This unit was provided by Elle of BQEYZ for review. As always, what follows are my honest thoughts and opinions to the best of my ability.

I won't really be talking too much about the accessories or the build because you can read all the other reviews below mine for that stuff





The most interesting aspect of the Autumn, though, is definitely its magnet-based filter system. The magnets are tiny, but they're highly magnetic so they usually snap right into the slots of the shells or the carrying tray from up to about an inch away. These filters are used, in turn, to adjust the sound signature of the Autumn.



Speaking of which: Sound-wise, the Autumn has three distinct signatures depending on the filter that one is utilizing. In each instance, it's really the level of bass that's being adjusted to create a new sound. Generally, I find bass on the Autumn to be alright. Decent amounts of decay, texture, the works. It's missing some slam, and it runs a tad drier than I'd like given the amount it's sporting with the Bass filter, but nothing too surprising. Moving away from the bass, the Autumn has a response that is characteristic of most single-DD IEMs. It has an upper-midrange tilt with 3-4kHz slightly forward, a lower-treble peak at 5kHz, and then what sounds like resonance at around 12kHz. Because of the forwardness up-top, I find that the Normal filter is already slightly harsh for my preferences; I most prefer the Bass filter to balance out this forwardness. With the bass filter, the Autumn becomes a decent V-shaped set.

In terms of technicalities, the Autumn is competent; if I were listening blind, I'd be inclined to place it around the ~$100 price bracket. The lower-treble peak lends to the perception that some detail is faked, but nothing that I would dock substantial points for. Probably around "B-" tier or so overall, there's a small gap versus the Moondrop KXXS in A/B for resolution, although that's certainly subjective.



The bottom line is that the Autumn is basically an "alright" IEM. In terms of sonic performance, it's not exactly competing at $200, but it doesn't sound bad either. The magnetic filters are an interesting novelty that make me keen to see what BQEYZ will do with such a system in the future, or if they have other innovations that they might implement in future products.

Configuration: 1DD
MSRP: $40
Unit provided for review courtesy of Shenzhen Audio.

It's been a while since I've dropped actual listening impressions, so here we go. The Ola is Tanchjim's latest single-DD IEM targeting the budget segment of the market. I liked their $25 Tanya IEM quite a bit, so I was interested to hear what the Ola's packaging.







On initial listen, the Ola doesn't really appeal to me. Nowhere to be found is the bass-y and dark tonality of the Tanya. In fact, the Ola is very much the antithesis of its younger sibling. Bass appears to roll-off under ~50Hz, thus slightly emphasizing mid-bass. The quality of the bass itself is about average; there's a certain softness, aloofness, that plagues the Ola's mid-bass attack. That aside, I have to say that I like most things about the Ola's tuning otherwise. The midrange is a welcome departure from the aggressive, 3kHz pinna compensations that have been popularized by the Harman Target hitters (which Tanchjim themselves are no stranger to being). Vocals are pleasant and near-neutral, perhaps akin to the Symphonium Helios' midrange with some added warmth. Like the Helios, the Ola sports an admirably smooth transition from 3-5kHz into the lower-treble. Due to the Ola's limited extension (to be clear, I'm talking 15kHz+), I find myself desiring more stick impact for added presence...but asking for more would be unfair at this price.

When it comes to its transient response, the Ola - to me - sounds like it's packing your average dynamic driver. Decay is seemingly a hair truncated, thus lending to dryness of timbre. Listening to my Moondrop SSR (likely for the first time in a year!), the SSR's driver is perceptively more detailed with added texture to its decay. It also has better control for bass notes despite the IEMs measuring near-identically in the bass. I'd partially attribute this to the SSR's more aggressive upper-midrange and lower-treble which creates more contrast relative to the bass; by extension, perception of control. Both IEMs are above-average performers for imaging that belie their price bracket. Subjectively, the Ola has more 'space' between individual instruments - it has a very open presentation - even if the two IEMs seem to be actually quite close for stage size.

In conclusion, the Ola is a very safe pick. When one examines the current budget forerunners, they almost universally sport aggressive colorations in an effort to make them stand out. Look at the Moondrop SSR and it's ridiculous pinna compensation. The CCA CRA and its excessively bright 15kHz peaks. The Tanchjim Tanya, Tripowin Mele, and BLON BL-O3 and their bass-y, dark tunings. You see where I'm going. The only IEM that comes to mind that shoots for the Ola's niche is the Tin T2 which I did not like. The Ola is more refined for timbre (significantly less grainy) and possesses a smoother treble response than the T2 from memory. In any case, to me, there's a general sense of the Ola being the Sennheiser HD6XX of the budget IEM bracket. Not that they necessarily sound alike or anything, of course. The Ola's just inoffensive and has one rare quirk - its staging to the HD6XX's midrange - for its price to keep listeners entertained.

I received a pre-production unit, so I did not receive the production packaging or accessories. However, as far as the IEM itself is concerned, it has a triangular shell with a darker, steampunk aesthetic. I dig it. Build quality is good, although there is a distinct line where the two halves of the shell meet. The nozzles are also a tad longer than might be expected; however, I had no issues with comfort and was able to even lay on my side with minimal fatigue. Isolation is average. The included cable is commendable for this price point. It has a weave reminiscent of the DUW02, so it is highly pliable and has minimal microphonic feedback. The 2-pin connectors themselves have a plastic wrap that aligns with the stem of the Titan S. Connectors are recessed for maximum stability. This is just a really solid build all-round that should mitigate some of the issues that plight most budget IEMs.

Sound Talk​

The measurement below was taken off of an IEC-711 coupler. There is a resonance peak at 8kHz, so measurements after that point should not be considered entirely accurate. You can follow this link to compare the DUNU Titan S to other IEMs that I have graphed.



Generally, the Titan S has a Harman-oriented tonality with some minor deviations that make it perceptively hit closer to a reference sound. I'll draw comparisons to the Moondrop Aria because that's really the only other IEM that I think plays with the Titan S at this price point, and I finally got around to A/B-ing them. Generally, I'd say the Titan S is slightly leaner, cleaner, and indexing for a more analytical sound by comparison.

Expectedly, then, the bass shelf of the Titan S eschews some quantity relative to the Moondrop Aria for a less warm, more controlled response. The midrange of the Titan S is pretty solid as well. It can get sort of in-your-face at times, but never to the point of which it's offensive. That in mind, I find it's pretty reminiscent of the universal Viento-B's upper-midrange (just, you know, without the sibilance). The treble of the Titan S is where things get a little spicy. It's relatively smooth sailing until the upper-treble. Here, there's definitely a peak à la the Moondrop single-DD IEMs, but graphs can be deceiving. The peak of the Titan S actually sounds noticeably greater in amplitude relative to the Aria which has something of a haziness to treble decay. On one hand...this does lend to better perceived extension. Conversely, it lends to a slightly metallic timbre. I wish this had been dampened some more; still, it does play into the cleaner tonality that the Titan S is going for against the Moondrop Aria. I don't expect class-leading treble at this price point anyways.

Similarly, technicalities are more or less what you'd expect. Head-to-head with the Aria, I find the two to be about par for detail. The Titan S is maybe a tad more resolving in the bass and treble regions (at the very least it sounds more controlled) whereas the Aria has more pleasing timbre. Don't expect anything crazy, but the Titan S is a solid technical performer for $80.

In terms of comparisons...I alluded to it earlier, but there's not many IEMs that compete with the Titan S at this price point. It's a step above stuff like the BLON BL03 and Tripowin Mele in terms of technicalities and tonal balance. The HZSound Heart Mirror sounds exceedingly peaky and takes anemic too far by comparison. I feel like the Tin T4 might be able to compete with the Titan S but it's slightly more expensive and the tonal balance isn't quite as good from memory. If you want to stretch your budget a little more and can stomach the fit, then the ER2XR still comes out on top for pure SQ. But you're definitely trading build quality (specifically for the cable) and convenience there.

Wrap-Up​

What more is there to say? The Titan S is just...good. And I say this in the best sense possible. It makes no glaring mistakes as far as I can tell, and it's a given that the build quality is going to be solid because this is DUNU we're talking about. I can totally see this being a worthy alternative to the Moondrop Aria for listeners who are after a slightly cleaner, more analytical sound. It's an easy recommendation from this reviewer.

Introduction​

The Falcon Pro is DUNU's latest point of entry to their ECLIPSƎ lineup. ECLIPSƎ is DUNU's proprietary driver technology that essentially meshes three primary components: 1) a standalone driver cone, 2) patented glue techniques, and 3) a ring-type magnet with >1.8T field strength. The technology was pioneered in DUNU's flagship IEM, the Luna ($1700), which is indicative to me of having some of the best macro-dynamic contrast that I have heard from an IEM. Eventually, the technology trickled its way down from the Luna to the DUNU Zen ($700), and now it's finally made it to a price-point that's accessible to the masses in the form of the Falcon Pro. I have to note that the aforementioned IEMs - the Luna and Zen - were characteristic to me for being notorious for their tonal balance as much as they were impressive for their dynamics. That in mind, I approached the Falcon Pro with the question of whether it would be able to balance its groundbreaking driver technology with a more palpable tonal balance. Read on to find out whether I think the Falcon Pro delivers.

This unit was provided for review courtesy of DUNU. As usual, what follows are my honest thoughts and opinions to the best of my ability.

Source & Drivability​

All critical listening was done off of my iBasso DX300 and iPhone 13 Mini with lossless files. The stock silicone tips and stock cable were used. The Falcon Pro takes a moderate amount of power to drive as is characteristic of most single-DD IEMs; however, I had no issue reaching my normal listening volumes (~70dB). Hissing was a non-issue.

The Tangibles​

Holy cow - DUNU has outdone themselves here! Despite the more compact packaging that the Falcon Pro comes in, no shortage of accessories are at your disposal:

• MMCX cable w/ swappable jacks
• 2.5mm/3.5mm/4.4mm terminations
• 3.5mm to 6.5mm adapter
• lots of earths
• cleaning tool, microfiber cloth, and mesh baggy
• case
• spare filters
• swappable nozzles

Yeah, like I said, there's a lot. The Falcon Pro is also expectedly constructed superbly. The shells are of stainless steel and have a heft to them that exudes confidence. No detail has been spared from the mirror finish on the edges to the logos lightly sandblasted on top. The connectors for the Falcon Pro are MMCX, and DUNU has included a "lite" version of their legendary swappable connector for the cable. The difference between the lite and the premium version is that the connectors for the lite version are held together purely by friction, whereas the premium version has a lock. Still, this should be a boon to anyone who swaps between sources frequently.

I had no issues with fit or comfort; however, as usual your mileage will vary. It's also worth noting that the Falcon Pro has a number of vents in the shell which means that 1) isolation is below-average and 2) fatigue from pressure build-up is a complete non-issue.

Sound Analysis​

The measurement below was taken off of an IEC-711 coupler. There is a resonance peak at 8kHz, so measurements after that point should not be considered entirely accurate. You can follow this link to compare the DUNU Falcon Pro to other IEMs that I have graphed.



The Falcon Pro has three nozzles (Reference, Transparency, and Atmospheric Immersion) with which you can swap around to adjust the sound signature. In all cases, the Falcon Pro sports a mid-bass oriented curve and a smooth treble response; the nozzles mainly affect the amount of midrange presence in the order of Atmospheric (least), Reference (middle), and Transparency (most). Personally, I found myself flip-flopping between the Reference and Transparency nozzles.

If there’s one thing I could change about the Falcon Pro, it would definitely be the bass response: I simply do not jive with the mid-bass emphasis. Aside from the Falcon Pro failing to dig into the deepest of frequencies adequately, and bass notes coming off somewhat hollow, my critiques follow in the name of intangible performance. I feel that the Falcon Pro’s ability to render textural nuance on Dreamcatcher’s “Silent Night” is somewhat lacking, perhaps due to a conjunction between the weaker bass extension and slightly quicker bass decay. Incidentally, I’ve actually talked to Tom of DUNU about how most of their IEMs follow this type of bass shelf, so I know it’s a deliberate tuning decision on DUNU’s part. That in mind, if you're after a more "fun" bass response and are willing to sacrifice rumble and clean bass lines, this'll probably do the trick.



The midrange of the Falcon Pro is pretty good. Again, I’ll focus on it within the context of the Reference and Transparency nozzles. The Reference nozzle is generally warmer and more subdued with a gentle pinna compensation and upper-midrange; the Transparency nozzle brings back up the upper-midrange for more note definition and, overall, a slightly leaner midrange presentation. I think the biggest concern here would be a minor recession from 1-2kHz. I probably wouldn’t have called it without a graph. But closer listening does reflect that on, say, Hyolyn and Changmo's "Blue Moon", Changmo's voice sounds somewhat hollow and lacks what I can only describe as a sense of depth to 1:50 onwards. I have to wonder if this recession was intentional, as it does have the perceived effect of lending more “space” around vocals and mitigating congestion such as on the venerable Sennheiser HD800S.



That aside, the treble of the Falcon Pro is the most mature part of its tuning. When you’re dealing with IEMs in this price range, I’ve found that - quite frankly - most of them suck at treble. And not even on a technical level; it’s rare to find IEMs at this price with good treble tuning alone! With the Reference nozzle, though, the Falcon Pro is impressively smooth, devoid of any egregious peaks or valleys, and perhaps only a tad less impressive in terms of sheer extension. In fact, it's almost too smooth - perhaps “sweet” if I’m being kinder - with this nozzle which makes me gravitate toward the Transparency nozzle. Treble is more defined on the Transparency nozzle; however, percussive hits come across as noticeably more compressed sounding due to a subsequent emphasis at roughly 5kHz. But no matter, this is a commendable treble response all things considered.

Technical Performance​

“Uh-oh, this isn’t very resolving”. That was the first comment I made to myself when I heard the Falcon Pro. And yup: more listening hasn’t really changed that opinion. I suspect that this is largely attributable to the warmer, mid-bassy tuning. The Falcon Pro simply isn’t going to trade blows against the likes of established single-DD heavy-hitters such as the Moondrop Kato for clarity, and it’s a point of contention that some listeners will likely refuse to settle for.

Looking past this, however, I do find the Falcon Pro to be surprisingly competent for what I affectionately refer to as more “latent” intangibles. To start with, the Falcon Pro’s imaging is above-average despite being far from pinpoint-precise. By this, I am referring to the structural definition of the Falcon Pro’s staging. Notes actually sound big and the Falcon Pro has some semblance of soundstage height with the Reference nozzle. With the Transparency nozzle, I find the Falcon Pro’s layering improves slightly at the expense of some of this note size. In both instances, the Falcon Pro has commendable ambiance to its staging; in fact, I would say it beats out even much more expensive IEMs like DUNU’s own Zen and the Sennheiser IE900 for stage size!

The other instance with which the Falcon Pro makes its mark is dynamics. I don’t think its dynamic contrast is great - loud moments generally don’t come off as loud as they should and quiet moments don’t come off as quiet as they should - but for a general sense of physicality, the Falcon Pro is a very punchy IEM for its price point. On Taeyeon’s “Make Me Love You”, the bassline has that characteristic with which it feels like I’m being smacked by a wave at 0:52 and 2:01. Part of this feeling is ostensibly baked into the heavy amounts of mid-bass the Falcon Pro sports, and the Falcon Pro clearly falls behind its older brothers the Zen and Luna for dynamics, but the ECLIPSƎ driver technology is the real deal. I enjoy how this characteristic pays compliment to the warmer tuning; it culminates in a more musical sound where music flows in contrast to the plethora of single-DDs (eg. Moondrop Kato, Etymotic ER2XR, JVC FDX1, etc.) in this price range that lean flatter and more compressed.

