Reviews by ryanjsoo
TLDR -
Ergonomics and build perform at the highest level and its sound is engaging yet tasteful, retaining overall balance. It is my pleasure to recommend the ONYX for those wanting an engaging midrange IEM.
Introduction –
Earsonics is a French audio brand that has achieved a solid international presence with their high-end IEMs. The company initially made waves with their all-BA reference monitors and have since tried their hand at hybrid designs that came alongside new metal shells. The ONYX is their latest project which finally sees the light after having been teased for quite some weeks. This model seeks to fill out their product lineup with a more affordable option. In fact, the company was so dedicated to value that they are only offering this IEM directly to consumers rather than by distributors to cut out middle-man costs. The result is an IEM that implements technologies and specifications seen on their pricier models at a far more accessible price point.
The ONYX just launched for 590 EUR at the time of writing. You can read more about it and treat yourself to a unit directly from Earsonics here!
Disclaimer –
I would like to thank Thibault from Earsonics very much for his quick communication and for reaching out to organise a review of the ONYX. All words are my own and there is no monetary incentive for a positive review. Despite receiving the earphones free of cost, I will attempt to be as objective as possible in my evaluation.
Specifications –
Behind the Design –
Hybrid Drivers
Like many modern high-end IEMs, the ONYX uses a hybrid driver setup with a single DD woofer, 2x BA mids and 1x BA treble. The company is using HQ low-variance discrete components alongside proprietary, impedance-matched drivers designed to their spec. The company also reasons that this makes the earphone easy to drive from a variety of sources.
Acrylic Heart
At the core of the ONYX is the acrylic heart which is a 3D acrylic acoustic chamber. It provides support for the drivers in addition to reducing resonances. Specific positioning of each transducer to provides phase coherence alongside the company’s desired frequency response via a 3-way passive crossover.
TrueWave
The output nozzle of the earphone implements a specifically designed bell and tuning resonator that corrects the frequency response following the acrylic heart chamber. It serves to further optimise phase coherence and reduce resonances that may harm high-frequency extension.
Unboxing –
The earphones come in a handsome black box with a soft-touch finish and “ONYX” branding in gloss film. Opening the magnetic latch reveals the IEMs within protective foam inlets with a standard zipper carrying case below. To the side is a separate compartment containing the accessories. Out of the box, Earsonics provides 2 pairs of silicone ear tips, 2 pairs of Comply foam ear tips and 2 pairs of dual-flange tips. In addition, the ONYX comes with a cleaning tool and paperwork for authenticity.
Design –
Earsonics’ recent shell designs have been a beautiful display of metalwork and the ONYX is no different. These earphones employ shapely all-metal 2 piece shells with an almost Daft Punk-esque aesthetic. The texture tells me these are injection moulded rather than CNC shells giving them an awesome satin finish. Despite this, the tolerances are excellent with nigh-perfect faceplate matching and smooth, well-finished edges all around. The ONYX is an earphone to be enjoyed both in and out of the ear with craftsmanship that is best appreciated close-up.
Above, users will find the widely adopted 0.78mm 2-pin removable cable interface. The stock cable offers sound quality, a 4-core unit with a braided design and soft, transparent insulation. It sports 4C-HR silver conductors. It is rather thin and a little rubbery, but still offers sound ergonomics and minimal microphonic noise transmission. The metal connectors provide contrast to the dark housings and the pre-moulded ear guides offer a comfortable and stable fit for my ears. Earsonics also offer an upgrade cable at an additional cost of 199 EUR.
Fit & Isolation –
From visual inspection, I wasn’t sure what to expect from the fit as Earsonics’ IEMs are one of the more unorthodox silhouettes on the market. Colour me impressed for the ONYX provides excellent comfort and stability on behalf of their shapely and well-contoured design. I was able to wear them for hours at a time without discomfort or hotspot formation. Though the shells are slightly larger than average, those with average-sized ears should have no difficulties. Their ergonomic shaping helps to achieve excellent articular fit with the concha, aiding stability and minimising hotspot formation.
The well-angled nozzles also contribute as they position the housings flusher with the outer ear contributing to an impressively low-profile fit despite the width of the shells. The well-angled and slimmer nozzles produce a slightly shallower than average fit depth. In addition to their vented design, wearing pressure is kept to a minimum. In addition, isolation is above average and easily suitable for daily commute whilst permitting some spatial awareness. It should be noted that some driver flex is apparent despite their vented design, however, I did not find this to affect reliable function or performance during my testing. Those wanting the best isolation for especially noisy environments may still want to investigate a fully-sealed option that said.
Sound –
Testing Methodology: Measured using Arta via IEC 711 coupler to Startech external sound card. 7-9KHz peaks may be artefacts/emphasised due to my measurement setup, less so with a deep fit. Measurements besides channel balance are volume matched at 1KHz. Fit depth normalised to my best abilities to reduce coupler resonance. Still, due to these factors, my measurements may not accurately reflect the earphone or measurements taken by others. I gave the ONYX 100hrs burn-in to ensure maximum performance prior to subjective breakdown.
Tonality –
The ONYX has an intriguing sound tuning that is quite different in measurement to many competitors but provides a perfectly natural voicing during listening all the same. In direct comparison to something more linear in its tuning, the ONYX has an intriguing W-shaped character with exaggerated separation between each frequency band. This character begins with a modest bass emphasis equally focused around the sub and mid-bass regions instigating a bold, meaty low-end with an abundance of power and drive. A sizable upper-bass/lower-mid dip aids a well-separated midrange and prevents spill. The midrange employs dual 1.5kHz and 4kHz humps meaning both male and female vocals are brought forward with instruments sitting behind. They occupy an intimate position in-line with the bass. Finally, a 6kHz peak provides a crisp, energetic top-end that serves as a foil to the thick bass and big midrange. Altogether, a unique and well-executed earphone that upholds respectable balance whilst oozing loads of personality.
Bass –
As the mids and treble have been brought up to a similar degree, Earsonics was able to achieve a powerful voicing without bass dominance. To my ears, they have a slight sub-bass bias though mid-bass does sit roughly on par so as to avoid upsetting balance and timbre. This provides enlarged bass notes with a thick, weighted character. The dynamic driver also extends terrifically, it has a good amount of pressure and a visceral rumble. As the mid-bass has also been elevated, the low-end sounds consistent between tracks with no shortage of punch and impact on albums mastered with less sub-bass. The earphones also have a much narrower bass shelf than many bass-boosted IEMs, with a steep drop above the mid-bass through to the lower midrange.
Accordingly, they aren’t especially warm nor are they bloated or tubby. The ONYX delivers a focus on excellent dynamics, slam and power. The note presentation plays into this as well as Earsonic’s dynamic driver provides a keen, tight attack and well-controlled decay. The ONYX has a very well-defined bass, especially when taking its level of emphasis and style of tuning into consideration. Sub-bass slam is tight, well-paced and satisfying. Notes decay slightly quicker than neutral, redeeming separation. Though the thick note structure means this isn’t a defining feature of the ONYX’s low-end, it also never presents as muddy or smeared on complex tracks. This is a responsive, technically impressive bass response with a well-executed fun and engaging character.
Mids –
It’s impressive that despite the robust, powerful bass, the midrange manages to draw equal focus and it does represent ingenious colouration on Earsonic’s behalf. Those wanting utmost linearity and balance may find the vocal/instrument balance leaves them wanting. However, for sheer musical enjoyment, the ONYX is an appealing package that genuinely surprised me. For instance, the earlier 1.5kHz rise brings male vocals forward and the smaller 4kHz lift equally services female vocals. This is a refreshing change from many IEMs that have more of an upper-mid bias so, if you like male vocals, the ONYX presents them with awesome clarity, size and definition. The 4kHz bump combined with reduced note body from the lower-mid dip means the ONYX has a more revealing character within the midrange itself though never in an intense manner.
Hints of warmth seep in from the bass preventing the monitor from presenting as sterile, metallic or cool. I also find the earlier 1.5kHz emphasis gives vocals a bit more size and gusto than your usual 2-3kHz emphasis. The result is large, intimate vocals that aren’t perfectly natural coming from more linear reference monitors, but impressively close despite the colouration. The ONYX is quite an articulate monitor on top which helps to bring small details to the fore. Since treble emphasis is on equal footing with the ONYX’s forward vocal range, it also isn’t head-voice dominant or sharp. Altogether, the ONYX doesn’t sound explicitly linear, but it does have a lack of unnatural qualities. Moreover, it does so with awesome vocal definition and separation from the bass and excellent clarity without intensity or rasp.
Highs –
We tend to innately focus on the top-end performance when first evaluating a high-end IEM as treble extension and sparkle have since become unanimous with these designs. However, in actuality, this does not necessarily have to be the case. The ONYX proves this as its standout features are surely its bass and midrange. Treble, meanwhile, performs at a good level but doesn’t strike as being so outstanding. It has a moderate 5.5-6kHz peak that instigates a slightly more energetic foreground treble presentation. It doesn’t quite have the precision and fine resolving power here of class leaders, but an average amount augmented by a crisp and engaging tuning. I find the leading edge isn’t over-sharpened despite the tuning and the ONYX has a surprising amount of body and texture if here at the expense of raw note definition. It still separates well and provides a mostly natural timbre that is easy to enjoy.
Above, the tuning quickly falls off, providing a clean, black background. This gives the earphone a hyper-contrasted foreground/background that contributes towards an enjoyable layering experience. While background and micro detail in the highest registers won’t win any awards, there is enough information here to provide a well-defined background to enable a good sense of distance projection. I do believe the treble will be one of the more polarising aspects of this earphone as it doesn’t present as especially well-extended or open. Perhaps, more overt brightness and sparkle here would have made the overall presentation more fatiguing given the already engaging bass and midrange tuning. To my ears, this has always been a defining characteristic of Earsonic’s designs and it does make sense when taken as an overall package.
Soundstage –
Despite the darker treble tuning, I found myself impressed by the soundstage performance of the ONYX. It showcases well above average dimensions with width especially stretching nicely beyond the head. Depth is no slouch either, but the stage proportions are ovoid overall. The imaging performance is also one of the best performers in class. The ONYX has a very strong centre-image and a fairly keen sense of direction too.
It doesn’t have many layers or dissect vocal harmonisations like a TOTL monitor but has a hyper-defined foreground and dark background with good contrast. Separation is also quite good, especially impressive given its thick, weighted bass. The ONYX has a well-controlled bass response with excellent separation to the midrange and treble. The upper-frequency ranges themselves lie on the revealing side with a slightly thinner note body meaning there is a sense of ether surrounding each element. This makes small details easier to perceive by the listener.
Driveability –
With a regular 16.5-Ohm impedance and a 122dB sensitivity, the ONYX is an efficient design suitable for portable sources. I found this to be the case during testing as well, hitting ear-splitting volumes from low powered dongle-style sources yet alone DAPs and desktop gear. The upside to this as well is that the ONYX sounds dynamic and well-voiced from lower power sources too making it easy to live with.
Output Impedance Sensitivity
Fortunately, the ONYX has a relatively flat impedance curve and this is something I confirmed in subjective testing as well. The rule of eighths dictates that the sound will only be as the designer intended from a 2-ohm source, however, even from a source with a 20-ohm output impedance, the sound signature remains essentially unchanged. This bodes well for performance from integrated audio solutions in laptops and phones for instance, that often sit around a few Ohms and can skew the sound of most multi-driver in-ears. The ONYX has a very consistent character between sources which widens suitable pairings.
Driving Power
Similarly, the ONYX is an efficient earphone that I didn't find to require much driving power. Switching from the Shanling M2X to my desktop stack with THX789 revealed a small jump in dynamics and sub-bass definition but a similar voicing otherwise. The Astell & Kern Dual DAC cable drove the earphones just as well as the larger DAP making this earphone a great choice for those without high-end sources. Though the sensitivity is high, they aren't overly hiss sensitive. On the M2X with the amp circuit active and volume on 0, hiss was vaguely audible but completely inaudible when music was playing.
Suggested Pair Ups
The ONYX is a very easy to drive earphone which adds to the value proposition as ideal source pairings aren't a requirement to derive an enjoyable sound. It plays well with higher output impedances and lower-powered sources but does scale nicely with regards to dynamics and soundstage size from better sources. Hiss also isn't a huge concern on this design. Given its sound signature, I found neutral-leaning sources were to my preference as their keep the low-end as clean as possible. However, it also isn't an especially warm or stuffy sound so there is leeway for warmer sources too. There is also ample body to enjoy them with bright sources but I did find the midrange was a little thin.
Comparisons –
Etymotic EVO ($499): The EVO is a far more linear earphone with a much flatter bass. Given its all-BA setup, the ONYX has a large advantage when it comes to bass power and extension. The EVO is quicker, leaner and faster while the ONYX has a much bigger bass in general with a lot more sub-bass and a fuller mid-bass. The ONYX is far more dynamic. Despite this, the ONYX has equally forward vocals to the EVO. The EVO sounds more even here and its voicing is more accurate. The ONYX has more colouration with higher clarity and intimacy alongside a bit more warmth from its bigger bass.
