFT Wide Touch Display (480 x 800)

§ WAV, FLAC, ALAC, AIFF, DSD, WMA,

§ MP3, OGG, APE(Normal, High, Fast)

§ Internal Memory 32GB

§ External Micro SD Card Memory 200GB x 2EA

§ Enhanced ABS Solid Body and Tempered Glass

Algorithm of Opus#1:

Sound:

Opus slightly tends to sound open-tone without crossing borders of being bright or piercing. The sound is neither too warm nor too cold, but slightly closer to warm side. At the beginning, some may think that there is a lack of punch in low region and slightly dry sound. However, when we come to A/B test, these thoughts are changed. Many custom in ear monitors have been used during my tests such as Spiral Ear SE5Way Reference, M-Fidelity SA-43 and Perfect Seal AR6. All of them perform very well with Opus.

Low Frequency:

As I mentioned just above, low-end punchiness and dynamism may seem lacking at the beginning of audition. This is due to Opus focusing on mid and high frequencies in terms of balance and energy. However, after spending some time with Opus, the sub bass power shows itself and its adequate amount of rumble. Sub-bass texturing and speed is very successful for its price. Its tone is not very emotional and warm, but neither cold. The sub-bass hits from a medium area of impact with quite tight and controlled notes.

Mid-bass notes are not very forward. It doesn’t overcome the entire presentation and let Opus create a good air between instruments. Overall, mid-bass doesn’t have a very emotional tone and very full notes, but quantity is enough and resolution and detail level is high.

Mid Frequency:

The midrange has a little open-tone and can be considered as intimate in accordance with its location on the stage. Lower midrange’s note reproduction is very clear and there is no compression from mid-bass presentation. Average note thickness is on the thin side of neutral, but by a very small margin. Transparency level is high, but the most impressive part of Opus is the resolution. Indeed, I think Opus resolution performs above its price and can compete against more expensive players. With the advantage of resolution and general control, background timbres are very well presented and throw details in a nice way.

From upper to lower regions, the midrange has a sweet aliveness, but it never becomes metallic or unnatural. Opus keeps this thin line, doesn’t jump into piercing levels and uses coloration as less as possible. Vocals have good body and resolution, but they can sometimes tend to sibilance by a small margin due to slight aliveness/open tone in upper midrange.

High Frequency:

Treble notes of Opus have just a little bit open-tone and there is an ideal quantity. Its presence is neither too much nor too laid back. Thanks to the balanced aliveness, Opus keeps smoothness and never turns into a metallic/piercing sounding unit. Details aren’t fatiguing and resolution/speed level is very good. Open-tone may be a problem with already too bright earphones, but overall naturalness, transparency and clarity level is quite high for its price.

Soundstage and Separation:

Opus has a good and enough stage width, but I think the depth could be slightly deeper. Still, it has a good layering and imaging for its price. The air between instruments is not very warm in accordance with mid-bass tone and presentation style, as a consequence Opus’ instrument placement becomes less stressed and compressed. There is also an impressive background blackness and instrument separation with a good speed.

Selected Comparisons:

Opus vs Mojo: (650 USD vs 599 USD)

Mojo is a great unit for portable use and I think its performance is close (perhaps better than some) to more expensive players such as Sony Zx2. Opus and Mojo, they both take a high price/performance ratio among their rivals. Honestly, I found them both very good, but Opus performs slightly better overall.

Sub-bass of Opus is faster, while Mojo has slightly more prominent low-end. Mojo has more dynamic sub-bass presentation, but Opus has more controlled and better-textured punches. Mojo has greater mid-bass body with slightly warmer approach, while Opus has more control over this region.

Opus has slightly open-tone on midrange; on the other hand Mojo creates fuller lower midrange in accordance with the mid-bass presentations’ difference. Overall, Opus performs cleaner and clearer, Mojo has a more musical approach. Considering resolution superiority, Opus articulates details more, while Mojo has more stressed note releasing and less transparent notes. Vocals are clearer on Opus, but it tends sibilance more just by a very small margin.

Opus has slightly brighter treble tone, but it has better resolution, separation, and control in treble region. Also, I find Opus slightly faster in comparison. Both have a natural approach and don’t sound metallic.

Both have similar stage width, but Opus’ stage is deeper. Distance between instruments is longer on Opus with somewhat spacious stage structure. The background blackness is similar, but Opus has superiority over Mojo in terms of keeping instruments more separated on the stage.

Opus vs Sony ZX2: (650 USD vs 1000 USD)

Sub-bass presentation and low-end depth is similar, but Opus has fuller mid-bass with more resolved notes. Opus can reproduce all the notes from mid-bass region, while ZX2 misses some little nuances. Opus’ low end has actually higher quantity compared to ZX2 however we may feel the opposite due to its general character and energy balance.

Opus has slightly brighter midrange tone in comparison with more forward and fuller notes. Resolution levels are close, but Opus has a forwardness advantage over ZX2 and this increases vocals’ resolution and makes their location truer. Additionally, ZX2 represents the midrange a little laid-back in comparison. Opus has more natural and slightly prominent treble presentation, while ZX has more control over high frequency notes.

In terms of 3D imaging, ZX2’s performance is better. Opus has a more intimate stage structure with a better separation. Overall, ZX2 is slightly leaner, while Opus has more full-bodied presentation.

Final Words:

Opus#1 from the BIT is a very impressive digital audio player and deserves appreciation considering its audio performance. Opus can better more expensive daps in terms of sound quality, but the firmware needs to be improved. I can recommend Opus to who is looking for slightly less bassy but resolved presentation. Finally, I can easily say that the price/performance ratio is the most successful part of the player. The price may differ in accordance with distributors’ policies, but its average price is approximately 650 USD.

For The BIT website other info:

http://www.audio-opus.com

You always make detailed reviews and this dap seems very good alternative for an X7 or N6.I also generally agree with your ZX2 impressions apart from not being full bodied,ZX2 has thick tonal presentation and not sounding lean like other daps and of course is very musical.The problem with ZX2 is that unless you use TRRS and disable sound adjustment in App menu it will not sound nearly as good and thus the big discrepancy with many online reviews.I fault Sony PR for that and how it was handled,not the reviewers.

Great review! I was close to buying the Opus but got the Onkyo DP-X1 instead.

@qafro

@qafro i also think the opus is much better than the mojo

Introduction:

Perfect Seal is an American company, located in Wichita/Kansas. His founder Mike has been in this industry for a while and released some custom in ear monitors such as PS Series and Sportbuds. In addition, Perfect Seal launched the first hybrid monitor in silicone that is called Fusion 11. They also produce customized molds for hearing and protection plugs.

Mike is very responsive and helpful guy. I usually contact him via PM, on Head-fi. I think that he has very nice ideas as a designer. My first pair was in acrylic and he made a beautiful wooden faceplate.

Built Quality and Internals:

As I mentioned above, my first pair was acrylic, but had a seal break in the right side. In this regard, I sent it back and decided on silicone shell to be able to hear the difference between two units.

AR6 consists of six balanced armature drivers: 1 low, 2 low/mid, 2 mid and lastly 1 tweeter. In addition, it has four acoustic bores and 5-way passive crossover system as well as 2 pin industry standard sockets. In general, AR6 has a decent craftsmanship. I don’t have a seal break with silicone version, but it is a bit too tight. Still, I have no complaining about the isolation provided.

I think the reviewed AR6 is covered with beautiful color combination. In terms of designing, Mike does great job and we are able to see many fine examples of Perfect Seal monitors. AR6 comes with a hard case and a special card on which customer name is printed. The cable on AR6 is an industry standard unit, similar to Westone or UM cables.

Sound:

Perfect Seal AR6 has an alive atmosphere with a hint of warmth. Instrument placement and imaging is very well determined. As we all know, AR6 has two versions and I had a chance to try both. This review is about AR6 silicone version and I will try to describe the difference between two in following parts from my recent memory. In this review, Lotoo Paw Gold was utilized as the source.

Low Frequency:

Sub-bass of AR6 is not superbly powerful, but neither weak. It carries good amount of resolution with enough rumble. It performs well in terms of responsiveness in fast tracks. Hitting to depth ability is nice, but decay may be a little too fast which results in a very small quantity of roll-off.

Mid-bass has fine-tuning with a nice tonality and control. Indeed, AR6’s mid-bass never overwhelms the background and general atmosphere. There is a balanced quantity of warmth provided by mid-bass notes, neither too warm nor cold.

On the other hand, silicone version sounds different than acrylic. Acrylic performs with less warm low frequency tone and some may find acrylic’s notes less bodied. This tuning results in change in average note thickness.

Mid Frequency:

AR6’s midrange is located neither too distant nor too close to listener. It isn’t fatiguing and there is no aggressiveness. However, upper midrange sounds a bit forward compared to the rest of the midrange with a slight coloration/brightness. Average note thickness is nice, neither too thick nor thin; but upper midrange may sound thinner by a small margin. In addition, AR6 performs with a good transparency and resolution.

In comparison, AR6 in acrylic sounds brighter and leaner than silicone version. AR6 in silicone has less stress in releasing notes and it is smoother in upper midrange. On the other hand, AR6 in acrylic seems to have a better transparency performance. AR6 in acrylic tends to sibilance more.

High Frequency:

The treble notes of AR6 don’t sound so forward, but they are prominent in accordance with slight coloration. It isn’t very forgiving against bad recordings, but doesn’t have a metallic tone. Resolution and transparency is pretty nice, but treble may become a bit sticky in super fast metal tracks dominated by high frequency. The treble presentation of both versions is similar, but AR6 in silicone recreates notes in a smoother way pursuant to mid-bass’ tone and quantity.

Soundstage and Separation:

AR6 in silicone provides good stage dimensions. There is no congestion in the stage structure and the depth of the stage offers a good layering ability. The background is located distant enough and has a good amount of blackness. The most impressive part of AR6 is its imaging. The instruments are portioned in effective sizes and 3D ability is strong. In sum, there is a ‘’living’’ music and atmosphere.

The separation is also good, but it may become stressful in fast metal tracks. AR6 in acrylic offers a neutral air between instruments in comparison, while silicone spreads warmer one in accordance with mid-bass presentation difference.

Selected Comparisons:

Perfect Seal AR6 vs AAW W500 AHMorph

Low Frequency:

Sub-bass of W500 has more open tone and provides more resolution with a better texture, while AR6 is faster and slightly more controlled. Both have natural sub-bass hits, but W500 put more air behind punches pursuant to dynamic driver advantage. They both have prominent sub-bass, but W500 has more forward and similarly resolved mid-bass presentation. AR6 sounds more coherent in mid-bass region. On the other hand, W500 tends more to get tightened due to mid-bass location and quantity.

Mid Frequency:

Average note thickness is very similar, but W500 has cleaner notes. However both have a little stress in note releasing. AR6 performs better in terms of coherence, while W500 is a little more resolved. In addition, vocals’ dimensions are slightly clearer on AR6, but both tend to sibilance due to similar tones in upper midrange. Both have similar amount of transparency.

High Frequency:

W500 has bolder and slightly less prominent treble notes, while AR6 has brighter tone. AR6 is more sensitive against bad recordings and W500 is slightly more resolved. Both have a good extension, but W500 has more natural approach.

Soundstage and Separation:

W500 has a wider stage, while AR6 has deeper one with a better layering. W500 locates the stage closer to listener, while AR6 uses the depth more effective to create a living ambiance. In terms of coherence and imaging, AR6 definitely betters W500. W500 lacks coherence due to mid-bass linkage with the rest of the spectrum. Both have good background blackness, but W500 provides a bit better separation.

AR6 vs SA-43 (with both switches positioned on):

Low Frequency:

Both have similar quantity of low frequency. AR6 hits a bit deeper with slightly better resolution and texture in sub-bass region, but both have similar control in terms of speed. AR6 has warmer mid-bass with similar location of recreation. In this regard, AR6’s mid-bass seems to be more intimate with the stage and atmosphere.

Mid Frequency:

AR6 sounds a bit more forward in midrange, while SA43 has truer tone, more natural note releasing and better transparency. In terms of creating both thick and thin notes, the performance is close, but SA-43 betters AR6 by a small margin. In upper midrange, SA-43 is smoother and less stressed, while AR6 sounds brighter and more forward in comparison. Overall midrange resolution and detail levels are similar.

High Frequency:

AR6’s treble notes are more prominent and brighter with a better extension performance. However, SA-43 has a truer tone and provides better resolution and speed. In addition, AR6 is more sensitive against bad recordings. Transparency level is similar in treble region, but AR6 seems to be more detailed with an exception of fast metal tracks.

Soundstage and Separation:

SA-43 has deeper and slightly wider stage. In comparison, SA-43 uses larger headroom with slightly laid back positioning. Both have an impressive imaging and coherence, but SA-43 is a very special custom in ear monitor when it comes to imaging and 3D recreation. So, SA-43 betters AR6 and creates more realistic atmosphere with a better layering. Both have impressive background, but SA-43 has a bit better instrument separation with a faster attack and decay ability overall.

Final Words:

Perfect Seal AR6 has a very impressive imaging and alive sound. We can have AR6 in both acrylic and silicone body including beautiful design options. By taken my experience on both versions, I can say that AR6 in silicone sounds a bit fuller and smoother than acrylic version; for sure, there is a price difference between two. The MSRP of acrylic version is 950 USD, while silicone is priced at 1150 USD.

For ordering and more info, please check the link:

http://perfect-seal.com/music/

@Metalboy

@Metalboy Thank you

@Kerouac Just a simple review, but I appreciate your comment mate

Impressive work as always buddy.

Thank you bud.

Introduction:

Empire Ears was known as Earwerkz in audiophile world. They have changed their name and released new product line a while ago. Their flagship is now a 14-driver unit, Zeus; and Apollo that I reviewed a while ago is their second most expensive custom in ear monitor in the product line. Apart from these Olympus series two custom monitors, they also offer lifestyle line, which has hard-wired cable and lower profile fit. In addition, they produce Delta series hearing protection monitors. In sum, Empire Ears has a very rich product line.

I am always impressed by Earwerkz customer service and they seem to carry this tradition in hands of Jack Vang, Empire Ears Co-Manager. Jack always takes care of my problems about monitors and he is very responsive. My Zeus was safely delivered via FedEx. The delivery process was just opposite of my Apollo’s story; my Apollo had a world tour due to USPS fault.