In another world​

After I had assessed the Falcon Pro, DUNU kindly sent me an experimental version of the Falcon Pro with less bass and a more upper-midrange oriented tuning. This version of the Falcon Pro was intended to capture what a more technical interpretation of the IEM would sound like. It lowers the mid-bass to more controlled quantities and addresses some of the slight hollowness to vocals. To me at least, this version further demonstrates the effects that tuning can have on perceived clarity. The experimental version has less of the blunting to transient attack that I outlined above, enough that I would place it on par with the Moondrop Kato. I think I prefer this version, but that said, I do feel it loses some of the "special sauce" that makes the Falcon Pro the Falcon Pro.

The Verdict​

I have to admit that I wasn’t super hot on the Falcon Pro when I first heard it. I could tell the tuning was good, don’t get me wrong, but I felt that the general technical performance of the IEM leaned more middling. Closer listening, however, has forced me to re-evaluate my stance on the Falcon Pro. I think this is a warm IEM done correctly, perhaps not unlike the Vision Ears VE7 that I praised not too long ago. The difference? There’s no need to cash out an arm and a leg for the Falcon Pro. Stack on a plethora of great accessories, user-adjustable sound signature via nozzles, consistently good build quality, and I think DUNU has put together a solid package for the warm-heads. I'd say give this one a shot if that's the type of sound you're after.

Reference Tracks​

• Aimer - Hakuchuumu
• David Nail - Let It Rain
• Everglow - DUN DUN
• Girls’ Generation - Galaxy Supernova
• Illenium - Broken Ones
• Joe Nichols - Sunny and 75
• Keith Urban - Defying Gravity (2009)
• Keiichi Okabe - Weight of the World (NieR:Automata Original Soundtrack)
• Sabai - Million Days
• Sawano Hiroyuki - Best of Vocal Works Remastered (2020)
• Taeyeon - My Voice (2017)
• Tiffany - I Just Wanna Dance

Introduction​

There's a lot of variety when it comes to driver types in the IEM world, from dynamic drivers, BAs, ESTs, to piezo-electric tweeters. And of course planars. Planars are a staple in the headphone world, with headphones from manufacturers like Audeze and HiFiMAN reflecting as some of the best headphones the world has to offer. But when it comes to IEMs, the story is a bit different. And not in a good way. Suffice it to say that I have not been a fan of a single planar IEM that I have heard. At least in the case of technical marvels such as Audeze’s LCD-i4, the bottleneck seems to be tonal balance. This is where the Timeless comes in, having been touted by the community as being something of a tuning marvel amongst planar IEMs and at a mere $220 no less. Read on to find out how the Timeless stacks up to my ears.

This unit was provided for review courtesy of Linsoul from which you can buy the Timeless here. Thank you! As always, what follows are my honest thoughts and opinions to the best of my ability.

Source & Drivability​

All critical listening was done off of my iBasso DX300 and iPhone 13 Mini with lossless files. The stock cable and stock ear tips were used. The Timeless takes a moderate amount of power to drive, but no more than would be required of most single-DD IEMs. I found myself at ~ 30% volume on my iPhone to hit my usual listening levels of ~70dB.

The Tangibles​

The Timeless arrives in a fairly small box with the following accessories inside:

• Aluminum case
• wide assortment of silicone tips
• MMCX cable
• Documents and QC card

I don’t like the case that comes with the Timeless. It’s milled out of solid aluminum with a magnetic latch, but something about it feels “off” to me. Maybe it’s the dried glue I can see leaking out from the felt lining inside. Maybe it was the grime smeared on the top of the case when it arrived, maybe it’s the chemical smell, maybe it’s the inconsistent machining. In all fairness, I don’t really expect good cases with a product like this, but this case could use some work.



The Timeless itself has a circular, aluminum shell mated to a plastic frame. Despite the quality-control memes I've read about on some forums, I don't think this is a particularly poorly built IEM and close examination of the build didn't point out any issues. If you’re concerned about the fit of the Timeless, go grab a nickel and stick it in your ear - there's your fit test. Surprisingly, the Timeless actually sits pretty nicely - almost flush - in my ears. However, I found comfort to be more of a mixed bag, as I could feel the circular shells starting to dig in after a couple hours. As usual though, fit is 100% subjective and your mileage might vary!



The cable of the Timeless is pretty nice in my opinion - at least as far as usability is concerned. It's fairly pliable, doesn't kink, and locks into place solidly via the MMCX connectors. There's even some slightly more complex machining that's gone into the 'vents' on the hardware. You won't see any complaints from me on this front.

Sound Analysis​

The frequency response below was taken off of an IEC-711 coupler. There is a resonance peak at 8kHz, as such, measurements after this point should not be considered entirely accurate. You can visit this link to compare the Timeless to other IEMs that I have graphed.

Here, the Timeless certainly makes its mark for actually being listenable straight out of the box (unlike most all other planar IEMs I've heard). But let there be no mistake: listenable tonality is no substitute for good tonality. To my ears, the tuning of the Timeless is simply chock full of minor issues, namely 1) the bass shelf, 2) the amplitude of the pinna compensation, and 3) an unbalanced treble response. Collectively, they result in a presentation that impresses on first listen, but that slowly rings some alarm bells for me over more extended, critical listening.

Again, I have to admit that I was impressed when I first heard the bass on the Timeless. It strikes a good balance between sub-bass and mid-bass; while perhaps some might desire less mid-bass quantity, I tend to enjoy a “fuller” sound to my bass anyways. But closer listening has me feeling less satisfied. The slam of the Timeless is fairly pillowy in tandem with what some might deem the characteristically “soft” planar transients; I’ve heard BA IEMs (albeit more expensive ones) that slam harder. Similarly, I don’t think nuance on more complex genres such as drum n’ bass is as good as it could be, especially given planar magnetic transducers are generally praised for their low-end distinction. Overall, the Timeless has satisfying bass on the surface, but comes up shorter when I listen more closely.

Now let's address the pinna compensation of the Timeless. For readers not familiar with this term, this is the region from 1-3kHz that should exhibit a steady rise to account for IEMs bypassing the ear’s natural resonance peak. While the Timeless does exhibit good amounts of bass presence to “balance” out some of the rise to its pinna compensation, I find that the upper-midrange of the Timeless is quite forward, almost annoyingly so at times. It teeters on what some might deem “shouty” - equally sounding like some vocalists are on the edge of sibilance - but never quite actually delving into it because of the subsequent slope off of 3kHz. The contrast to the thicker, slightly recessed lower-midrange makes this come across as all the more perplexing to my ears. If 7Hz had chosen to either 1) focus more energy away from the lower-midrange, or 2) mitigate the degree of pinna compensation, then I think this would have resulted in either a cleaner or a more natural sound respectively. Alas, as is, it just sounds slightly off to me.

Of course, these are more minor gripes with the Timeless. What’s definitely in need of work is the treble response. The Timeless is lacking some energy at what sounds like 5-6kHz with percussive hits coming across noticeably more defined, heavy, on its competitor the Moondrop Kato in A/B comparison. This perception of the Timeless’ treble is likely exacerbated by a subsequent peak at roughly 7-8kHz. Most all IEM will exhibit a peak here in measurements due to coupler resonance, but the one on the Timeless does seem to be a few decibels higher than I’d like, thus lending to a slightly “spicy” treble presentation. I found this to be especially apparent using any tips that were not the stock ones; the treble and the upper-midrange of the Timeless sounded sharp and unbalanced. It’s a shame given that outside of this, the Timeless actually has excellent treble extension - some of the best I’ve heard for $220.

Technical Performance​

In a similar vein, I feel comfortable asserting that the Timeless is a stellar technical performer for $220. This is most apparent when it comes to traditional metrics of resolving capability. While transients on the Timeless are articulated with what I’d describe as a “brushed” quality to them, they are quick and lend the Timeless to clarity that belies its price point. The speed of the Timeless’ presentation is readily apparent on a track like Aimer’s “i-mage <in/AR>” wherein there is a strong sense of distinction between the rapid, individual plucks of the strings from the side channels and when the drums eventually enter in the center channel. It definitely has its competitor the Moondrop Kato beat here in A/B. However, something left more to personal interpretation would be the characteristic “planar timbre”. The Timeless leans drier in its presentation - some might say more compressed - and this is especially true when it comes to its treble response.

The Timeless also stumbles when it comes to its imaging performance. I’d say it’s somewhere within the realm of average, perhaps slightly below average if I’m being more harsh. It’s worth noting that I’ve seen a wide spectrum of impressions on various forums about the imaging performance of the Timeless, some attributing it to differences in frequency response (ie. poor quality control). That said, I have heard two units (of which mine measures as one of the best I’ve seen) and A/B with similarly priced contenders such as the Tanchjim Hana 2021, the Moondrop Kato, and the Dunu Falcon Pro presents a noticeable gap in the imaging department. On Sawano Hiroyuki’s “A/Z”, for example, the opening electronic beeps are relegated almost solely to the left-right channels and they sound squeezed together. Again - the Timeless is definitely fast and detailed. But it's hard to knock the feeling that its localization ability (outside of the usual left, right, center) and its soundstage ambiance in general are somewhat subpar.

Assessment of Value​

The Timeless joins a pack of new ~$200 IEMs that have hit the market, each of these IEMs having won praise for a relatively strong price to performance ratio:

• DUNU Falcon Pro
• Moondrop Kato
• Tanchjim Hana 2021

I think it’s safe to say that the Timeless at least competes with these IEMs. Perhaps not in terms of tuning - especially it comes to versus the Moondrop Kato and the Tanchjim Hana 2021 - but it definitely has a small technical edge over all three IEMs. The Timeless, then, is the IEM to buy if you’re indexing more heavily for an upfront, high-clarity sound. On the other hand, the Falcon Pro might be considered the antithesis of the Timeless. It has a considerably less clean presentation, yet its treble, imaging chops and timbre run laps around the Timeless for listeners who are after a more laidback, natural sound.

The Bottom Line​

In my opinion, the 7Hz Timeless certainly merits some of the praise it's received. It’s probably the best planar IEM as a whole that I’ve heard to date (if you ignore DSP in the case of Audeze’s IEMs). You could even say it’s shifted the paradigm of the planar landscape and what we, as consumers, should expect from planar IEMs in the future. That in mind, I would give the Timeless a solid recommendation if you’re after the planar sound and the technical advantage it brings. But I also don’t think I'm entirely aboard the hype train. In the context of the broader market, it’s my opinion that there are IEMs such as the Tanchjim Hana 2021 and the Moondrop Kato that edge out the Timeless as a total package. An even better question might be whether the Timeless can “stand the test of time” as its name implies, especially considering I’ve already listened to another planar IEM with a near-identical frequency response to the Timeless. Perhaps the Timeless is just the spark for what we can expect in the future from this neglected (or rather, poorly implemented) IEM driver type.

Reference Tracks​

• Aimer - Hakuchuumu
• David Nail - Let It Rain
• Everglow - DUN DUN
• Girls’ Generation - Galaxy Supernova
• Illenium - Broken Ones
• Joe Nichols - Sunny and 75
• Keith Urban - Defying Gravity (2009)
• Keiichi Okabe - Weight of the World (NieR:Automata Original Soundtrack)
• Sabai - Million Days
• Sawano Hiroyuki - Best of Vocal Works Remastered (2020)
• Taeyeon - My Voice (2017)
• Tiffany - I Just Wanna Dance

Preface​

The Kato is Moondrop’s latest single-DD IEM that is being touted by the company as an improved Moondrop KXXS. Incidentally, the KXXS is an IEM that’ll always have a special place in my collection because it’s the IEM that got me into the “IEM game” so to speak. I mean, there was the Drop Noble X that I purchased briefly before the KXXS, but I would prefer not to talk about that IEM - thanks.

Moving back to the Kato, I basically had one question in mind when I approached it, and that was whether it would be a true upgrade. This is because I do feel that Moondrop basically peaked with the KXXS in the single-DD game. Even the Illumination, for example, really had no technical chops and was out-resolved by Moondrop’s own SSR which came in at a fraction of the cost (no, seriously, basically 1/20th the cost). That aside, read on to find out whether I think Moondrop has redeemed themselves and their single-DD lineup through the Kato.

This unit was provided for review by HiFiGo from which you can purchase the Kato here. As usual, what follows are my honest thoughts and opinions to the best of my ability.

Source & Drivability​

All critical listening was done off of my iBasso DX300 and iPhone 13 Mini with lossless files, the stock cable, and stock silicone tips. The Kato requires a tad more juice to drive than some BA IEMs; however, I never found power to be an issue. Expectedly, there was no hissing from any of my sources.

In-the-Box​

The Kato effortlessly demonstrates Moondrop's continued dedication to improving their packaging game. This waifu sports noticeably more defined lines and shadowing than its predecessor, more cute blush, and, of course, color. I'd say this is a solid 8/10 waifu in my book. Jokes aside, removing the sleeve reveals the following contents:

• Foam Ear tips s/m/l
• Silicon Ear tips s/m/l
• Gold & brass nozzles
• 0.78mm 2-pin cable
• Mesh baggy
• Carrying case w/ magnetic latch
• Waifu goodies

No, the weeb mat is not included. My package also included an extra cable, but I believe the production version will only include the cable shown below.



I've always been a fan of the KXXS's carrying case, and that hasn't changed with the Kato. It has a magnetic latch and a felt lining inside. The only real difference I observed is the addition of a silver stripe on the left of the flap.

The Kato itself follows the design that inspired its predecessor, but with some more angles at the back of the shell. I'm really not sure what the point of this is; it doesn't make a huge difference in terms of comfort, but I do feel that the original KXXS locks more securely into my ears. Perhaps this is partly due to the new silicone tips included with the Kato which are somewhat too springy for my preferences. That aside, build quality is good and the 0.78mm pins lock noticeably more securely than on my KXXS; they are recessed as well which is always a nice touch. The cable included with the Kato is also a solid step in the right direction. It is not as thin and tangly as the KXXS's, and generally feels more substantial in the hand.

Sound Analysis​

The measurements below were taken using an IEC-711 coupler. There is a resonance peak at 8kHz and, as such, measurements after this point should not be considered entirely accurate. You can follow this link to compare the Moondrop Kato to other IEMs that I have graphed.



I’m not sure if I’ve ever done a tonal analysis of the KXXS, but it’s basically what I’d consider “warm-Harman”. The bass shelf of the KXXS delves into more mid-bass while eschewing some pinna gain relative to the Harman 2019 target, lending to a slightly smoother if not still upper-midrange oriented sound. This makes it a boon to listeners indexing for a more “weeb-y” sound. Conversely, the bass response of the KXXS would probably be its biggest weakness due to noticeable blunting and a general “pillowy-ness” to hits. Still, the KXXS is definitely an IEM that is propped upon its very good tuning, and the success of its budget follow-ups like the Aria and Starfield is proof of this.



So what’s changed compared to the Kato? Well, the tonality differences between the KXXS and Kato are honestly small - small enough that one could probably chalk them up to margins of quality control, akin to tonal differences observed between the Starfield, KXXS, and Aria. That being said, I will outline the two distinctions that I observe with my particular units on the Kato (using either nozzle):

• A slightly smoother upper-midrange response on the Kato.
• A smoother treble response on the Kato, especially in the upper-treble.

The original KXXS had a slight bump to the presence regions from 3-4kHz which imparted a slightly thinner note weight and sense of clarity over its single DD brothers. The Kato is similarly lean, but eschews a wee bit of the shout that could turn off listeners on initial listen of the KXXS. Now, the second difference in the treble regions is more pronounced. The KXXS had a peak in the upper-treble at roughly ~12kHz which imparted a sense of tizzy-ness to treble instrument decay. Personally, I enjoyed that slightly hazy shimmer (I found it rather musical); however, some have found it peaky, an issue which the Kato likely rectifies. For sheer treble extension, I generally find the two IEMs to be at around the same level of performance; that is to say decent but nothing special. In essence, what you have here is a slight refinement over the KXXS’s sound signature.