The EVO resolves slightly better but the ONYX is more engaging with its more articulate and clarity-enhanced nature. Up top, the EVO is once again more linear nigh slightly smooth through the lower-treble. The ONYX has more energy and crispness here but not by a large degree. The EVO sounds more precise with a more defined leading edge and greater resolving power of fine details. The ONYX has the darker background but the EVO extends slightly better with superior background detail retrieval. Despite this, the ONYX has a much larger stage. The EVO has sharper direction and better layering.
Oriveti O500 ($499): The O500 is a good comparison as it shares many similarities with the ONYX with a dark background and intimate vocal presentation. The ONYX is the bassier earphone with the O500 having less sub-bass pressure and a few dB less emphasis above. Otherwise, the tuning is similar between the both. The ONYX is noticeably more dynamic with a harder-hitting slam. I do find it more controlled and defined too. The O500 only comes out ahead if you are averse to sub-bass pressure that some find fatiguing. The O500 has a similar midrange tuning but sustains more through the 2-3kHz range. This gives it a more vocal-focused character.
The O500 is more transparent, it has slightly higher clarity and definition and a cleaner tone. The ONYX is slightly more balanced with slightly more body that makes it more forgiving but slightly less resolving. Both earphones have a small dip before a medium lower-treble peak. The ONYX does have the more defined leading edge while the O500 is smoother and more delicate. The ONYX has more body and texture while the O500 has better extension and greater air. Both are dark and clean above, the ONYX is darker while the O500 retains a bit more headroom. The ONYX has the larger stage, especially width. The O500 separates slightly better while the ONYX has sharper imaging.
Moondrop Variations ($520): The Variations is a similar kind of earphone too. It has a big sub-bass boost but, otherwise, represents and impressively linear response. Both have similar levels of bass, the ONYX has a bit more balance between sub and mid-bass while the Variations prefers a cleaner tone with more sub-bass bias. Both have awesome extension, rumble and slam. The ONYX is slightly more controlled, boasting higher note definition and responsiveness, the Variations comes across as a bit softer despite the initial attack being just as assertive. The midrange is more forward on the ONYX. The Variations has a slightly clearer, more linear expression with a more neutral tone. The ONYX has slightly more warmth to its male vocals especially and they are a touch more forward.
Both have similar clarity and upper-mid positioning, the ONYX sounding a bit more coloured but not by a large extent. The Variations has slightly higher resolving power. Up top, the Variations is slightly smoother with a more linear lower-treble. The Variations pulls ahead on fine detail retrieval and extension by a noticeable degree. Its leading edge is more defined and its timbre is more accurate. Its background detail retrieval and extension are superior. The ONYX has a bit more body and focus in the lower-treble as is a weakness of the EST system employed by the Moondrop. But technically, it does fall behind. I do, however, find the ONYX to have a larger soundstage, the Variations has slightly sharper imaging in return.
Craft Ears Craft FOUR (625 EUR): The Craft FOUR also has some degree of vocal focus and a warmer-tonality, a fun W-shaped IEM that can be had in custom for a similar price. While both have a similar amount of mid-bass, the ONYX has more sub-bass while the FOUR begins to roll off. The FOUR has very impressive extension for a BA but can’t match the dynamics and power of the ONYX. The FOUR has a quicker decay and, in turn, its mid-bass appears punchier and more defined. The ONYX isn’t too far behind whilst boasting far greater dynamics. The midrange on the FOUR appears more forward by comparison to its less present bass while the ONYX is more balanced between the 3 frequency bands.
The FOUR has a more evident warmth and a bit more body. Meanwhile, the ONYX is one step more revealing with slightly higher clarity and extension on behalf of its more present upper-midrange. The FOUR is a bit more coherent but both are naturally voiced in summary. The FOUR has a more isolated treble while the ONYX sounds more even-handed in its delivery. The FOUR is a bit crisper but also thinner. The ONYX has more body and texture alongside a slightly sharper leading edge that gives it a small advantage on fine detail retrieval. Above, the FOUR does extend a hair better and delivers greater air due to its higher treble peak. The ONYX has the larger soundstage and both have a similar level of imaging performance.
Verdict –
It has been quite a while since I’ve listened to an Earsonics monitor; as I recall not since their acrylic reference monitors of old. And colour me impressed! The ONYX is an impressive experience from start to finish. Perhaps the simple unboxing, thin cable and treble extension are telling of its true asking price. However, the metal shells and W-shaped signature with awesome bass power and extension give the impression of a far more expensive monitor. Overall, I do believe this makes the ONYX a strong value proposition when taken as an overall package, just as the company set out to achieve. Ergonomics and build quality perform at the highest level and its tuning is highly engaging yet executed with immense mastery so as not to upset overall balance. It is my pleasure to recommend the ONYX for those wanting an engaging midrange IEM.
The ONYX is available from Earsonics (International) for 590 EUR at the time of writing. I am not affiliated with Earsonics and receive no earnings from purchases made through these links.
Track List –
Billie Eilish – dont smile at me
Bob Seger – Night Moves
Courtney Barnett – Rae Street
Cream – Wheels of Fire
Dire Straits – Communique
Dirty Loops – Next To You
Eagles – Hotel California
Elton John – Honky Chateau
Fleetwood Mac – Rumours
H.E.R – I Used To Know Her
Jasen – BYE
John Mayer – Continuum
Kanye West – Ye
Missy Higgins – The Sound of White
Radiohead – OK Computer
TALA – ain’t leavin` without you
The Beatles – Abbey Road
The weeknd – After Hours
Vampire Weekend – Father of the Bride
Ergonomics and build perform at the highest level and its sound is engaging yet tasteful, retaining overall balance. It is my pleasure to recommend the ONYX for those wanting an engaging midrange IEM.
Introduction –
Earsonics is a French audio brand that has achieved a solid international presence with their high-end IEMs. The company initially made waves with their all-BA reference monitors and have since tried their hand at hybrid designs that came alongside new metal shells. The ONYX is their latest project which finally sees the light after having been teased for quite some weeks. This model seeks to fill out their product lineup with a more affordable option. In fact, the company was so dedicated to value that they are only offering this IEM directly to consumers rather than by distributors to cut out middle-man costs. The result is an IEM that implements technologies and specifications seen on their pricier models at a far more accessible price point.
The ONYX just launched for 590 EUR at the time of writing. You can read more about it and treat yourself to a unit directly from Earsonics here!
Disclaimer –
I would like to thank Thibault from Earsonics very much for his quick communication and for reaching out to organise a review of the ONYX. All words are my own and there is no monetary incentive for a positive review. Despite receiving the earphones free of cost, I will attempt to be as objective as possible in my evaluation.
Specifications –
- Driver: 1x DD, 2x BA mid, 1x BA high
- Impedance: 16.5 ohms
- Sensitivity: 122 dB
- Frequency Response: 10 Hz – 20 kHz
Behind the Design –
Hybrid Drivers
Like many modern high-end IEMs, the ONYX uses a hybrid driver setup with a single DD woofer, 2x BA mids and 1x BA treble. The company is using HQ low-variance discrete components alongside proprietary, impedance-matched drivers designed to their spec. The company also reasons that this makes the earphone easy to drive from a variety of sources.
Acrylic Heart
At the core of the ONYX is the acrylic heart which is a 3D acrylic acoustic chamber. It provides support for the drivers in addition to reducing resonances. Specific positioning of each transducer to provides phase coherence alongside the company’s desired frequency response via a 3-way passive crossover.
TrueWave
The output nozzle of the earphone implements a specifically designed bell and tuning resonator that corrects the frequency response following the acrylic heart chamber. It serves to further optimise phase coherence and reduce resonances that may harm high-frequency extension.
Unboxing –
The earphones come in a handsome black box with a soft-touch finish and “ONYX” branding in gloss film. Opening the magnetic latch reveals the IEMs within protective foam inlets with a standard zipper carrying case below. To the side is a separate compartment containing the accessories. Out of the box, Earsonics provides 2 pairs of silicone ear tips, 2 pairs of Comply foam ear tips and 2 pairs of dual-flange tips. In addition, the ONYX comes with a cleaning tool and paperwork for authenticity.
Design –
Earsonics’ recent shell designs have been a beautiful display of metalwork and the ONYX is no different. These earphones employ shapely all-metal 2 piece shells with an almost Daft Punk-esque aesthetic. The texture tells me these are injection moulded rather than CNC shells giving them an awesome satin finish. Despite this, the tolerances are excellent with nigh-perfect faceplate matching and smooth, well-finished edges all around. The ONYX is an earphone to be enjoyed both in and out of the ear with craftsmanship that is best appreciated close-up.
Above, users will find the widely adopted 0.78mm 2-pin removable cable interface. The stock cable offers sound quality, a 4-core unit with a braided design and soft, transparent insulation. It sports 4C-HR silver conductors. It is rather thin and a little rubbery, but still offers sound ergonomics and minimal microphonic noise transmission. The metal connectors provide contrast to the dark housings and the pre-moulded ear guides offer a comfortable and stable fit for my ears. Earsonics also offer an upgrade cable at an additional cost of 199 EUR.
Fit & Isolation –
From visual inspection, I wasn’t sure what to expect from the fit as Earsonics’ IEMs are one of the more unorthodox silhouettes on the market. Colour me impressed for the ONYX provides excellent comfort and stability on behalf of their shapely and well-contoured design. I was able to wear them for hours at a time without discomfort or hotspot formation. Though the shells are slightly larger than average, those with average-sized ears should have no difficulties. Their ergonomic shaping helps to achieve excellent articular fit with the concha, aiding stability and minimising hotspot formation.
The well-angled nozzles also contribute as they position the housings flusher with the outer ear contributing to an impressively low-profile fit despite the width of the shells. The well-angled and slimmer nozzles produce a slightly shallower than average fit depth. In addition to their vented design, wearing pressure is kept to a minimum. In addition, isolation is above average and easily suitable for daily commute whilst permitting some spatial awareness. It should be noted that some driver flex is apparent despite their vented design, however, I did not find this to affect reliable function or performance during my testing. Those wanting the best isolation for especially noisy environments may still want to investigate a fully-sealed option that said.
Sound –
Testing Methodology: Measured using Arta via IEC 711 coupler to Startech external sound card. 7-9KHz peaks may be artefacts/emphasised due to my measurement setup, less so with a deep fit. Measurements besides channel balance are volume matched at 1KHz. Fit depth normalised to my best abilities to reduce coupler resonance. Still, due to these factors, my measurements may not accurately reflect the earphone or measurements taken by others. I gave the ONYX 100hrs burn-in to ensure maximum performance prior to subjective breakdown.
Tonality –
The ONYX has an intriguing sound tuning that is quite different in measurement to many competitors but provides a perfectly natural voicing during listening all the same. In direct comparison to something more linear in its tuning, the ONYX has an intriguing W-shaped character with exaggerated separation between each frequency band. This character begins with a modest bass emphasis equally focused around the sub and mid-bass regions instigating a bold, meaty low-end with an abundance of power and drive. A sizable upper-bass/lower-mid dip aids a well-separated midrange and prevents spill. The midrange employs dual 1.5kHz and 4kHz humps meaning both male and female vocals are brought forward with instruments sitting behind. They occupy an intimate position in-line with the bass. Finally, a 6kHz peak provides a crisp, energetic top-end that serves as a foil to the thick bass and big midrange. Altogether, a unique and well-executed earphone that upholds respectable balance whilst oozing loads of personality.
Bass –
As the mids and treble have been brought up to a similar degree, Earsonics was able to achieve a powerful voicing without bass dominance. To my ears, they have a slight sub-bass bias though mid-bass does sit roughly on par so as to avoid upsetting balance and timbre. This provides enlarged bass notes with a thick, weighted character. The dynamic driver also extends terrifically, it has a good amount of pressure and a visceral rumble. As the mid-bass has also been elevated, the low-end sounds consistent between tracks with no shortage of punch and impact on albums mastered with less sub-bass. The earphones also have a much narrower bass shelf than many bass-boosted IEMs, with a steep drop above the mid-bass through to the lower midrange.
Accordingly, they aren’t especially warm nor are they bloated or tubby. The ONYX delivers a focus on excellent dynamics, slam and power. The note presentation plays into this as well as Earsonic’s dynamic driver provides a keen, tight attack and well-controlled decay. The ONYX has a very well-defined bass, especially when taking its level of emphasis and style of tuning into consideration. Sub-bass slam is tight, well-paced and satisfying. Notes decay slightly quicker than neutral, redeeming separation. Though the thick note structure means this isn’t a defining feature of the ONYX’s low-end, it also never presents as muddy or smeared on complex tracks. This is a responsive, technically impressive bass response with a well-executed fun and engaging character.
Mids –
It’s impressive that despite the robust, powerful bass, the midrange manages to draw equal focus and it does represent ingenious colouration on Earsonic’s behalf. Those wanting utmost linearity and balance may find the vocal/instrument balance leaves them wanting. However, for sheer musical enjoyment, the ONYX is an appealing package that genuinely surprised me. For instance, the earlier 1.5kHz rise brings male vocals forward and the smaller 4kHz lift equally services female vocals. This is a refreshing change from many IEMs that have more of an upper-mid bias so, if you like male vocals, the ONYX presents them with awesome clarity, size and definition. The 4kHz bump combined with reduced note body from the lower-mid dip means the ONYX has a more revealing character within the midrange itself though never in an intense manner.