Design, Fit and Accessories:

Zeus utilizes 14 balanced armature drivers per side. There are also 4 acoustic bores as well as a complex passive crossover network. There is no technical information given by Empire Ears, but Zeus is easy to drive.

The craftsmanship is simply awesome. There is no sign of error with the craftsmanship. A beautiful abalone faceplate is nicely cut and perfectly put on the body in sapphire blue. However, the fit is a bit different than my other Empire and Earwerkz monitors to due Zeus’ larger shell. I think there is a problem with upper concha part of the monitor and this can be a little disturbing at the beginning of listening. I should say that Empire Ears usually do a great job regarding fit; this little change is specific to my Zeus, since they used my old earmolds that are already in their file.

Zeus has detachable two pin cable; as far as I can see on Empire Ears website, it is shipped with BTG Starlight Cable for a limited time. Starlight has very good memory wire section for an aftermarket cable, but its built quality is not very soft. As accessories, there is an impressive Aegis Case, on which my name is printed, a dust bag, an IEM pouch, cleaning tool and cleaning cloth. Honestly, I feel myself special by looking at this impressive Aegis Case.

Sound:

Empire Ears Zeus custom version sounds with a combination of musicality and technicality. The most impressive parts of the Empire Ears’ flagship are imaging, resolution and separation. Considering its price tag, it should be on the top of list. Lotoo Paw Gold and BTG silver cable (current stock one for Zeus) were used during critical listening.

Low Frequency:

The lows of Zeus are not very dominant, but prominent enough to give a good body. Sub-bass has good power and a nice rumble. Texture and speed is very good; Zeus can handle the most difficult metal tracks. However, I cannot say that the tone of sub-bass is the most impressive one among my other customs, but still very satisfying. In fact, Zeus seems to sound a little technical in sub-bass region.

Mid-bass doesn’t sound too forward and prominent. The tone is neither too warm nor too cold, but still have a technical approach. In fact, this is sort of a good ability; Zeus provides a neutral air between instruments and there is no problem in terms of tightening the stage. However, we might want a little more mid-bass body to get a better note recreation in lower regions of the midrange.

Mid Frequency:

The most forward frequency of Zeus is the midrange. The overall tone is in the natural class and the transparency level is very impressive. Zeus doesn’t sound entirely bright or very aggressive, but average note thickness is on the thin side by a very small margin. Actually, describing Zeus as a thin sounding unit is not correct; instruments just have a little small size in a large space. The amount of detail is very high and the resolution is the most successful one along with Spiral Ear SE5-way.

Upper midrange is also very detailed with a slight coloration that results in little brightness. This area is not completely smooth, but still forgiving. Vocals have good dimensions and resolution, but Zeus can slightly tend to sibilance depending on record quality.

High Frequency:

The treble notes are not very forward, but there is a substantial quantity of high frequency for a mid-centric monitor. Still, Zeus sounds natural and smooth in high frequency region with nice extension ability. However, it doesn’t have a complete true tone here; there is a brightness added to tuning in order to make Zeus more impressive. While listening fast metal tracks, the notes don’t get sticky and it can carry a remarkable amount of resolution. The transparency is also good with a high amount of detail.

Soundstage and Separation:

Zeus does have a large stage, but it isn’t a super big or virtual stage type like Tralucent 1p2 or Ref1. In fact, having overly large stage makes focusing more difficult as well as having less coherent instruments. In this regard, Zeus performs within the limits, but it has an impressive depth to crate a very good layering. The background is not very black, but it has very strong cleanliness and background’s nuances are clear.

The coherence is not the best among my others, but the imaging is very impressive. Even if there is no crossfade effect, the 3D positioning of the instruments is quite exciting. In addition, the instrument separation is definitely of the best among my customs. Zeus uses a bit small sizes while recreating notes. This provides longer and cleaner distances as well as more separated presentation and airier headroom, but at the cost of reducing in nuances of lower harmonics.

Source Matching:

I experienced that Zeus’ sound may slightly change depending on the sources. The difference is not very significant, but the low frequency may get a bit fuller. In the simplest term, when we switch from Lotoo Paw Gold to an iPhone, Zeus hits with a little bolder notes. Also, Zeus is unfortunately a very hiss sensitive monitor. You may want to be sure that the source you are matching has an impressive dead silent background otherwise the mighty Zeus picks up the hiss. When the music plays though, there should be no audible hiss.

Selected Comparisons:

Empire Ears Zeus vs Spiral Ear SE5-way Reference (2.099 USD vs 1650 USD)

Both monitors have mid-centric approach. SE5 is a little darker, while Zeus has open tone. Overall, SE5 seems more organic and Zeus sounds more technical. They both are very impressive in terms of resolution.

Low Frequency:

In sub-bass region, SE5 is a little more powerful and emotional. Detail and texture levels are similar, but SE5’s decay is a bit longer and more natural in comparison. Both SE5 and Zeus can handle fast metal tracks very well in bass presentation.

SE5 has a little more prominent mid-bass presentation, while Zeus sounds less warm in this region. Pursuant this tone difference in mid-bass, Zeus creates more neutral approach. In addition, resolution level of mid-bass is similar.

Mid Frequency:

Both have an impressive and forward midrange with very similar resolution level. However, SE5 is a little better in terms of average note thickness and uses larger sizes while creating instruments. In this regard, SE5 is a bit more capable to release lower harmonics and sounds bolder in comparison. On the other hand, Zeus articulates details more and is more transparent, but both are non-fatiguing.

Overall tone is natural on both monitors, but SE5 is less aggressive in terms of note structure. SE5 is less stressed in releasing notes, puts some organic signs and grains on them, while Zeus sounds cleaner with a bit open tone. In upper midrange, SE5 is smoother, while Zeus has more detail. In addition, SE5 spreads more emotion and naturalness on vocals, but Zeus’ vocals are cleaner and more resolved. However, Zeus can tend to sibilance more depending on record quality.

High Frequency:

Zeus has more prominent and slightly brighter treble presentation. SE5 is less detailed, but more forgiving with a truer tone. In addition, Zeus is more sensitive to bad recordings, but both have a good speed. Resolution and extension levels are very similar; SE5 has a bit more natural attack/decay ability.

Soundstage and Separation:

Both have impressive stage depths, but Zeus is slightly wider as well as having longer distances between instruments. SE5 has warmer and darker spaces, while Zeus has more neutral ones. In terms of background, both are very clean, but SE5 is a little blacker in comparison.

Zeus has a little better imaging and instruments separation; it uses a bit smaller instrument size in a larger space and this creates more distant and separated instruments. However, SE5 is more coherent and focusing is easier at the cost of having a little congestion in instrument placement.

Empire Ears Zeus vs Lear LCM BD-4.2 (2.099 USD vs 1300 USD)

As we all know, Zeus is BA-only powered unit, while Lear 4.2 utilizes 4 BA and 2 dynamic drivers. The presentation styles are also different; Zeus has mid-centric signature and Lear is a little U-shape.

The comparison is done with Lear’s bass knob set at the half way.

Low Frequency:

The sub-bass of Zeus is slightly more prominent, while Lear carries more air in accordance with dynamic driver advantage. Texture and resolution level is similar, but Lear sounds a bit more emotional and natural. During fast metal tracks, Zeus betters Lear in terms of speed.

Neither of them have a dominant mid-bass presentation. Overall tones are in natural class with a bit warmth, but Lear’s mid-bass is more emotional by a very small margin. Both Lear and Zeus are able to provide neutral air between instruments.

Mid-Frequency:

As it is in the description in the first part of the comparison, Lear has an U-shape signature that results in laid-back mids, while Zeus locates midrange closer to listener. Detail level is similar, but Zeus is more controlled, resolved and natural; it also betters Lear in terms of recreating both thin and thick notes well. Lear sounds a bit thin and has ‘’bright and mechanical’’ transparency when compared to Zeus. In addition, Zeus has more three dimensional vocals as well as slightly better resolution. Both tend to sibilance, but Zeus is smoother in upper-midrange area.

High Frequency:

Both have a slight brightness in treble region with a similar prominence, but Zeus is more natural and refined. Extension and detail level is high on both, but Zeus sounds more resolved pursuant treble speed advantage in fast metal tracks. However, both are sensitive to bad recordings. We need to take that Lear gets smoother when the bass quantity increases into consideration. However, Zeus still sounds more natural.

Soundstage and Separation:

Lear has wider stage with more spacious and slightly laid-back structure in comparison. On the hand, Zeus is also airy and its depth is definitely more distinctive, especially in crowded tracks. In addition, Zeus has blacker, more stable and clearer background, while Lear has some stability problems in fast tracks in accordance with its general character. Both use impressive stage spaces and neutral air between instruments, but Zeus betters Lear when it comes to separation, coherence and imaging.

Final Words:

Empire Ears Zeus is a very strong monitor that brings musical technicality to our ears. My personal opinion is that it can be ranked very high among my custom in ear monitors. The craftsmanship is very nice and the overall comfort is good. However, we need to take its only mechanical problem ‘’the hiss’’ into consideration. The MSRP of custom Zeus is 2.099 USD with the exception of customization options.

Please click to see Zeus' scores in the Progressive Custom Monitor List

To order Zeus and seek more info, please check the link below:

http://empireears.com

Introduction:

Rhapsodio is a Hong Kong based company that produces in ear monitors and upgrade cables. Rhapsodio’s owner, Sammy, has a strong background and tuned many different in ear monitors such as Hybrid Series, Solar series and Galaxy Series. While Solar series utilize balanced armature drivers, Galaxy series are powered with UltraMag dynamic drivers. In Solar series, there are two versions of the same tuning: custom and universal. The reviewed unit is custom made and consists of 10 balanced armature drivers per side. Sammy also offers some high quality aftermarket cables such as Litz and Pandora series. My favorite is 2.98SG/8 braided cable that has a very strong imaging and resolution.

Build Quality, Internals and Accessories:

The reviewed unit is refitted, since there was a slight disturbance at the left side. Sammy quickly handled and remade it. After refit process, the monitors become quite comfortable. Even during long listening sections, I have no pain at all. I like the body color as well as beautifully crafted faceplate with Rhapsodio’ logo.

As I mentioned before, Rhapsodio Solar is powered with 10 balanced armature drivers (2 tweeters, 2 highs, 4 mids and 2 bass) with a 4 way passive crossover system. There are 3 main acoustic ways; one of them is bigger than two. According to Rhapsodio website, the impedance of the monitor is 26 OHM. Solar has industry standard 2 pin sockets. They are neither too tight nor too loose; I think that they have good durability.

The stock cable of Solar is from Pandora Series, SPC Pandora. Pandora utilizes 4 silver plated conductors; on the other hand, many standard cables have 3 braids as standard. Overall build quality of Pandora is nice, but it is not as soft and flexible as Westone’s standard cables. In addition, Pandora has 3.5mm golden plated plug and good quality 2 pin connectors. However, I find its memory wire a bit long and rough.

Sound:

Rhapsodio Solar is warm and dynamic sounding unit with a slight V shape signature. Some may find its atmosphere a little dark, but high frequency has a little bright tone creates detailed and alive presentation.

This review is about custom version of Solar. So, please note that universal version may differ in accordance with tips used and insertion depth. During critical listening, Solar was tested on Lotoo Paw Gold and the BIT Opus1.

Low Frequency:

Solar has powerful and punchy sub-bass hits. Hitting to depth ability is quite good and overall tonality can be seen as natural. Resolution and texture are good; Solar has a fast response in sub-bass region, but ‘’hanging in the air’’ time could be a little longer.

Even so Solar has V shape response, the energy focus of the overall presentation leans towards to low frequency due to the prominent and intensive mid-bass’ notes. In general, mid-bass’ notes don’t tighten the stage. However, if the quantity is plenty in the track, the mid-bass band can be thickened and the background becomes a little congested. On the other hand, mid-bass provides a nice musicality, softness and body.

Mid Frequency:

The midrange of Solar isn’t located very distant, thanks to full bodied and weighty notes. Indeed, Solar is very dynamic and powerful, also creates full-bodied instruments. Parenthetically, vocals sound a little closer to listener, when compared to instruments’ locations. Average note thickness is on the thicker side, but it may sound a bit too thick due to the possible mid-bass thump depending on tracks. Resolution and transparency levels are not very high, but enough for a flagship. Solar isn’t very forgiving in upper-midrange, since there is a slight brightness here.

High Frequency:

Solar has prominent treble notes, but it doesn’t have a forward presentation. Control and resolution is good, but tonality isn’t so close to true tone. Despite that, Solar's treble tonality can be accepted in natural region with non-piercing notes. I don’t find them too sensitive to bad recordings. Speedy Solar can handle cymbals in fast metal tracks, but they are cut a little too early.

Soundstage and Separation:

Solar has effectual stage dimensions; there is no overly wide or super deep stage, but it carries a nice amount of depth to create sufficient space for a good layering. Also, the performing area of Solar isn’t congested and there is a fair distance between instruments. However, this distance is filled with warm air rather than neutral one due to the mid-bass presentation. Thanks to prominent and open-toned treble notes, this warm air doesn’t make Solar a boring custom in ear monitor.

The background of Solar is quite black and stable with strong instrument separation. However, Solar may have congestion pursuant to the mid-bass density depending on tracks and the background may become less clear. This problem may reduce the separation level by a small margin. Imaging and focusing is pretty strong with good coherence ability. Even if Solar has a V-shaped signature, the stage isn't located too distant.

Selected Comparisons:

Rhapsodio Solar vs Spiral Ear SE5 Ref

Overall, Rhapsodio Solar is a warm sounding monitor and Spiral Ear SE5 is closer to have a neutral sound in comparison. Both have natural sounding perspective, but SE5 has truer tone.

Low Frequency:

Solar hits harder in sub-bass region, while SE5’s notes hang longer in the air. Solar’s attack and decay ability is a little faster than necessary. Solar uses larger and more impactful notes, but SE5 offers slightly more resolution in low end.

In mid-bass range, Solar has significantly more prominent and warmer notes; SE5 offers more resolved and detailed presentation. In accordance with the mid-bass quantity, Solar sounds thicker and weightier overall.

Mid Frequency:

Solar has a V-shape signature versus SE5’s mid-centric and open-toned presentation in comparison. When viewed from this aspect, the midrange of Solar is located laid back, but sounds with bolder and darkish touches.

On the other hand, SE5’s midrange is more resolved and transparent, and it is better in terms of recreation both thick and thin notes well. Solar may perform too thick and more colored pursuant to mid-bass thump, yet it creates good body for vocals and instruments. Also, Solar is brighter in upper mid-range and tends to sibilance more, while SE5 is less detailed, but smoother in this area.