Regarding the brass and silver nozzles that are included with the Kato, I’ve seen mixed impressions online. With the gold nozzle, I hear the Kato as having more treble air and sharpness up top. With the silver nozzle, the Kato is a little smoother in the transients and warmer overall. That might come as surprising given the color-scheme and the usual notions of audiophilia (copper = warmer, silver = brighter); nonetheless, it is what I hear and what the frequency response for my unit reflects.

Technical Performance​

The KXXS was never a strong performer for technicalities with its generally smoothed over attack and congestion issues that stemmed from a double-whammy of excess mid-bass and the aforementioned shimmer in the treble. This is where I do find the Kato to be an improvement from its predecessor. Note attack is noticeably sharper on the Kato, and imaging performance has entered into respectable performance territory for $200. The Kato generally sounds like it has more control over nuances in more intensive tracks, slightly more transient speed in general. I’ll tell you what hasn’t been fixed, though: the dynamics on the Kato are not an improvement from its predecessor. It still sounds overly soft and flat to the way it punches. The opening baseline of SNSD’s “Whisper” sounds less like I’m being hit with a pillow on the KXXS than it does a half-hearted slap on the Kato due to the improved control in the low-end frequencies. Overall, I'd say you're looking at competitive technicalities for $200 - certainly more than its predecessor offered - I just wish the Kato had more "oomph" to it.

Select Comparisons​

7Hz Timeless ($220): The latest hype train IEM. Head-to-head, I find the Kato to be tuned better and more likely to appeal to listeners who want a smoother sound: the bass on the Kato is more defined, the pinna gain is less peaky, and the treble response is smoother in the mid-treble. The Timeless is simply chock full of minor tuning errors that makes me think that more careful deliberation has gone into the Kato’s tuning. However, when it comes to technical performance, there can be no doubt that the Timeless pulls ahead with noticeably sharper transients and detail up-top; perhaps only falling short in the imaging department relative to the Kato. Go for the Kato for the more well-rounded package, go for the Timeless for the more technical package with more “wow” factor.

DUNU Falcon Pro ($220): The Falcon Pro generally has a warmer, more mid-bassy signature that’s going for a more “pleasant” sound overall. Consequently, I do find the Kato to have a noticeable edge in terms of sheer clarity, and I’d say that the Kato’s tuning is more up my alley when it comes to cleanliness of presentation. But I do find that - similar to the Tanchjim Hana 2021 - the driver used in the Falcon Pro is more pleasing intangibly. Timbre sounds noticeably more life-like on the Falcon Pro and it's a less flat sounding monitor when it comes to dynamic contrast. The treble response on the Falcon Pro also sounds more full and “sweet”. Honestly, I think these are both good IEMs, and I could probably swing for one or the other depending on my mood.

Tanchjim Hana 2021 ($180): You’ll notice that both the Timeless and Falcon Pro are slightly more expensive than the Kato. As a basis for what could be done better with the Kato on an even playing field, then, I find the Hana 2021 to be more technical than the Kato in A/B comparison. The driver being used in the Hana 2021 simply sounds more “hi-fi” to my ears; indeed, the Hana 2021 sports slightly more expansive imaging, natural decay, and impactful dynamics. Outside of this, they’re pretty similar tonally with the Hana 2021 sporting more energy in the sub-bass and lower-treble for a more exciting sound. I’d imagine most listeners would be splitting hairs over the technical differences, and preference of tonality could swing a listener one way or another between the two IEMs, but between the two, I’d lean for the Hana 2021.

The Bottom Line​

I’d be remiss to mention that I tire of all these single-DDs from Moondrop, but given that 1) this is a legitimate improvement over the KXXS, and 2) it clocks in at the same price, it’s really difficult to complain. As it is, I find the Kato to be another solid addition to the Moondrop lineup, and while there are certainly some IEMs I’d prefer more at this price point (namely the Hana 2021), it’s hard to say that the Kato isn’t a really solid package for what you’re getting. The improved cable and waifu are just the cherry on top. Recommended.

This review was originally published here on Headphones.com. ​

Preface​

Imagine the following scenario. A flagship IEM is released to lots of hype. Said flagship IEM turns out to actually be pretty mediocre, and the hype subsequently dies. Rinse and repeat, plus stack on a couple hundred bucks more for the next big thing. Well, welcome to the flagship IEM world! Having experienced numerous cycles of this myself, it's becoming increasingly rare that I get excited about an IEM; however, there is one IEM I've been eager to hear for some time now: the Symphonium Audio Helios. Symphonium is a small Singaporean brand, and the Helios is their 4BA flagship IEM. You heard me right. Amidst the omnipresent drivers war and the staggering, ever-increasing cost of flagship IEMs, Symphonium has opted to take a more graceful approach with the Helios that clocks in at a reasonable $1100.

The Helios was also developed with consultation from Subtonic. Subtonic is an upcoming Singaporean audio brand; a partnership between several audio enthusiasts including Toranku of Head-Fi fame and Leneo of Audio Discourse. In the interest of transparency, I regularly converse with these individuals and, as jaded veterans of the Singaporean audiophile scene who have heard hundreds of IEMs, they are some of the most critical listeners I know. That in mind, I don't think it was ever a question of whether the Helios would be good, but rather how good?

Spoiler alert: I bought my own Helios within roughly 24 hours of hearing the tour unit.

Source & Drivability​

All critical listening was done using my iBasso DX300 and iPhone X with lossless files. The stock cable and stock tips (Azla SednaEarfit and Syphonium silicone tips) were used. Personally, I found the Helios to take a good amount of power to drive, sitting at around 45% volume on my iPhone X to reach my comfortable listening volumes (~70dB).

The Tangibles​

The Symphonium Audio Helios arrives in a discreet, black cardboard packaging. Upon removing the outer sleeve and cover, you'll be presented with the Helios' aluminum case nested in the center and a small assortment of accessories in a panel that slides out from the bottom. Here's what's included in total:

• 3x Azla SednaEarfit tips
• 3x Symphonium Audio silicone tips
• Aluminum hockey-puck style case
• Metal placard with SN
• 0.78mm 2-pin cable

I do wish some more care was put into the hockey-puck case. I like the general build of it and the large O-ring is a unique touch for waterproofing, but the threading could use some work. It's a tad screechy and it has a tendency to cross-thread when I'm initially screwing it on. Just something that I watch out for as someone who's played with a lot of high-quality knives, flashlights, and gear of that nature. The included cable is a standard 2-pin 0.78mm one, but it does not have pre-formed ear hooks for reasons I'll explain shortly. It is supple and non-microphonic.



Moving onto the IEM itself, the Helios is big, and I believe that the sheer size will present the biggest limitation for prospective buyers. It sticks out of my ears slightly, and most ear guides with other cables wrap themselves over the middle of my ear instead of neatly nestling into the crevice between where the ear meets the head. I imagine this is why there is no pre-formed ear guide on the stock cable. When I asked about the size of the IEM, I was told that Symphonium Audio had to use larger tubing to achieve the desired treble extension and that large, high-quality capacitors were used too. Luckily, I don't have any major issues with comfort once I get a seal. Do note that this IEM forms a very tight seal; it definitely has above average isolation once you achieve a deep fit with it.

Sound Analysis​

The measurement below was taken off of an IEC-711 coupler. There is a resonance peak at 8kHz; as such, measurements after that point should not be considered entirely accurate. You can visit the site below for comparison to other IEMs that I have measured.



The overall tonality of the Helios can be considered neutral with sub-bass boost. From the bass up until the lower-midrange, the Helios tracks the Harman 2019 IEM target very closely. But while BAs are generally maligned for their limp bass dynamics, a notion that becomes increasingly apparent as one begins exploring the upper-echelons of the IEM world is that not all BAs are created equal. Indeed, the Helios is a standout in the BA bass department. This is partly due to its tuning which is concentrated almost solely in the sub-bass regions, therefore emphasizing a high degree of cleanliness and never infringing upon the lower-midrange. But the Helios is no less a slouch in the intangible department either. It actually slams, so much so that I wouldn't mind putting it up there with my beloved 64 Audio U12t. While I don't find it quite as "organic" - the Helios' bass texture leans more dry than the U12t, perhaps due to a lack of mid-bass - the Helios sets the standard at a kilobuck for BA bass.

The midrange of the Helios continues to follow the Harman target closely throughout the lower-midrange. That in mind, despite the more gentle approach taken to the pinna compensation and the upper-midrange, the Helios' note weight definitely skews slightly thin to my ears. Is this necessarily bad? Not at all, but this is where tonal preference will divide some listeners on the Helios' tuning. Personally, I think it would benefit with some more warmth. I also want to say that the Helios is almost too resolving for its own good here. While I don't hear any exaggerated instances of sibilance on my usual test tracks like Girls Generation's "Flyers" at 0:46, transients seem to have a slight edge to them that makes even very small instances of sibilance, such as on Loona's "Voice" from 0:25 to 0:30, pop more than I'm accustomed to. This is especially apparent when listening with the Azla Sedna tips.

Likewise, the Helios' treble is something of a double-edged sword. I cannot deny that it is wonderfully extended and mostly smooth without any egregious dips or valleys in sine sweeps. But here's the not-so-favorable side of that sword: the treble of the Helios teeters on abrasive to my ears. I have to imagine that this abrasiveness is partly baked into excess air, as swapping off the Azla Sednas for the Symphonium ear tips largely mitigates this issue and brings it within "this might be the best treble response I've heard of a kilobuck IEM" parameters. Incidentally, when I dropped the tour unit off with Super*Review, he had very similar impressions between the two ear tips. But either way, the timbre of the Helios's treble still seems somewhat distinct from the bass response which is surprising given that this is an all-BA IEM. This sentiment applies to the midrange to a lesser extent; at times, I could even mistake the Helios for sounding more like a hybrid than it does a BA IEM!



You might see where I'm going: the Helios doesn't sound as coherent as I'd like. As with IEMs like the Thieaudio Monarch and the Moondrop Variations, this feeling is ostensibly baked into the tuning to some degree. From the Helios' razor-sharp bass shelf, its slight dip at 200Hz, and to its excellent treble extension, it all culminates in a more segmented if not clean presentation. Furthemore, I get the impression that Symphonium and Subtonic have indexed too heavily for individual aspects of the Helios' sound and that their IEM has missed the forest for the trees so to speak. Along these lines, the midrange brings out unwanted micro-detail, the treble has too much air resulting in slight harshness, and the subsequent timbral inconsistency is partially because the bass is so good for a BA. For what it's worth, these are definitely some of the better problems to have. Your average listener probably wouldn't pick up on the coherency issues, and the excess treble air would likely be a boon for most listeners.

Technical Performance​

It doesn't hurt that the Helios has a strong technical foundation with almost zero weaknesses in the departments I usually index for. Let's begin with detail. Detail is not stunning, but it is pretty darn good. As one might imagine, the Helios' excellent treble extension aids perception of reverb trails and sonic minutia that would otherwise be lost on lesser transducers. Take for example that faint ring to the backdrop of Taeyeon's "I Found You" which usually only presents itself to me on my two-channel speakers. Transients are also sharp without noticeable blunting thanks to the clean, segmented tuning.

As for more latent intangibles, the Helios doesn't let up. Imaging is slightly out-of-head and the Helios sports sharper positional incisiveness than the Andromeda 2020 in A/B. This is especially apparent when it comes to left-right channel distinction. Vocals and instruments panned directly to the sides of Sawano Hiroyuki's "N0VA," for example, have a quality with which they float and wrap around the head oh-so-satisfyingly. Yup, the Helios actually has some backwards imaging! It follows that the Helios' layering chops are excellent, maintaining nuance between various instruments even on dense, epic-orchestral tracks like Thomas Bergersen's "Dear Mr. Alien".
Now, I normally don't mention dynamics - gradations in loudness - because 90% of IEMs aren't worth talking about for this metric, or only worth criticizing for their lack of it. But while the Helios does skew toward some unwanted loudness, it's also surprisingly dynamic for an IEM. For both macro and micro-contrast, the Helios takes top marks at the kilobuck level from this reviewer. Even in A/B with the Elysian Annihilator, one of the few IEMs I'd consider to have good dynamics, I was surprised to hear that while the Annihilator sported better macro-contrast and quicker transients, the Helios traded blows in the micro-contrast department. In general, transients on the Helios are quick with ample zest, and I find myself glued to the hard-hitting, intensive ride that is BoA's Deluxe album.

I know. It sounds out of character for such an unrelenting critic like myself, but I'm genuinely hard-pressed to ask for more in terms of technicalities. In fact, technicalities were my biggest point of contention before hearing the Helios, as I already had a rough idea of how the Helios would sound based on the FR graph. Suffice it to say that the Helios didn't disappoint. You (or at least certainly I) wouldn't know this IEM toted a mere 4BAs if it weren't for the product literature!

Assessment of Value​

Here's a shortlist of some IEMs that come to mind when we're talking about "the best kilobuck IEMs":

• Campfire Audio Andromeda 2020 ($1100)
• Hidition Viento-B ($1000)
• Moondrop S8 ($700)
• Sony IER-M9 ($1000)
• Thieaudio Monarch ($730)
• Unique Melody MEST/MEST MK2 ($1000/$1500)

Clearly, the Helios is playing in very competitive territory. There are many established IEMs circling the Helios that would be more than happy to take a bite out of it should it falter. Comparisons below were done via direct A/B where possible.

Campfire Audio Andromeda 2020: The Andromeda 2020 has a warmer, darker sound that makes its mark with its holographic imaging. In tandem with its lackluster BA bass and dynamics, the Andromeda 2020 is an IEM suitable for listeners who want an IEM to kick back with, to relax, and to soak in its unique presentation. The Helios has a leaner sound and demands attention, sporting aggressive dynamics, sharper resolution, and BA bass that actually slams. While I can definitely still see a case being made for the Andromeda 2020, I sold my Andromeda 2020 in favor of the Helios.

Hidition Viento-B: The Viento-B has some strong similarities to the tuning of the Helios, but in most respects, you can consider the Helios a Viento-B on steroids with more bass. The Helios has better BA bass, a more balanced midrange, and a more linear, extended treble response. Personally, while the Helios' treble toes the line, I found the Viento-B's treble to be outright abrasive. From memory, I find the Helios to be a solid step-up in the technical department too. It has better imaging (sharper positioning and soundstage size) and a more natural timbre with less intangible grit.

Moondrop S8: The S8 tracks to the Harman Target more closely in the upper-midrange, and then eschews the target for good amounts of air like the Helios. Head-to-head, I do find the Helios to have even more sparkle and air than the S8, as the S8 has something of a minor recession in the mid-treble. Detail between the two, however, is comparable and they trade blows for their layering chops in A/B. I'd say the S8 even has a slight edge in terms of coherency. Where the Helios clearly pulls ahead, though, is in its impactful dynamics and standout BA bass. The Helios also sounds more open owing to less mid-bass and perhaps the larger nature of its shells. For me, the Helios is a step ahead in the technical department, as it should be for $400 more.

Sony IER-M9: The IEM that many readers will recall that I've dubbed the kilobuck benchmark in the past, so it was only fitting that I A/B these two IEMs to confirm my thoughts on the Helios. As I alluded to earlier, I prefer the bass tuning of the Helios. That said, I was more pressed to decide between the two for bass intangibles; the IER-M9's bass still maintains a more DD-like tactility to my ears. But where the IER-M9 really draws the short end of the stick is in its dynamics and treble response. It is a very flat sounding transducer and it's treble response, while delightfully sparkly, lacks appropriate initial impact to percussive hits. The Helios runs circles around the IER-M9 in the dynamics department and has a smoother, more airy treble response. Generally, the Helios also sounds considerably more open and has sharper resolution because of how warm IER-M9 is. I'm not sure if the Helios is actually more precise with instrument positioning, but these factors sure lend to that perception.
All that being said, when you throw the IER-M9's whole package into the mix - accessories, build, fit and a $100 price differential - I think you could still make a good argument for the IER-M9 remaining top dog. But on the basis of sound quality, I would attest that the Helios is better and noticeably so in A/B.