Hints of warmth seep in from the bass preventing the monitor from presenting as sterile, metallic or cool. I also find the earlier 1.5kHz emphasis gives vocals a bit more size and gusto than your usual 2-3kHz emphasis. The result is large, intimate vocals that aren’t perfectly natural coming from more linear reference monitors, but impressively close despite the colouration. The ONYX is quite an articulate monitor on top which helps to bring small details to the fore. Since treble emphasis is on equal footing with the ONYX’s forward vocal range, it also isn’t head-voice dominant or sharp. Altogether, the ONYX doesn’t sound explicitly linear, but it does have a lack of unnatural qualities. Moreover, it does so with awesome vocal definition and separation from the bass and excellent clarity without intensity or rasp.
Highs –
We tend to innately focus on the top-end performance when first evaluating a high-end IEM as treble extension and sparkle have since become unanimous with these designs. However, in actuality, this does not necessarily have to be the case. The ONYX proves this as its standout features are surely its bass and midrange. Treble, meanwhile, performs at a good level but doesn’t strike as being so outstanding. It has a moderate 5.5-6kHz peak that instigates a slightly more energetic foreground treble presentation. It doesn’t quite have the precision and fine resolving power here of class leaders, but an average amount augmented by a crisp and engaging tuning. I find the leading edge isn’t over-sharpened despite the tuning and the ONYX has a surprising amount of body and texture if here at the expense of raw note definition. It still separates well and provides a mostly natural timbre that is easy to enjoy.
Above, the tuning quickly falls off, providing a clean, black background. This gives the earphone a hyper-contrasted foreground/background that contributes towards an enjoyable layering experience. While background and micro detail in the highest registers won’t win any awards, there is enough information here to provide a well-defined background to enable a good sense of distance projection. I do believe the treble will be one of the more polarising aspects of this earphone as it doesn’t present as especially well-extended or open. Perhaps, more overt brightness and sparkle here would have made the overall presentation more fatiguing given the already engaging bass and midrange tuning. To my ears, this has always been a defining characteristic of Earsonic’s designs and it does make sense when taken as an overall package.
Soundstage –
Despite the darker treble tuning, I found myself impressed by the soundstage performance of the ONYX. It showcases well above average dimensions with width especially stretching nicely beyond the head. Depth is no slouch either, but the stage proportions are ovoid overall. The imaging performance is also one of the best performers in class. The ONYX has a very strong centre-image and a fairly keen sense of direction too.
It doesn’t have many layers or dissect vocal harmonisations like a TOTL monitor but has a hyper-defined foreground and dark background with good contrast. Separation is also quite good, especially impressive given its thick, weighted bass. The ONYX has a well-controlled bass response with excellent separation to the midrange and treble. The upper-frequency ranges themselves lie on the revealing side with a slightly thinner note body meaning there is a sense of ether surrounding each element. This makes small details easier to perceive by the listener.
Driveability –
With a regular 16.5-Ohm impedance and a 122dB sensitivity, the ONYX is an efficient design suitable for portable sources. I found this to be the case during testing as well, hitting ear-splitting volumes from low powered dongle-style sources yet alone DAPs and desktop gear. The upside to this as well is that the ONYX sounds dynamic and well-voiced from lower power sources too making it easy to live with.
Output Impedance Sensitivity
Fortunately, the ONYX has a relatively flat impedance curve and this is something I confirmed in subjective testing as well. The rule of eighths dictates that the sound will only be as the designer intended from a 2-ohm source, however, even from a source with a 20-ohm output impedance, the sound signature remains essentially unchanged. This bodes well for performance from integrated audio solutions in laptops and phones for instance, that often sit around a few Ohms and can skew the sound of most multi-driver in-ears. The ONYX has a very consistent character between sources which widens suitable pairings.
Driving Power
Similarly, the ONYX is an efficient earphone that I didn't find to require much driving power. Switching from the Shanling M2X to my desktop stack with THX789 revealed a small jump in dynamics and sub-bass definition but a similar voicing otherwise. The Astell & Kern Dual DAC cable drove the earphones just as well as the larger DAP making this earphone a great choice for those without high-end sources. Though the sensitivity is high, they aren't overly hiss sensitive. On the M2X with the amp circuit active and volume on 0, hiss was vaguely audible but completely inaudible when music was playing.
Suggested Pair Ups
The ONYX is a very easy to drive earphone which adds to the value proposition as ideal source pairings aren't a requirement to derive an enjoyable sound. It plays well with higher output impedances and lower-powered sources but does scale nicely with regards to dynamics and soundstage size from better sources. Hiss also isn't a huge concern on this design. Given its sound signature, I found neutral-leaning sources were to my preference as their keep the low-end as clean as possible. However, it also isn't an especially warm or stuffy sound so there is leeway for warmer sources too. There is also ample body to enjoy them with bright sources but I did find the midrange was a little thin.
Comparisons –
Etymotic EVO ($499): The EVO is a far more linear earphone with a much flatter bass. Given its all-BA setup, the ONYX has a large advantage when it comes to bass power and extension. The EVO is quicker, leaner and faster while the ONYX has a much bigger bass in general with a lot more sub-bass and a fuller mid-bass. The ONYX is far more dynamic. Despite this, the ONYX has equally forward vocals to the EVO. The EVO sounds more even here and its voicing is more accurate. The ONYX has more colouration with higher clarity and intimacy alongside a bit more warmth from its bigger bass.
The EVO resolves slightly better but the ONYX is more engaging with its more articulate and clarity-enhanced nature. Up top, the EVO is once again more linear nigh slightly smooth through the lower-treble. The ONYX has more energy and crispness here but not by a large degree. The EVO sounds more precise with a more defined leading edge and greater resolving power of fine details. The ONYX has the darker background but the EVO extends slightly better with superior background detail retrieval. Despite this, the ONYX has a much larger stage. The EVO has sharper direction and better layering.
Oriveti O500 ($499): The O500 is a good comparison as it shares many similarities with the ONYX with a dark background and intimate vocal presentation. The ONYX is the bassier earphone with the O500 having less sub-bass pressure and a few dB less emphasis above. Otherwise, the tuning is similar between the both. The ONYX is noticeably more dynamic with a harder-hitting slam. I do find it more controlled and defined too. The O500 only comes out ahead if you are averse to sub-bass pressure that some find fatiguing. The O500 has a similar midrange tuning but sustains more through the 2-3kHz range. This gives it a more vocal-focused character.
The O500 is more transparent, it has slightly higher clarity and definition and a cleaner tone. The ONYX is slightly more balanced with slightly more body that makes it more forgiving but slightly less resolving. Both earphones have a small dip before a medium lower-treble peak. The ONYX does have the more defined leading edge while the O500 is smoother and more delicate. The ONYX has more body and texture while the O500 has better extension and greater air. Both are dark and clean above, the ONYX is darker while the O500 retains a bit more headroom. The ONYX has the larger stage, especially width. The O500 separates slightly better while the ONYX has sharper imaging.
Moondrop Variations ($520): The Variations is a similar kind of earphone too. It has a big sub-bass boost but, otherwise, represents and impressively linear response. Both have similar levels of bass, the ONYX has a bit more balance between sub and mid-bass while the Variations prefers a cleaner tone with more sub-bass bias. Both have awesome extension, rumble and slam. The ONYX is slightly more controlled, boasting higher note definition and responsiveness, the Variations comes across as a bit softer despite the initial attack being just as assertive. The midrange is more forward on the ONYX. The Variations has a slightly clearer, more linear expression with a more neutral tone. The ONYX has slightly more warmth to its male vocals especially and they are a touch more forward.
Both have similar clarity and upper-mid positioning, the ONYX sounding a bit more coloured but not by a large extent. The Variations has slightly higher resolving power. Up top, the Variations is slightly smoother with a more linear lower-treble. The Variations pulls ahead on fine detail retrieval and extension by a noticeable degree. Its leading edge is more defined and its timbre is more accurate. Its background detail retrieval and extension are superior. The ONYX has a bit more body and focus in the lower-treble as is a weakness of the EST system employed by the Moondrop. But technically, it does fall behind. I do, however, find the ONYX to have a larger soundstage, the Variations has slightly sharper imaging in return.
Craft Ears Craft FOUR (625 EUR): The Craft FOUR also has some degree of vocal focus and a warmer-tonality, a fun W-shaped IEM that can be had in custom for a similar price. While both have a similar amount of mid-bass, the ONYX has more sub-bass while the FOUR begins to roll off. The FOUR has very impressive extension for a BA but can’t match the dynamics and power of the ONYX. The FOUR has a quicker decay and, in turn, its mid-bass appears punchier and more defined. The ONYX isn’t too far behind whilst boasting far greater dynamics. The midrange on the FOUR appears more forward by comparison to its less present bass while the ONYX is more balanced between the 3 frequency bands.
The FOUR has a more evident warmth and a bit more body. Meanwhile, the ONYX is one step more revealing with slightly higher clarity and extension on behalf of its more present upper-midrange. The FOUR is a bit more coherent but both are naturally voiced in summary. The FOUR has a more isolated treble while the ONYX sounds more even-handed in its delivery. The FOUR is a bit crisper but also thinner. The ONYX has more body and texture alongside a slightly sharper leading edge that gives it a small advantage on fine detail retrieval. Above, the FOUR does extend a hair better and delivers greater air due to its higher treble peak. The ONYX has the larger soundstage and both have a similar level of imaging performance.
Verdict –
It has been quite a while since I’ve listened to an Earsonics monitor; as I recall not since their acrylic reference monitors of old. And colour me impressed! The ONYX is an impressive experience from start to finish. Perhaps the simple unboxing, thin cable and treble extension are telling of its true asking price. However, the metal shells and W-shaped signature with awesome bass power and extension give the impression of a far more expensive monitor. Overall, I do believe this makes the ONYX a strong value proposition when taken as an overall package, just as the company set out to achieve. Ergonomics and build quality perform at the highest level and its tuning is highly engaging yet executed with immense mastery so as not to upset overall balance. It is my pleasure to recommend the ONYX for those wanting an engaging midrange IEM.
The ONYX is available from Earsonics (International) for 590 EUR at the time of writing. I am not affiliated with Earsonics and receive no earnings from purchases made through these links.
Track List –
Billie Eilish – dont smile at me
Bob Seger – Night Moves
Courtney Barnett – Rae Street
Cream – Wheels of Fire
Dire Straits – Communique
Dirty Loops – Next To You
Eagles – Hotel California
Elton John – Honky Chateau
Fleetwood Mac – Rumours
H.E.R – I Used To Know Her
Jasen – BYE
John Mayer – Continuum
Kanye West – Ye
Missy Higgins – The Sound of White
Radiohead – OK Computer
TALA – ain’t leavin` without you
The Beatles – Abbey Road
The weeknd – After Hours
Vampire Weekend – Father of the Bride
TLDR -
This is a headphone with superb all-day comfort and an attractive design suitable for lovers of a rich, V-shaped sound with zero midrange intensity.
Introduction –
Sendy Audio is a sub-brand of Sivga, yet ironically may be better known in the international market. This is for their highly successful Aiva planar magnetic headphone, which quickly won over the hearts of critics and consumers alike, cementing a solid reputation for the relatively new company. The brand has since released a good selection of headphones with varying tunings and targets. The Phoenix was a warm yet relatively well-balanced dynamic driver model at a low price point and the recently released Peacock was their all-out attempt at making a flagship planar magnetic headphone. The new Apollo lies somewhere in-between. It assumes the quad-former driver tech pioneered by the flagship and brings the price point down to mid-fi levels making it far more accessible for most buyers. It targets a rich, engaging sound and high efficiency, representing the next chapter in Sendy’s headphone designs.
The Apollo is available for $499 USD. You can read all about it on Sendy Audio’s website here!
Disclaimer –
I would like to thank Collin from Sivga/Sendy Audio very much for his quick communication and for reaching out to organise a review of the Apollo. All words are my own and there is no monetary incentive for a positive review. Despite receiving the headphones free of cost, I will attempt to be as objective as possible in my evaluation.
Specifications –
Behind the Design –
QUAD-FORMER Driver
Image provided by Sendy Audio
First seen on the flagship Peacock, the Apollo also uses a derivative of the company’s quad-former technology. This encompasses a modified planar magnetic driver. This starts with a double-sided magnet design but is further expanded upon with double-sided dual voice coils, meaning there are 4 on each driver. The company reasons this provides improved efficiency in addition to more uniform force distribution over the diaphragm surface resulting in lower distortion.
Premium Housings
The Apollo is made from rosewood that has been carved using CNC, sanded, polished, painted and dyed for an immaculate finish. Furthermore, it sports tough steel grills forming a low resonance, high-damping acoustic environment for the 68mm planar driver. The company spent 3 years developing this design and driver to work in tandem to provide their desired sound.