High Frequency:

In comparison, Solar has more prominent and brighter treble performance. SE5 sounds with less colored and more natural notes. In terms of speed and extension, SE5 has a slight superiority with more natural note releasing, but Solar seems to be more detailed in accordance with more alive and prominent lower treble. In addition, Solar is less forgiving against bad recordings.

Soundstage and Separation:

Both don’t have a large stage, but Solar is slightly wider and SE5 is deeper. Solar has warmer stage structure, while SE5 is much neutral in terms of air between instruments.

However, SE5 seems to be congested while locating instruments. By the same token, Solar may have a background clarity problem when comes to tracks dominated by mid-bass’ notes. Solar slightly betters SE5 in terms of imaging, but SE5 allows focusing a little easier. Overall, both have an impressive instrument separation.

Rhapsodio Solar vs Empire Ears Zeus (Custom version)

As it is in the SE5 comparison, Solar has a V shape signature and Zeus has mid-centric approach. Overall, Zeus has open-tone, while Solar is bolder and warmer; both have a musical approach, but Zeus sounds more technical.

Please note that EE Zeus universal version may have some differences in sound.

Low Frequency:

Solar has more impactful hits, while Zeus has cleaner and more analytic sub-bass structure in comparison. Resolution and texture levels are similar; both have fast sub-bass’ response. Solar’s tone is more emotional, while Zeus follows a more technical way here. Like sub-bass range, Solar has more mid-bass quantity with a warmer tone. Due to mid-bass presentation difference, Solar may sound too warm and have background congestion versus Zeus’ airier approach. Mid-bass’ resolution level is higher on Zeus; Solar misses some little nuances.

Mid Frequency:

Zeus sounds more forward and aggressive with slightly thinner and cleaner notes; Solar’s midrange is located laid-back in comparison. Resolution and transparency are better on Zeus; Solar has hollow midrange presentation. Zeus is better in terms of note recreation and articulates details more than Solar does. Both have slight brightness in upper midrange; Zeus has more forward notes, while Solar is smoother and less stressed. Vocals are weightier on Solar by a small margin, but Zeus has more resolved and transparent vocals. However Zeus tends to sibilance more.

High Frequency:

Zeus has slightly more alive treble notes, while Solar is weightier and warmer in high frequency presentation. Zeus sounds brighter and cleaner in accordance with its general character and low end’s dominancy of Solar. The overall treble speed and resolution level is similar, but Zeus is slightly more extended. Both aren’t very forgiving against bad recordings.

Soundstage and Separation:

The overall stage depth is better on Zeus and it is airier with a bit wider stage. Zeus spreads neutral air between instruments, while Solar has much warmer air in the area due to mid-bass presentation. Both have an impressive instrument separation, but Solar’s background is blacker by very small margin. On the other hand, Zeus has definitely clearer and cleaner background. Zeus has better imaging, but Solar is more coherent with a bit better focusing ability.

Rhapsodio SG2.98 4 Strands Cable on Solar:

Pandora stock is on the right side.

As we all know, Solar comes with Pandora cable as standard. 2.98, old RSD flagship cable, is made by silver/gold alloy material. Overall, it has a warm sound and offers higher resolution notes. It doesn’t carry the characteristics of a regular silver cable.

In general, 2.98 cable reduces low frequency’s quantity by a very small margin and makes sub-bass tighter and cleaner. Also, mid-bass becomes more controlled and the thump is becoming smaller. When compared to Pandora stock, 2.98 cable offers a little more forward midrange, but Solar still keeps V-shape signature. The resolution is slightly improved and instruments become cleaner and a bit more transparent. Overall treble tone is similar, but 2.98 cable creates more resolved and slightly clearer high frequency presentation. The width difference is not very significant, but 2.98 cable has deeper stage and better layering as well as a bit better separation.

Note: 2.98 8 strands cable is a definite upgrade over 2.98 4 strands. Apart from its synergy with Solar, tone and imaging gets perfect with 8 strands.

Final Words

Rhapsodio Solar is non-fatiguing, warm tuned and dynamic sounding custom in ear monitor. If the expectation about transparency is not very high, with its strong instrument separation, Solar would be a good alternative for who prefers warm atmosphere and musical signature. The craftsmanship is also very nice and comfort is pretty good for long listening sections.

The MSRP is 1550 USD for the custom version of Solar.

Please check the links for further information:

http://www.rhapsodio.com

http://www.rhapsodio.com/products/iem/balanced-armature-series/

My pleasure mate. Thank you.

Any comparison with the TG334? The sound signature seems similar in some regards.

Sorry, haven't heard 334 yet mate.

Introduction:

Opus#1 is a pretty new and recently launched digital audio player from the BIT company that is located in Seoul, Korea. The BIT (the Best Internet Technology) is established in 2004. They have been developing the ICT devices such as Navi, Digital TV and PMP since the beginning. They have also supplied to Samsung, Best Buy and Sandisk in the States, as well as possessing solutions for ARM, Android, Linux etc. As it can be seen, the BIT built a strong background before designing and launching their player, Opus#1.

So far, the BIT has launched only Opus#1. They expect to launch an ultra slim portable amplifier that is called as Opus#11 in the first quarter of 2016. Regarding their portfolio on the website, they are planning to launch a high-end player as well as a high-end portable amplifier in future. Opus#1 has a really good audio performance; I can’t wait to hear Opus#2.

The reviewed unit is a sample provided by Turkish local distributor. I would like to personally thank to both local distributor and the BIT company for this review sample.

Photo courtesy of the Bit

Build Quality and Firmware:

Nowadays, players that carry aluminum body are quite popular and they look premium. In contrast with this popular approach, Opus has a plastic main body, but the material they use and the quality is quite good; operation of cutting the material is very well determined. Just by seeing it without holding it in our hands, we might actually think it has a metallic body.

On the right side, there are next song/previous song and play/pause buttons. On the left side of the player, volume level buttons are located and there is power button at the top. The quality of the buttons is quite good and they work without a problem. Opus utilizes two micro SD card slots as well as having 32 GB of internal storage. Opus supports memory cards up to 200 GB and we may have a total of 432 GB maximum storage, at least theoretically.

The screen quality and resolution is very good, one of the best that I have ever tested. Sensitivity of the touch screen is very well and it responses quite fast. However, there is slowness during play/pause operations. I think this is about the firmware and the processor; the BIT may take care of it.

The operation system is Android based and the BIT is fast in releasing new firmware updates. Although the player is quite new to the market, they already released a firmware update to fix some bugs. However the operation system still has some bugs to fix and I believe the company will solve all the problems about the firmware in close future. Opus has a native DSD playback function and also supports many popular formats including 24 bit recordings. There are 10 bands of EQ, but I didn’t play with the EQ. I have to say that I am not of a fan of EQ’ing.

The battery life is approximately 8 hours with the high bitrate formats, but it can reach to 9-10 hours when playing on low volume levels.

Opus has two outputs: 3.5 single ended and 2.5 mm balanced. I haven’t gotten a chance to review the balanced output due to the absence of 2.5mm TRRS cable in my inventory; so the review is determined with 3.5mm single ended output. The volume has 150 steps and the player warns us about high listening levels’ possible damage on hearing after 120^th step. The power of Opus is good enough. Mostly, I listen to my customs between 80 and 110. It is able to create enough power for SA-43 that is my most difficult iem to drive.

Main Screen:

Photo courtesy of the Bit

Settings Screen:

Photo courtesy of the Bit

Song and Folder Selection:

Photo courtesy of the Bit

General Specs:

§ 24bit / 192kHz High Resolution Sound

§ 32bit processor core

§ Cirrus Logic CS4398 x 2EA Dual DAC

§ ARM Cortex-A9 1.4GHz, Quad-Core CPU DDR3 1GB

§ SNR 115dB, THD+N 0.0007%, Crosstalk – 130dB, Output 2Vmrs

§ Low-clock-jitter sensitivity: 50ps(Typ)

§ 4inch TFT Wide Touch Display (480 x 800)

§ WAV, FLAC, ALAC, AIFF, DSD, WMA,

§ MP3, OGG, APE(Normal, High, Fast)

§ Internal Memory 32GB

§ External Micro SD Card Memory 200GB x 2EA

§ Enhanced ABS Solid Body and Tempered Glass

Algorithm of Opus#1:

Photo courtesy of the Bit

Sound:

Opus slightly tends to sound open-tone without crossing borders of being bright or piercing. The sound is neither too warm nor too cold, but slightly closer to warm side. At the beginning, some may think that there is a lack of punch in low region and slightly dry sound. However, when we come to A/B test, these thoughts are changed. Many custom in ear monitors have been used during my tests such as Spiral Ear SE5Way Reference, M-Fidelity SA-43 and Perfect Seal AR6. All them perform very well with Opus.

Low Frequency:

As I mentioned just above, low-end punchiness and dynamism may seem lacking at the beginning of audition. This is due to Opus focusing on mid and high frequencies in terms of balance and energy. However, after spending some time with Opus, the sub bass power shows itself and its adequate amount of rumble. Sub-bass texturing and speed is very successful for its price. Its tone is not very emotional and warm, but neither cold. The sub-bass hits from a medium area of impact with quite tight and controlled notes.

Mid-bass notes are not very forward. It doesn’t overcome the entire presentation and let Opus create a good air between instruments. Overall, mid-bass doesn’t have a very emotional tone and very full notes, but quantity is enough and resolution and detail level is high.

Mid Frequency:

The midrange has a little open-tone and can be considered as intimate in accordance with its location on the stage. Lower midrange’s note reproduction is very clear and there is no compression from mid-bass presentation. Average note thickness is on the thin side of neutral, but by a very small margin. Transparency level is high, but the most impressive part of Opus is the resolution. Indeed, I think Opus resolution performs above its price and can compete against more expensive players. With the advantage of resolution and general control, background timbres are very well presented and throw details in a nice way.

From upper to lower regions, the midrange has a sweet aliveness, but it never becomes metallic or unnatural. Opus keeps this thin line, doesn’t jump into piercing levels and uses coloration as less as possible. Vocals have good body and resolution, but they can sometimes tend to sibilance by a small margin due to slight aliveness/open tone in upper midrange.

High Frequency:

Treble notes of Opus have just a little bit open-tone and there is an ideal quantity. Its presence is neither too much nor too laid back. Thanks to the balanced aliveness, Opus keeps smoothness and never turns into a metallic/piercing sounding unit. Details aren’t fatiguing and resolution/speed level is very good. Open-tone may be a problem with already too bright earphones, but overall naturalness, transparency and clarity level is quite high for its price.

Soundstage and Separation:

Opus has a good and enough stage width, but I think the depth could be slightly deeper. Still, it has a good layering and imaging for its price. The air between instruments is not very warm in accordance with mid-bass tone and presentation style, as a consequence Opus’ instrument placement becomes less stressed and compressed. There is also an impressive background blackness and instrument separation with a good speed.

Selected Comparisons:

Opus vs Mojo: (650 USD vs 599 USD)

Mojo is a great unit for portable use and I think its performance is close (perhaps better than some) to more expensive players such as Sony Zx2. Opus and Mojo, they both take a high price/performance ratio among their rivals. Honestly, I found them both very good, but Opus performs slightly better overall.

Sub-bass of Opus is faster, while Mojo has slightly more prominent low-end. Mojo has more dynamic sub-bass presentation, but Opus has more controlled and better-textured punches. Mojo has greater mid-bass body with slightly warmer approach, while Opus has more control over this region.

Opus has slightly open-tone on midrange; on the other hand Mojo creates fuller lower midrange in accordance with the mid-bass presentations’ difference. Overall, Opus performs cleaner and clearer, Mojo has a more musical approach. Considering resolution superiority, Opus articulates details more, while Mojo has more stressed note releasing and less transparent notes. Vocals are clearer on Opus, but it tends sibilance more just by a very small margin.

Opus has slightly brighter treble tone, but it has better resolution, separation, and control in treble region. Also, I find Opus slightly faster in comparison. Both have a natural approach and don’t sound metallic.

Both have similar stage width, but Opus’ stage is deeper. Distance between instruments is longer on Opus with somewhat spacious stage structure. The background blackness is similar, but Opus has superiority over Mojo in terms of keeping instruments more separated on the stage.

Opus vs Sony ZX2: (650 USD vs 1000 USD)

Sub-bass presentation and low-end depth is similar, but Opus has fuller mid-bass with more resolved notes. Opus can reproduce all the notes from mid-bass region, while ZX2 misses some little nuances. Opus’ low end has actually higher quantity compared to ZX2 however we may feel the opposite due to its general character and energy balance.

Opus has slightly brighter midrange tone in comparison with more forward and fuller notes. Resolution levels are close, but Opus has a forwardness advantage over ZX2 and this increases vocals’ resolution and makes their location truer. Additionally, ZX2 represents the midrange a little laid-back in comparison. Opus has more natural and slightly prominent treble presentation, while ZX has more control over high frequency notes.

In terms of 3D imaging, ZX2’s performance is better. Opus has a more intimate stage structure with a better separation. Overall, ZX2 is slightly leaner, while Opus has more full-bodied presentation.

Final Words:

Opus#1 from the BIT is a very impressive digital audio player and deserves appreciation considering its audio performance. Opus can better more expensive daps in terms of sound quality, but the firmware needs to be improved. I can recommend Opus to who is looking for slightly less bassy but resolved presentation. Finally, I can easily say that the price/performance ratio is the most successful part of the player. The price may differ in accordance with distributors’ policies, but its average price is approximately 650 USD.

For The BIT website other info:

http://www.audio-opus.com/?page_id=15881

Thanks for the review @Mike Portnoy.

I like a lot of player opus.I found the successful mid and treble.

Great review all999! Thanks!
By any chance, did you ever tried the Fiio X7? They are in a same(ish) price range, and it would be interesting to compare their SQ

Introduction:

Labkable is a Hong Kong based cable maker, which has pretty wide product range. They sell some famous brands’ products such as Neotech, Mundorf and Oyaide as well as some modification parts for amplifiers. In fact, I was really impressed when I looked at their product line, rich and useful selection. Also, I think DIY’ers would love these guys, since there are a lot of DIY parts and accessories. Labkable seems like a grocery store of cable world.