Thieaudio Monarch: It's not really a contest between these two IEMs, at least for me. They have a very similar tuning profile; the Helios just has more treble extension and presence in those final octaves. Where these IEMs part ways considerably is in the technical department. The Monarch has great macro-detail, no doubt, but its overall sense of detail, imaging, and dynamics are mostly just average for $700. It's certainly behind the Helios for me on those fronts. That's also ignoring the Monarch's coherency which is another step behind, despite the Helios not even being a stronger performer for that metric as I expanded upon in my sound analysis above.

Unique Melody MEST/MK2: The OG MEST and MEST MK2 are both very solid IEMs that have been met with lots of acclaim this past year. That said, I think they have some tough competition against the Helios. The OG MEST, with its uncanny sense of separation, might have a small edge over the Helios for imaging. But the OG MEST also has some compression issues to its midrange (which sounds quite digital) and its treble which has a tinny characteristic. The MEST MK2 fixes these issues to some extent, but trades some of the OG MEST's resolution and imaging chops. The Helios doesn't make compromises. It sports comparable resolution to the OG MEST and outclasses both IEMs in the dynamics department. That's not to mention the Helios' treble which is simply a step ahead of the ESTs being used in the MEST IEMs.

The Verdict​

There's no question in my mind that Symphonium has released a highly competitive IEM for its respective price bracket, one that is worthy of kilobuck benchmark status. Is it top-tier material, though? To be blunt, no. Not quite. It lacks that last leg of refinement which would place it amongst greats like the 64A U12t, the Empire Ears Odin, and the Elysian Annihilator. It's also not far and away better than everything else in the kilobuck space, or it wouldn't cost what it does. But is it...better? Yes, I think it is. There is a strong possibility it is the best sounding kilobuck IEM on the market today. In that vein, I have zero qualms giving the Helios my stamp of approval on the basis of sound quality. I think it's safe to say that Symphonium and Subtonic have a bright - a very bright - future ahead if the Helios is any indication of what they are capable of.

Reference Tracks​

• Aimer - Hakuchuumu
• David Nail - Let It Rain
• Everglow - DUN DUN
• Girls’ Generation - Galaxy Supernova
• Illenium - Broken Ones
• Joe Nichols - Sunny and 75
• Keith Urban - Defying Gravity (2009)
• Keiichi Okabe - Weight of the World (NieR:Automata Original Soundtrack)
• Sabai - Million Days
• Sawano Hiroyuki - Best of Vocal Works Remastered (2020)
• Taeyeon - My Voice (2017)Tiffany - I Just Wanna Dance

Introduction​

My first run-in with SeeAudio consisted of their entry-level Yume IEM. The Yume sported a remarkable tonal balance, quite possibly the best I'd heard for its respective price point. But it came with one glaring flaw: technicalities. Notes on it were quite blunted; ultimately, I found that the Yume fell out of favor with my ears. But presently, SeeAudio has released the Bravery, a humble 4BA configuration. The question that is no doubt at hand is whether SeeAudio can maintain the excellent tonal balance that characterized the Yume and bring the technicalities of the Bravery within parameters commensurate with its price of $280. Read on to find out.

This unit was sent to me for review by HiFiGo. As usual, what follows are my honest thoughts and opinions to the best of my ability.

Tangibles​

Does jamming in a bunch of waifu goodies supplement for accessories? Debatable, but I'll give the Bravery a pass here. You have the same friction-fit, hockey puck case that comes with the Yume. Not the greatest quality case, but it'll get the job done. SeeAudio has also opted to include Azla Xelastec ear tips which is a solid step in the right direction.



I want to love the included Hakugei cable because the tactility of the para-cord and the hardware feels quite premium. Unfortunately, a cable that looks pretty and feels well-built is no substitute for one that actually works in practice. To this end, the Hakugei cable is quite microphonic and the ear hooks themselves loop awkwardly around the ears. I ended up just swapping it off for my Dunu DUW-02 cable after listening for a couple hours.



The Bravery sports a black-and-white, marble finish with each of the brand and IEM logo's inscribed in gold. The nozzles have lips to secure the tips, and the 0.78mm connectors are exposed. Overall build quality here is solid with no marring to the surface finish and a seamless conjoining between the acrylic shell and faceplate. I'd say this is a medium-sized IEM; personally, I had no issues with fit or comfort but your mileage might vary of course.

Sound Analysis​

The frequency response graph below was taken off of an IEC-711 coupler. There is a resonance peak at roughly 8kHz and, as such, measurements after this point should not be considered entirely accurate. Please follow the link below if you'd like to compare the Bravery to the other IEMs that I have graphed.




The overall tonality of the Bravery is clearly inspired by the (in)famous qdc Anole VX. One can consider it a warmer, more mid-bassy interpretation of that IEM which, for me, means a slightly south of neutral signature. But one could probably get away with using a number of other descriptors, as I've seen U-shaped, V-shaped, and W-shaped used too. Anyways - the qdc Anole VX is distinctive to me as being remarkably solid for it tuning and, simultaneously, for being just as boring. I do feel that the Bravery mitigates this impression to some extent with the presence of some extra mid-bass. This smoothens the transition into the midrange which is remarkably solid and sports a slight lean toward the upper-midrange.

I'm not going to explore the bass or the midrange too closely otherwise because they don't need much comment. The only thing that really matters to me is that the Bravery hasn't escaped what I like to call the "VX curse". Treble on the Bravery sports something of a lower-treble recession followed by strong amounts of presence at 7kHz. This lends to a loss of stick impact and an overly strong emphasis on the crash and sparkle of percussive instruments that can come off as slightly fatiguing - especially on more treble-intensive tracks. That said, the Bravery definitely has some pretty commendable treble extension for this price point. Generally, it's also by no means gritty in decay; instead, it mostly suffers from the plasticky, weightless quality that characterizes most BA IEMs.

Technical Performance​

The Bravery's technicalities are good, but they're also not great. So the good: It's certainly no Yume. Transients are relatively sharp on the Bravery, and I do find it to have a decent sense of layering. By this, I mean that instruments have a good sense of distinction without smearing into one another on more complex tracks. Where the Bravery excels most, though, is in a "whole is greater than the sum of its parts" sense. It really makes no glaring mistakes in terms of what I would index for on cursory listen, and it's pretty coherent for a 4BA setup.

But to reiterate, the Bravery's not great for technicalities; this becomes readily apparent in A/B with my $300 benchmark, the Moondrop Blessing 2. The dynamic ability of the Bravery is unremarkable, succumbing to the flat, upwards-compressed quality that plagues most BA setups. Listening to the cadence of Sawano Hiroyuki's "Tranquility," for example, abrupt shifts in loudness sound noticeably more distinct and impactful on the Blessing 2. I also don't find the Bravery to be a particularly detailed IEM; it sounds like a lot of nuance is missing that makes me gravitate toward the Blessing 2 despite that IEM's flaws. What I'm getting at is that the Bravery puts on a strong showing on cursory listen, but ultimately comes up more empty-handed when pressed for more latent intangibles. Really, that's to be expected for an IEM of this price point.

The Verdict​

And that in mind, the Bravery is a pretty easy recommendation. It doesn't do a whole lot wrong and it gets a whole lot more right. But for an IEM called the Bravery, ironically, it's also a really safe IEM - almost too safe. I want to see more. I want to see SeeAudio step out of their comfort zone and take their game to the next level. Sure, they've nailed the fundamentals of a good IEM, but there's a lack of character to stuff like the Yume and Bravery that keeps these IEMs from touching established greats like their Moondrop contemporaries. Then again? Maybe asking for more in the sea of mediocrity is being unfair.

You can purchase the Bravery here from HiFiGo: https://hifigo.com/products/seeaudio-bravery

This review was originally published here on Headphones.com, but I am re-posting it for readers on Head-Fi.

Introduction ​

Based out of France and purveyor to some of the world’s finest audio transducers, Focal’s a brand that’s been on my radar for some time. The Focal Utopia, in particular, has afforded me many a moment of yearning. And angst, I should add, looking at that price tag! For mere mortals like myself, then, the Focal Clear was the clear alternative that promised comparable performance at a fraction of the Utopia’s cost. And yes, I’ll try and refrain from more bad puns going forward. Anyways, courtesy of Headphones.com, I’ve been evaluating the Clear for the last couple months.

I know I’m quite late to the party with my review. And if you’ve read any other reviews, then I think it’s already been well-established that the Clear is a pretty awesome headphone. There’s not much fun (for me, at least) in parroting those reviews, so I’m going to do what I do best: Let the critic in me run wild. This is not a review for the faint of heart; however, if you’re interested in a more critical perspective on this highly-acclaimed headphone, then I encourage you to read on.

Source & Drivability ​

Critical listening was done off of a Burson 3X Conductor, iFi iDSD Micro BL > Macbook Air > Audirvana > lossless FLAC files. That being said, the Clear is a remarkably easy headphone to drive due to a low impedance of 55 Ohms. I was able to listen using a number of portable sources like my iBasso DX300 without an issue. For music used, check out the end of the review where you can find some of the tracks I use for my listening.

The Tangibles​

The Clear arrives in a large, black cardboard box with Focal’s branding on it. The following accessories are included:

• Hard-carrying case w/ storage for one cable
• 1.2 meter cable w/ 3.5mm jack
• 3 meter cable w/ 6.35mm jack
• 3 meter cable w/ XLR 4-pin connector

I really like the included carrying case. It also has a slot for a 3.5mm to 6.35mm adapter so you can get away with just bringing the 1.2mm cable. I think my biggest complaint about the included accessories would be the tactility of the cables. They are fairly...well, janky, for lack of a better word, and I would like to have seen higher quality cables included. They look like the same cables you might find off a desktop lamp from Ikea (no really, I encourage you to check out some posts in the r/headphones subReddit). Then again, you’re getting three separate cables, so maybe that’s fair.



The Clear itself sports a substantial build. It has an aluminum frame, leather headband with perforations, and memory foam cups with perforations for breathability. There is some play to the yoke when moving the cups from side-to-side, but that’s not necessarily a bad thing, as it affords a more comfortable fit when the headphone is being worn. The cups themselves also have a very cool spring system which contours the cups into place so you don’t have to worry about adjusting the headphone as much. Again, really solid stuff overall. The only thing I’m somewhat on the fence about is the lighter color of the pads. They’re prone to discoloration given time (and replacement pads are not cheap!).

For fit and comfort, the Clear is certainly not as comfortable as something like the HD800S, but it is far from being the least comfortable headphone that I have worn. I think most people would be fine, as I’m quite picky about headphones and don’t wear them often. Because this is an open-back headphone, do be aware that there is zero isolation. I wouldn’t purchase this headphone expecting to use it on public transportation or in louder environments.

Sound Analysis​

Twitter-review summary: The Clear presents a neutral-warm sound signature that’s reasonably well-balanced sans some quirks in the upper-midrange and treble. In tandem with its technical presentation, it is a forward, engaging listen that demands attention.

I actually have the venerable Sennheiser HD800S on-hand at the time of this writing. Suffice it to say that I was not impressed with the HD800S’s bass response, and switching to the Clear presented an immediate improvement. The Clear’s bass is pretty much exactly what you would expect of a higher-end, dynamic driver headphone. It is near-neutral and extends fairly deep. I would say it’s on the faster end of dynamic driver bass; neither the hardest hitting nor crazy clean like a planar, but simply...good. I would certainly prefer more sub-bass quantity; of course, that’s personal preference. Oh, and before I forget: If you're wondering about the oft-cited driver clipping, for better or worse, I don't listen remotely loud enough for it to occur.

The midrange is where things get more dicey. The Clear transitions into the lower-midrange properly - it’s dead flat - followed by a peak at roughly 1.5kHz. This part actually sits fine with me. While it certainly contributes to the Clear’s slightly boxier presentation, I immediately noticed that it flies superbly with the likes of piano. I’m no musician, but to my ears, piano tones sound incredibly exuberant and rich on the Clear. In general, the Clear is a headphone with a focus on the lower-midrange. Now, I think the Clear’s second midrange quirk will be more contentious. It is a dip at roughly 4kHz. This is not necessarily an issue standalone - in fact, many of my favorite transducers recess this region - but the Clear contrasts this with a minor peak at 6kHz in the lower-treble.

The end result is a double-whammy, as I hear substantial amounts of sibilance and grate with female vocals. If you’re not familiar with the term sibilance, it’s when certain consonances are emphasized over others with a hissing characteristic. A quick example I can point to is Girls Generation’s “Flyers” at 0:45 on the lyrics “peace sign”. It almost sounds like the “s” has shifted into an abrupt whistle. Before you say “It’s your garbage K-Pop tracks!”…well, yes, it is partially baked into the track, but I don’t hear this on any of my other transducers, or at least not to this degree. The Clear also has what I would consider a fairly textured timbre (it certainly leans more textured than, say, the Sennheiser HD6XX). To my ears, these instances of sibilance unnaturally highlight the texture to the degree of which I use the word “grate”.

You know, it’s unfortunate that the Clear’s 6kHz peak contrasted to the 4kHz dip is just enough to result in sibilance. Because despite measurements citing that fairly pronounced 6kHz peak on the Clear, the peak was barely audible based on sine sweeps I ran by ear. I want to say that the Clear’s treble response is actually more mid-treble oriented. Like so, I observed a peak somewhere at roughly 9kHz, followed by a significantly stronger one at 11kHz. After this point, the Clear slopes off not unlike the Sennheiser HD6XX; it's not a particularly airy headphone to my ears. But frequency response only tells us so much. How does this actually translate to practice?

To my ears, then, the initial impact of percussive hits are pulled out longer than they should be, and there’s a type of dirty resonance that harkens to my brief stint with the Hidition Viento-B. I don’t think it ever quite comes across as smeared - the Clear has fairly good nuance - however, it contributes to what some might describe as a “metallic” timbre. Doesn’t sound pleasant, right? But here's the thing: I have to admit that I don’t dislike it. It’s a peaky treble response to be sure, but there’s an edge of authenticity to the Clear’s treble that appeals to me. For example, when the opening cymbals of SawanoHiroyuki’s “Cage” drop, they sound oh-so-authorative; it’s almost like you’re on stage right next to the hits.

Technical Performance​

But while the Clear’s a brighter-leaning headphone, I don’t get the impression that it’s using frequency response to compensate or “fake” the perception of detail. Indeed, the Clear is a remarkably strong performer for a sense of internal detail. I would mainly point to the Clear’s microdynamics - reverb trails, decay, and the nuance of individual instrument lines. I freely admit that I struggle to hone in on this stuff, and at the end of the day, it’s mostly me acting on gut instinct. Nonetheless, most readers will know that I come from a strong IEM background where (in my opinion) microdynamics are largely non-existent. The few IEMs I have heard with the ability to scale more intimate fluctuations tend to have a certain, say, “micro-texture” to the way notes decay. The Clear definitely has this quality, and I think it pays compliment to its macrodynamic ability.

Speaking of which: the Clear’s excellent macrodynamic contrast. In any given track, there are decibel peaks and valleys; macrodynamic contrast is indicative of a transducer’s ability to scale said gradations. Pro tip? A hallmark of a headphone with good dynamic contrast is one where you find yourself turning up the volume on quiet sections of tracks and, conversely, turning down the volume on louder parts of tracks. The Clear is not a headphone for listeners who want to kick back and relax after a long day’s work; believe me, this is a headphone that demands your attention. So watch those listening volumes with the Clear!