Unboxing –
Overall, the unboxing experience is highly similar to Phoenix which sets the tone for much of my following impressions. The Apollo comes in a hard box with simple print on the front and back. Opening the lid reveals a nice moulded carrying case within a foam inlet as seen on the Phoenix. Inside are the headphones alongside a hessian pouch containing the cable and a 4.4mm to 3.5mm adaptor – a nice touch. It’s a considerate unboxing that has everything required to get the user started. I am especially a fan of the carrying case for its modest dimensions and snug fit with the headphone. In addition, as the sliders simply move the strap within the metal spring, the headphones fit into the case no matter what position they are set to.
Design –
Glancing the Apollo and you’ll see a clear family resemblance to the Phoenix and flagship Peacock. All employ a very similar base chassis with round grills, articulating hangers and a low-profile suspension headband. The Apollo has a unique flared design that, alongside CNC milled cherrywood earcups, gives it heaps of personality. I am personally a fan of matte/raw wood finishes, though arguably the lacquering here does provide better contrast to its matte features otherwise. It also provides some contrast to the Phoenix which has an inverted texture palette. As a result, the faceplates tend to draw focus with their gradient-inducing curve framed by moody satin black. It’s an attractive headphone with reasonable dimensions that will appeal to those that find most full-size open-back headphones intimidating.
Below are dual 3.5mm mono connectors similar to what you’d see on Hifiman and Meze’s 99 headphones. They exit at an angle to prevent the cable from contacting the wearer’s shoulders during listening. The stock cable impresses with its quality representing a huge step up from the Phoenix’s. It’s a 4-wire braided unit with 6N OCC conductors and a two-tone smoke/clear jacket that complements the housings beautifully. The jacket is soft with minimal memory or microphonic noise transmission making it a pleasure to live with day-to-day. This is aided by knurled metal connectors that are easy to handle and decent strain relief at each termination. I appreciate that the company decided to terminate the cable in balanced 4.4mm as you can always use a single-ended adaptor to convert a balanced cable but not vice versa.
Fit & Comfort –
Given the abundant similarities between Sendy/Sivga’s line-up, I feel these products should contextualise my experience here. To elucidate, I did not have a fantastic ergonomic experience on the Phoenix as I found its small, shallow pads to form hotspots over time. The same cannot be said for the Apollo which thankfully, represents a total transformation in terms of wearing comfort despite the visual similarities. The headband offers a similar experience to before being low-profile yet comfortably conforming to the head. Though the padding is light, the soft goatskin strap combined with the relatively light 395g total weight of the headphones means hotspots on the top of the head shouldn’t be an issue. Compared to the Phoenix, you have a slightly larger range of adjustment too, though I did find myself maxing out the slider so these may not be the best choice for those with a large or tall head. As always, let your experience with other headphones dictate your judgement here.
The earpads are the main improvement, that said, benefitting from substantial enlargement in all dimensions. Their tapered design means the company was able to give them a huge surface area and internal dimension without overly enlarging the headphone shells themselves. With super soft memory foam stuffing, the pads conform beautifully to individual head shape and spread the clamp force wonderfully. Their large aperture and depth meant my ears didn’t contact the drivers at all, providing perfect long term comfort. Perhaps the only area of complaint here is that they have a faux leather complexion which may not wear as well as authentic leather. They also aren’t especially breathable but are easily replaced as they are secured only by a twist lock. Isolation is minimal as expected for an open-back design meaning these are best reserved for home listening.
Sound –
Tonality –
The Apollo has an interesting frequency response and is reminiscent of older Audeze models with a dark, laid-back character through the midrange. Combined with broadly elevated bass and treble ranges, this provides a clearly V-shaped signature. Where it differentiates itself is with regards to its warmer tonality invoked by a hump in the mid to upper-bass region. This gives the Apollo a thick and somewhat roomy character. The top-end is similarly broadly elevated which reintroduces an ample level of clarity and openness, especially in the context of its otherwise thicker and more laid-back presentation. Altogether, it is refreshing to see an unabashed truly V-shaped headphone these days as this style of tuning has fallen out of popularity. The Apollo also does so on a solid planar magnetic platform that helps to keep things focused and controlled.
Bass –
The low-end immediately comes to the fore sitting just in front of the treble and clearly ahead of the midrange. It provides a robust foundation for the headphone’s thick, warm character. It doesn’t awe with huge pressure and dynamics due to a progressive sub-bass roll-off but delivers impressive drive and mid-bass impact in return. This means that though the headphones extend well into the perceptual, this isn’t a quality that stands out during listening. Rather, it is the plump, thick mid and upper-bass and the large, full note structure they create in turn. It isn’t an exceedingly bloated or fuzzy presentation due to the nature of its note presentation in addition to the wideband emphasis that doesn’t overly bias any particular frequency range. However, the headphone does sound somewhat tubby which simply cannot be avoided with this style of tuning.
Another quality to note is the lower-contrast nature of its transitions. The Apollo doesn’t employ the sizable upper-bass/lower-mid dip that other bass-orientated headphones usually do, and in turn, the midrange is more obviously coloured. I do find the driver to be well-controlled and offer both an assertive attack and agile decay, however, the note presentation is not quite in sufficient measure to completely clean up the presentation. Still, while this doesn’t make it into an especially fast sounding headphone due to the sheer level of fullness on display, the Apollo is far from a poorly defined or ill-separated headphone as a result. Mid-bass texture deserves special mention, and they are responsive enough to keep up with faster tracks too. While one should keep expectations in order regarding separation, the Apollo is certainly a headphone that will appeal to those wanting an especially rich and textured low-end.
Mids –
I recall cringing at early audio reviews that bashed the midrange performance of a V-shaped headphone only on account of it being laid-back. In reality, you can have an excellent midrange even if it isn’t pushed into the listener’s face. In this instance, however, I do find myself agreeing with these sentiments as I do perceive the midrange as being the weakest aspect of the Apollo’s sound. That doesn’t necessarily make it a poor performer but does mean this won’t appeal to those valuing timbral accuracy and overall balance. The Apollo, as mentioned below, is a warm, roomy headphone with a rather laid-back midrange presentation. It essentially has a complete lack of head gain with a dip from 1-3kHz instead. While objectivist will light their torches, to me this isn’t blatantly incorrect but a matter of preference. For instance, fans of older Audeze headphones likely won’t find this too strange, likely enjoyable, and the voicing overall doesn’t strike as off even coming from other headphones. However, while the voicing isn’t overtly unnatural, they remain a highly coloured headphone relative to most competitors.
The tone is very warm, and this introduces a slight yet persistent stuffiness into their sound that is most noticeable on male vocals. In addition, the lower-midrange appears more present by comparison to its dipped centre and upper-midrange. This instigates its thick and roomy character and accordingly, separation, cleanliness and tonal accuracy are not the Apollo’s forte nor is small detail retrieval or layering. This does not mean it has no redeeming features. For instance, as treble ramps up after, vocal presence is adequate, and congestion and veil aren’t excessive as a result. Female vocals remain laid-back but have a far more transparent character than male vocals due to the quick ramp-up entering the treble. This also makes the Apolla a reasonably articulate headphone and, given its sizable warmth and body, this quality never manifests as thinness, rasp or sharpness, but permits an acceptable level of clarity and openness. While the Apollo is unorthodox in its methods, it may appeal to an audience wanting just that. This is a lush, full-bodied headphone with no pretence of balance or accuracy.
Highs –
By comparison to the midrange, the top-end is a breath of fresh air, impressing from both a tonal and technical point of view. It sits roughly on par with the bass and is impressively linear in its execution. Treble presence ramps up around 5kHz following the recessed upper-midrange and sustains evenly into the middle-treble region before a subtle lift in the upper treble. This gives it an even-handed, just slightly upper-harmonic biased voicing that manifests in the form of a slight “tizziness” and emphasis on shimmer. It has a keen note attack with good bite, crispness and definition in the lower treble that forms the foundation for a well-detailed, detail dense foreground. Instruments are just a touch thin but, otherwise, impress from a texture and body point of view. Accordingly, the timbre is quite natural, just slightly on the energetic side.
This contributes to an overall more engaging character that helps to round out the Apollo’s otherwise darker, thicker character. With an uptick of air and openness, the headphone upholds respectable if not outstanding headroom that does a lot to combat congestion. Extension performs at an average level in-class despite the headphone possessing a good amount of upper-treble on measurement. There isn’t a whole lot of information here meaning micro and background detail retrieval is about what you would expect from a midrange planar headphone. It serves more to enhance its energetic timbre and sense of vibrance in its foreground presentation. The Apollo’s top-end is in good execution and balance, being easy to enjoy and riding a tasteful line between engagement and accuracy.
Soundstage –
As extension is limited, the Apollo doesn’t provide a huge, out of the head experience here, but rather a more intimate and focused approach. The stage dimensions are fairly modest, expanding just beyond the head and, therefore, being one of the more intimate open-back headphones I’ve tested. However, its proportions are especially well-rounded. The imaging performance draws most focus. The Apollo offers an impressively keen sense of directionality – more impressive given the lack of huge brightness or treble peaks. This gives the headphone a very multi-dimensional quality, the round stage aiding this impression.
While layering is harmed by the lack of midrange foreground/background contrast, I still found this to be a very involving headphone that places the listener in the centre of the stage, a quality that some may enjoy. Separation unsurprisingly leaves to be desired. The bass and midrange are both thick and warm with minimal air/ether surrounding each element. Note definition is quite good so the headphone doesn’t suffer from smear but does suffer on complex passages when taken as a whole. Treble, however, tells a different story as it is able to pace and separate well.
Driveability –
With a 97dB sensitivity and low 16-ohm impedance, the Apollo is an efficient headphone that doesn’t require much voltage to reach high listening volumes. At the same time, you will want a good amplifier with high current output due to the lower impedance. This isn’t so much of an issue in the modern-day where such can be found freely and cheaply.
Output Impedance Sensitivity
To test the impedance curve, I used 20-Ohm adaptors to artificially simulate a higher output impedance up to a 40-Ohm rating. Besides a volume drop, I didn’t notice a huge change, perhaps the headphones became a touch brighter and less bass-focused, however, not to a large degree. In turn, I would surmise that the Apollo has a relatively flat impedance curve at the impedances you’d be likely to see from modern sources. Being a low-impedance design, OTL tube amplifiers are not recommended.
Driving Power
The Apollo isn’t too demanding of the amplifier, able to achieve a dynamic and textured sound even from a dongle. Switching between my desktop stack with THX789 and the Astell & Kern Dual DAC, I was hearing a similar overall tonality. The desktop stack naturally provided a harder-hitting sub-bass with a bit more depth and power, but the dongle wasn’t far behind. Above, the midrange and treble were similarly defined. The desktop stack sounded slightly more spacious and the overall note definition was a step up. However, the Apollo is overall one of the easiest headphones to drive of those I’ve tested.
Suggested Pair Ups
True to Sendy’s design goals, the Apollo is efficient and easy to drive which adds to the value proposition as buyers shouldn’t feel the need to invest substantially in a source for these headphones. It isn’t sensitive to output impedance and can be driver nicely from lower-powered sources. Due to its coloured nature, the Apollo benefits from clean and well-defined sources such as the Hidizs S9 Pro and crop of NFCA and THX-based amplifiers. This will help to maximise separation and counterbalance its warmer nature. While some may prefer to further enhance its richness with a warmer source, this wasn’t to my personal preferences.
Comparisons –
Sivga Phoenix ($255): The dynamic driver flagship from Sendy’s sister company Sivga. The Phoenix looks similar and also pursues a warmer tuning, albeit with more restraint. The Phoenix is actually the more balanced and tonally cleaner headphone. Both have a similar style of bass tuning with wideband emphasis and a thicker, warmer character. The Apollo is more upper bass focused giving it a tubbier quality. However, the note presentation is more controlled and faster on the Apollo giving it the more textured and visceral sound all the same. Above, the Apollo is noticeably more laid-back with the Phoenix having more head-gain and midrange clarity in general.
The Apollo sounds much more laid-back and darker in general but is also more articulate which helps to redeem clarity and openness to some extent. The Phoenix is more balanced and has bigger, clearer vocals while the Apollo is more coloured and contrasted. The Apollo has the superior treble presentation in all aspects. The Phoenix is a bit crisper around the lower treble, however, the Apollo is more linear and has a sharper transient response. This makes it sound both more balanced and more detailed by a good margin. Neither extend terrifically nor have the largest soundstage. The Apollo has noticeably sharper imaging while the more balanced Phoenix rewards with better separation.
Hifiman Sundara ($349): At their now reduced price, the Sundara is the headphone to beat in the midrange planar category. Of course, it is difficult to compare apples and oranges as the Sundara comes across as more of an all-rounder than the more coloured, niche Apollo. The Sundara has a small mid-bass bump for warmth that the Apollo takes to another level. In turn, it comes across as bassier, fuller but also tubbier. The Sundara has better separation and slightly more sub-bass that gives it a more dynamic and balanced character. The Apollo has more mid-bass texture and a keener attack and faster decay but also a fuller note structure that means gains in note definition can be difficult to appreciate. The midrange is far more present on the Sundara, delivering greater balance and clarity.