When I contacted with Labkable, I got a pretty fast reply from them. Edmond, their representative was pretty responsive with a very well English. We talked about IEM cables and decided on Takumi IEM cable from Master Series line. The reviewed Takumi cable is a mid-priced cable from Labkable range. Their most expensive and interesting cable is Pandora. While Takumi has 8 braids in a hybrid design, Pandora utilizes 10 wires. Pandora is described with its high-resolution musical experience and it is priced at 1250 USD. Besides these two cables, Labkable offers Shadow series, Silvernova series, Pro series and Kophone series as aftermarket upgrade cables.

Built Quality and Accessories:

Master Series Takumi cable utilizes 8 wires and a combination of silver gold, silver plated copper and copper conductors. As we may guess, it is a hybrid cable, but there are three different types of conductor. The built quality of Takumi is very good; sleeving material has a strong quality and knitting of 8 wires looks very promising. It is neither too thin nor too thick, but wrapping is easy enough to put it into the small carrying case that comes with the cable as a standard accessory. However, I have to say that Takumi may create a bit microphonic effect and outdoor usage may be a little difficult.

The reviewed Takumi cable has high quality memory wire, but some may find it a bit rough and it may make a pressure to head, behind the ear. During my experience, I haven’t gotten this kind of disturbance from the memory wire. In addition, it looks very strong and durable when compared to other aftermarket cables’ memory wire. To make suitable for my usage on all my custom in ear monitors, Takumi in my hands has 2 pin industry standard pins for recessed sockets. In addition, Labkable offers 4 pin JH Audio, FitEar, MMCX and Ultimate Ears-type connectors.

The reviewed cable has a beautiful wooden Y slider and Oyaide type 3.5 mm TRS plug. As far as I know, Labkable offers a wide variety of plugs such as popular Viablue and balanced plugs for AK series.

As accessories, a soft carrying case comes with in the wooden package. The aforementioned wood case is worth to see. Only a few manufacturers offer this kind of premium outer package. Very impressed honestly.

Sound:

Labkable Takumi cable is transparent, resolved and airy sounding unit. There is slight warmness here, but less warm compared to stock cable in accordance with its mid-bass presentation.

In this review, M-Fidelity SA-43 and its stock cable is utilized. The source is Lotoo Paw Gold.

Low Frequency:

The stock cable has slightly more quantity in low frequency region, but the stock sounds messy in sub-bass region, while Takumi is more controlled and tighter. The area of impact of sub-bass is slightly bigger on the stock, but Takumi has better sense of detail articulation and notes are clearer.

The mid-bass presentation is different on both in terms of tone and quantity. Takumi has more controlled and less warm notes, while the stock is closer to have an emotional perspective. Due to warmer notes, the stock fills in the space between instruments with warmer air and that reduces airiness compared to Takumi.

Mid Frequency:

Even if Takumi has a little airier and also slightly more alive sound, it carries the naturalness of instruments when plugged into SA-43. Average note thickness becomes a little thinner compared to the stock, but clarity and resolution of Takumi betters the stock by a large margin. Overall mid-range placement on the stage is similar, but Takumi gives a significant amount of depth to the presentation as well as longer and clearer distances between instruments and this ability creates a lot better layering in mid section.

Takumi adds a little open tone to upper mids, but it still sounds non-piercing. Both have bodied vocals, Takumi performs with more 3D and transparency. However, Takumi tends more to create sibilance in accordance with more open tone in comparison.

High Frequency:

Takumi offers slightly more presence in treble region. The stock cable sounds less detailed in comparisons, but Takumi’s open and slightly brighter tone may be problematic with already too bright earphones. Actually, the brighter tone is not the correct word, but it is closer to have ‘’bright’’ adjective rather than open tone in treble region. On the other hand, Takumi betters the stock in terms of both detail articulation, extension and resolution.

Soundstage and Separation:

Takumi betters the stock in soundstage comparison; Takumi has slightly wider stage, but has deeper one by a large margin. The distance between instruments is longer and clearer with a more neutral air in accordance with mid-bass presentation and presence.

The aforementioned stage depth difference between two cables gives an imaging advantage to Takumi. It is worth to hear the imaging that is created by Takumi as well as more three-dimensional instrument definition.

Takumi offers significantly better instrument separation in accordance with its depth and creation of distance between instruments. However, background blackness is similar and Takumi can’t create definite superiority in this area over the stock.

Final Words:

Labkable Takumi cable is not a cheap aftermarket cable. However, there is a significant improvement over stock cable in terms of midrange resolution, imaging, separation and stage depth. Its overall tone and low frequency performance is not the best, but still natural and satisfying. Even if Takumi is not very suitable for outdoor using due to its micro phonic effect and weight, its build quality and looking is quite impressive. I would definitely recommend Takumi to who needs to add some openness to tone and create more alive presentation. Nice and impressive aftermarket cable.

The MSRP of Labkable Takumi is 620 USD. For contact info please check:

http://labkable.com/products/Labkable-Master-Series-%252d-TAKUMI-IEM-Audio-Cable.html

http://labkable.com

Great review, you are a guru when it comes to technical sound analysis!

Thank you buddy, I appreciate that.

Introduction:

Empire Ears was known as Earwerkz in audiophile world. They have changed their name and released new product line a while ago. Their flagship is now a 14-driver unit, Zeus; and Apollo is their second most expensive custom in ear monitor in the product line. Apart from these Olympus series two custom monitors, they also offer lifestyle line, which has hard-wired cable and lower profile fit. In addition, they produce Delta series hearing protection monitors. In sum, Empire Ears has a very rich product line.

I am always impressed by Earwerkz customer service and they seem to carry this tradition in hands of Jack Vang, Empire Ears Co-Manager. There was a big problem with my package shipping due to USPS fault, but Jack took care of it and tracked the package very carefully. At the end, it was delivered safely, though a bit lately.

Design, Fit and Accessories:

Apollo utilizes 10 balanced armature drivers per side, 2 for lows, 4 for midrange and 4 for highs. There are also 3 acoustic bores as well as 5-way and 4-point passive crossover network. Apollo has 119 dB of sensitivity with 17 OHM of impedance.

The fit and craftsmanship is simply awesome. There is no sign of error with the craftsmanship and Apollo can be listened for hours without getting fatigued. Apollo has the most comfortable fit among my customs. No complaint at all, simply perfect.

Apollo has detachable two pin cable; as far as I can see on Empire Ears website, Apollo is shipped with BTG Starlight Cable for a limited time. Starlight has very good memory wire section for an aftermarket cable, but its built quality is not very soft. As accessories, there is an impressive Aegis Case, on which my name is printed, a dust bag, an IEM pouch, cleaning tool and cleaning cloth. Honestly, I feel myself special by looking at this impressive Aegis Case.

Sound:

Apollo-X has a little bit warm sound with smooth note reproduction. It has slightly distant stage, but not a completely laid back one. As Earwerkz products, Apollo has non-fatiguing approach with controlled treble. Overall, Apollo has a balanced quantity structure between frequencies.

Low Frequency:

Apollo has natural sub-bass hits; they are neither so powerful nor too light. It has nice rumble with medium area of impact on the stage. Sub-bass is not very tight, but controlled and fast enough to not to get messy. Hitting to depth ability is good and they hit from an effective distance on the stage.

Mid-bass has a slightly warm tone, but doesn’t fill in the general atmosphere with too much warm air. In this regard, mid-bass is very well controlled and doesn’t tighten the stage. Additionally, there is a nice tonal and quantity balance between sub-bass and mid-bass. However, their resolution and texture is not the best.

Mid Frequency:

Like overall spectrum, midrange has a placement that is slightly distant to listener, but it has full-bodied notes and this prevents midrange from being completely laidback. Even if Apollo is not very dynamic, average note thickness is close to thicker side and it is able to create both thin and thick notes well, but stays behind Spiral Ear SE5 in this regard. Thanks to thick and bodied notes, center and lower midrange has a natural tone, but with a slight coloration. Detail level is high, but center image resolution is not the best.

Upper midrange is smooth and detailed; I found its resolution and transparency level better than center and lower midrange. Also, there is sibilance depending on tracks, but it is below ear piercing levels. Vocals are slightly distant, but still intimate in accordance with large portions on the stage.

High Frequency:

Apollo has non-fatiguing treble presentation with a nice resolution. It is neither too laid-back nor too prominent. Overall it is slightly warm, but it is colder when compared to rest of the spectrum. Due to slight coloration, its notes don’t have completely true tone, but not metallic either. As for listening to metal tracks, the speed is enough to have a good resolution and separation. Even if the extension is not the best, there is a high level of detail.

Soundstage and Separation:

Apollo doesn’t have a very wide stage, but the depth is impressive in accordance with slightly distant located background. Additionally, the stage size is good and there is not a congested instruments placement.

The best part of Apollo is its background and separation. Indeed, the background has a very good level of blackness and the stability is impressive. In very fast and crowded tracks, Apollo is able to create a strong instrument separation. Imaging is also good, but not the best among my others.

Selected Comparisons:

Apollo vs Spiral Ear SE5 Ref:

In general, SE5 is intimate sounding unit with forward mids, while Apollo’s stage is slightly distant. Apollo has a warmer presentation when compared to Se5’s more transparent and resolved approach.

Both have similarly located sub-bass hits with similar hitting to depth ability. SE5 has better texture and resolution, while Apollo has softer touches. In addition, SE5 has more clearer and tighter punches with a better speed. Apollo has slightly more prominent mid-bass with a little warmer tone. In comparison, SE5 has more resolved and less warm mid-bass presentation.

In midrange, Apollo has cleaner notes, but SE5 has more resolved and transparent note reproduction. Both have thick notes with a natural tone, but SE5 is better in terms of creation of both thick and thin notes. Both have strong vocals, but SE5 gives more dimension and resolution in a more intimate way. Apollo has a mellow midrange presentation in comparison, while SE5 is more alive with a truer tone.

Both have a smooth treble presentation, but SE5 has a truer tone overall with less colored and more extended notes. Detail level is similar; Apollo has slightly more prominent treble, while SE5 is more resolved during fast tracks.

Both don’t have overly wide stages, but do have impressive stage depths. In general, Apollo creates longer distances between instruments, while SE5 has clearer/less warm spaces between them. The separation level is similar, but SE5 has speed and resolution advantage during fast tracks.

Apollo vs Lear LCM-BD4.2

In comparison, Apollo has warmer signature with slightly thicker and smoother notes, while Lear is brighter and sounds with thin notes. Lear is more spacious overall with a bigger picture creation.

Lear has more natural sub-bass tone in accordance with dynamic driver. Texture is better on Lear, but Apollo has a faster sub-bass presentation. Lear uses a larger bass-room by putting air behind punches. Mid-bass is more prominent on Apollo with a slightly warmer tone.

Apollo has thicker, warmer and more bodied midrange notes, while Lear sounds brighter, more transparent and slightly more distant. Detail level is similar, but Lear is better in terms of center image resolution. Apollo has darker note reproduction; on the other hand Lear has clearer notes in accordance with thin sound structure. Vocals have more body on Apollo with a smoother touch; both may have sibilance depending on tracks, but Lear tends to have it more. Both female and male vocals have better dimension/size on Apollo.

In treble section, Apollo is smoother with a more natural tone, while Lear sounds metallic and more prominent in comparison. Transparency level is similar, but Lear is slightly more extended, while Apollo is faster.

Lear has significantly wider and more spacious stage, while Apollo has slightly deeper one in accordance with its more stable and blacker background. Lear creates longer distances and less warm spaces between instruments. On the other hand, Apollo allows focusing easier, while Lear has slightly better coherence.

Final Words:

Empire Ears Apollo-X custom in ear monitor is a good alternative for who is looking for a smooth sound with non-fatiguing treble notes. Additionally, its separation and background blackness is very impressive. I must say that Empire Ears does a very good job in terms of comfort and fit, the best that I have ever tried. Simply perfect!

For Empire Ears website: http://empireears.com

For Apollo-X info and ordering: http://empireears.com/model-overview/?ap=726

MSRP for Apollo-X: 1599 USD.

@moedawg140

Thank you mates,

@moedawg140 I tested it on both 901 and Lotoo Paw Gold.

It feels like it lacks the technical capabilities you expect from this price range. Great review as usual my friend, keep up the wonderful work.

@AmberOzL

Thank you buddy. @AmberOzL

Looking forward too, man @flinkenick

Introduction:

Eartech is an American company located in Johnson City, Tennessee. They primarily produce hearing aids and help people to hear well. They are the parent company of Eartech Music, which makes custom in ear monitors for audiophiles and stage musicians. Eartech is in hearing aid industry for almost 40 years and Eartech Music aims to carry this huge experience into making custom in ear monitors.

Eartech Music offers three mains products to their customers: Dual driver IEM, Triple driver IEM and finally Quad driver IEM. They also produce earplugs offering four level of sound reduction as well as selling some accessories such as cases and cables.

The price policy is about making affordable custom in ear monitors; the dual is priced at 299 USD, the triple at 399 USD and Quad at 499 USD. As Richard from Eartech said, the triple driver model is their most popular model. According to their website, Quad has a powerful low frequency response and is good for bass players and drummers, while the dual has a clean sound. Honestly, the triple driver IEM has a good performance price ratio.

When we look at Eartech Music website, we can see that there is a shell design engine, which is a rare to find and unique opportunity for customers. We can design shells by virtually selecting colors, faceplate logo and wood options. I must say that most companies don’t have this engine, and we need to take a look at their Facebook page and try to catch some ideas by analyzing pictures of monitors. Colors are free to charge, but wooden faceplate is for extra cost, 75 USD.

Eartech Music customer service is simply awesome. They reply to my emails within minutes and are very friendly. I chose a wrong faceplate/body color combination at the beginning, but they contacted with me, we discussed and found the right one. I should give five stars to their customer service approach with my special thanks to Richard. In addition, they use FedEx as a company policy, even for international orders.

Build Quality, Internals and Accessories:

The reviewed triple has very nice craftsmanship. Combination consists of forest green body and curly maple wooden faceplate. With an exception of a single error, the faceplate is very well cut and placed on the body. Also, there is no lacquer overflowing sign here, determined simply very well. The fit is also good with a slight tightness, which makes this monitor a perfect solution for stage musicians. No seal breaking at all during jaw movements and there is excellent isolation in crowded places.

The triple has three drivers in accordance with its name and also there is a 45-Ohm of impedance with 119 dB of sensitivity. The drivers inside are not small; there are two big drivers and a smaller one. Also, there are two main acoustic bores, one has bigger diameter.