That said, I still have bone to pick concerning the weight, the second derivative of macrodynamics to my ears, with which the Clear rides dynamic swings. What do I mean? If you have ever heard a 2-channel system - heck, even some IEMs like the 64 Audio U12t and Tia Fourte - you might notice that there is a sense of intensity, pressure, as certain tracks build. On Taeyeon’s “Make Me Love You,” for example, the opening bassline should successively wash you with a gentle, yet firm sense of authority. Then when the song transitions into the chorus at 0:50, it should be the auditory equivalent of a wave slamming into you. In this instance, the Clear’s a fairly punchy headphone with a good sense of immediacy to be sure, but I think its ability to articulate that more innate sense of body, gravity if you will, could use some work.

Of course, this is me nitpicking. For most listeners, I think the Clear’s most apparent weakness will be soundstage size. The stage of the Clear is a more intimate one. If I had to guess, this is due equal parts to the forwardness of treble and to the bump at 1.5kHz. This is particularly evident relative to the HD800S which chooses to cut the 1kHz region; instruments sound slightly squeezed on the Clear. To be fair, these headphones are going for two very different things. The Clear is certainly warmer, and I think it maintains solid imaging chops - at least on the front of positional accuracy. Like most headphones, I don't think the Clear's soundstage depth is something worth commenting on.

The Verdict​

The Clear was not quite what I expected it to be. In many ways, it is the antithesis of my time with the Sennheiser HD800S. I felt that the HD800S sacrificed microdynamic engagement and bass in the pursuit of a more analytical sound. By contrast, the Clear is a more visceral, energetic expression of what’s possible from a dynamic driver headphone. Here, I want to reiterate that I have been intentionally critical throughout this review. While it’s far from perfect, the Clear is still a fantastic headphone in my books, one that I once considered purchasing for myself. So if you're looking for a headphone intent on keeping you at the edge of your seat - and can live with some minor flaws - then it’s my pleasure to recommend the Focal Clear.

Reference Tracks​

• Aimer - Hakuchuumu
• David Nail - Let It Rain
• Everglow - DUN DUN
• Girls’ Generation - Galaxy Supernova
• Illenium - Broken Ones
• Joe Nichols - Sunny and 75
• Keith Urban - Defying Gravity (2009)
• Keiichi Okabe - Weight of the World (NieR:Automata Original Soundtrack)
• Sabai - Million Days
• Sawano Hiroyuki - Best of Vocal Works Remastered (2020)
• Taeyeon - My Voice (2017)
• Tiffany - I Just Wanna Dance

This review was originally published here on Headphones.com, but I am re-publishing it for readers on Head-Fi.

Introduction​

My history with the HD800S stretches back to roughly a year ago when I first heard it at the Sennheiser SF storefront. Even though the star of the show should have been Sennheiser’s HE1 (you know, just the world’s most expensive headphone) which I also got to demo, I still recall myself being attracted to the HD800S like no other headphone in the store. It had detail, clarity, and staging in spades, pretty much all my wholly inexperienced ears cared for. Still, I found myself wishing to evaluate it in a more quiet listening environment, so courtesy of Headphones.com, I’ve had the Sennheiser HD800S sitting on my desk for the last six months or so.

Yeah. It’s taken a while for me to get around to this review. That’s mainly because I’ve found my taste in headphones has skewed elsewhere and, frankly, I struggled to find the motivation to write it at times. Nonetheless, I’ll be sharing why that is the case; hopefully, my review can lend a more critical perspective to what is one of the most acclaimed headphones in the game.

This unit was provided for review by Headphones.com. It will be returned at the end of the review period. As usual, what follows are my honest thoughts and opinions to the best of my ability.

Source & Drivability​

Critical listening was done off of an iFi Micro iDSD Black Label > Macbook Air > Audirvana using lossless FLAC files. I used a variety of other portable sources to drive the HD800S without issue, and I have also heard it off of the Sennheiser HDV 820 at the Sennheiser SF store before. Unfortunately, I did not have access to a dedicated, desktop amp for listening at the time of this publication.

The Tangibles​

The HD800S arrives in a gigantic black, hard-cardboard box. Inside you’ll find the HD800S nested in foam and with the following accessories:

• 4.4mm 10ft cable
• 6.35mm 10ft cable
• Microfiber cleaning cloth
• Microfiber baggy
• USB Flash Drive

The HD800S sports a sleek, refined build with a silver and black, dichromatic aesthetic. It is largely constructed of plastic to cut down on weight, but does have metal hardware interspersed throughout. The build quality is excellent without creaking and inspires a sense of confidence. The included cables are shrouded in a cloth-like material with good tactility and plenty of length if you’re planning to move around your listening area.

Now honestly, I’ve never been much of a headphone guy. I’ve just never been able to get around the weight and discomfort that characterizes most headphones I’ve worn. But the HD800S is making me rethink that - if only a little. The largely plastic construction is predicated on making the headphone as lightweight and easy-on-the-ears as possible, which results in a lightweight 330 grams. Stack on cups that sink over my ears with ample breathing room and plush, microfiber contact points, and the HD800S is one of the few headphones that I don’t mind wearing for a couple of hours. For isolation, although it might seem obvious, there is zero isolation because this is an open-back headphone. No really, I state this just because of how many, ah, let’s just say interesting Amazon reviews I’ve seen of open-back headphones.

Sound Analysis ​

To my ears, the HD800S presents an analytical, reference-oriented sound. It is a highly technical headphone that has won no shortage of praise for its exceptionally open staging, clarity, and detail retrieval. That being said, it is a headphone far from being devoid of flaw; I’ll explore this further in-depth below.

So let’s just get this out of the way: the HD800S’s bass is where the headphone really pulls the short end of the stick. As is characteristic of Sennheiser’s headphones, it sounds linear until you go down shy of sub-100hZ; at which point, it sounds like the bass drops off a cliff. You’re not buying this headphone for rumble or slam. But it’s not just a matter of quantity, something that can be mitigated with EQ if one chooses, so much as it is the HD800S’s technical performance on this front. There is a distinct lack of tactility and “oomph” to the bass; I would go so far as to say that bass detail sounds like it’s being smeared over. I hear this against not just something like the Focal Clear, but even some IEMs that I have on hand. In short? I’m not too impressed - okay, more like not impressed at all - with the HD800S’s bass.



Conversely, the midrange of the HD800S is the most solid part of the tuning in my opinion. It is leaner, emphasizes a high degree of vocal intelligibility and, within the context of audio, invokes transparency in the truest sense of the word. Even on some of the questionably mastered K-Pop tracks I listen to (yes, I listen to a lot of what most audiophiles would call “garbage,” fight me) like Loona’s “Eclipse,” vocals cut through the extraneous synth-sounds with decided ease. But the HD800’s midrange is not without its drawbacks; to this end, it achieves this uber-clarity thanks to a couple of tuning tricks. First, of course, it’s aided by the aforementioned lack of bass which will inherently boost one’s perception of later frequencies. Second, there is a relative lack of energy from roughly 1-2kHz which cuts a good deal of body out of male vocals. Finally, I notice a certain straining effect - perhaps edginess - when high notes are hit with female vocals. I can’t help but wonder if this is a product of the frequencies infringing upon the HD800S’s 6kHz peak, similar to what I hear on the Focal Clear if not nearly to the same degree, thankfully.

And speaking of that 6kHz peak, let’s talk about the HD800S’s treble. The selling point of the HD800S - at least relative to the original HD800 - is the implementation of an absorber that serves to attenuate what could have otherwise been a quite peaky and bright treble response. The principle is (likely) similar to the SDR mod that many owners have taken to implementing on their HD800s over the years. I still have a love-hate relationship with the HD800S’s treble response. The 6kHz peak lends to backdrop percussive hits sounding like raindrops splattering on a tin roof, while more forward hits have a “clanky-ness” to them that can sound somewhat harsh on first listen. But hours of listening, brain burn-in or not, have me not minding as much as I did originally. It certainly does wonders for the HD800S’s perception of detail, and the quality - textural nuance - of the treble itself is exemplary.

Technical Performance ​

Who could deny the HD800S’s killer imaging and soundstage? Well...nobody except me. Where the HD800S stumbles - stumbles hard, I might add - is the center image. And I am a big stickler for center image. For those who might not be familiar with this term, it is a psychoacoustic illusion for headphones and IEMs; the product of having two channels in conjunction. When a transducer is able to also project the center image, it results in what I perceive as soundstage depth. Very few transducers I have heard make this distinction, and hours of listening have forced me to conclude that the HD800S doesn’t merit entry to those exclusive ranks - not by a long shot. Like so, there is the strong perception of vocalists being trapped inside one’s head, and the contrast to what is an otherwise extremely open presentation results in what I have heard best described as a “reverse cardioid” (yeah, just Google it, the image will explain way better than I can) soundstage.

Indeed, the HD800S has an incredibly wide soundstage, and for layering ability - the perceived sense of space between instruments - I have heard no other headphone with such stellar distinction. And the detail, can we talk about the sheer detail? The HD800S is incredibly resolving with notes in the midrange and treble fleshed out with terrifically defined transient attack. For microdetail - consonances, reverb trails, and the like - again, I’ve heard no peer to the HD800S, and it is a detail lover’s dream headphone. But it’s not all sunshine and daisies. I do not think that its microdynamic engagement - decibel fluctuations to said microdetail - is on the same level. Likewise, A/B-ing with the Focal Clear suggests that, while by no means compressed in the way it scales dynamics swings, the HD800S lacks the same level of visceral macrodynamic punch. This culminates in a decidedly more sterile technical showing.

The Verdict​

To my ears, there is a general sense of the HD800S being a superstar in some respects, and in others, being more middling or simply falling flat altogether. Consequently, my relationship with the HD800S has been a fickle one. From being a possible endgame headphone to being a headphone that I see as far from perfect these days, listeners like myself who want a more natural, organic sound would be best suited by steering away or by only owning the HD800S as a reference headphone. But beyond the scope of subjective preference, I have no problem respecting the HD800S for what it is. It has top-tier technical ability and maintains a reasonably balanced sound signature. For the discerning listener who desires a tool to analyze musical nuance at the highest level, the HD800S is definitely a headphone that should be on the list - scratch that, at the top of the list. It certainly doesn’t hurt that, as a testament to its relevance and staying power, it remains the benchmark with which top headphones are compared to today.

Reference Tracks​

• Aimer - Hakuchuumu
• David Nail - Let It Rain
• Everglow - DUN DUN
• Girls’ Generation - Galaxy Supernova
• Illenium - Broken Ones
• Joe Nichols - Sunny and 75
• Keith Urban - Defying Gravity (2009)
• Keiichi Okabe - Weight of the World (NieR:Automata Original Soundtrack)
• Sabai - Million Days
• Sawano Hiroyuki - Best of Vocal Works Remastered (2020)
• Taeyeon - My Voice (2017)
• Tiffany - I Just Wanna Dance

This review was originally published here on Headphones.com, but I am re-posting it for readers on Head-Fi. ​

Introduction ​

The cost of flagship IEMs has steadily skyrocketed over the last several years, so much so that seeing a $2000, $3000, heck, even $4000 IEM released doesn’t surprise. So when Odin, Empire Ear’s latest flagship IEM, was released to the tune of a staggering $3400, I think people were more concerned with how and where to buy one than with the price itself. Indeed, Empire Ears has struggled to keep up with demand, and many retailers are currently sold out and awaiting new stock. But hype is hype, money is money, and I’m of the opinion that no flagship IEM has a right to cost as much the Odin does. Does Odin have what it takes to merit its hefty cost of entry, to shift my jaded paradigm? Let’s take a look.

This unit was loaned by Headphones.com for review and will be returned at the end of the review period. As always, what follows are my honest thoughts and opinions to the best of my ability.

Source and Driveability​

All critical listening was done off of both an iBasso DX160 and A&K SP1000M using stock, Final-E tips and lossless FLAC files. The Stormbreaker cable was used with the A&K SP1000M and I swapped to a standard, 4.4mm 0.78mm cable with the DX160. The Odin is a surprisingly easy IEM to drive, not unlike some of the Campfire Audio stuff. Luckily, I had no issues with background hissing despite the high sensitivity.

The Tangibles​

Empire Ears knows how to do their presentation, that’s for sure. Included are the following accessories:

• In Ear Monitor
• Empire Pandora Case
• Empire Cleaning Cloth
• Empire Cleaning Tool
• Final Audio Type E Tips - SS, S, M, L, LL

The Odin also ships with Stormbreaker, a cable specially designed in collaboration with boutique cable maker PW Audio. While I love to see Empire Ears including accessories like this, the value proposition is seriously questionable. And not even from a sound quality standpoint (which I won’t delve in to), but also from a material quality standpoint. The plastic heat shrink that surrounds the cable’s jack has been cut jaggedly, the chin slider doesn’t lock into the flashy Y-splitter (a missed opportunity in this reviewer’s opinion), the Y-splitter itself has evidence of machining lines on it, and the plastic tubing surrounding the ear guides are of different lengths. While I understand that these flaws might be within manufacturer tolerances (and you know, the good old “it’s made by hand ergo there will be flaws!” argument), it attracts my ire nonetheless. And as if to add insult to injury, it only comes terminated in either a 2.5/3.5mm jack and the adapters sell for $50 each. All this for a cable that retails stand-alone for a staggering $1300! Yeah, I’m not really seeing it chief. Devoid of the cable’s questionable value, I do commend the material of the cable itself. It’s supple, non-microphone, and doesn’t tangle easily.

Moving on to Empire Ear’s end of things, I’ve always been a fan of Empire Ear’s Pandora case. It’s clunky, sure, but I’d expect nothing less than the best protection for my $3000+ IEMs. The silicon interior makes for easy cleaning and bump protection, the threading on the case is fairly good, and it’s just built like an absolute tank.

Odin itself is quite the looker. You can tell that they’re putting a lot of effort into the details. The Bifröst faceplate as they call it, is designed to represent the mythical rainbow bridge between Midgard (earth) and Asgard (the realm of the gods). And no, it’s not just holographic rainbow foil. I’ll let the marketing doing the talking:

“The Bifröst features nine individual polymer layers in three proprietary lamination steps and each lamination is unique in its ability to filter and reflect specific wavelengths of light. This results in a faceplate that will produce breathtaking color transitions as the viewing angle changes -- literally shifting before your very eye.The Bifröst is masterfully handcrafted in the USA by an award winning chemist that currently holds two patents in polymer science for high solids coating chemistry.”

As you might expect, the build quality is also excellent. There’s zero gaps between where the faceplate, cable connector points, and shell of the IEM meet. I do find the faceplate a bit flashy for my tastes, but...if you’re spending this much on an IEM, that’s probably exactly what you’re looking for. The Odin is also very lightweight, although I do find it to be on the larger side of things which should be a fair consideration if you have smaller ears. Driver flex, a sort of harmless crinkling, is also present when you insert them in your ears.

Sound Analysis​

Frequency response taken off of an IEC-711 coupler. Measurement is raw, and there is a resonance peak at 8kHz.



Empire Ears has eschewed the flavorful tunings of their past IEMs and in its place is something much closer to, well, simply neutral. It’s refreshing to see this; ironically, normally the opposite would hold true. As I’ll be delving into, though, the benefits are myriad.

Tonality ​

Bass is tastefully boosted while forgoing the monstrous 1kHz shelf that characterizes Empire Ear’s other hybrid IEMs. And as a result, Odin’s transient attack has seen a massive improvement with a lot of the bloat and transient smearing present on those IEMs cleaned up. Bass texturing and transient density are also present in more-than-adequate quantities.