The Apollo is noticeably more relaxed, being much fuller, warmer and more coherent but also lacking the same vocal clarity. In a recurring theme, it is a more articulate headphone but this isn’t enough to compensate for its dipped tuning. The treble is a bit more even on the Apollo while the Sundara has a small bump in the lower treble for crispness. This gives it a thinner and more aggressive detail presentation. However, the Apollo despite not being as bright, does sound a bit more refined, providing greater fine detail retrieval and accuracy here. Both extend similarly and offer similar levels of headroom in turn. The Sundara has a slightly larger stage while the Apollo has a sharper sense of direction. The Sundara unsurprisingly has better separation due to its more balanced tuning.
Grado RS-1x ($750): A more price-appropriate comparison would be the RS-2x, however, I did not have this model on hand at the time of review. The RS-1x serves as a good Grado-representative due to its combination of warm low-end and bright, revealing nature above that contrast heavily to the Apollo. The Apollo is immediately bassier and more mid-recessed. The Apollo extends better and has thicker, bigger bass notes. The RS-1x is meanwhile faster and cleaner. Both have a similar level of definition but the RS-1x has a big separation advantage at the expense of dynamics. The midrange presentations represent foils to each other. The Grado is bright, revealing and endlessly clear and open.
It resolves the minutiae far better and also layers better. The Apollo is lusher and more relaxed. It has much higher coherence and less intensity. However, though articulate, it doesn’t glimpse the same definition of the Grado. Both headphones have an energetic top-end, the Grado more so. The Apollo is more focused and linear here while the Grado has an airier, more coloured nature. The Apollo has a sharper leading edge, delivering a bit more detail in the foreground while the Grado extends better and resolves more fine detail above. The Grado has a larger soundstage with much better separation and layering. Meanwhile, the Apollo has a sharper sense of direction from its more intimate stage.
Verdict –
The Apollo was a headphone that really took some thought to review as its heavily coloured nature makes fair evaluation a far more subjective endeavour. For instance, coming from other headphones like the Sundara, the Apollo sounds murky and ill-defined. Though vice versa, the Sundara may sound thin and intense. Listeners can acclimatize to many sound signatures over time and it is only after you have extensive experience with a variety of gear that you develop an “internal reference” of sorts. For me, that makes the Apollo a headphone with acceptable clarity and midrange performance but impressive bass texture and a very well-executed treble response. Whilst evidently not the choice for vocal-centric genres or those wanting the largest soundstage, the Apollo weaves together an interesting mix of qualities to provide an engaging listen all the same. It isn’t genre versatile and cannot be freely recommended to all but like all coloured headphones, surely offers special appeal to a select niche. This is a headphone with superb all-day comfort and an attractive design suitable for lovers of a rich, V-shaped sound with zero midrange intensity.
The Apollo is available from Sendy Audio (International) for $499 USD at the time of writing. I am not affiliated with Sendy Audio and receive no earnings from purchases made through these links.
Track List –
Billie Eilish – dont smile at me
Bob Seger – Night Moves
Courtney Barnett – Rae Street
Cream – Wheels of Fire
Dire Straits – Communique
Dirty Loops – Next To You
Eagles – Hotel California
Elton John – Honky Chateau
Fleetwood Mac – Rumours
H.E.R – I Used To Know Her
Jasen – BYE
John Mayer – Continuum
Kanye West – Ye
Missy Higgins – The Sound of White
Radiohead – OK Computer
TALA – ain’t leavin` without you
The Beatles – Abbey Road
The weeknd – After Hours
Vampire Weekend – Father of the Bride
This is a headphone with superb all-day comfort and an attractive design suitable for lovers of a rich, V-shaped sound with zero midrange intensity.
Introduction –
Sendy Audio is a sub-brand of Sivga, yet ironically may be better known in the international market. This is for their highly successful Aiva planar magnetic headphone, which quickly won over the hearts of critics and consumers alike, cementing a solid reputation for the relatively new company. The brand has since released a good selection of headphones with varying tunings and targets. The Phoenix was a warm yet relatively well-balanced dynamic driver model at a low price point and the recently released Peacock was their all-out attempt at making a flagship planar magnetic headphone. The new Apollo lies somewhere in-between. It assumes the quad-former driver tech pioneered by the flagship and brings the price point down to mid-fi levels making it far more accessible for most buyers. It targets a rich, engaging sound and high efficiency, representing the next chapter in Sendy’s headphone designs.
The Apollo is available for $499 USD. You can read all about it on Sendy Audio’s website here!
Disclaimer –
I would like to thank Collin from Sivga/Sendy Audio very much for his quick communication and for reaching out to organise a review of the Apollo. All words are my own and there is no monetary incentive for a positive review. Despite receiving the headphones free of cost, I will attempt to be as objective as possible in my evaluation.
Specifications –
- Driver: 68mm planar magnetic driver
- Impedance: 16 ohms
- Sensitivity: 95 dB
- Frequency Response: 20 Hz – 40 kHz
- Weight: 395g
Behind the Design –
QUAD-FORMER Driver
First seen on the flagship Peacock, the Apollo also uses a derivative of the company’s quad-former technology. This encompasses a modified planar magnetic driver. This starts with a double-sided magnet design but is further expanded upon with double-sided dual voice coils, meaning there are 4 on each driver. The company reasons this provides improved efficiency in addition to more uniform force distribution over the diaphragm surface resulting in lower distortion.
Premium Housings
The Apollo is made from rosewood that has been carved using CNC, sanded, polished, painted and dyed for an immaculate finish. Furthermore, it sports tough steel grills forming a low resonance, high-damping acoustic environment for the 68mm planar driver. The company spent 3 years developing this design and driver to work in tandem to provide their desired sound.
Unboxing –
Overall, the unboxing experience is highly similar to Phoenix which sets the tone for much of my following impressions. The Apollo comes in a hard box with simple print on the front and back. Opening the lid reveals a nice moulded carrying case within a foam inlet as seen on the Phoenix. Inside are the headphones alongside a hessian pouch containing the cable and a 4.4mm to 3.5mm adaptor – a nice touch. It’s a considerate unboxing that has everything required to get the user started. I am especially a fan of the carrying case for its modest dimensions and snug fit with the headphone. In addition, as the sliders simply move the strap within the metal spring, the headphones fit into the case no matter what position they are set to.
Design –
Glancing the Apollo and you’ll see a clear family resemblance to the Phoenix and flagship Peacock. All employ a very similar base chassis with round grills, articulating hangers and a low-profile suspension headband. The Apollo has a unique flared design that, alongside CNC milled cherrywood earcups, gives it heaps of personality. I am personally a fan of matte/raw wood finishes, though arguably the lacquering here does provide better contrast to its matte features otherwise. It also provides some contrast to the Phoenix which has an inverted texture palette. As a result, the faceplates tend to draw focus with their gradient-inducing curve framed by moody satin black. It’s an attractive headphone with reasonable dimensions that will appeal to those that find most full-size open-back headphones intimidating.
Below are dual 3.5mm mono connectors similar to what you’d see on Hifiman and Meze’s 99 headphones. They exit at an angle to prevent the cable from contacting the wearer’s shoulders during listening. The stock cable impresses with its quality representing a huge step up from the Phoenix’s. It’s a 4-wire braided unit with 6N OCC conductors and a two-tone smoke/clear jacket that complements the housings beautifully. The jacket is soft with minimal memory or microphonic noise transmission making it a pleasure to live with day-to-day. This is aided by knurled metal connectors that are easy to handle and decent strain relief at each termination. I appreciate that the company decided to terminate the cable in balanced 4.4mm as you can always use a single-ended adaptor to convert a balanced cable but not vice versa.
Fit & Comfort –
Given the abundant similarities between Sendy/Sivga’s line-up, I feel these products should contextualise my experience here. To elucidate, I did not have a fantastic ergonomic experience on the Phoenix as I found its small, shallow pads to form hotspots over time. The same cannot be said for the Apollo which thankfully, represents a total transformation in terms of wearing comfort despite the visual similarities. The headband offers a similar experience to before being low-profile yet comfortably conforming to the head. Though the padding is light, the soft goatskin strap combined with the relatively light 395g total weight of the headphones means hotspots on the top of the head shouldn’t be an issue. Compared to the Phoenix, you have a slightly larger range of adjustment too, though I did find myself maxing out the slider so these may not be the best choice for those with a large or tall head. As always, let your experience with other headphones dictate your judgement here.
The earpads are the main improvement, that said, benefitting from substantial enlargement in all dimensions. Their tapered design means the company was able to give them a huge surface area and internal dimension without overly enlarging the headphone shells themselves. With super soft memory foam stuffing, the pads conform beautifully to individual head shape and spread the clamp force wonderfully. Their large aperture and depth meant my ears didn’t contact the drivers at all, providing perfect long term comfort. Perhaps the only area of complaint here is that they have a faux leather complexion which may not wear as well as authentic leather. They also aren’t especially breathable but are easily replaced as they are secured only by a twist lock. Isolation is minimal as expected for an open-back design meaning these are best reserved for home listening.
Sound –
Tonality –
The Apollo has an interesting frequency response and is reminiscent of older Audeze models with a dark, laid-back character through the midrange. Combined with broadly elevated bass and treble ranges, this provides a clearly V-shaped signature. Where it differentiates itself is with regards to its warmer tonality invoked by a hump in the mid to upper-bass region. This gives the Apollo a thick and somewhat roomy character. The top-end is similarly broadly elevated which reintroduces an ample level of clarity and openness, especially in the context of its otherwise thicker and more laid-back presentation. Altogether, it is refreshing to see an unabashed truly V-shaped headphone these days as this style of tuning has fallen out of popularity. The Apollo also does so on a solid planar magnetic platform that helps to keep things focused and controlled.
Bass –
The low-end immediately comes to the fore sitting just in front of the treble and clearly ahead of the midrange. It provides a robust foundation for the headphone’s thick, warm character. It doesn’t awe with huge pressure and dynamics due to a progressive sub-bass roll-off but delivers impressive drive and mid-bass impact in return. This means that though the headphones extend well into the perceptual, this isn’t a quality that stands out during listening. Rather, it is the plump, thick mid and upper-bass and the large, full note structure they create in turn. It isn’t an exceedingly bloated or fuzzy presentation due to the nature of its note presentation in addition to the wideband emphasis that doesn’t overly bias any particular frequency range. However, the headphone does sound somewhat tubby which simply cannot be avoided with this style of tuning.
Another quality to note is the lower-contrast nature of its transitions. The Apollo doesn’t employ the sizable upper-bass/lower-mid dip that other bass-orientated headphones usually do, and in turn, the midrange is more obviously coloured. I do find the driver to be well-controlled and offer both an assertive attack and agile decay, however, the note presentation is not quite in sufficient measure to completely clean up the presentation. Still, while this doesn’t make it into an especially fast sounding headphone due to the sheer level of fullness on display, the Apollo is far from a poorly defined or ill-separated headphone as a result. Mid-bass texture deserves special mention, and they are responsive enough to keep up with faster tracks too. While one should keep expectations in order regarding separation, the Apollo is certainly a headphone that will appeal to those wanting an especially rich and textured low-end.
Mids –
I recall cringing at early audio reviews that bashed the midrange performance of a V-shaped headphone only on account of it being laid-back. In reality, you can have an excellent midrange even if it isn’t pushed into the listener’s face. In this instance, however, I do find myself agreeing with these sentiments as I do perceive the midrange as being the weakest aspect of the Apollo’s sound. That doesn’t necessarily make it a poor performer but does mean this won’t appeal to those valuing timbral accuracy and overall balance. The Apollo, as mentioned below, is a warm, roomy headphone with a rather laid-back midrange presentation. It essentially has a complete lack of head gain with a dip from 1-3kHz instead. While objectivist will light their torches, to me this isn’t blatantly incorrect but a matter of preference. For instance, fans of older Audeze headphones likely won’t find this too strange, likely enjoyable, and the voicing overall doesn’t strike as off even coming from other headphones. However, while the voicing isn’t overtly unnatural, they remain a highly coloured headphone relative to most competitors.
The tone is very warm, and this introduces a slight yet persistent stuffiness into their sound that is most noticeable on male vocals. In addition, the lower-midrange appears more present by comparison to its dipped centre and upper-midrange. This instigates its thick and roomy character and accordingly, separation, cleanliness and tonal accuracy are not the Apollo’s forte nor is small detail retrieval or layering. This does not mean it has no redeeming features. For instance, as treble ramps up after, vocal presence is adequate, and congestion and veil aren’t excessive as a result. Female vocals remain laid-back but have a far more transparent character than male vocals due to the quick ramp-up entering the treble. This also makes the Apolla a reasonably articulate headphone and, given its sizable warmth and body, this quality never manifests as thinness, rasp or sharpness, but permits an acceptable level of clarity and openness. While the Apollo is unorthodox in its methods, it may appeal to an audience wanting just that. This is a lush, full-bodied headphone with no pretence of balance or accuracy.