The triple comes with accessories such as pelican hard case, cleaning tool, 3.5mm to 6.3 mm converter, shirt clip and a large drier disc. Also, Eartech sent me a nice t-shirt on which their logo is printed. The stock cable is industry standard, very similar to Westone/UM type cable.

Sound:

Eartech triple custom in ear monitor has a warm signature in accordance with slight mid-bass lift. Overall presentation is full-bodied and may be considered like V shape due to midrange is a little bit less prominent than other frequency ranges. However, it isn’t an exact V shape, since midrange is not significantly distant compared to others, thanks to its thick and full-bodied notes. In sum it is somewhere between being V shape and balanced.

Low Frequency:

The triple has prominent low frequency response with a warm tone. Sub-bass has medium area of impact with tight notes; it hits from a distant place and this helps to create a good stage depth. The texture and hitting to depth ability is not on par with TOTLs monitors, but it has a very good performance for its price.

Mid-bass has a warm tone here; it is not located too close to listener, but it may tighten the stage depending on quantity of mid-bass in tracks; it is a rare problem when we look at its general presentation. On the other hand, mid-bass has a nice resolution and tone; this is the best part of low frequency performance of the triple.

Overall quantity of lows is enough for audiophiles who want to hear more bass, but I must say that it is not completely a bass-head ciem.

Mid Frequency:

As I mentioned in general description of the triple above, listener feels midrange a little bit distant in accordance to highs and lows’ quantities. However, midrange is weighty and full-bodied with a natural tone overall. Transparency and clarity level is not very high, but it isn’t fatiguing at all during long listening sessions. In addition, average note thickness is on the thick side. Not very thick, but may have some problems in creating lower midrange notes due to mid-bass full-bodied presentation.

Upper midrange is nicely detailed; it is not too bright, but not completely smooth. There is coloration here and this may result in sibilance, but is below acceptable levels. Overall midrange resolution is not on par with TOTLs, but apart from instruments, vocals have a very good resolution performance and listener can catch most of throat movements of singers.

High Frequency:

Overall high frequency is a little more prominent than midrange. It has a good amount of detail with a nice balanced energy. Even if its tone is not very natural, it has a non-piercing note releasing. Extension is not on par with my other monitors, but it has a good speed. During fusion jazz track, speed is enough, while resolution level slightly goes down in fast metal tracks. Even there is slight coloration on highs, transparency level is good and highs have a good body; they also give a slight airy feel to the general atmosphere.

Soundstage and Separation:

The triple doesn’t have a very wide stage, but depth is very nice for its price in accordance with a little distant mids, background location and starting point of sub-bass hits.

As there is no overly wide stage, focusing is easy, but imaging ability is not the best among my others. I must say that the background stability and blackness is very impressive for its price and creates a separation at very good levels. The width is enough to avoid congested presentation and easily locate bodied instruments on the stage.

Selected Comparison:

Eartech Triple vs Hifiman RE-600 (Both have 399 USD MSRP at their release dates)

Re-600 has less low frequency presence as well as less impact on sub-bass. Re-600 has slightly better texture, but the triple hits deeper with more power and authority. Location of sub-bass is similar on both, while the triple has more prominent and detailed mid-bass presentation. Due to mid-bass tone and quantity, Re-600 has more neutral one, while the triple has significantly warmer atmosphere.

Both have non-piercing midrange presentation, but the triple has more full bodied performance with thicker and more resolving notes, while Re-600 is a little more transparent. The triple has slightly detailed upper midrange, while Re-600 has a bit smoother tone here. Overall the triple has a bit less stressed note releasing in midrange.

Re-600 has slightly less high frequency quantity with a smoother tone; on the other hand the triple has fuller, more detailed but slightly brighter tone. Both have a non-piercing presentation.

Re-600 creates less warm stage with similar width, but the triple has significantly deeper stage with its more distant background. In addition, the triple has blacker and more stable background with a better layering ability and instrument separation.

Final Words:

Eartech Music Triple Driver IEM can be considered as an entry-level custom in ear monitor. I must say that I am impressed with its smooth sound and background blackness/stability. They sound very nice for its price and they remind me Westone UM30 sound signature in accordance with the general atmosphere, but the triple slightly betters it overall. Also, Eartech is able to make monitors with a very good craftsmanship and their customer service is top notch. I can recommend the triple without hesitation to audiophiles who are looking for a smooth sound and an affordable entry-level custom in ear monitor. Well done!

Here is the link to Eartech:

http://www.eartechmusic.com

Here is the link to the triple:

http://www.eartechmusic.com/eartech-triple-driver-custom-iem/

Great review, very clear!

Thank you buddy.

Introduction:

plusSound is an American cable maker located in California, US. They have a good reputation among audiophiles. They offer many different cables such as headphones and IEM upgrade cables, and interconnects. There is also a high-class amplifier Cloud Nine, Audeze headphones and a wide variety of DIY parts in their store.

plusSound IEM cable selection is very rich; we can choose both sleeving/insulation type and cable material in almost all models. For example, Dionysian series can be made both by copper and silver conductors as well as many other wiring combinations. Like conductor selection, there are many options to customize our cable.

Christian, the guy from plusSound is a very nice person and superbly responsive. He always replies to my mails maximum in one hour. I have to say that he is one of the most responsive representatives in the industry.

I have reviewed plusSound Apollonian+ cable a while ago, which is one of my favorite cables in my invertory. This review consists of Exo series made by 4 silver/gold conductors. For whose is interested in Apollonian+ pure copper cable, please check the review link below:

http://www.head-fi.org/products/plussound-apollonian-iem-cable/reviews/13433

Built Quality:

The picture is an excerpt form plusSound website.

Exo has 3 silver/gold-combined conductors. Considering 4 braided build, it can be seen as a lightweight cable. In comparison with similarly priced Apollonian+, Exo is easier to use outdoors. However, Apollonian+ has a better look with its sleeving. On the other hand, the reviewed Exo has a beautiful Y splitter in a shining silver color.

Overall build of Exo is not very stiff and we can easily wrap to put in a case. The most beautiful point on Exo is its pins. Indeed, there are pins in gold and silver color in accordance with its combination. Additionally, there is no memory wire here. In fact no need for it, since it has a very good shape and build to stay stable.

Sound:

In general, silver cables have a bright and open sound and they can be harsh to throw details. In fact, plusSound Exo has a rich tone with impactful low end and it doesn’t create a piercing or cold presentation. Overall tone is a little warm in accordance with mid-bass presentation.

The review and comparisons have been determined with using Lear LCM-BD4.2 custom in ear monitor and its stock cable.

Low Frequency:

Lear stock’s sub-bass has lower resolution, while Exo has more bodied presentation by using larger area of bass-room. Exo significantly has better texturing and hits deeper regions. Overall sub-bass tonality is similar, but Exo’ punches are slightly more emotional and alive.

Overall mid-bass presentation is less prominent on Lear stock, while Exo has a more full-bodied and prominent notes. However, the mid-bass quantity is not exaggerated; Exo doesn’t tighten the stage and doesn’t warm the overall atmosphere more than limits and necessity for smooth touches. It can be thought that Exo has a balanced mid-bass presentation in terms of control and warmth. Additionally, Exo’s resolution is much better than Lear stock.

Mid Frequency:

When compared to Lear stock, Exo has similarly located midrange with same amount of prominence. Exo doesn’t have a laidback presentation here, but neither too forward. In comparison, Exo makes instruments’ positioning in a larger picture by tightening impact and keeping their overall sizes on the stage. On the other hand, Lear stock has non-controlled note releasing and instruments are closely located to each other. This difference makes Exo to create significantly clearer and cleaner picture overall.

In transparency comparison, Exo has slightly better performance, but it has a definite superiority over Lear stock in terms of tone’s richness and resolution. Additionally, it seems that they have similar performance on note thickness, but Exo has slightly fuller notes in accordance with its overall refining superiority. Also, overall tonality is similar, but Exo has a better timbre in accordance with its rich presentation.

High Frequency:

Exo has slightly more quantity in this region when compared to Lear stock cable. Lear stock’s treble has significantly uncontrolled note releasing, while Exo has better resolution here. Even if Exo has slightly more prominent treble, it is more forgiving overall and doesn’t try to throw details in a harsh way. Treble notes are weightier and their tone is better on Exo.

Soundstage and Separation:

Exo performs slightly better in terms of width, but it has a significantly deeper stage with recreation of a cleaner picture overall. This stage depth difference makes Exo to have a better layering too. Background blackness performance is similar, but Exo puts cleaner and clearer distances between instruments on a larger space with an airier presentation overall. Additionally, Exo has a better separation by creating more controlled and tighter notes.

Final Words:

plusSound Exo series silver/gold cable has a smooth sound and weighty low end for a standard silver cable. It is also very impressive in accordance with detail creation style and rich midrange. As always, built quality and looking is very nice and plusSound’s customer service is one the best in the industry. Lastly, Exo silver/gold cable is priced at 299 USD at the time of this review posted.

For more information please check plusSound website:

http://www.plussoundaudio.com

Come on man

Thank you

Thought you were actually Mike Portnoy! XD

Haha nice!

Introduction:

A year ago, when I was looking for an aftermarket cable for my Unique Melody Mentor, I met with Mr. Saktanber, who has been in this industry for almost 20 years. Besides being a cable maker, he is addicted to listening music and audiophile gear.

While we were to trying to decide on which cable would suit best to my Mentor, he offered me to make a custom tuned cable. Then, he produced IEM-2 for my Mentor, which was really stellar and created an impressive improvement. From this time, I started to believe that Mr. Saktanber is a true artist of making his own cables. He only makes pure silver cable by preparing his own raw material.

For more information, please check the SilverFi threads:

http://www.head-fi.org/t/672213/silverfi-d-2-vs-oyaide-dr-510-digital-cables-silverfi-spirit-sg-vs-rumi-sg-interconnects-review

http://www.head-fi.org/t/733502/silverfi-iem-cables-top-class-sounding-iem-and-headphone-cables-impressions-and-appreciation-thread

Mr. Saktanber has recently sent me IEM-3 and IEM-4 demos for a review. I would like to thank him for providing me these cables. I also have IEM-R1 unit in my hands, but we will experience this unique cable in the next review of SilverFi products.

Please note that their built quality and look may change in positive way, since they are review units. IEM4 has 6 pure silver conductors, while IEM3 has 4.

Sound:

I won’t divide this review in parts as I always do, since they all are special. I am going to give some definitions as well as some comparisons between IEM-3 and IEM-4.

Both cables have deeper, punchier and a lot better-textured sub-bass than Lear stock cable. Actually, apart from IEM-R1, they have the most resolved sub-bass that I have ever heard from a cable. They definitely add more authority to the sub-bass presentation by using slightly larger space of effect than Lear stock. In comparison, IEM-4 has a bit more emotional punches with slightly better sense of detail. Sub-bass quantity is very similar, but when we look in depth, we can consider that IEM-4 has more authority by a hair. If we have already too bass heavy earphone, IEM-3 should be a better option.

Both have a neutral placed mid-bass presentation with a very good resolution and both don’t tighten the stage at all. There is no mid-bass hump and they both have very good control over mid-bass notes. In comparison, IEM-4 has slightly more bodied mid-bass; this difference makes IEM-4 more full bodied overall. IEM-4 fits well earphones, which need some weight, while IEM-3 is better for those already have a full-bodied presentation. However, the weight difference between both cables is not very significant.

Both IEM-4 and IEM-3 are definitely more resolving, natural and much richer than stock cable. The difference is very clear and absolutely very satisfying. The main goal of SilverFi is to give clarity and correct tone without being harsh or piercing by keeping the original house sound: ‘’organic and smooth signature with the best possible clarity’’. Indeed, they increase the level of clarity and transparency in a very smooth way with a true and alive tone overall. In comparison, Lear stock cable sounds brighter and metallic; it is so far away from performing in organic perspective like IEM-3 and IEM-4. Both cables make the presentation fuller and note creation becomes better and thicker.

In comparison, IEM-3 has slightly more energetic but drier midrange, while IEM-4 has richer and clearer picture. Transparency and detail levels are very close, but IEM-4 sounds in a slightly more organic way. IEM-4 produces details very similar to Hifiman HE1000’s approach; very rich and detailed with a smooth signature.

In treble section, IEM-3's presentation is slightly more prominent, but both perform very similar in terms of resolution, extension and transparency. They have a definite superiority over Lear stock, which sounds brighter and piercing with an uncontrolled energy. They also have a very good amount of detail with smooth notes; in comparison, IEM-4 has slightly more organic approach, while IEM-3 has slightly drier.

In terms of stage width, both don’t offer a very good performance as good as their other technical abilities. In comparison, both have a wider stage than Lear stock, while IEM-4 is slightly wider than IEM-3. In fact, creating an overly wide stage reduces the reality of the presentation according to SilverFi. They primarily focus on tonality rather than stage dimensions. On the other hand, the depth is impressive on both, which increases the separation level with a better layering; also, both create a blacker background to make a more stable presentation. When compared to IEM-3, IEM-4 is slightly smoother in terms of releasing notes with a bit clearer recreation overall. In addition, both cable have slightly laid-back placed stage compared to Lear’s stock.

Final Words:

IEM-3 and IEM-4 cables from SilverFi are very impressive and they are better than Tralucent Uber Cable in terms of resolution, smoothness and true tone. From memory, Uber cable has a wider stage and slightly more dynamic presentation overall. However, it has stress in releasing notes and throwing details, while IEM-4 and IEM-3 is much more smoother; and they have more natural note releasing and organic tone.

IEM-4 and IEM-3 is not cheap, but if we consider that Uber cable is priced at more than 1000 USD, they become definitely a performance monster.. In the next review of SilverFi cables, I am going to explain the performance of IEM-R1, which is priced at 999 USD. As a quick preview, IEM-Reference 1 comes from another world in every single frequency range.. I can’t imagine how IEM-R2, R3 and R4 sounds..

Lastly their prices:

IEM3: 749 USD
IEM4: 875 USD

For contact info, please check:

http://silverfi.blogspot.com.tr

The only place I find no difference is in your posts, Bart.

I love your review Mike, you opened to us a window & almost even hear these cables for ourselves.

Thank you mate.

I appreciate that.

Introduction:

Advanced AcousticWerkes is a custom iem maker from Singapore. They have a wide variety of earphones, such as Meister Line, entry level Muziker Line and W500 AHMorph as a flagship. They also offer universal and non-Morph versions of their flagship as well as reshell/modification service.