Really, there’s not much to nitpick. But if I had a critique, and this is more personal preference than anything, it’s that I kind of liked the bloat and try-hard quality the W9+ subwoofer exhibited when excessively boosted. If there was one thing I couldn’t knock, it’s that it had character. By virtue of Odin’s tuning, though, it’s sort of just there, if not well-done and of high quality. I do find it to be lacking something in the sheer air that I could tell was being pushed on the Empire Ears Hero and Valkyrie. Decay also seems to have taken a hit, but that’s more personal preference than anything. I might be asking for too much; after all, you can’t always have your cake and eat it, and it stands that this is a massive improvement over some of their past offerings on the basis of quality.

Midrange-wise, wow, I’d be hard-pressed to name another IEM that bests Odin for detail retrieval and resolution here. Vocal inflections, and really anything in the upper-midrange, pop a good deal. The lower-midrange is less forward (not necessarily a bad thing for my tastes) whilst maintaining good macro-detail and a natural note-weight to my ears. While the upper-mids are stirring the hornet’s nest for reasons I’ll outline below, subjective preference aside, the Odin’s midrange is terrific from a technical perspective. BA timbre does seem to be present, but it’s mostly limited to a lack of transient density than anything.

The treble is an interesting part of Odin's tuning. In my experience, electret driver implementations tend to be hit-or-miss with emphasis on the latter. And not to go off on a tangent, but few things irk me more than the oft-used word “smooth” as an excuse for IEMs with (in my opinion) very poorly done electret driver implementations. Said implementations often come at the expense of technical capability and an excessively dark tonality. But Odin’s treble isn’t bad at all. Make no mistake: It does roll-off in the utmost highest frequencies, but this is the type of smooth roll-off that I can live with and that, at the very least, doesn’t necessarily detract. I’d certainly prefer more pseudo-air, but I’d wager this slight roll-off is beneficial from a coherency aspect.

Technical Performance​

To no one’s surprise - or at least no one who’s heard an Empire Ears IEM - the Odin has the ever-elusive intangibles in spades. One of the most interesting things to me is Odin’s transients; their overall sonic character. With some IEMs, like qdc’s Anole VX and the Fearless Audio S8 Pro, I get the impression that the IEM is under duress, almost force-hammering detail out of tracks. By contrast, the Odin presents everything without undue strain or lack-there-of. This is where that more subdued electret treble comes into play, and in tandem with its terrific resolving capability, there’s an undeniable stately, dignified quality to the Odin’s presentation that befits its namesake. While this same quality neuters Odin’s dynamic range, something I’ll delve into later, transparent, as much as I dislike using this word, is really the first word that comes to mind.

In a similar vein, what actually caught my attention most on first listen were Odin’s positional cues; the extent to which one is able to pinpoint where individual sounds and instruments are coming from on the stage. And indeed, the Odin is quite possibly the front runner for this subset of imaging. This is aided by Odin’s excellent staging capabilities; I hear abundant width and depth that border on breaking the headstage. For an all-around sense of staging distribution that envelops the listener, the Odin firmly seats itself in best-in-class territory.

In terms of more traditional metrics like resolving capability, specifically sheer resolution, I’d put Odin up there with the likes of the Anole VX, an IEM many would regard as the most resolving in the game. Notes in the midrange are delivered incredibly crisp, and layering - the sense of space between instruments throughout the stage - is superb. I’m inclined to say you lose some edge in the treble, but by all accounts I’ll take it over hyper-boosted, fatiguing treble any day.

Unforgiving Explication​

Oh, no! He’s going to criticize Odin. But Odin’s a $3400 IEM, it must be terrible then. Or - Dang, this guy’s full of *bleep*. I don’t hear any of the faults he’s hearing. Before the pitchforks come out, let me just say that the Odin’s a fantastic IEM. But yes, I’m going to critique it because at least this way you know what could be a dealbreaker for you. I’d wager that’s preferable to praising everything. That being said, a lot really comes down to tonal preference at the flagship level. And while the Odin certainly isn’t lacking in “wow” factor, unfortunately, it fails to hit my tonal preferences as closely as I’d like:

• You’ll note from the frequency response graph that the upper-midrange of the Odin is quite forward. Although it doesn’t exhibit the transient edginess I’ve come to note on IEMs like Empire Ear’s own Hero, it’s fatiguing for my tastes - too bright, too thin, helped in no part by the BA timbre. For the record, this is a trait that neither “settles” for me over extended listening nor with more burn-in (my Odin is a demo unit, so it’s been played plenty); I find it consistently presents itself. Perhaps because I constantly swap between IEMs while reviewing, tonal differences tend to pop more than they would otherwise.
• Outside of sheer resolving capability - the aforementioned “wow” factor - I do find the Odin to be lacking on some fronts intangibly. For example, despite the snappy dynamic transitions, contrast itself seems lacking. The Odin fails to appropriately sweep the quietest sections of tracks, and has a strong upward skew to its macrodynamics that does no favors for the upper-midrange hotness. To an extent this is also what gives it that “stately” quality I noted earlier; however, I’d be hard-pressed to ignore the subsequent trade-off.
• Another good instance is imaging. And well, I hate to say it, but Odin’s imaging is not holographic. “Holographic” is a word I see misused quite often (at least relative to how I would define the term); it’s indicative of an IEM’s ability to shape the “walls'' of the stage around the listener. This is generally characterized, for me, by copious amounts of “air” surrounding instruments; I believe this quality is largely a product of pseudo treble air, but distinct from the sense of space that results from a dark background. To this effect, despite rendering positional cues to a very high degree and ample image diffusal, the Odin lacks the solidity to said image that I would attribute to the few, truly holographic IEMs.

Music ​

I’ll be honest, I kind of just skip these sections when I read reviews about IEMs. Something about not being able to relate, and quite frankly, just not finding them particularly informative for my purposes. This isn’t to say they’re at all bad, though, and I can see the appeal. So what the heck? I’ll take a stab at it. These are a few of the tracks I used, and I’ll mostly just be covering what I’m looking for specifically rather than delving into outright wishy-washiness.

Taeyeon’s “Fine”: This is one of my favorite songs to test center image positional cues. There’s a series of vocal overdubs as she enters the chorus, but here’s the kicker: They all come from slightly different points - depth, height, and width - on the center stage. I find the Odin images the overdubs slightly higher positionally than normal, albeit with excellent distinction between each one and a surprising amount of depth.

Sawano Hiroyuki’s “e of s (Remastered)”: Sawano’s stuff often plays with staging, so they make for fitting test tracks in my opinion. Here, I’m looking for stage depth and treble forward-ness, as there’s a series of stick-on-stick hits in the opening that should be positioned towards the back of the stage. This is also the track I use most often to force-check macrodynamic ability. There are several abrupt, quiet-to-loud transitions throughout the track that the Odin fails to scale correctly.

Dreamcatcher’s “Silent Night” & Sabai’s “Million Days”: These are the two tracks I generally use to get a quick feel for an IEM’s bass. Silent Night has a very deep drop at around 0:10 that I can use to assess bass texturing and extension; in general, the electronic hits in this track have texturing that’s very obvious to me. The Odin performs admirably here. On the other hand, Sabai’s “Million Days” does not have said texturing. It has more sub-bass oriented drops that I use to assess bass decay and bass quantity. I find the Odin’s decay to be a little quicker than I’d like here if not still very natural.

Eric Church’s “Hell on the Heart” & Taeyeon’s “Feel So Fine”: Test tracks for male and female vocalist sibilance. Lots of “s” consonants and occasional lisping in “Hell on the Heart,” but Odin has no trouble here. No issues with sibilance on“Feel So Fine” either; however, Taeyeon’s voice is too bright, thin for my tastes - it’s fatiguing. Same story on Tiffany’s “I Just Wanna Dance” except there’s a lot of treble action; the Odin’s lack thereof brings the upper-midrange to the forefront clashing poorly within the context of this track.

Select Comparisons​

Campfire Andromeda 2020 - $1099​

Here’s a fun one. I recently saw some discussion about how the Odin outclasses the Andromeda 2020 in every respect, and well, I have to agree to disagree.

The Andromeda 2020 is one of the IEMs I mentioned earlier that I would consider truly holographic. If this is your jam, then yes, it handily beats out the Odin here.

• Coherency. While the Odin is indeed very smooth, no matter what the synX technology marketing says, I can tell there’s a crossover at play between the subwoofer and the midrange BAs thanks to their respective note textures and the bass slam. Conversely, the Andromeda 2020 is seamless, no doubt thanks to CA’s crossoverless design and use of solely BAs.
• Treble extension. The Campfire stuff has some of the most well-extended treble I’ve heard, and it’s not a contest between the Andromeda 2020 and Odin here.

I guess my point is that the Andromeda 2020 is at the cusp of which diminishing returns start kicking in hard. Especially between two already great IEMs, I can’t help but feel that whether or not something is “better” largely comes down to tonal preference. So if you’re happy with what you have, then I see no reason to upgrade. Outside of these remarks, the Odin does have an advantage in the general technical works. Bass slam is much more defined, positional cues are sharper, and sheer resolution is a good couple steps ahead. You can expect the Odin to have a brighter, more detail-oriented signature while the Andromeda 2020 is more laidback, warm, while not straying far from neutral either.

64 Audio U12t - $1999​

It’s no secret that the U12t is one of my favorite IEMs. Indeed, between the two, I find the U12t to be the more intangibly pleasing IEM. The transient smoothing and terrific macrodynamic ability of the U12t contrast rather sharply with Odin’s borderline fatiguing midrange transients and poor, upward-compressed dynamics. It doesn’t help that I also prefer the U12t’s more laidback tonality. There’s a dip in the U12t’s upper-midrange which begets an unprecedented sense of depth, and the treble is airier, more articulate, executed with a very unique type of stick impact. As good as Odin’s tuning is, I’m inclined to say the U12t squeaks by with more of that magic, “X-factor” while maintaining superb technical chops.

That being said, for those who enjoy a details-in-your-face oriented, brighter IEM, the Odin is an apt alternative. It has an edge in sheer resolution, and I prefer its dynamic driver bass to the U12t’s (admittedly very good) BA bass. I’d also probably give Odin the edge in stage size and evenness of image distribution. I don’t think you can go wrong with either, and again, it’ll likely come down to tonal preference.

64 Audio tia Trio - $2299​

You know, if you took Odin’s pricey cable out of the picture, the Odin would actually be at around the same price as the tia Trio, so I think this is a fitting comparison.

Let’s talk about tonality. Trio’s bass slams harder and there’s a certain density to its transients that simply drips richness relative to the lack of character that Odin’s bass has. The lower-midrange is scooped out more than the Odin’s with a dip at 1kHz before rising in the upper-midrange, but not as aggressively as the Odin does. I’ll admit it sounded a bit hollow while A/B-ing. The Trio’s treble also has something of a lower-treble suckout, but extends with more fizzle. Between the two, the Trio leans more fun than reference-y.

Intangibly, the tia Trio is another one of the few IEMs that I’d consider to have holographic imaging, and indeed, it was the reference I turned to while assessing the Odin. Both also have something of an upwards skew to their macrodynamics with overall dynamism favoring the Trio. Outside of this, I do find the Odin to have a good edge in resolving capability, and where Odin really takes the cake is in coherency. The Trio is noticeably more “disjoint” than other hybrids whether by virtue of its tuning or its intangibles. It somehow all clicks together nicely for the Trio, but I’d say Odin is the more well-rounded of the two IEMs.

Vision Ears Elysium - $3000​

It’s been awhile since I’ve heard the Elysium, but I’ve never been too keen on it. The decision to have a DD token the midrange and a BA the low-end is a perplexing one, and really, I never saw the payoff. Elysium’s bass is more mid-bass (punch) oriented, and yet it fails to match Odin’s dynamic slam much less texturing or transient richness. And then we get to the midrange where quite frankly, the Odin makes the Elysium sound straight-up blunted. Sorry - just calling it as I hear it. Treble is the one instance in which I can see the Elysium having an advantage over Odin. The Elysium’s treble has more presence, extends further, and lends the Elysium to a more V-shaped tonality. Some might find the Elysium the more “musical” of the two; nonetheless, I’m of the opinion that the Odin is the better tuned and more technical IEM.

Jomo Trinity Brass - $2800​

The Trinity Brass is another fitting comparison, as it’s a tribrid as well. Tonality-wise, the Trinity Brass has an enormous 1kHz bass shelf not dissimilar to some of Empire Ear’s other IEMs. While of decent quality, the low-end delves into bloat. The midrange is thick if not somewhat unremarkable, and treble is classic EST - that is to say, it rolls off. This results in an extremely warm IEM that doesn’t offend; overall I’d consider it to be competently tuned. However, as a result of its tonality, the Trinity Brass takes a hit in technical performance, and for me, the Odin comes out the clear winner. Go for the Trinity if you want something warm, bassy, and easy on the ears, and go for the Odin if you prioritize note clarity, technicalities, and want the “better” IEM on paper.

Empire Ears Wraith - $3500​

This is the flagship IEM of Empire Ear’s EP (Empire Professional) line-up. It was not met with positive reception when it was released for good reason. And well, let’s put it this way: If you have upwards of $3000 to spend on an IEM, buy the Odin. Heck, buy the Elysium. Anything but this. “Wraith” is an apt descriptor for this IEM’s sonic qualities.

But it wouldn’t be fair to leave you hanging, so I’ll indulge. Wraith’s bass is characteristically BA: It’s one-note, decays far too quickly, and sounds like it rolls off. The midrange sounds like someone is in the room adjacent to you and is speaking through the wall. And the treble...what treble? The Wraith literally rolls off after 5kHz if you don’t have it hooked up to a dedicated amp to power the electret drivers. And we haven’t even talked about technical capability which, quite frankly, is reminiscent of IEMs a tenth the Wraith’s price. Per usual, I feel the need to disclaim that there’s something for everyone, but juxtapose the Wraith with the Odin and you have as close a ringer for “objectively” better as it gets.

The Verdict​

If you’re someone who’s skipped to the end of this review (hey, I do the same thing, I don’t blame you!), then I recommend briefly skimming the section just above this one about the Empire Ear’s Wraith. It’ll help frame where I’m coming from.

In many respects, at least for me, the Odin represented an opportunity for Empire Ears to redeem themselves; needless to say they’ve done that and then some. The Odin is unmistakably a top-tier IEM. And this is not a term I sling around lightly. In my eyes, a top-tier IEM is not necessarily a reflection of price, but rather an IEM that stands at the audio summit on the merit of its sound quality alone - a daunting criteria the Odin meets. Empire Ears has walked to the plate, taken the shortcomings of the Wraith (which were myriad to say the least) to heart, and knocked it out of the park with Odin.

But is the Odin worth $3400? That’s the real question, and boy is it a tough one. Ultimately, I’m of the opinion that pride of ownership and the joy of listening are factors that you simply can’t put a price on. You’re probably not a rational buyer if you’re buying flagship IEMs anyways. And as much as part of me hates to admit it because neither does the Odin hit my tonal preferences, nor will I ever buy one, the Odin’s one of the most well-rounded IEMs on the market today. Recommended - for both those with deeper pockets and for those with thinner wallets who think this could be their endgame alike - and a job very well done to Empire Ears.

This unit was sent to me for review by Linsoul. As usual, what follows are my honest thoughts and opinions to the best of my ability.

I have to say, I’m very impressed with the strides Thieaudio has made with their presentation. The Legacy 2 arrives in a clean, black cardboard box. Inside you’ll find two types of silicone tips, a 0.78mm cable, and a compact carrying case. The L2 itself is nicely constructed and sports one of the more visually appealing faceplates that I’ve seen in its price bracket. For fit and comfort, the L2 is eminently easy on the ears and lightweight. You’ll hear zero complaints from me on any of these fronts. But readers already know I'm not too picky about this stuff and, of course, the actual sound is another matter which I’ll delve into below.