Highs –
By comparison to the midrange, the top-end is a breath of fresh air, impressing from both a tonal and technical point of view. It sits roughly on par with the bass and is impressively linear in its execution. Treble presence ramps up around 5kHz following the recessed upper-midrange and sustains evenly into the middle-treble region before a subtle lift in the upper treble. This gives it an even-handed, just slightly upper-harmonic biased voicing that manifests in the form of a slight “tizziness” and emphasis on shimmer. It has a keen note attack with good bite, crispness and definition in the lower treble that forms the foundation for a well-detailed, detail dense foreground. Instruments are just a touch thin but, otherwise, impress from a texture and body point of view. Accordingly, the timbre is quite natural, just slightly on the energetic side.
This contributes to an overall more engaging character that helps to round out the Apollo’s otherwise darker, thicker character. With an uptick of air and openness, the headphone upholds respectable if not outstanding headroom that does a lot to combat congestion. Extension performs at an average level in-class despite the headphone possessing a good amount of upper-treble on measurement. There isn’t a whole lot of information here meaning micro and background detail retrieval is about what you would expect from a midrange planar headphone. It serves more to enhance its energetic timbre and sense of vibrance in its foreground presentation. The Apollo’s top-end is in good execution and balance, being easy to enjoy and riding a tasteful line between engagement and accuracy.
Soundstage –
As extension is limited, the Apollo doesn’t provide a huge, out of the head experience here, but rather a more intimate and focused approach. The stage dimensions are fairly modest, expanding just beyond the head and, therefore, being one of the more intimate open-back headphones I’ve tested. However, its proportions are especially well-rounded. The imaging performance draws most focus. The Apollo offers an impressively keen sense of directionality – more impressive given the lack of huge brightness or treble peaks. This gives the headphone a very multi-dimensional quality, the round stage aiding this impression.
While layering is harmed by the lack of midrange foreground/background contrast, I still found this to be a very involving headphone that places the listener in the centre of the stage, a quality that some may enjoy. Separation unsurprisingly leaves to be desired. The bass and midrange are both thick and warm with minimal air/ether surrounding each element. Note definition is quite good so the headphone doesn’t suffer from smear but does suffer on complex passages when taken as a whole. Treble, however, tells a different story as it is able to pace and separate well.
Driveability –
With a 97dB sensitivity and low 16-ohm impedance, the Apollo is an efficient headphone that doesn’t require much voltage to reach high listening volumes. At the same time, you will want a good amplifier with high current output due to the lower impedance. This isn’t so much of an issue in the modern-day where such can be found freely and cheaply.
Output Impedance Sensitivity
To test the impedance curve, I used 20-Ohm adaptors to artificially simulate a higher output impedance up to a 40-Ohm rating. Besides a volume drop, I didn’t notice a huge change, perhaps the headphones became a touch brighter and less bass-focused, however, not to a large degree. In turn, I would surmise that the Apollo has a relatively flat impedance curve at the impedances you’d be likely to see from modern sources. Being a low-impedance design, OTL tube amplifiers are not recommended.
Driving Power
The Apollo isn’t too demanding of the amplifier, able to achieve a dynamic and textured sound even from a dongle. Switching between my desktop stack with THX789 and the Astell & Kern Dual DAC, I was hearing a similar overall tonality. The desktop stack naturally provided a harder-hitting sub-bass with a bit more depth and power, but the dongle wasn’t far behind. Above, the midrange and treble were similarly defined. The desktop stack sounded slightly more spacious and the overall note definition was a step up. However, the Apollo is overall one of the easiest headphones to drive of those I’ve tested.
Suggested Pair Ups
True to Sendy’s design goals, the Apollo is efficient and easy to drive which adds to the value proposition as buyers shouldn’t feel the need to invest substantially in a source for these headphones. It isn’t sensitive to output impedance and can be driver nicely from lower-powered sources. Due to its coloured nature, the Apollo benefits from clean and well-defined sources such as the Hidizs S9 Pro and crop of NFCA and THX-based amplifiers. This will help to maximise separation and counterbalance its warmer nature. While some may prefer to further enhance its richness with a warmer source, this wasn’t to my personal preferences.
Comparisons –
Sivga Phoenix ($255): The dynamic driver flagship from Sendy’s sister company Sivga. The Phoenix looks similar and also pursues a warmer tuning, albeit with more restraint. The Phoenix is actually the more balanced and tonally cleaner headphone. Both have a similar style of bass tuning with wideband emphasis and a thicker, warmer character. The Apollo is more upper bass focused giving it a tubbier quality. However, the note presentation is more controlled and faster on the Apollo giving it the more textured and visceral sound all the same. Above, the Apollo is noticeably more laid-back with the Phoenix having more head-gain and midrange clarity in general.
The Apollo sounds much more laid-back and darker in general but is also more articulate which helps to redeem clarity and openness to some extent. The Phoenix is more balanced and has bigger, clearer vocals while the Apollo is more coloured and contrasted. The Apollo has the superior treble presentation in all aspects. The Phoenix is a bit crisper around the lower treble, however, the Apollo is more linear and has a sharper transient response. This makes it sound both more balanced and more detailed by a good margin. Neither extend terrifically nor have the largest soundstage. The Apollo has noticeably sharper imaging while the more balanced Phoenix rewards with better separation.
Hifiman Sundara ($349): At their now reduced price, the Sundara is the headphone to beat in the midrange planar category. Of course, it is difficult to compare apples and oranges as the Sundara comes across as more of an all-rounder than the more coloured, niche Apollo. The Sundara has a small mid-bass bump for warmth that the Apollo takes to another level. In turn, it comes across as bassier, fuller but also tubbier. The Sundara has better separation and slightly more sub-bass that gives it a more dynamic and balanced character. The Apollo has more mid-bass texture and a keener attack and faster decay but also a fuller note structure that means gains in note definition can be difficult to appreciate. The midrange is far more present on the Sundara, delivering greater balance and clarity.
The Apollo is noticeably more relaxed, being much fuller, warmer and more coherent but also lacking the same vocal clarity. In a recurring theme, it is a more articulate headphone but this isn’t enough to compensate for its dipped tuning. The treble is a bit more even on the Apollo while the Sundara has a small bump in the lower treble for crispness. This gives it a thinner and more aggressive detail presentation. However, the Apollo despite not being as bright, does sound a bit more refined, providing greater fine detail retrieval and accuracy here. Both extend similarly and offer similar levels of headroom in turn. The Sundara has a slightly larger stage while the Apollo has a sharper sense of direction. The Sundara unsurprisingly has better separation due to its more balanced tuning.
Grado RS-1x ($750): A more price-appropriate comparison would be the RS-2x, however, I did not have this model on hand at the time of review. The RS-1x serves as a good Grado-representative due to its combination of warm low-end and bright, revealing nature above that contrast heavily to the Apollo. The Apollo is immediately bassier and more mid-recessed. The Apollo extends better and has thicker, bigger bass notes. The RS-1x is meanwhile faster and cleaner. Both have a similar level of definition but the RS-1x has a big separation advantage at the expense of dynamics. The midrange presentations represent foils to each other. The Grado is bright, revealing and endlessly clear and open.
It resolves the minutiae far better and also layers better. The Apollo is lusher and more relaxed. It has much higher coherence and less intensity. However, though articulate, it doesn’t glimpse the same definition of the Grado. Both headphones have an energetic top-end, the Grado more so. The Apollo is more focused and linear here while the Grado has an airier, more coloured nature. The Apollo has a sharper leading edge, delivering a bit more detail in the foreground while the Grado extends better and resolves more fine detail above. The Grado has a larger soundstage with much better separation and layering. Meanwhile, the Apollo has a sharper sense of direction from its more intimate stage.
Verdict –
The Apollo was a headphone that really took some thought to review as its heavily coloured nature makes fair evaluation a far more subjective endeavour. For instance, coming from other headphones like the Sundara, the Apollo sounds murky and ill-defined. Though vice versa, the Sundara may sound thin and intense. Listeners can acclimatize to many sound signatures over time and it is only after you have extensive experience with a variety of gear that you develop an “internal reference” of sorts. For me, that makes the Apollo a headphone with acceptable clarity and midrange performance but impressive bass texture and a very well-executed treble response. Whilst evidently not the choice for vocal-centric genres or those wanting the largest soundstage, the Apollo weaves together an interesting mix of qualities to provide an engaging listen all the same. It isn’t genre versatile and cannot be freely recommended to all but like all coloured headphones, surely offers special appeal to a select niche. This is a headphone with superb all-day comfort and an attractive design suitable for lovers of a rich, V-shaped sound with zero midrange intensity.
The Apollo is available from Sendy Audio (International) for $499 USD at the time of writing. I am not affiliated with Sendy Audio and receive no earnings from purchases made through these links.
Track List –
Billie Eilish – dont smile at me
Bob Seger – Night Moves
Courtney Barnett – Rae Street
Cream – Wheels of Fire
Dire Straits – Communique
Dirty Loops – Next To You
Eagles – Hotel California
Elton John – Honky Chateau
Fleetwood Mac – Rumours
H.E.R – I Used To Know Her
Jasen – BYE
John Mayer – Continuum
Kanye West – Ye
Missy Higgins – The Sound of White
Radiohead – OK Computer
TALA – ain’t leavin` without you
The Beatles – Abbey Road
The weeknd – After Hours
Vampire Weekend – Father of the Bride
Introduction –
ikko is definitely a company I’ve been meaning to work with for some time. They have an alluring range of hybrid IEMs and some snazzy portable DAC/AMPs too. In particular, the company is known to offer innovative form factors with regards to both of these, and their IEMs too offer a striking abstract aesthetic. A few years back, the company released the original OH1 that originally put the company on the map. This was a dual-magnet structure Ti DD + Knowles 33518 BA hybrid monitor that many lauded for its bass performance. The OH10 released last year used the same driver setup but implemented a pure copper acoustic chamber in addition to optimising the nozzle diameter to reduce resonances and distortion. The OH1s is their latest model and another evolution of the same formula. While the BA tweeter remains unchanged, the OH1s implemented a new carbon-nanotube dynamic driver and makes all-round upgrades to the design. It has a new 3-part acoustic chamber aiming to reduce reflections, resonances and optimise phase coherence, dubbed SVAS acoustic cavity technology. This comes with a new, sleeker form factor and oval tip design.
The OH1s retails for $199 USD but is available for $139 USD at the time of writing and for the remainder of September 2021. You can read more about it and treat yourself to a unit on ikko.
Disclaimer –
I would like to thank Rebecca from ikko very much for reaching out to set up a review of the OH1s. All words are my own and there is no monetary incentive for a positive review. Despite receiving the earphones free of cost, I will attempt to be as objective as possible in my evaluation.
Specifications –
Unboxing –
I was very impressed by the unboxing experience, it makes the OH1s feel far more expensive than it is. The outer sleeve has specs and anime-inspired artwork, sliding it off reveals an ikko cover that contains the hard box inside. The user is first greeted to a foam plate showcasing the earphones and exploded diagram of their design. A metal ikko pin is also provided in a very CFA-like fashion. Below is another compartment containing a lovely leather carrying case, the cable and selection of ear tips with their own plastic holder. ikko provide a flexible 5 sizes of memory foam and 5 sizes of silicone tips. Of note, the OH1s is now using proprietary oval tips similar to those seen on the Beyerdynamic Xelento. This gives them an especially comfortable and shallow fit, but also means third party tips don’t seal as well on the nozzle.
Design –
Premium build quality has always been a focus for ikko and the OH1s exemplifies this with its unique and visually distinct 3-piece construction. The alloy sound tube construction and signature rippled faceplates sandwich transparent acrylic, giving it a sleek, modern aesthetic with elegant flowing lines. The faceplates especially captivate with rich contrast and dimension, wrapping around the edges of the shell. This is a very attractive and well-constructed earphone that feels solid yet compact and ergonomic. The triangular profile adds further visual intrigue, true to ikko’s marketing they do indeed resemble gemstones in a charming fashion.
The cable attaches via regular MMCX connectors and there is no key system here making third party cable swaps simple. The stock cable is of pleasing construction and complements the earphones themselves well with its lightweight design and streamlined internal braided structure. However, it is a little springy with some memory meaning it can take some time to straighten out when initially removed from the box. Otherwise, there is little to complain about, the smoke jacket is smoother and the trifecta of conductors below give it a unique look. Metal connectors provide a premium look while well-moulded albeit strangely long ear guides aid a comfortable and stable fit.
Fit & Isolation –
If you have small ears and want a super compact earphone with a slim profile, there aren’t many better options than this. The OH1s sits alongside other outliers like the Xelento with which is shares clear inspiration. This is not a bad thing at all, like that earphone, the shells are absolutely tiny, and their rounded edges prevent hotspots entirely. In addition, they are super slim, meaning you are able to wear these while sleeping with no issue. This is aided by the unique fit style, with oval nozzles and the factory tips designed for them. They have an especially shallow fit but, in return, also wear with basically zero in-ear pressure.
This makes them exceptionally comfortable long-term, and you are quickly able to forget about them. At the same time, their lightweight and low-profile nature combined with an over-eat fit means stability also isn’t a concern. They stay put very well. The downside to all of this is passive noise isolation which is well below average. They block some sound but not much even compared to vented single-DD competitors. The open feel is something some may prefer but it does mean you will need to turn up the volume is used during daily commute. They also aren’t really viable for use in especially loud environments even using the included foam tips.