They don’t sell monitors directly; we need to contact with their distributors. There are many in Asia and one in Europe, but their most popular distributor is Null Audio, Singapore. The guys in Null Audio were quite responsive to my emails and they usually got back to me in 24 hours. It can be thought that this is a fair replying time by taking the time difference into consideration.

As customization options, AAW offers approximately 45 different colors for main body, as well as some unique faceplate options such as mother of pearl and carbon fiber. I have to say that these options are very rich and impressive. As mechanical options, they offer two different sockets, such as recessed two pin and MMXC.

(The picture is an excerpt from Null Audio website)

Built Quality, Internals and Accessories:

W500 is made by high quality acrylic. The reviewed unit has a crimson red body and carbon fiber faceplate. Canals are slightly on longer side, but it isn’t as long as my SA43 or SE5. The craftsmanship is very good and I have to say that this is one of the most comfortable monitors that I have ever tried; there is no disturbance during long listening sessions. Also, I find its isolation very well, almost on par with my silicone monitors; there is no ventilation hole used for dynamic driver inside.

W500 utilizes 5 ways passive crossover design, 3 main acoustic hoses, 9 mm dynamic driver and 4 balanced armatures. In sum, this is a hybrid in ear monitor. To switch between armatures/dynamic and change low frequency effect, a turning knob is inserted into the inner side of the shell. The knob is tunable with a screwdriver included in the standard package.

(The pictures are excerpt from Null Audio website)

The reviewed monitor has 2 pin-recessed sockets and it comes with a 4-braided version of Null Audio Vitesse Copper cable. Just like my 8-braided version of Vitesse cable, the standard cable of W500 is very flexible and easy to use; also much lighter than 8-braided copper. Null Audio doesn’t sell 4-braided Vitesse cable separately, but I guess they should have many demands for this cable. As accessories, a hard carrying case, a cleaning tool, a soft carrying case and a screwdriver, an aircraft adapter and 3.5mm to 6.3 mm converter is included in the package. Also, there is a special card on which customer name is printed. I would like to say that I find accessories very rich for a standard package.

Sound:

AAW W500 AHMorph is a warm sounding custom in ear monitor with balanced treble energy. With its tuning knob, we are able to change its dynamic driver effect on the entire spectrum.

The review is based on moderate tune, which is most balanced and suitable one fixed on the yellow point, the best tune in my opinion.

Low Frequency:

Sub-bass of the W500 is quite powerful even with the moderate tune. The punches hit like a hammer with a good texture. Hitting to depth ability and resolution is quite good, but not the best when compared to my other flagships. On the other hand, sub-bass tone is very natural in accordance with dynamic driver. There is no armature kind of punch here. Additionally W500’s hits come from a large area on the stage by using large headroom. I think that sub-bass quantity and power can be satisfying listeners who want to hear more low frequency on entire spectrum.

Mid-bass is located a bit close to listener with a significant quantity and has a warm tone. Detail level is good, but resolution is not the best. With the effect of its forward notes, this warm tone gives a bit too warm air to whole spectrum and makes the general presentation a bit warmer depending on tracks. Due to the fact that mid-bass has a slightly too forward presentation, the bass room can sometimes be separated from the rest of the spectrum; and this results in lacking of coherence and imaging. Not a big problem, but some listeners may expect a better coherence ability.

Mid Frequency:

In general, W500 has weighty and dynamic midrange presentation. The midrange is located a bit far away from listener, but still intimate. Average note thickness is quite good, but not on par with Spiral Ear SE5. W500 recreates thick notes very well and in a realistic tone, but there is a little problem in creating lower mids’ notes; they remain too thick at times.

Overall tone of the lower and center mids is smooth in accordance with mid-bass’ tone. On the other hand, the forward mid-bass presentation sometimes fills in the mids with a bit too warm air and this may result in creating less airy midrange. Even if there should be slightly more detail and air, the midrange performs with very rich and full notes.

While center and lower mids are smooth, upper mids are more energetic and there is a slight brightness here. This brightness/coloration makes upper mids more detailed, but it adds slight roughness to vocals and instruments’ notes in upper midrange at the same time.

In addition, there is a very clean midrange, but transparency level is not very high and stays behind SA-43 that is my favorites ciem in this section. W500 may be considered as a slightly intimate and rich sounding earphone in its class; the resolution level is good, but not the best among my others.

High Frequency:

Treble section of W500 remains within the limits in terms of quantity. Thanks to this balanced quantity, W500 isn’t piercing at all, but alive. In general, it can be thought that treble is slightly more prominent and located a bit more forward compared to midrange.

High frequency tone is not exactly mechanic/metallic, but neither very natural. It sounds with weighty notes, but it doesn’t have a very true tone due to added coloration/slight brightness to treble, in order to make it more impressive. Overall tone is similar to H8P, but W500 is slightly faster and sounds with weightier, thicker and less bright/piercing notes. In treble section, W500 is not very fast, but H8P remains sticky due to slower presentation in comparison.

With its clean high frequency presentation, W500’s extension, treble transparency and detail levels are impressive, but resolution is not that impressive due to low speed in decay/attack.

Soundstage and Separation:

W500 doesn’t have an enormously large stage. It has a wide stage having above-average performance, but with a less impressive depth due to the fact that the background isn’t located very distant. Still, it has a quite good layering ability.

The instrument separation is very good with a very black and stable background. However, it may have some separation problems in fast tracks, due to slightly slow attacks in treble section and low frequency. After all, it is a very impressive separation in total.

As I mentioned above, even if it increases the separation level, there is a coherence problem linked with mid-bass presentation. To fix it, there might be a less separated bass room, which could be tuned as more intimate with the rest of spectrum.

Short Impressions about the other tunes of W500:

Blue Point Tune:

This is the tune, which carries the most prominent low frequency. The most significant changes occur to bass quantity and treble energy. Overall presentation becomes weightier, but it also becomes slightly less airy due to slightly less prominent treble and upper-midrange.

Red Point Tune:

W500 tends to be more neutral and slightly dry, with a less dark/warm presentation. The overall sound becomes airier due to slight change in the bass room, and treble is about to have less coloration. However, notes become slightly lighter and overall presentation becomes less musical. Sub-bass becomes tighter, but slightly looses rumble effect.

Selected Comparisons:

AAW W500 vs Spiral Ear SE5 Ref:

In general, SE5 has more forward and intimate presentation, while W500 is slightly warmer sounding earphone overall with the existence of a bit more coloration in upper mid and treble sections.

Note: The comparison is made with W500’s yellow point tune.

Low Frequency:

Both use large headroom for low frequency region. W500 has more prominent and slightly more natural hits, while SE5’s hitting to depth ability is better in accordance with the location of background. Additionally, SE5 has slightly better texture and control in sub-bass area with a similar rumble effect. While W500 has more mid-bass quantity with more forward presentation; SE5 has slightly laid-back notes with a less warm tone.

Mid Frequency:

SE5 has more forward midrange presentation, with slightly better average note thickness. Both place instruments with similar portions in the stage and recreate thick notes well, but W500 can sometimes sound a bit too thick in comparison. Also, SE5 performs more resolved and transparent, while W500 is cleaner. Both have a rich presentation, but SE5 is closer to performing with true tone. This difference makes SE5 more organic sounding monitor with slightly more emotional vocals.

In upper midrange area, SE5 sounds smoother, while W500 has more detailed presentation with a slightly colored/brighter notes. Due to this presentation difference in upper mids, W500 can tend to sibilance more.

High Frequency:

In high frequency, W500 has more prominent and brighter notes, while SE5 is smoother and more forgiving. W500 tonality is neither metallic nor too natural. In comparison, SE5 has a more true tone with better speed and resolution, but W500 is more detailed and its micro detail articulation is better here. Additionally, extension levels are similar and both have coloration in treble section, but W500 has more.

Soundstage and Separation:

As for stage size, W500 has wider stage; SE5 has better stage depth with a slightly better imaging and more distant located background. Both recreate weighty instruments with similar portions; SE5 puts instruments closer to each other, while W500 create more distance between instruments in a wider stage. This results in a slightly congested presentation on SE5 due to difference in stage sizes. On the other hand, W500 puts warmer air between instruments, while SE5 has more neutral one.

Both have impressive and similar instruments separation ability with their stable and black backgrounds. However, SE5 has a slight advantage in fast metal tracks with its better decay/attack ability. Due to too separated mid-bass presentation and bass room of W500, SE5 has better coherence linked with a more realistic perspective. However, both perform behind SA43 in terms of realism.

AAW W500 vs Lear LCM-BD4.2:

As we all know, both of them have a hybrid design. Lear utilizes two 6mm dynamic drivers, while AAW utilizes a single 9mm for low frequency. Isolation is much better on W500, since Lear has a ventilation hole for dynamic drivers. Also, Lear has larger shell, while W500 is more comfortable in terms of fit.

Note: The comparison is made with Lear’s ¾ turned bass knob and W500’s yellow point tune.

Low Frequency:

Thanks to dynamic drivers, both have a natural/sweet low frequency tone with slightly colored presentation. W500 has more powerful sub-bass with a strong rumble effect, while Lear hits slightly deeper in accordance with its background location. In addition, W500 hits from a larger area on the stage and carries more bodied notes, while Lear’s sub-bass is tighter and better textured in comparison. Both convey emotion and carry air behind hits very well.

Lear has less mid-bass quantity than W500, and locates it laid-back and coherent in comparison. W500 gives more warm air to spectrum in accordance with mid-bass quantity, tone and location, while Lear performs from a slightly neutral perspective in terms of air between instruments. On the other hand, W500 has better mid-bass detail with slightly more resolved notes, but this advantage may be switched to Lear depending on mid-bass quantity in tracks.

Mid Frequency:

Lear midrange is located laid-back with a slight difference, while W500 make us feel more intimate with presentation, in accordance with its note thickness and more bodied notes. Lear sounds significantly thinner, but airier, a bit clearer and articulates details a bit more. In terms of resolution, Lear slightly bests W500, but W500 has a better timbre creation.

On the other hand, W500’s midrange is more dynamic and has a warmer tone and thicker note recreation with a slight smoothness overall. Both don’t have an exact true tone here, but W500 is slightly more natural. Overall transparency level is close; Lear may have an advantage here with its clearer midrange. Both aren’t on par with SE5 in terms of recreation of both thick and thin notes well; W500 may perform too thick at times, Lear may sounds too thin. Overall, average note thickness is better on W500.

W500 has slightly smoother upper midrange with a similar amount of detail. In comparison, Lear sounds a bit brighter and tends to sibilance more, while W500 has weightier and more intimate vocals in accordance with its more bodied notes.

High Frequency:

Lear has slightly clearer treble with a bit brighter notes. On the other hand, W500 has smoother and slightly weightier presentation. Both don’t have a true or very natural tone here, but W500 is closer to have natural one. Extensions and detail levels are similar, but Lear is more resolved by a hair. During fast tracks, W500 performs a bit better in terms of speed and equals resolution level with a better instrument separation, while Lear sounds slightly more piercing and messy here.

Soundstage and Separation:

Lear has wider and deeper stage; it locates background slightly more distant than W500 does. Overall presentation is more spacious on Lear, while W500 spreads warmer air over the entire spectrum. This makes Lear to have clearer distances between instruments. In general, Lear gives a clearer picture, while W500 has a bolder/weightier one.

W500 has significantly better separation with its blacker and more stable background. Lear has some stability problems with its background, and it is not black enough to create an impressive separation. On the other hand, the coherence is better on Lear with an easier focusing overall, while W500 equals imaging level with its strong background.

Final Words:

AAW W500 AHMorph has a really unique and promising warm sound signature with its balanced treble energy. In conclusion, its general performance can be highly ranked among TOTL class monitors. Its black background and low frequency naturalness is one of the bests; the craftsmanship and comfort is top notch. Good work AAW!

Note: W500 is priced at 1.054 USD at the time this review is posted.

Here is the link for the additional info about AAW and Null Audio:

http://www.acousticwerkes.com

http://www.null-audio.com/collections/custom-in-ear-monitor/products/advanced-acousticwerkes-w500-ahmorph-reference-hybrid-custom-in-ear-monitor

Great review Mike. I have been considering buying the Lear LCM BD 4.2 for sometime, but I guess I should also consider the AAW W500 AHMorph. I have a Cowon Plenue 1 which I think would suit either of these IEM's.

I look forward to you next review!

Regards

Gideon

Hi Gideon,

Thanks mate. Hope you will get the best for your needs

Cheers

great job

Introduction:

As a well-known cable maker company, Forza AudioWorks is located in Poland. Its CEO and founder Matthew, a good English speaker and known as ‘’Matez’’ on Head-Fi, is a nice guy to do some business with. He has a very friendly and helpful approach.

(Picture from FAW)

Matthew produces cables for both IEMs and full size headphones, such as Noir, Claire, Hybrid and Copper series; as well as extenders, interconnects and line out cables in digital/analogue options. He also offers digital player modification and recabling service. In general Forza’s prices are affordable and their products are easy to reach.

The reviewed cables are Hybrid and Copper series IEM cables. They are terminated with 2 pin and a high quality Viablue jack. Apart from these options, Forza offers many different connectors for every IEM on the market and Matthew has a very wide variety of plugs from Neutrik to American Army choice Switchcraft. I think plug range is very impressive and my favorites are ViaBlue and Switchcraft.

Built Quality:

Both cables have 4 conductors with different wire combinations. Copper Forza utilizes 4 copper Litz wires, while Hybrid Forza has 4 semi Litz Hybrid conductors. Even if they each have 4 conductors, they aren’t heavy or rigid. In this regard, Viablue offers very good portability and doesn’t add weight to the cables. Even Switchcraft is one of my favorites, it may be more suitable for indoor use due to its size and weight. There is no memory wire on the cables. I don’t think that we may need a memory wire, since the cables are flexible enough to curl.

The reviewed cables have old type Westone 2 pin connectors which work well on both flush and recessed sockets. There are beautiful FAW logos printed on these connectors. Also, instead of red-blue marks, ‘’A’’ letter of the logo is in green color to show right canal of the cable. I like this kind of connectors specifically belonged to companies themselves.

The reviewed cables are compared to Lear’s stock. There are three sections in this review and Lear LCM-BD4.2 is used during critical listening.