I was accidentally sent two units, so here they are measured above. The measurements were taken off an IEC-711 coupler; there is a resonance peak at 8kHz, so everything after that point should not be considered necessarily accurate. If you'd like to compare the Legacy 2 to other IEMs that I have graphed, please see here.

The L2 has a warm, balanced sound signature. You can see from the graph that the L2’s bass shelf extends up to 600hZ. Surprisingly, however, I don’t find it a particularly bassy IEM. To the contrary, the bass on the L2 is rather mellow and sounds like it’s lacking a good deal in the slam department. This is a complaint that I’ve cited about Thieaudio’s dynamic drivers in the past, and I can’t help but feel that the new beryllium driver being used is nothing out of the ordinary either. Most of that extended bass shelf’s effect, then, seems to be attributable to the midrange’s warmth. It’s a pleasant enough midrange with a more relaxed pinna compensation and smooth transition into the lower-treble. Nonetheless, I disagree with this choice of tuning. And not because I think it’s a bad tuning stand alone - far from it - but rather because it’s perpetuating a vicious cycle with the L2’s technicalities.

Indeed, technicalities are where I can't help but feel that the L2 is heavily lacking. Coherency isn't bad here, but it's mainly because the midrange and treble notes are blunted to the point of which they're matching the dynamic driver. Sheer note definition is definitely not the L2's strong point. Something else that sticks out like a sore thumb about the L2 is its dynamic range. It sounds like there's excessive dampening and it struggles to produce sound. It reminds me of when I'm trying to accelerate on my 90's Honda Civic onto the freeway, especially going uphill. A bit nerve-racking because everyone else is zipping by me and I'm pushing the pedal to the metal and can barely keep up.



Speaking of which, that’s a good segue. Sure, the L2 will get the job done adequately and, credit where credit is due, I have to say this is a good IEM. But it's not much else. There are a lot of other IEMs in this price bracket that trade blows with the L2 and, if you’re asking me, surpass it for less. I'll patiently keep awaiting the day that Thieaudio manages to put out an IEM that makes me go “wow”. This is just an IEM to go for if you want a really safe pick and don't know what you like.

The Legacy 2 is available for purchase here.

I heard the Tanya a couple weeks ago at a friend's house and was really impressed with what I heard. It's not often that a budget IEM catches my attention, but this one had me hooked - I even ended up buying my own unit halfway through demoing! It doesn't hurt that the Tanya is only $20, a far cry from the pricing of Tanchjim's other IEMs which I haven't been as hot on. Anyways, it arrived yesterday, and I've been listening to them for the past day. Here are my quick thoughts.

Unboxing Impressions

• Clean unboxing experience that belies its price.
• Includes a micro-fiber baggy as a means of carry and an assortment of silicon tips. I chose to use the tips that came on the IEM.
• Tanya itself is very lightweight and has a decent cable. Build is just OK, and I can tell that one shell is slightly looser than the left. L/R indicators are hard to read, but there's a nub on the non-removable cable to indicate the left side. You can also use the microphone button to control play/pause and forward/backward on iPhone which is what I was hoping for.
• Isolation is below average. Comfort is OK for me.
• Bonus points: I can lay on my side using this IEM which I don't find often.

Sound Impressions

Here's my personal unit measured off of my IEC-711 coupler. The usual disclaimers apply: There's a resonance peak at 8kHz, don't trust the measurements after this point, yada-yada.



It's a bit difficult to pinpoint the overall sound signature of the Tanya, but to my ears, it's somewhere along the lines of "smooth, slightly dark, and with a touch of fun".

The bass of the Tanya is up my alley. It's a pronounced, mid-bass oriented shelf that starts rolling-off down past ~50hZ and clearly pushes into the lower-midrange to inject a good deal of warmth. While I would've preferred more sub-bass, I actually think the Tanya's better in the slam and texture department than their own Oxygen IEM. It's definitely not as clean (or particularly clean in general), but since when have I ever been one to shy away from dirty bass? Interestingly, I don't find the midrange particularly lean either. It skews toward the warmer side to my ears and sports a controlled rise to the pinna compensation and upper-midrange that circumvents any shout or sibilance. Very, very nicely done. The Tanya is heavily reliant on lower-treble as is expected of a more V-shaped IEM. Still, it's refreshing to see that Tanchjim hasn't taken "creative liberties" here - such as the 5kHz peak of death - that so many budget IEMs exhibit. Even a lot of IEMs I'd consider well-tuned screw up this area for me, making them fatiguing. For air and extension, the Tanya doesn't really have much after 10kHz; I do find it mildly dark up top which contributes to a smoother listen. It doesn't sound dead rolled-off, at least.

For technicalities, the Tanya is obviously not going to be the strongest performer. I'd put it around a "C/C+" grade myself. Transient attack is noticeably blunted and the dynamic range of the Tanya is downwards-compressed. That in mind, perhaps most surprising about the Tanya would be its imaging chops. It has slightly wider, taller soundstage than most budget IEMs that I've heard. I also hear a good sense of layering ability (sense of space between instruments) that belies its bassy tuning and price point. These qualities are probably attributable to the more open design. Unsurprisingly, thanks to its single DD, the Tanya has pleasant timbre too.

Comparison

Some are probably wondering whether the Tanya is better than the legendary Sony MH755. Inevitably, this will break some hearts, but the answer is a flat "no". The MH755 has better bass texture and a solid technical edge on the Tanya. It's important to remember the MH755 is an exception. An exception, mind you, that is extremely difficult to find nowadays. As the MH755 continues to edge out of the picture, I'd argue the Tanya is poised to become the de-facto, V-shaped IEM for $20. And on the flip side of things, the Tanya sports some snazzy accessories and is easier on the ears than the MH755 which I found fatiguing. Now, these are both pretty bassy IEMs; let's say you don't like bass. Then you're going to want the Final Audio E500. It's that simple.



The Verdict

Tanchjim may have hit a roadblock with some of their other IEMs, but I'm glad to see that they've recognized this, pivoted, and are back swinging. I really like the Tanya. It does a lot of things right and very little wrong; really, that's all most $20 IEMs can ask for. Even more surprising, then, is that the Tanya also has engagement factor by virtue of its above-average imaging chops. For listeners who enjoy a smooth, fun listen and don't want to break the bank, the Tanya is one of the few IEMs I'd say is worth the blind-buy.

Hey all, here’s my long-belated Zen review. This showed up a couple months ago, I put an hour or two on it, and then promptly forgot about it with all the other stuff I have going through my hands. Yeah. Obviously, that’s not the greatest first impression, but I also don’t think it’s fair to leave DUNU hanging when they sent this out with the expectation of a review. So here we are.



This unit was provided for review by Tom of DUNU. As always, what follows are my honest thoughts and impressions to the best of my ability.

Presentation & Accessories



Nailed it. I don’t think I’ve been disappointed by any DUNU unboxing experience, and the Zen bears no exception. Lots of goodies you'll receive:

• Eartips 6x pairs
• Airline adapter
• shirt clip
• microfiber cloth
• split microfiber baggie for the IEMs
• case
• DUW03 cable with 2.5mm, 3.5mm, and 4.5mm adapters

Love the case; I even stole an extra off of MRS because I liked it so much. I'm not sure if I'm the biggest fan of the new cable, though. It's certainly more robust than the DUW02, but it also feels somewhat tacky, overly heavy. I think I'd prefer something slimmer. As usual, you have DUNU's terrific modular system covering you in all common terminations. Anyways, I'd prefer not to focus on this stuff too much, as other reviewers have no doubt covered them in much greater detail already. That in mind, onto the sound.

Sound Analysis



As a whole, I'm not sure what to call the Zen's response, but I'd say there's more of an "Asian" music tilt to things going on here that'll mostly closely favor said genres. The bass on the Zen is...fine. Sounds mid-bass leaning to my ears with adequate amounts of slam and texture. Honestly, I'm not sure what else to say here. $700 material? Not really. Certainly not in the tuning department, and something like the ER2XR has it beat in tuning and intangibles.

There is a distinct divide to the Zen’s midrange. The lower-midrange is fine, leaning slightly warmer. But the upper-midrange needs work. It’s simply too emphasized from 3-4kHz lending to overly forward, edgy female vocals. And no, I’m not saying this just because it’s the complete opposite of my target curve. There are ways to walk this line without falling prey like the Zen has; the Moondrop IEMs are an excellent example.

That aside, the Zen’s weakest point is no doubt its treble response. It is largely rolled-off post 10kHz; both measurements and subjective listening corroborate this. This is not uncommon with a lot of DD IEMs; however, the problem to my ears lies in the attempt that was made to offset said roll-off. The Zen’s treble is strongly emphasized at 8kHz not unlike, say, the Campfire Andromeda. Unlike the Andromeda though, there’s just not enough presence sub-1kHz to offset this peak. Leading impacts and crash sound overly emphasized; contrasted to the roll-off post-10kHz, triggers the dreaded “in a pit” effect where it sounds like percussive instruments are bearing down on a listener.

Technicalities

As a whole, I would say the Zen’s technicalities are middling. Not horrible for $700, but a long ways off class leading. The one area that really “shines” - that is, through the largely rolled off treble - is the Zen’s macrodynamic ability. By this, I am most closely referencing the ability of an IEM to scale decibel gradations. The Zen has a good deal of “heft” and punch to the way it articulates dynamic swings. Although it’s been too long since I’ve heard the DUNU Luna to draw a comparison, I recall the Luna’s macrodynamic ability being more strongly predicated on sheer contrast. An interesting juxtaposition, I think. But no less a worthy performance from the Zen here, and suffice it to say the Zen might be the most capable IEM I have heard at $700 for this characteristic.

Select Comparison

Those who have read my DUNU SA6 review will know that it is an IEM that I hold in very high regard. I went in with zero expectations and was utterly captivated with what I heard, so much so that it went directly onto my list of favorite IEMs. So I will be blunt: In this reviewer’s opinion only, the SA6 is a significant jump over the Zen. The tuning of the SA6 is a good deal more balanced and technicalities are refined to a higher degree. I see no reason to purchase the Zen unless one desires - above all else - its aforementioned macrodynamic ability that I highlighted earlier.

I suppose the Moondrop Illumination is also a natural point of comparison to the Zen given they are both 1DDs. Again, I will be blunt: I am not the biggest fan of the Illumination. The Illumination has a more balanced tuning with comparable technical performance. Where these IEMs differ most, then, is in timbre. The Illumination is extremely smooth in transient attack and decay, perhaps too smooth. There is a distinct lack of vigor, a certain mellowness to its presentation that underwhelms. Really, if I had to pick my poison, I think I’d go for the Zen, but those who want a smoother, less fatiguing listen might opt for the Illumination.

The Verdict

At the end of the day, the Zen is pretty alright. It doesn't do anything outright wrong, but I also don't think its sonic performance is quite to the level of its asking price. I will add that it is difficult to assess value of more expensive single DD IEMs as there's simply not many on the market; they tend to be bottlenecked in the technical department by design too. But if nothing else, DUNU has at least shown that they can trickle down some of the unique qualities that made the original Luna special.

This is just a quick summary of the B2 Dusk, as I have it on-hand again from MRS. See his Youtube channel here. Yeah, I enjoyed it enough to steal it for another listen - something that doesn't happen often. You can also read my original, full-review here.

If you're not familiar with the original Moondrop Blessing 2, then suffice it to say it's by and large without peer in its price bracket thanks to its stellar, balanced tuning and surprisingly good technical chops. It is the undisputed $300 benchmark. But make no mistake: Equally so, it is not an IEM without flaw, and I myself became one of its detractors as I put more time onto my unit. The Dusk aims to rectify some of these issues and serves as medium with which to bring Crinacle's expert tuning to the masses.


So, the Dusk. As the name Dusk might imply, the Dusk is a warmer, darker IEM - only by comparison, of course. Independently, I’d probably classify the Dusk as something along the lines of “neutral with bass boost." This is one of the most well-tuned IEMs that I've heard.

Bass is boosted almost exclusively in the sub-bass regions, curving out by 200hZ. This is important because you can “push” sub-bass a good deal. It’s mostly when you start curving an IEM’s bass shelf with more of a mid-bass emphasis, or past 200hZ, that you run the risk of delving into bloat; this is what Crinacle has aptly avoided with the Dusk’s tuning. Stellar bass tuning aside, I find the Dusk's bass lacking on a more intangible level. It has a distinct dryness, lack of texture to it, despite the largely clean transient attack it exhibits.

The midrange of the Dusk exhibits, to my ears, an unparalleled level of tonal accuracy. And those are not words I sling lightly. While there are midrange tunings I might prefer more - such as the venerable 64 Audio U12t's - I'll be the first to admit they do not hit my perceived neutrality as closely. Macro-detail is quite good thanks to the contrast between the leaner lower-midrange and tilt to the upper-midrange. I imagine some might find note-weight a tad lean; however, I struggle to see someone taking fault with the Dusk's midrange devoid of tonal preference. It's really just that good. This is what I wanted the Hidition Viento's midrange to be, but it just wasn't.

Now, I'm not going to shower you with hyperboles of excellent extension, articulate treble, or sparkle regarding the Dusk's treble. It's the Dusk's weak point, plain and simple. Treble on the Dusk is characterized mostly by lower treble with a peak at around 6kHz which lends to a slight tinny-ness to the way hi-hats are articulated. Mid-treble sounds fairly linear, followed by a rapid slope off of 10kHz, shaving off a good deal upper-air. Mind you, these issues are expected for a $300 IEM, and I've heard much, much worse.

The Dusk is a competent technical performer; that is to say, excellent within the scope of its price bracket. Imaging appears to have taken a slight hit - at least on a psychoacoustic level - relative to the original B2. This is likely a product of more bass and less treble; on the whole, the Dusk's imaging remains above average with slight image diffusion. The much-maligned BA timbre of the original B2 has been mitigated some, particularly in the treble, likely the result of less sheer treble quantity. Something I will highlight is the Dusk's macrodynamic ability. Here, I'm most closely talking about the way an IEM scales the decibel peaks and valleys in a given recording. The Dusk sets a strong precedent - at least in the $300 bracket - for its dynamic contrast.

In conclusion? The Dusk irrefutably demonstrates the merits of tuning with calculated, deliberate precision. If the B2 set a precedent for the $300 bracket, then the Dusk is one of the extremely rare IEMs - the few and far between - that I dare say is almost unfairly good. This is one of the most tonally pleasing IEMs on the market and my undisputed $300 pick.

Every once in a while, an IEM's reputation precedes it, and indeed, the Tape Pro is a prime example. With an accolade of 1-star reviews on Head-Fi (no easy feat, mind you) and no shortage of my fellow reviewers raving about how horrible it sounds, I knew I had to get my hands on one. Thanks to @antdroid for making it happen, although funnily enough, I was likewise thanked for "taking out the trash". So let's find out then: Just how bad is the Tape Pro?

To ease you in, let's start with the bass which is arguably the least offensive part of the Tape Pro's tuning. It's considerably mid-bass emphasized, and it's the epitome of everything wrong with mid-bass: bloat, smeared transient attack, you name it. But it's not unlistenable. No, no, unlistenable is the Tape Pro's midrange. It's a sibilant, sucked-out mess. Male vocalists sound nasal likely due to the unnatural ear gain. The 4kHz peak lends female vocalists to an unpleasant forwardness, occasionally managing to subvert outright sibilance because, well, it dips straight after. Cymbals have virtually zero impact, and treble is generally emphasized in all the wrong places. I don't know what to say. The Tape Pro has some of the worst timbre I've heard, and it's almost completely by virtue of how poor the tuning is.