Sound –
Testing Methodology: Measured using Arta via IEC 711 coupler to Startech external sound card. 7-9KHz peaks may be artefacts/emphasised due to my measurement setup. Measurements besides channel balance are volume matched at 1KHz. Fit depth normalised to my best abilities to reduce coupler resonance. Still, due to these factors, my measurements may not accurately reflect the earphone or measurements taken by others. I gave the OH1s 100hrs of burn-in to ensure maximum performance prior to subjective breakdown.
Tonality –
The OH1s is an intriguing earphone indeed, being surprisingly faithful to reference curves in some regards whilst wildly deviating in others. The net result is an articulate, airy and altogether clearly coloured presentation but also one that remains naturally voiced and tonally clean. It is brighter leaning with an inverse L signature; moderately biased towards treble and, to a lesser extent, vocals. While bass is laid-back by comparison, it is warm and well-structured with a small mid-bass focus, retaining body and power. The new driver and housing design brings a well-controlled sound with some interesting note characteristics throughout. The OH1s feels like an authentic and thought-out design albeit isn’t the most versatile as a result of its colouration. While this means it won’t appeal to everyone, I feel the company has been able to achieve an articulate, vocal-forward sound without fewer drawbacks affecting many competitors.
Bass –
Ikko has combined a warm, full tuning and overall laid-back positioning to provide a solid foundation whilst upholding tonal cleanliness in the midrange. This means that though bass doesn’t announce its presence, plenty of warmth remains to be enjoyed. Its tuning is somewhat atypical with emphasis sustaining quite linearly through the mid and upper-bass but with roll off towards the sub-bass. This is not to be mistaken for a lack of extension as the CNT dynamic driver provides plenty of pressure and slam, albeit I did find this could be overshadowed by the mid-bass on some tracks due to the moderately laid-back positioning. It goes without saying that the OH1s retains plenty of punch and impact in addition to a good amount of gusto and power. As the emphasis is wideband in nature, the timbre is sound, notes are simply slightly thicker and fuller, imbued with a medium but not excessive warmth. Its notes are structured with an emphasis on higher weight rather than plumpness or rounding in the mid-bass as the tuning may initially suggest to some.
This works in tandem with the driver characteristics. The OH1s has relatively slow decay, reinforcing its thick note presentation, and the sub-bass roll off does make some sense here as it aids separation in the mid-bass. I didn’t hear any smear or muddiness however, due to the sub-bass roll off, it doesn’t have the most assertive slam or rumble that has become popularised as of late. Nonetheless, its structured nature and slower decay give it large amounts of texture and the impression of greater dynamics despite attack not being especially aggressive. This reminds me in part of the Moondrop Starfield which shared its CNT diaphragm construction. However, as the driver control is clearly better here, a great performer in-class, the OH1s comes across as more coloured rather than sloppy, upholding strong note definition. It’s a unique bass presentation with a primary focus on note weight and texture whilst still managing to be impressively articulate due to its higher control. This means the OH1s is surprisingly adept at reproducing bass heavy genres such as hip-hop but equally flatters more responsive genres such as pop, funk and jazz.
Mids –
The midrange sits in front of the bass and has a very intriguing mix of qualities. Whilst I was initially inclined to call this a revealing monitor, that isn’t exactly the case. It is, however, well resolved for such an economical earphone, an impression aided by its forward nature. As the OH1s peaks earlier than most at 2kHz and sustains emphasis through to 3 kHz, vocals are brought forward and are increased in size relative to instruments and bass. With a neutral lower-midrange positioning and just ample bass quantity, note weight lies on the leaner side. However, the lift in vocal size works in tandem with a hint of euphonic warmth stemming from the upper-bass to grant a sense of robustness that prevents it from skewing overly lean, metallic or strained. The tuning is pretty solid here and the voicing is natural despite the abundant colouration surrounding. Vocals possess ample coherence and structure on most tracks. A noticeable fall off a 4kHz also helps to counteract the lift in treble brightness and forwardness, meaning it is a low-intensity sound despite being clear and vocal-forward.
I would characterise it more as a vocal-forward monitor here rather than a bright, revealing or clarity-focusing one. This is a great approach as you get intimate, large and well-textured vocals with minimal tonal colouration yet also a good sense of weight when needed. At the same time, extension is maintained via its articulate lower-treble, with a small peak at 5kHz. Accordingly, note definition is lifted and small details are brought to the fore, delivering above average in-class resolving power. However, so too does a little sharpness creep in albeit not to the extent of sibilance. It does give vocals a somewhat breathy and esoteric presentation rather than a full, organic or dense one as the upper-mid nadir might suggest. I did find this to define its voicing more than leanness or dyness in the lower midrange. However, on some pop tracks with heavy vocal processing, I did find this could give the monitor a rather unforgiving character. Altogether, the OH1s is great for those wanting clear, forward vocals executed in a tasteful way and without excessive intensity.
Foreword –
Do note that though my measurement showcases a large 8k peak, this region is emphasized by coupler resonance and may not necessarily be audible. In addition, this region is fit-depth specific, I found I was hearing more brightness around the 10kHz region that was lower in intensity than the lower-treble, which is to my preference. Adjust the tips and fit depth accordingly. Depending on your preferences and ear anatomy, the top-end will either sit at the front of the presentation or just in front of the midrange – greater treble variability is an unfortunate repercussion of such a shallow fit depth. I say this because I’ve seen a range of impressions on the OH1s, some find it neutral, some find it fatiguing. Either way, I would posit that the majority won’t find the enhancements here to be overdone, though do note this isn’t remotely a smooth monitor especially when combined with the slightly laid-back bass and forward midrange.
Highs –
The voicing of the top-end showcases a vibrant, airy performance that avoids fatigue and intensity due to its relative lack of sharpness in the audible range combined with a lift in overtones. Emphasis lies chiefly at 5kHz, instigating a crisp foreground and drawing slightly more focus to the leading edge of notes. However, transient response is on the softer side, leading to an airy and free flowing over hyper-defined or focused foreground detail presentation. The 6kHz nadir could contribute to this impression as well. Instruments sound slightly thin, and notes have a delicate presentation. However, notes decay nicely, imbuing impressive shimmer and vibrance. Still, I didn’t find the OH1s to have the best fine detail retrieval nor the best texture or realistic instrument timbre, it is defined more by the atmosphere it creates in the overall image, rather than the minutiae it discerns within the treble itself.
Above, my ears were hearing level emphasis through the 8-10kHz range sitting just behind the lower-treble. This contributes to an airy, open and atmospheric sound; one that retains good but not outstanding focus on the foreground. Still, I found the balance ample to provide a stable image and, at the same time, weave a convincing sense of headroom. Background detail retrieval is above average but nothing exceptional. The driver does start to break up in this region, so you don’t get an immaculate background or sparkly top-octave. It contributes more to a pleasing sense of air, dimension and layers rather than notable audible detail. The airy and open voicing contributes to the impression of an extended treble despite relatively low resolving power in these regions. It works to the benefit of detail presentation over retrieval and accordingly, small details are brought to the listener’s attention without introducing glare or excessive brightness.
Soundstage –
The OH1s provides a moderately intimate stage but with strong separation/smaller note size that means it still feels relatively open. I has an atypical bias towards height, being more intimate in terms of depth and width but well-proportioned between them. Imaging is quite sharp, you get a strong centre image and a nice lateral spread. Directional cues aren’t super sharp nor is localisation. In tune with the treble note presentation, the overall image too is floatier with less stable positioning. While it lacks the speed to attain holography, the image is fairly multi-dimensional, just not especially sharp. The same goes for layers, there isn’t huge separation between background and foreground due to the airy nature, but the OH1s does have a better resolved background than many around this asking price. Separation is the main strength on display. You get a nice foundation in the bass that remains very well separated from the mids at all times. Note size lies on the leaner size throughout so each note is surrounded by a pleasing sense of air and space.
Driveability –
With a moderate 32-ohm impedance and a higher 109dB sensitivity, the OH1s is relatively efficient and also shouldn’t be exceedingly source sensitive. However, in subjective testing I was surprised at how well this IEM scaled with better amplifier sections especially.
Output impedance sensitivity
Going by the rule of eighths, you would ideally want to pair the OH1s with a source with a sub 4-ohm output impedance. Empirically, I tested this by switching between the Shanling M2X (1-ohm) and Hiby R6 (10-ohms) which revealed a surprisingly similar listening experience. The changes were in tune with individual source colouration though I would posit some of this is also impedance coming into play. The R6 sounded a little tubbier in the bass with a softer note presentation. Treble was thinner but similarly positioned as on the M2X. As a result, I wouldn’t concern too much about output impedance here as the changes are quite small even in sub-ideal circumstances. Of course, a lower number is more ideal.
Driving Power
The OH1s definitely benefits from a dedicated source in this regard, for though the tonality was balanced and volume levels were fine from my Xperia 5 II, I did find the bass performance lacking. In this regard, you don’t need to go overkill, even a dongle like the PEE51 or Hiby FC3 will do just fine. But surely having some sort of dedicated source helps to round out the bass. Swithcing to the FC3 for instance, yielded a noticeably more defined and controlled bass alongside better extension and slam. Stepping up to my desktop stack revealed a larger, airier soundstage. Unfortunately, due to the sensitive BA tweeter, the OH1s does pick up more hiss than most IEMs despite not being especially efficient overall. I was hearing faint hiss on the M2X, but this wasn’t an issue when music was playing. Low volume listeners will want to use a source with a quiet/black noise floor.
Suggested Pair Ups
The OH1s doesn’t require an especially low output impedance but benefits from a dedicated source with regards to driving power and noise levels. Tonally, it pairs well with most source, though those with any form of treble brightness should best be avoided. A warmer or more dynamics source such as the M2X/THX789 are great pairings for bass performance, it definitely benefits from a more aggressive note attack. This applies equally so to the treble due to its softer attack however, again, brightness should be avoided.
Comparisons –
Fiio FH3 ($149): The FH3 is a personal favourite around this price and assumes a similar hybrid driver setup. The FH3 is a bit more balanced, it has more bass and less treble. Its bass emphasis is tonally cleaner and more dynamic, more focused in the sub-bass. In turn, it has a thicker, weightier note presentation with thicker rumble and more powerful slam. The OH1s is slightly more articulate and textured in the mid-bass, it also has slightly higher note definition. But it lacks dynamics by comparison, preferring a smoother textured, warmer presentation. The midrange is more neutral on the FH3, sligthly lean but mostly innocuous. It’s a clean, natural tuning that leaves little to be desired.
The OH1s is more vocal-forward, equally lean but more articulate so it is slightly more vibrant and defined but also less coherent. Otherwise, it sounds similar in terms of voicing and both resolve similarly, the OH1s perhaps a little better. The OH1s has a brighter treble tuning, but the FH3 has a more focused detail presentation with sharper foreground note attack. It has better fine detail retrieval and also isn’t as peaky, delivering better note body and texture. The FH3 has a darker, cleaner background while the OH1s is crisper and more energetic with greater air and headroom. The FH3 has a slightly larger soundstage, neither excel here. The FH3 does have better layering while the OH1s has slightly better separation.
Final Audio A4000 ($160): The A4000 takes the bright tuning approach one step further but with greater sub-bass presence balancing it out. The OH1s has slightly better sub-bass extension but less slam and weight here. The OH1s has slightly better driver control and a slightly more textured mid-bass. The A4000 is more dynamics and punchier, it has a cleaner mid-bass tuning. The A4000 has a thinner, cooler midrange with greater upper-mid bias. The OH1s is slightly more balanced here and more structured due to its lower emphasis and greater density.
I find the OH1s to be more naturally voiced, it doesn’t have as much intensity and glare, and better coherence overall. The OH1s is also more resolving here of layers and small details. The A4000 has a brighter, crisper tuning in the foreground. It has a sharper attack and produces similar detail retrieval to the OH1s at a lower price. Its dynamics driver gives it a bit more texture too. The OH1s is more refined sounding, it isn’t as bright and has a better resolved background with more air and openness, the A4000 sounding more aggressive. The A4000 has a wider soundstage while the OH1s has better imaging and layering.
Campfire Audio Satsuma ($199): The Satuma is a single-BA earphone with a vocal-focus making it direct competition to the OH1s. It has a fuller bass with greater sub-bass weight but also far less extension compared to the hybrid OH1s. It lacks pressure and power at the very bottom despite being more forward here in tuning. The OH1s has a more textured, powerful bass response despite having a bit less sub-bass presence. The Satsuma is faster decaying and a bit more articulate but doesn’t have the same natural timbre to my ears. The midrange is slightly more forward on the OH1s, the Satsuma has a smaller vocal size and isn’t quite as intimate. It has a warmer voicing and a smoother articulation giving it higher coherence.
The OH1s is more vivid and immedaite. It is more textured and resolving, with greater vocal size, it sounds more powerful and structured. The Satsuma has a smoother lower-treble but some crispness and air in the middle-treble. While it does have a sharper note attack than the OH1s, its smoother tuning means it is slightly less detailed in practice. The OH1s has a bit more background detail, the Satsuma is similar in its airy approach but less resolving here. The Satsuma has a wider stage despite this, and a darker, cleaner background. It has sharper imaging too while the OH1s has better separation.