Copper Forza Sound:

Low Frequency:

Lear’s stock and copper Forza, they have similar amount of sub-bass. Copper Forza has slightly more powerful hits, but difference it isn’t much. On the other hand, copper Forza has a bit cleaner punches with a bit more emotional tone.

Both have the same amount of control on mid bass. Copper Forza is a bit more resolved and has slightly prominent notes. Thanks to the controlled mid bass, copper Forza doesn’t tighten the stage with the halfway setting of Lear’s bass knob.

Mid Frequency:

Lear’s stock has a bit thinner notes, while copper Forza has a cleaner mid presentation with a similar transparency level. Forza also has slightly more refined sound but the detail level is similar. Upper mids of Forza is slightly smoother and also cleaner like the rest of the spectrum.

High Frequency:

Lear’s notes are a bit brighter, while copper Forza has smoother ones. Detail levels are similar, but Forza has a bit more resolved, extended and natural presentation. Also, Forza is less fatiguing in accordance with pure copper nature of the cable.

Soundstage and Separation:

Both cables have similar stage width, but copper Forza has a deeper stage with a blacker and more stable background, which results in increasing in instrument separation.

Distance between instruments is deeply longer on copper Forza, while Lear sounds a bit congested. That creates better depth for the stage, and the instrument placement gets better with a more impressive layering.

Hybrid Forza Sound

Low Frequency:

Hybrid Forza’s sub-bass has similar impact, coming from a medium area of impact like Lear’s stock, but has better texture with a bit tighter presentation. Lear has slightly lesser mid-bass quantity., but hybrid Forza has a mid-bass with slightly better resolution. Additionally, tonality is similar.

Mid Frequency:

Lear stock has slightly brighter presentation with thin notes, hybrid Forza has a bit smoother and thicker notes. Hybrid Forza has slightly better resolution with a bit more detail. Also, midrange notes take more area on the stage with hybrid Forza.

Both have similarity in locating upper mids on stage, but hybrid Forza is a bit smoother in this area, while Lear stock tends to sibilance more by a hair.

High Frequency:

Both have similar prominence on highs, but hybrid Forza adds resolution to the presentation with more controlled notes. Hybrid Forza also has better treble extension and more musical/less piercing than Lear stock.

Soundstage and Separation:

Both cables have similar stage width, but hybrid Forza has a better depth with slightly better background blackness; in this regard, hybrid Forza has a slightly better separation.

Hybrid Forza vs Copper Forza; A Comparison:

Low Frequency:

Both cables have similar sub-bass presentation as amount, but copper Forza has a bit emotional tone, while hybrid Forza has a bit tighter punches. Due to its nature, copper Forza has a warmer tone on mid-bass with a bit more bodied presentation. Also, copper Forza has a bit more prominent mid-bass notes.

Mid Frequency:

Copper Forza recreates slightly thicker notes, while hybrid Forza has a bit more forward upper mids with slightly more clarity. Transparency level is close, but hybrid Forza has a bit more detailed presentation. Copper needs to be used on brighter/thinner earphones, while hybrid fits well with thicker/darker ones.

High Frequency:

Copper Forza represents treble note a bit weightier, while hybrid Forza has a slightly more detailed and alive presentation. If we have earphones, which have already extended/prominent treble, copper would be a good choice with its smoother presentation. On the other hand, if we have IEMs that sound darker/full bodied with laid back treble notes, hybrid would be more suitable for the presentation.

Sounstage and Separation:

Both Forza cables have similar stage width dimensions, but copper has a slightly blacker background, while hybrid Forza has a bit deeper stage. Also, copper Forza has a bit blacker background and hybrid Forza has slightly clearer spaces between instruments. That equality makes separation level very close.

Final Words:

Copper and Hybrid series IEM cables from Forza AudioWorks definitely improve sound in positive ways. Additionally, they have very good looks with rich options such as plug, connector, sleeving and length. In general, copper Forza has slightly bolder and warmer presentation in accordance with lower mids and mid-bass notes, while hybrid Forza has more alive and detailed one. So, the choice depends on our earphone; for example, copper would be good for Harmony 8 Pro, Hidition NT6/Pro and hybrid fits well with Spiral Ear SE5 Ref and M-Fidelity SA-43.

Lastly, the price and website information:

Copper Forza is standardly priced at 99 Euro/110 USD and hybrid Forza at 139 Euro/155 USD; with exception of customization options’ fees.

For Forza AudioWorks website and ordering:

http://forzaaudioworks.com/en/

http://forzaaudioworks.com/en/contact-form.php

Thanks Mike ^^
Forza Copper mk2 made quite an impression with Harmony 8, a very good association for people loving it LOUD and clean.

My pleasure mate.

Introduction:

Peter Wong Audio is a Hong Kong based brand, and Peter, Ceo of th company, offers many different products such as mini to mini and IEM cables, several adapters, interconnects and LOD for several daps etc. as well as modding service.

Music Sanctuary from Singapore and Indy Music Gang from Thailand are PW Audio’s distributors; additionally, we can get his products from an online store: Yahoo Auction.

In Music Sanctuary Online Store, we can see many PW Audio products, which look better and more premium than reviewed cable. Actually, the reviewed cable isn’t being offered at Music Sanctuary; we can get only from Yahoo Auction website of PW Audio.

Built Quality:

Pw Audio Legend II v2 cable has 4 braids of copper conductors. Thickness of the conductors is reasonable and there is not much microphonic effect. Also, the cable isn’t heavy, so that it can be used outside easily.

The quality of shield/insulation (black PVC) is decent; also the pins have a bit low quality for an aftermarket cable. The reviewed cable utilizes a Oyaide 3.5 TRS plug which has a good quality overall. There is a wooden slider on the cable and the memory wires aren’t stiff.

PW Audio offers many different plug/pin types as well as some adaptors for AK, so that customers can select plugs/pins from a wide variety.

Sound:

PW Audio Copper cable has a bit more alive and transparent sounding cable compared to EW stock. Comparison made with Earwerkz stock and both have more than 100 hours of burn in time.

Low Frequency:

PW copper has a bit tighter and cleaner sub bass punches with the same average resolution. Thanks to cleaner sub bass, depth ability of the stage gets a bit better, but not much.Mid bass quantity is the same on both cables, but PW has a bit cleaner notes. Both cables locate mid bass presentation in the same area on the stage and don’t tighten the stage.

Mid Frequency:

EW stock has thicker notes compared to PW’s stock. PW’s copper doesn’t exactly make upper mids’ notes thinner, but makes them a bit more prominent and alive. Depends on master of recordings, it may turn to be a bit bright, but not much.

On the other hand, PW has a bit more transparent, cleaner and open mid frequency notes overall. Resolution is the same with stock, but PW has a bit more detailed presentation.

High Frequency:

There is a more extended and a bit more detailed presentation with PW’s cables. EW stock has less extended but smoother treble notes overall; both have weighty notes on this range. However, I wouldn’t recommend PW’s cables whose have already treble heavy earphones.

Soundstage and Separation:

PW has a bit deeper stage by small margin, but the width is the same on both. However PW has a bit more neutral spaces between instruments, while EW stock has a bit more warm stage atmosphere. Blackness and stability of the background are on the same level with a similar separation overall.

Last Words:

The reviewed PW Audio Legend II v2 copper cable is priced at 140 USD. It has a decent built quality, but Peter Wong would make it in a better look with the same sound. Even if the built quality isn’t top notch, the sound can be seen in a quite good level for its price.

Legend II v2 is for local market, so it can’t be found on Music Sanctuary website. It can be ordered from Yahoo Auction along with many more cable options.

Link for PW Audio Yahoo Page:

https://hk.user.auctions.yahoo.com/hk/user/kinwong888

Link for Music Sanctuary:

http://www.music-sanctuary.com/collections/pw-audio

Introduction:

Lotoo is known as a part of an important company, which produces audio components in China. They recently introduced Paw Gold, found quite impressive by many head-fiers. Now, they are introducing little brother of Paw Gold: Paw 5000.

It can be seen as a competitor in mid-fi league, but it can reach to performance of 600+ USD priced daps in terms of some technical abilities in sound. The reviewed unit is a demo piece coming from Lotoo distributor in Turkey. As far as I know, the built quality and sound will be the same in mass production. In time, the firmware can be changed surely.

The review doesn’t focus on the firmware and the built quality primarily, but they are shortly described as they can be seen below.

Built Quality and Firmware:

Paw 5000 has metal covers on back and front; and there is a plastic frame on which there are volume and gain buttons located. On the front panel, there is a turn wheel with a few buttons for controlling UI including yellow power button. I don’t like the turn wheel’s sensitivity much; it can become less responsive sometimes. The quality of the buttons on the plastic frame is decent, but I hope they will improve the quality of the buttons in possible successor.

There is a micro sd slot on bottom of the unit; it works properly with 64 GB of cards, but Paw 5000 needs its own format on card and it may format your card before reading it. Also, there is an USB 3.0 port on the right side of the plastic frame in order to connect it to computer and charging via a smartphone adapter. There are also 3.5mm phone out, 3.5mm line out and 2.5mm balanced out located on the top of the unit.

The battery life is quite impressive, it can reach to almost more than 10 hours listening time. On the other hand, driving power is not strong enough even with high gain option. Paw 5000 isn’t a good player for whose want to drive full-size cans and hard to drive IEMs such as M-Fidelity SA-43.

The firmware has the same look with its older brother Paw Gold. The speed of the interface is quite good except some minor lags during switching between songs. On/off time is very short and it can be ready to play in seconds with a fast reading of sd card. Additionally, there is no slowing down problem while playing DSD formats as well as 24/192 formats. Some listeners have mentioned that it can become too warm during playing, but I have not experienced this kind of problem during my time with the player. The temperature of the device was at normal levels when playing music.

The picture is an excerpt.

Sound:

Paw 5000’s sound is pretty close to neutral side with a hint of warmness. It is neither too thick nor too warm. Overall sound is quite resolved and transparent and it can be seen as a serious challenger among mid-fi daps.

Low Frequency:

Paw5000’s lows are not too prominent, but it has enough quantity of bass for whose don’t want low frequency to be too prominent. Sub bass is enough punchy to give a good body to overall spectrum; punches come from a mid-sized area of impact on the stage. However, sub bass is neither too emotional nor impressively textured and it doesn’t have an authority as it should have. On the other hand, its hitting to deep ability is good.

Mid bass can be described as dry by some, but it has a good amount of resolution. This dryness and lack of emotion can be turned into an advantage to create a less colored presentation overall. Paw 5000 is a good alternative source for earphones, which already have too prominent or too forward mid bass presentation.

By taking the advantage of tight presentation of overall low frequency, Paw 5000 creates a good level of control.

Mid Frequency:

Overall mids have quite good resolution and transparency; and they can reach to the transparency/resolution performance of 600 USD+ priced sources. However, mids are not impressive enough in terms of smoothness. Some sources in 600+ USD price range have a bit more dynamism and naturalness compared to Paw 5000.

On the other hand, Paw 5000 has a clean overall mid presentation and a very good rank among mid-fi daps including Fiio X5 and Dx90. Surely, it isn’t clean as Hifiman Hm901 or Lotoo Paw Gold. Even though Paw 5000 has slightly bright, alive and not much weighty notes, upper mids aren’t piercing.

High Frequency:

As mid frequency, highs are slightly alive and prominent without piercing note recreation; and level of naturalness is impressive. However, Paw 5000 wouldn’t be an ideal source for earphones that already have too prominent or piercing highs. Although high frequency doesn’t have an impressive resolution as mids, it can be ranked in a good place among Paw 5000’s rivals.

Soundstage and Separation:

Even if it has a good imaging, the stage is the weakest point of Paw 5000 with its background. Its width’s dimension is enough, but the depth is not impressive. Also, due to lack of depth, the layering isn’t strong; at least it isn’t on par with 600+ USD sources. Albeit it is mostly linked to earphones, the coherence is quite good and focusing becomes easier. Additionally, the distances between instruments are quite clear and there isn’t too warm air.

The background of Paw 5000 is not very black and stable enough. This problem and the lack of the depth, they together result in reducing instrument separation while listening fast tracks. Even so, Paw 5000’s separation performance is better than some popular sources such as Fiio X3ii, but stays a bit behind QLS QA360.

A Comparison:

QLS QA360 vs Lotoo Paw 5000

Both devices have the similar tonality overall, but QA360 has a slightly weightier and more refined presentation. They both have a bit warmth, while Paw 5000 has less colored and slightly more neutral sound.

Low Frequency:

While sub bass of Paw 5000 is a bit rougher, tighter and faster, QA360 hits from a larger area by a hair with weightier, better textured, more emotional and authoritative notes. Impact levels are close, but Paw 5000 has slightly drier hits.

The tone of the mid bass is more natural and less dry on QA360, while Paw 5000 has slightly more resolved mid bass presentation. Both have a good balance on mid bass section, but Paw 5000 seems to be more suitable for a wider range of earphones.

Mid Frequency:

While QA360 has weightier notes on center and lower mids, Paw 5000 has slightly airier tone overall and better resolution during slow tracks. While Paw 5000 has slightly more transparent notes, QA360 has more organic presentation. Paw 5000 has more neutral tone overall; QA360 is more dynamic but more colored.

By taking the advantage of the blacker background, QA360 is clearer with a better separation on fast metal tracks. Also, QA360 has a higher detail level overall.

Even though QA360 has thicker notes on upper mids, Paw 5000 has smoother attacks with a more natural tone on this area.

High Frequency:

They both have prominent treble presentation, but Paw 5000 has more natural tone and attacks. QA360 has a better note thickness and extension, while Paw 5000 is more transparent. They both have the same level of resolution and control.

Soundstage and Separation:

The width level of the stage on both devices is close, but QA360 has deeper stage with better imaging, layering and 3D ability. Paw 5000 has slightly forward mids, while QA360 has slightly better separation due to Paw 5000’s lack of stage depth.

Last Words:

With its clean, quite resolved, transparent sound and portability, Paw 5000 achieves superiority over its rivals and has a very good rank among them. Personally, I prefer Paw 5000 to X5 and DX90, perhaps even to QA360 in terms of technical perspective. In sum, Lotoo creates an impressive alternative in mid-fi class with its affordable 400 USD price.

Thanks mate. I actually prefer calling it ''P5000''

Did you try turning the damping up to "high" with difficult IEMs? That is what was recommended to me. If I didn't, there wasn't enough volume with some.

Yes I tried it like you said. Surely it is enough for easy to drive IEMs (Legend etc) but unfortunately not for SA-43.