Technicalities? No doubt, the standout here is the Tape Pro's dynamic range. The Tape Pro sounds incredibly compressed because of the 4kHz roll-off; it doesn't seem to scale swings at all. In all seriousness, though, I'd say the Tape Pro's imaging is acceptable. It certainly feels a tad more open than some other IEMs I've heard; however, that might be more attributable to all the unnatural peaks in the tuning. Outside of this, yeah, the Tape Pro doesn't really have any redeeming qualities, and it resolves more like your bog-standard $30 IEM.

In all fairness - and credit where credit is due - the Tape Pro is a challenge of preconceptions and of my experience as a reviewer. Like so, it might be one of the best "worst IEMs" I've heard, in that I can't help but admire how something went this wrong. At the same time, though, I don't think it's quite to the level of bad that other IEMs I've given a 1/10 have exhibited. Those IEMs had more latent meme factor - be it the trashy marketing or absurd pricing - and for that reason I think the Tape Pro can squeak by ever-so-slightly higher on the bias scale.

If you've read my original review on this IEM, then you'll know that I was very impressed when I first heard it. I've likewise played around with the idea of purchasing my own pair for some time. Admittedly, a part of me was worried. It's been over six months since I last heard it, my tastes have matured, and I just don't find myself particularly happy with a lot of the stuff I hear nowadays. As it would happen, a deal presented itself that I couldn't resist; I pulled the trigger. And it seems I needn't have been worried: The Andro 2020's just as good as I remember it, and I've spent the last week jamming out to it vicariously. So let's talk about what makes the Andro 2020 tick and why this is my favorite kilobuck IEM.





Here is my personal unit measured off of my IEC-711 coupler. There is a coupler resonance peak at 10kHz; measurements after this point should not be considered entirely accurate. The ~1dB of channel imbalance is not noticeable to my ears and is well-within manufacturer tolerances.



I'd say the tonality of the Andro 2020 is pretty close to hitting my preferences. More pronounced, 3kHz, Harman ear compensations and aggressive upper-midranges seem to be all the rage these days when it comes to tuning. While I recognize this tuning direction as being more tonally accurate (at least relative to how I hear neutral), I adore the Andro 2020's more relaxed, 2kHz ear compensation and the subsequent dip to the upper-midrange. Why the dip, you ask? There are a couple reasons. Done appropriately, I find it takes a lot of the edginess off of female vocalists that Harman-oriented tunings exhibit. Of course, you've also got stuff like the B2: Dusk (and theoretically, the Hidition Viento) that toe the line very closely but don't quite result in this edginess. What these IEMs lack, however, is center image diffusal - something I'll delve into later.

The main tuning issue, then, is the contrast between said upper-midrange dip and the more weighty, thick lower-midrange. This lends to slight tonal disconnect on stuff that tokens both; take for example Trace Adkin's "Watch the World End" where Colbie Callait sounds noticeably recessed and Adkin's gruffer voice dominates more than it does on, say, the 64 Audio U12t. This blobby-ness is even more pronounced on stuff like Joe Nichol's "Sunny and 75". In isolation, this quality isn’t bad - in fact, some buddies have called it desirable for the warmth it lends - it’s more so, again, the contrast itself that’s jarring in my opinion. Treble on the Andro 2020 also isn't as smooth as I remember, but I don't think its a big deal. It seems to be a tad mid-treble emphasized; it's definitely one of the better treble responses I've heard. Extension is ample on the Andro 2020, flying upwards of even something like the Moondrop S8 (although with less sheer quantity in those air frequencies). Really, I can't get enough of the Andro 2020's treble and, irrespective of what it might graph like, I think it's safe to say Campfire's nailed this part of the Andro 2020's tuning.



Let's talk intangibles. We might as well get the Andro 2020's biggest pitfall out of the way: dynamics. It really doesn't do dynamics - of any sort - particularly well. I'm sure you've already read less-than-favorable comments about the Andro 2020's bass. It's largely mid-bass emphasized, punchy, attempting to compensate for its lack of intangible slam. But don't be fooled; along these lines, decay is non-existent and texture is lacking. The Andro 2020 certainly doesn't have the worst BA bass I've heard, but it's not much else.

I've critiqued the Andro 2020's macrodynamic ability in the past; I have to say, though, I don't think it's as bad as I made it out to be. Sheer contrast isn't bad, it's the weight and intensity - or rather, lack there of - of dynamic swings on the Andro 2020 that leaves desiring. It was, however, good to confirm what I've long suspected about the Andro 2020's microdynamic ability: It's fairly poor. Transient attack in the bass and midrange sounds static, dry, and upwards compressed; the shift in the snare drum hit at 0:36 on Sawano's "Cage" is nigh-indistinguishable from its peers, Taeyeon sounds too flat at times. I'd posit microdynamics go hand-in-hand with noise floor to a certain extent, so I ran the Andro 2020 off of the iDSD Micro BL with IEMatch to confirm this. Otherwise, most listening was done with my DX160 which I found to have the lowest noise floor (still just the slightest of hissing; I don't really notice it playing music).

No IEM is without its share of flaws. Nonetheless, I'm inclined to make concessions because the Andro 2020's imaging is, simply put, amazing. This is where that upper-midrange dip comes into play; there is ample center image diffusal, the likes of which I've only heard on stuff like my U12t and the Tia Fourte. For those who might not be familiar with the term "center image" - as I understand it - when you have two speakers side-by-side, there should be the illusion of a "third" speaker in the center. Put in more layman's terms, this is soundstage depth. I find myself glued to the Andro 2020 like so. More generally, the Andro 2020's imaging is what I'd qualify as holographic, although it's not exhibiting the same level of image distinction, solidity, that something like its older brother the Solaris 2020 or the tia Fourte displays. Perhaps soundstage height is where it stumble a tad. Nonetheless, layering on the Andro 2020 also plays with the best, no question. I've made this example before, but the way it sifts through Taeyeon's "Fine" and the vocal overdubs scattered throughout the center image at varying heights, depths, and widths, as she enters the chorus is nothing short of breathtaking. Make no mistake that the Andro 2020 has that wow factor in spades. It's the IEM you hand, by default, to someone who has no idea of what good sound is because you want to knock their socks off.



Ultimately, I'll still be the first to admit that the Andro 2020 is not the best kilobuck IEM on paper. The IER-M9 runs circles around it in the bass and timbre departments. The Moondrop S8 is tuned better and offers comparable technicalities for significantly less cost. The Viento's cheaper with far more engaging microdynamics. And come on, stack on all the sensitivity issues you have to deal with on the Andro 2020! But, honestly, I just don't find myself caring. I've noted this before, but once you start playing around the kilobuck price point, so much comes down to preference. The Andro 2020's warm, not-quite-neutral tuning speaks to me on a more fundamental level; the way it balances said tuning with its unique, stellar technical chops has me charmed and makes it my kilobuck IEM of choice. Nicely done indeed, Campfire Audio.

I have a Starfield on loan right now from @MRSallee so I figured I'd drop a quick Head-Fi review.

But first, a quick spiel. I've owned the KXXS (the Starfield's more premium brother) for more than a year at this point. In this time, I've been lucky enough to try and review dozens of IEMs, some very expensive ones, and yet, the KXXS remains a staple of my small collection. That alone should probably be a testament to how much I like the KXXS, and I have well over a couple hundred hours on my unit. Of course, this review isn't about the KXXS; it's about the Starfield, which promises comparable sonic performance at close to half the price. So let's see how it stacks-up.

If you've read my reviews before, then you'll know I don't really care to cover the accessories, build, etc. too closely.


A lot of people say that the Starfield is Harman-tuned, and eh, sure, I can see the resemblance. The main deviation would be in the bass which slopes out further, lending some extra note-weight to male vocals (not at all a bad thing); the Harman target is a good deal more incisive at around 200hZ by comparison.

Speaking of which, the bass on the Starfield is about equal parts sub-bass and mid-bass - considerably above neutral - and honestly, it’s not very good. At least, not according to the metrics with which I'd normally qualify good bass. Transient attack is fairly soft - there's no way around it - and dynamic slam is pretty lackluster with an oft-cited "pillowy-ness" to the way hits are articulated. The midrange of the Starfield is Harman-inspired, peaking at around 3kHz with a tad too much emphasis at around 4kHz which some might find bright initially; I know I certainly did on the KXXS. Interestingly, the KXXS actually has slightly more energy around this region, lending to a slightly brighter presentation. Treble is about equal parts milquetoast, rolling off fairly linearly post-5kHz with a tad bump in the mid-treble at around 8kHz and in the bottom air frequencies. Somewhat rolled-treble and extended bass shelf in-hand, the Starfield is, accordingly, a considerably warm IEM with a tendency to delve into congestion on more complex tracks.

For an IEM I like so much, I’ve already cited quite a few issues, right? But surely, you say, there's a catch. And indeed there is: You can take all those criticisms and flip them on their head. Not unlike the 64 Audio U12t, the Starfield toes the line between being intangibly pleasing and slightly neutering resolution with its soft, blunted transient attack; decay is equally oh-so-natural. Stack on the pillowy-ness in the bass, and a minor peak at around 12kHz that lends treble to a pleasant haziness in the decay, and you have a recipe for terrific timbre and - argh, I hate to use this word - a highly musical presentation.

Of course, let's not pretend that the Starfield is some technical savant or anything of the sort. It's not. It's a respectable technical performer for its price, sure, but it's light years away from touching a lot of flagship stuff, much less top-tier stuff. Dynamics are generally compressed, imaging is only slightly above average, and layering is pretty “meh” hence the aforementioned congestion issues. Heck, Moondrop’s own SSR gives it a run for its money! Still, you know...I don’t really mind. There’s something highly alluring about the way the Starfield shifts its perceived weaknesses into strengths, the way it straddles that line so neatly for my preferences, and it’s something I can’t get enough of each time I listen to it. Hell, I’d take the Starfield or KXXS over pretty much anything else under $200 on the basis of preference.

Speaking of which, you'll probably want me to compare it more closely with the KXXS. For most intents and purposes - at least tonally - they're close to identical sans that slight upper-midrange bump on the KXXS. Some friends have noted that the macrodynamic performance of the KXXS is better; likewise, I would agree that the Starfield sounds a tad overly loud in the way it scales dynamic swings and not quite as pleasing in its transient attack by comparison. Needless to say I doubt I could pass an A/B test between the two of them, so perhaps it would be more apt to say I find the Starfield lacks some of that je ne sais quoi relative to my KXXS. That is, maybe it's just the placebo and nostalgia getting to me.

In conclusion? There's no question in my mind that the Starfield is a terrific IEM, an excellent value proposition all-round even if I'd personally swing those extra bucks for the KXXS, as crazy as it sounds. So shoot for the moon; if you miss, you'll still be among the stars: the Starfield.

Score: 5/10 (Starfield)
Score: 6/10 (KXXS)

I've owned the Nio for several months, so I thought I'd plug a quick review as I don't see too many for this awesome IEM on Head-Fi. You can read my full review here too.





The Nio follows an L-shaped tuning with the M15/M20 modules and something much closer to neutral with the MX module. Because I'm a dirty bass-head, much of this quick review will focus on the M15 module. With the M15 module, the Nio is a warm, gooey, sub-bass oriented IEM.

And indeed, the best word to describe the Nio's bass with the M15 module is "dirty". There's a roundness to the mid-bass' transient attack that often delves into bloat, and yet, I wouldn't have it any other way. Like so, sheer dynamic slam and texturing are present in spades in the sub-bass, making this a worthy trade-off to my ears. The Nio's midrange is thick and lush, at times obscuring macro-detail at the expense of being incredibly forgiving. Moving into the treble, the Nio is more lower-treble oriented and subdued in the air frequencies. Perceptually at least - because nonetheless, extension is ample, and like 64A's other IEMs that use the tia driver, I suspect it peaks somewhere in the post-10kHz frequencies. Make no mistake: This is an extremely tonally pleasing IEM, and all the more so considering you can swap in the MX module for an almost entirely different sound.

Along these lines, you'll want to know what the MX module does. It would be best to treat the MX and M15 modules on the Nio as separate IEMs. You can see from the graph above that it largely cuts off the sub-bass shelf, bringing the Nio something much closer to neutral. A lot of the mid-bass bloat is cleaned up, the midrange takes on a leaner presentation, and the stage opens up a good deal. Sounds pretty sweet, right? Admittedly, though, it's not really my speed. Note the Nio's 5kHz treble peak; it gets brought to the forefront by virtue of less bass, lending the Nio to a more fatiguing, if not "clean" listen.

Intangibly, the Nio is a solid contender, although decidedly not best-in-class. The transient smoothing and warmth serves to clean up a lot of the BA timbre. Nio's imaging is more intimate, maintaining solid positional cues and moderate solidity of the image projected. As noted above, you can use the MX module to open this up more. I still would not qualify Nio as the oft-misused word "holographic" or anything of the sort. Macrodynamic ability is good; the Nio is surprisingly dynamic, although noticeably more sluggish than the U12t.

And there you have it. I'm still on the fence about owning both the U12t & Nio simultaneously, and the Nio would probably be the first to go. Nonetheless, the Nio is unmistakably an excellent IEM, one that I found worthy enough to include in my fairly small collection.

In the interest of full disclosure, I want to thank Tom of Dunu for sending these along to me for review. At the end of the review period, they’ll be returned.

Here are some brief comments on the build and whatnot:

• Great cable quality and pouches for the IEMs. DUNU clearly cares and is putting in a good deal effort here.
• All of the IEMs are quite small. This is definitely a plus for smaller ears. However, if you have larger ears, it might feel like the IEMs are a bit loose (although I doubt they’ll actually fall out). None of them isolate particularly well.

Sound Analysis

This one runs close to neutral, and it’s pretty good; I think DUNU has a winner here. As usual, I think it makes more sense to outline my gripes instead. That way, you know what could possibly be a dealbreaker for you:

• Starting from the bass, I actually think that this’ll be the ideal quantity for a lot of listeners, but there’s a small roll-off not unlike the Luna.
• In general, I don’t find the midrange to be particularly resolving; it lacks bite, although it’s quite inoffensive otherwise.
• Treble is this IEM’s weak point. It is severely in need of more air and extension. Like the midrange, it’s inoffensive, but there’s a lack of energy and the DK-3001 Pro is quite dark as a result. So while treble quantity is ultimately a personal preference, unfortunately, I can’t say its making its mark quality-wise either.

In terms of technical performance, I find the DK-3001 Pro to be at the level of most IEMs in its price bracket. Staging is firmly in-the-head and imaging capability is average. And as with most hybrids, there’s a good deal BA timbre – more so than the DK-2001 which surprised me. But in general, it layers sufficiently and I don’t have any real complaints other than the timbre which I’m admittedly sensitive to.

I’ve cited quite a few nitpicks, but to reiterate: This is a good IEM. It’s not going to win any awards for technical performance, and there’s no real standout, but it’s hard to dislike it. The cut to the upper treble and the slight roll-off to the bass also make it a good IEM for extended listening. In a sea of freak – excuse me, esoteric tunings, sometimes playing it safe is the right move. Out of the three IEMs I was lent by DUNU, this is the one I gravitate to most. Recommended – as long as you’re not a treble-head.

Select Comparison

How does the DK-3001 Pro fare against the king of the sub-$500 bracket, the Moondrop Blessing 2? After all, they’re using the same driver configuration. Sonic-wise, 1:1, the Blessing 2 has a clear edge. It has tighter bass (albeit lacking in texture) and a much cleaner midrange. Some might find the DK-3001 Pro’s midrange less offensive as the upper midrange on the Blessing 2 borders on thin/shouty. Treble, treble isn’t even a contest though. The DK-3001 Pro also can’t hold a candle to the Blessing 2’s staging and imaging capability. But all of this doesn’t account for the tangibles. The Blessing 2 is a chonker and won’t fit everyone’s ears. I can see the 3001-Pro being a suitable alternative in that respect, and the included accessories are certainly better than the Blessing 2’s.