Introduction:

plusSound Audio is an American store, which is located in California. Primarily, they offer many aftermarket cables such as interconnects, headphone and IEM cables. They also offer a portable amplifier called Cloud Nine that I am interesting in trying it in close future regarding its affordable price.

Additionally, we can find some DIY parts as well as Audeze headphones in their store. We have three options to make orders: on ebay, on their online store and on Etsy.

plusSound offers a wide variety of cables from 99 USD X series to 299 USD Echo+ cable. We can easily choose a cable that suits our needs and budget. They also have many different options in terms of lower heat shrink color, lower sleeving, Y splitter, slider, L/R heat shrink colors. According to these options, we can customize our cables as we like.

There are also many wire options in their store such as differently cryo’ed copper selections, silver plated copper, silver+copper+gold and silver+gold combinations. In sum, they have a very rich cable range with beautiful options.

Honest, I am very satisfied with their customer service plusSound provides. Christian is very friendly person and replies mails within minutes if he is at work at the moment that he receives them. I had no difficulty communicating with him. Such a great customer service..

Built Quality:

The reviewed cable is Apollonian+ and made from pure copper and utilizes an interesting and new technology including tri shield, multi-damper and dual insulation to get the best result and make it noise free. We don’t have option to select the wire type on Apollonian+ and Echo+, but other cables such as X series, standard Apollonian or X8 etc. have all options available.

Picture from plusSound

Even though Apollonian+ is made from 4 wires of copper conductor, it is neither too heavy nor too thick. However, to me, it is not lightweight enough to be used outdoors easily.

I am not sure how plusSound’s silver series are, but Apollonian+ is quite flexible and soft; also easy to use and wrap, thanks to the nature of copper conductors. Reviewed Apollonian+ has a rhodium plated straight plug and good quality pins, which fit well to both recessed and non-recessed/flush sockets. plusSound offers many kind of connectors for popular IEMs/CIEMs as well as ViaBlue, Oyaide and balanced plugs for RSA/ALO, A&K and Hifiman.

The reviewed cable has a premium looking with its sleeving , colors and logos on its connectors. Truly, it is one of the most beautiful cables that I’ve ever seen on the market. Honestly, the Poetic series from plusSound looks better than Apollonian+ and it is my favorite in terms of beauty, but I wouldn’t be sure about Poetic’s built quality since I don’t have one in my hands.

Picture from plusSound

Sound:

Apollonian+ has a bit laid back presentation with a better resolution compared to the Earwerkz stock cable. Overall sound is a bit warm due to nature of copper cables, but it doesn’t focus on low frequency band.

I made a comparison between EW stock and Apollonian+, and the reviewed cables are burned in more than 100 hours for the critical listening.

Low Frequency:

Compared to EW stock cable, Apollonian+’s sub bass has cleaner and more resolved punches with a bit more power coming from an area of impact between large and medium. Hitting to depth ability gets better, so that depth of the stage becomes more successful.

Mid-bass of the Apollonian+ comes from a bit larger area on the stage with clearer and a bit more prominent notes. Its resolution is significantly better than EW stock, but both cables don’t tighten the stage. Apollonian+ lows also have better dynamism and add a bit more weight to entire spectrum; its low frequency is fuller and richer than the stock.

Mid Frequency:

Apollonian+ has a bit laidback and balanced mid frequency presentation compared to the stock. Mids have better resolution with similar average note thickness. EW stock cable is closer and less resolved overall and there is a veil, while Apollonian+ has more detailed and significantly more transparent as well as refiner presentation.

Even if Apollonian+ has a bit laid back mid frequency compared to stock, the vocals don’t loose much emotion; they are still good and resolved without being sibilant. It also adds a bit more detail on upper mids, but it doesn’t get bright.

High Frequency:

Apollonian+ has a bit more prominent treble with a bit more sparkle compared to EW stock. It also has a good high frequency weight with natural and thick notes. Resolution is a bit better than the stock with better extension by adding a bit more detail and clarity on lower treble; the overall control is still here.

Even if Apollonian+ has better and fuller highs than the stock, it can turn our already sensitive earphones into less forgiving against bad recordings. Also, if we have an earphone, which has already too much treble, Apollonian+ may not be the best option due to its sparkle.

Soundstage and Separation:

Apollonian+ adds effective depth to the stage, while the width becomes only a hair better. By adding depth, layering gets better and that helps to create an improved instrument separation.

Apollonian+ locates the stage a bit away from the listener and still keeps coherence and focus quite good. Thanks to the location of the stage, Legend R becomes a less forward sounding CIEM and we can have longer listening session with it.

Apollonian+ adds a bit more blackness to the background and creates a bit better stability. By adding depth to stage with improved background and better-portioned instruments, separation gets better. However, it can’t create a neutral air between instruments; while the distances are improved, the air is still warm.

Final Words:

Apollonian+ cable from plusSound creates a definite improvement on the entire presentation with its stage depth, resolution and transparency. Additionally, it has an exceptional premium looking with a quite good built quality and customization options.

The regular price of Apollonian+ is 280 USD; we need to add some extra fees if we do a customization on it.

Here is the link for ordering:

http://www.plussoundaudio.com/customcables/inearmonitor.html

http://www.plussoundaudio.com/home.html

Thanks much my friend. I am trying to do my best

I always appreciate replacement cables and have reviewed a number of them on head-fi, but looking at this cable and the contrast between a thick shielded common 3.5mm side and twisted cables after y-splitter going to headphones - just doesn't look right. You did a great job with a review, no criticism about it. This cable looks like two different pieces glued together, it just doesn't flow together?

Thank you for your kind words mate. Well, some may see it as you said. It is about the thickness difference of shielded part. However, the cable is a single piece and there is no glue or something like this on it.

Introduction:

M-Fidelity is a custom in ear monitor company located in south Norway. Alf Middelthon is its founder who was working with Starkey in the past. After leaving Starkey he founded M-Fidelity and brought his designs to the new company.

M-Fidelity has interesting designs including customs with switches and different acoustic hoses than the industry standard. Additionally, Alf offers plug-in earphones called ERM series with exchangeable filters. In my opinion, these earphones are really interesting in terms of getting different sounds from one single earmold.

M-Fidelity also offers HF series hands free earphones as well as 7 different custom in ear monitors such as SA-33, SA-32 Live and entry level SA-12.

Alf is a very responsive and helpful person. I had no issue while getting SA-43. He usually replies to mails within 24 hours.

Picture from M-Fidelity

Built Quality, Cable, Accessories and Internals:

The reviewed SA-43 has an acrylic shell filled with silicone. This is an option; you can get a silicone filled shell for a small additional fee. The silicone filling offers better protection against damages, surely I wouldn’t take the earphone into a test about damage protection.

There are some bubbles in the shell due to filled silicone, but nothing major to complain about it, since it comes from the nature of the method.

The craftsmanship is quite good except a few minor mistakes, very little bulges on the surface. The faceplate is a bit thick but carefully placed on the earphone, there is no overflowing from the corners.

The sockets’ craftsmanship and placement is good, but I find them a bit too tight and it was a bit difficult to remove the cable at the beginning. On the other hand, that tightness extends durability life and keeps sockets connected for a long time.

The wax filters seem to have high quality and they are replaceable with a tool included in the package. Thus, there are 8 replacement filters coming with the earphone and the diameter of the filters is wide enough to easily clean wax with a cleaning tool.

There are two switches on the faceplate of SA-43, blue one is for low frequency boosting and the red one is for mid frequency presence. The switches work quite well and their built quality is good. However, we need to be careful while inserting or removing the earphone, since these little things may be fragile.

The canal part of the SA-43 is a bit long, nearly past the second bend for a few millimeters. The canal is the longest one among my other custom in ear monitors. That length may disturb some listeners, but I have no complaints about the canal of the SA-43. In my opinion, silicone filled shell and long canal part offers a very good isolation. While jaw movements, I have no seal break and I can honestly say that SA43 has the best isolation among my other customs.

The SA-43 has 3-way crossover system with 4 balanced armatures. Two of them are bigger than the others and there is an interesting coating material on the bigger armature drivers. Differently than the industry standard, the SA-43 has more rigid and non-transparent acoustic sound tubes. They remind me the material of PVC window.

The stock cable of the SA-43 has standard quality and it is just like Westone or Unique Melody type of cable. There is no issue about the cable so far.

The SA-43 comes in a mid-sized outer box which seems like a carbon fiber coated. As accessories, there are cleaning tool, a small carrying case, replacement filters and their tools and owner manual. When we take the size of the carrying case into consideration, we can find it a bit small to protect the switches from damages. We may need a bigger place to put the earphones in for a better protection. Both outer box and carrying case gives a premium feeling, which has to be in a TOTL CIEM’s packaging.

Picture from M-Fidelity

Sound:

The SA-43 offers 4 kind of sound signature from a single custom in ear monitor: Flatter, more dynamic, mid oriented and bass heavy. In general, the SA-43 has a sound which is very close to neutral when the switches off. When both switches off or on, it has great timbre and outstanding transparency.

Low Frequency:

When the bass switch off, low frequency has a presentation closer to being tight rather than being splay. The low frequency of the SA-43, especially mid-bass, has a bit warmer tone compared to neutrality of mids.

Sub-bass has quite fast and powerful attacks, hits from an area of impact between large and medium. Hitting to depth ability is very good and creates a good stage dimension. The tone is not the most natural among my other earphones, but it is quite good for a flagship and there is no armature kind of artificial or rough rumble. Mid bass, which is located in the middle of the stage, has a balanced presentation along with sub-bass; it doesn’t tighten the stage and the spaciousness remains the same when the switches off.

When only the bass switch on, sub bass becomes more powerful and hits from a larger area on the stage with a bit more dynamism. However, mid-bass, which becomes quite prominent, gives a bit too warmth to the overall spectrum and the stage is filled with warm air and the spaciousness gets lost when bass switch on. Additionally, when only the bass switch on, the overall spectrum becomes a bit smoother, but at cost of loosing transparency and timbre ability. When both switches on and both bass and mids are more prominent, the overall presentation becomes balanced again and transparency gets back with a more dynamic and alive note recreation.

The overall low frequency resolution and texture cannot reach to the level of my other flagship CIEMs, but we can find it quite good for a CIEM priced at 820 USD at the moment of this review posted.

Mid Frequency:

When the both switch off, mids are quite natural, full-bodied, and flatter. They also are quite balanced and controlled in terms of location on the stage. Even if mids aren’t cleanest one, they are neither laid back nor too forward. Some may find it a bit dry, but the overall tone of mids is close to neutral with great timbre ability. Instruments have an exceptional realism and it is almost impossible to talk about a veil on the presentation. Most of times, too much transparency may become fatiguing by thinning overall notes recreation. SA-43 represents both thick and thin notes quite good, especially when both switches off. It also has an outstanding transparency without brighten notes; and it doesn’t fatigue listener at all.

When only mid presence switch on, SA-43 becomes a mid-oriented earphone and instruments come a bit forward on the stage; the mid-bass presentation becomes laid back with a bit less dynamism overall. Due to less prominent low frequency and lack of smoothness which is normally added to the whole spectrum by mid-bass tone, mids may become unnatural and note creation becomes a bit thinner compared to other switching variations. Vocals and instruments come forward with a bit better resolution, but it tends to sibilance more.

When both switches on, mids are still exceptionally transparent and realistic, but depending on tracks, upper mids sometimes become a bit less controlled, and background details may become less clear. On the other hand, when both switches on, the presentation becomes quite powerful, more resolved and dynamic. Honestly, this is my favorite setup on the SA-43 with a more deeply enveloping sound.

When both switch on/off or only mid presence switch on, the detail level is quite good among my other CIEMs, but the resolution is not the best when the both switches off.

Picture from M-Fidelity

High Frequency:

SA-43 represents highs with clean, transparent, thick and full-bodied notes. Highs are neither bright nor fatiguing; the detail level is good with a very true tone overall, but resolution and extension levels are not the best for a flagship. On the other hand, the overall speed of highs is good and it can overcome fast metal tracks as well as drums solos in fusion tracks.

When both switches on or the only mid presence switch on, highs are more prominent and alive. Highs remain natural when the both switches on, but they are more natural and smooth when both switches off.

Soundstage and Instrument Separation:

The SA-43 uses the stage dimensions very good; it doesn’t have an overly wide or deep stage, it remains within the limits to present a great coherence and focus as well as a quite airy stage. It also has a quite spacious stage when the both switch off. When the both switches on, instruments becomes a bit closer to listener; even so, it remains spacious and creates a more enveloping sound with a better depth stage compared flatter response.

Instrument separation is very good within every single switch variation. Even if the background isn’t the blackest or the most stable one, instruments are very well positioned and separated with fairly effectual and enough distances to create a very realistic presentation.

Source Matching and Driving Issues:

The SA-43 is moderately hard to drive, so that we need a powerful source in order to reach to its full potential. I’ve tried it on several sources such as Fiio X3K, QLS QA360, HM901 with Minibox, IPhone 6 etc..

Pairing with a low quality or low powered source results in lack of transparency and spaciousness. If we have a powerful amplification/source, the SA-43 would become quite impressive.

Final Words:

M-Fidelity SA-43 is one of the most transparent and true sounding custom in-ear monitors that I’ve ever heard. It brings a very realistic listening experience with its coherence and outstanding timbre. Surely, we need to accept that its midrange is not cleanest one and its overall resolution is not the best among my other CIEMs, especially when both switches off. Also and upper mids may come a bit too forward depends on tracks and reduce the detail level of the background when the mid presence switch is on.

Alf offers several options for faceplate and body colors as well as hardwire cords. Depends on current conversion, SA-43 with detachable cords is 6600 NOK/860 USD including shipping.

SA-43 Specs from M-Fidelity website:

* 4 balanced armature drivers, 3-way system, 2nd order (12dB/octave) hard-wired passive crossover (50 Hz and 5,3 kHz)
* Frequency response: 30-18000 Hz
* Sensitivity: 104 dB/mW
* Impedance: 50 ohms
* Cord: Twisted, hardwired or detachable, 125 cm (49″), goldplated stereo 3,5 mm (1/8″) jack

Website and Ordering Information:

https://inearmonitoring.wordpress.com/sa-43/

Thank you my friend. Yes, I too think that the outer box has a premium look.

Excellent review ! Where did you buy them ?

Thank you Victor.

I got it directly from M-Fidelty.