Moondrop Blessing 2 ($319): Moondrop doesn’t really have a direct competitor in this price range, I suppose the new KATO is closest but that model wasn’t available to me at the time of writing this review. The question then becomes whether buyers should consider saving another $100 and I think a reasonable case can be made.
The Blessing 2 is equally well extended but has a heftier sub-bass presence. It has more slam and weight. The OH1s is slightly more laid-back and has a less prominent rumble. It is slightly fuller and warmer and also showcases slightly better driver control and note definition, the B2 being more dynamic and linear in return. The OH1s has a slightly more vocal-forward midrange but not by much. The voicing is also not too dissimilar, the OH1s is a touch leaner and has a sharper articulation, but it’s also a little more separated. The B2 is more coherent with more accurate note body. It is more resolving, it has better extension and layering and also a more consistent voicing on tracks of different mastering styles due to its more linear tuning.
The treble plays into this mostly, the B2 is more even throughout, the OH1s has a bumpier tuning. The B2 has a sharper note attack in the lower-treble. Its notes have more bite and it has much better fine detail retrieval, a more focused detail presentation and a cleaner background. The OH1s is brighter, it has a thinner note body but also higher clarity. Chiefly, it is airier in the middle-treble, albeit the B2 is noticeably more resolving of detail here and less polarising in terms of brightness. The B2 has a larger stage in all dimensions but most will appreciate its much sharper imaging. the OH1s has slightly better separation.
Verdict –
The OH1s is a beautifully designed earphone with excellent build quality and a super svelte form factor. The sound has a unique character that will no doubt appeal to some but cannot be universally praised and recommended. I was impressed by its controlled and textured bass and airy treble. Similarly, it has a large, well-resolved yet low-intensity midrange vocal lovers will enjoy. Conversely, this is a somewhat unfocused sound altogether; pressure and power in the sub-bass leaves wanting as does note attack, imaging lacks stability and assertive directional cues in turn. Furthermore, its especially fit dependent middle-treble and lean note body mean it isn’t the most forgiving listen either.
Accordingly, while the OH1s attempts to be an all-rounder and perhaps abstractly address fallibilities of a bright/revealing signature, it ultimately lacks clear direction and falls short on genre versatility too. It isn’t an earphone with many huge flaws to criticise but certainly idiosyncrasies one should consider before purchase. If my comments don’t sound like deal breakers to you, then there is much to enjoy beyond this. Expect industry-leading comfort and compactness, a resolving midrange and airy top-end that surely carve its own clear niche in-class.
The OH1s can be purchased from ikko for $199 USD and a promotional price of $139 USD during September 2021. I am not affiliated with ikko and receive no earnings from purchases through these links.
Thanks for reading! If you enjoyed my review, please see my website for more just like it!
Track List –
Billie Eilish – dont smile at me
Bob Seger – Night Moves
Courtney Barnett – Rae Street
Cream – Wheels of Fire
Dire Straits – Communique
Dirty Loops – Next To You
Eagles – Hotel California
Elton John – Honky Chateau
Fleetwood Mac – Rumours
H.E.R – I Used To Know Her
Jasen – BYE
John Mayer – Continuum
Kanye West – Ye
Missy Higgins – The Sound of White
Radiohead – OK Computer
TALA – ain’t leavin` without you
The Beatles – Abbey Road
The weeknd – After Hours
Vampire Weekend – Father of the Bride
ikko is definitely a company I’ve been meaning to work with for some time. They have an alluring range of hybrid IEMs and some snazzy portable DAC/AMPs too. In particular, the company is known to offer innovative form factors with regards to both of these, and their IEMs too offer a striking abstract aesthetic. A few years back, the company released the original OH1 that originally put the company on the map. This was a dual-magnet structure Ti DD + Knowles 33518 BA hybrid monitor that many lauded for its bass performance. The OH10 released last year used the same driver setup but implemented a pure copper acoustic chamber in addition to optimising the nozzle diameter to reduce resonances and distortion. The OH1s is their latest model and another evolution of the same formula. While the BA tweeter remains unchanged, the OH1s implemented a new carbon-nanotube dynamic driver and makes all-round upgrades to the design. It has a new 3-part acoustic chamber aiming to reduce reflections, resonances and optimise phase coherence, dubbed SVAS acoustic cavity technology. This comes with a new, sleeker form factor and oval tip design.
The OH1s retails for $199 USD but is available for $139 USD at the time of writing and for the remainder of September 2021. You can read more about it and treat yourself to a unit on ikko.
Disclaimer –
I would like to thank Rebecca from ikko very much for reaching out to set up a review of the OH1s. All words are my own and there is no monetary incentive for a positive review. Despite receiving the earphones free of cost, I will attempt to be as objective as possible in my evaluation.
Specifications –
- Driver: 10mm CNT dynamic driver, Knowles 33518 BA
- Impedance: 32 Ohms
- Sensitivity: 109 dB
- Frequency Response: 20 Hz – 40 kHz
Unboxing –
I was very impressed by the unboxing experience, it makes the OH1s feel far more expensive than it is. The outer sleeve has specs and anime-inspired artwork, sliding it off reveals an ikko cover that contains the hard box inside. The user is first greeted to a foam plate showcasing the earphones and exploded diagram of their design. A metal ikko pin is also provided in a very CFA-like fashion. Below is another compartment containing a lovely leather carrying case, the cable and selection of ear tips with their own plastic holder. ikko provide a flexible 5 sizes of memory foam and 5 sizes of silicone tips. Of note, the OH1s is now using proprietary oval tips similar to those seen on the Beyerdynamic Xelento. This gives them an especially comfortable and shallow fit, but also means third party tips don’t seal as well on the nozzle.
Design –
Premium build quality has always been a focus for ikko and the OH1s exemplifies this with its unique and visually distinct 3-piece construction. The alloy sound tube construction and signature rippled faceplates sandwich transparent acrylic, giving it a sleek, modern aesthetic with elegant flowing lines. The faceplates especially captivate with rich contrast and dimension, wrapping around the edges of the shell. This is a very attractive and well-constructed earphone that feels solid yet compact and ergonomic. The triangular profile adds further visual intrigue, true to ikko’s marketing they do indeed resemble gemstones in a charming fashion.
The cable attaches via regular MMCX connectors and there is no key system here making third party cable swaps simple. The stock cable is of pleasing construction and complements the earphones themselves well with its lightweight design and streamlined internal braided structure. However, it is a little springy with some memory meaning it can take some time to straighten out when initially removed from the box. Otherwise, there is little to complain about, the smoke jacket is smoother and the trifecta of conductors below give it a unique look. Metal connectors provide a premium look while well-moulded albeit strangely long ear guides aid a comfortable and stable fit.
Fit & Isolation –
If you have small ears and want a super compact earphone with a slim profile, there aren’t many better options than this. The OH1s sits alongside other outliers like the Xelento with which is shares clear inspiration. This is not a bad thing at all, like that earphone, the shells are absolutely tiny, and their rounded edges prevent hotspots entirely. In addition, they are super slim, meaning you are able to wear these while sleeping with no issue. This is aided by the unique fit style, with oval nozzles and the factory tips designed for them. They have an especially shallow fit but, in return, also wear with basically zero in-ear pressure.
This makes them exceptionally comfortable long-term, and you are quickly able to forget about them. At the same time, their lightweight and low-profile nature combined with an over-eat fit means stability also isn’t a concern. They stay put very well. The downside to all of this is passive noise isolation which is well below average. They block some sound but not much even compared to vented single-DD competitors. The open feel is something some may prefer but it does mean you will need to turn up the volume is used during daily commute. They also aren’t really viable for use in especially loud environments even using the included foam tips.
Sound –
Testing Methodology: Measured using Arta via IEC 711 coupler to Startech external sound card. 7-9KHz peaks may be artefacts/emphasised due to my measurement setup. Measurements besides channel balance are volume matched at 1KHz. Fit depth normalised to my best abilities to reduce coupler resonance. Still, due to these factors, my measurements may not accurately reflect the earphone or measurements taken by others. I gave the OH1s 100hrs of burn-in to ensure maximum performance prior to subjective breakdown.
Tonality –
The OH1s is an intriguing earphone indeed, being surprisingly faithful to reference curves in some regards whilst wildly deviating in others. The net result is an articulate, airy and altogether clearly coloured presentation but also one that remains naturally voiced and tonally clean. It is brighter leaning with an inverse L signature; moderately biased towards treble and, to a lesser extent, vocals. While bass is laid-back by comparison, it is warm and well-structured with a small mid-bass focus, retaining body and power. The new driver and housing design brings a well-controlled sound with some interesting note characteristics throughout. The OH1s feels like an authentic and thought-out design albeit isn’t the most versatile as a result of its colouration. While this means it won’t appeal to everyone, I feel the company has been able to achieve an articulate, vocal-forward sound without fewer drawbacks affecting many competitors.
Bass –
Ikko has combined a warm, full tuning and overall laid-back positioning to provide a solid foundation whilst upholding tonal cleanliness in the midrange. This means that though bass doesn’t announce its presence, plenty of warmth remains to be enjoyed. Its tuning is somewhat atypical with emphasis sustaining quite linearly through the mid and upper-bass but with roll off towards the sub-bass. This is not to be mistaken for a lack of extension as the CNT dynamic driver provides plenty of pressure and slam, albeit I did find this could be overshadowed by the mid-bass on some tracks due to the moderately laid-back positioning. It goes without saying that the OH1s retains plenty of punch and impact in addition to a good amount of gusto and power. As the emphasis is wideband in nature, the timbre is sound, notes are simply slightly thicker and fuller, imbued with a medium but not excessive warmth. Its notes are structured with an emphasis on higher weight rather than plumpness or rounding in the mid-bass as the tuning may initially suggest to some.
This works in tandem with the driver characteristics. The OH1s has relatively slow decay, reinforcing its thick note presentation, and the sub-bass roll off does make some sense here as it aids separation in the mid-bass. I didn’t hear any smear or muddiness however, due to the sub-bass roll off, it doesn’t have the most assertive slam or rumble that has become popularised as of late. Nonetheless, its structured nature and slower decay give it large amounts of texture and the impression of greater dynamics despite attack not being especially aggressive. This reminds me in part of the Moondrop Starfield which shared its CNT diaphragm construction. However, as the driver control is clearly better here, a great performer in-class, the OH1s comes across as more coloured rather than sloppy, upholding strong note definition. It’s a unique bass presentation with a primary focus on note weight and texture whilst still managing to be impressively articulate due to its higher control. This means the OH1s is surprisingly adept at reproducing bass heavy genres such as hip-hop but equally flatters more responsive genres such as pop, funk and jazz.
Mids –
The midrange sits in front of the bass and has a very intriguing mix of qualities. Whilst I was initially inclined to call this a revealing monitor, that isn’t exactly the case. It is, however, well resolved for such an economical earphone, an impression aided by its forward nature. As the OH1s peaks earlier than most at 2kHz and sustains emphasis through to 3 kHz, vocals are brought forward and are increased in size relative to instruments and bass. With a neutral lower-midrange positioning and just ample bass quantity, note weight lies on the leaner side. However, the lift in vocal size works in tandem with a hint of euphonic warmth stemming from the upper-bass to grant a sense of robustness that prevents it from skewing overly lean, metallic or strained. The tuning is pretty solid here and the voicing is natural despite the abundant colouration surrounding. Vocals possess ample coherence and structure on most tracks. A noticeable fall off a 4kHz also helps to counteract the lift in treble brightness and forwardness, meaning it is a low-intensity sound despite being clear and vocal-forward.
I would characterise it more as a vocal-forward monitor here rather than a bright, revealing or clarity-focusing one. This is a great approach as you get intimate, large and well-textured vocals with minimal tonal colouration yet also a good sense of weight when needed. At the same time, extension is maintained via its articulate lower-treble, with a small peak at 5kHz. Accordingly, note definition is lifted and small details are brought to the fore, delivering above average in-class resolving power. However, so too does a little sharpness creep in albeit not to the extent of sibilance. It does give vocals a somewhat breathy and esoteric presentation rather than a full, organic or dense one as the upper-mid nadir might suggest. I did find this to define its voicing more than leanness or dyness in the lower midrange. However, on some pop tracks with heavy vocal processing, I did find this could give the monitor a rather unforgiving character. Altogether, the OH1s is great for those wanting clear, forward vocals executed in a tasteful way and without excessive intensity.
Foreword –
Do note that though my measurement showcases a large 8k peak, this region is emphasized by coupler resonance and may not necessarily be audible. In addition, this region is fit-depth specific, I found I was hearing more brightness around the 10kHz region that was lower in intensity than the lower-treble, which is to my preference. Adjust the tips and fit depth accordingly. Depending on your preferences and ear anatomy, the top-end will either sit at the front of the presentation or just in front of the midrange – greater treble variability is an unfortunate repercussion of such a shallow fit depth. I say this because I’ve seen a range of impressions on the OH1s, some find it neutral, some find it fatiguing. Either way, I would posit that the majority won’t find the enhancements here to be overdone, though do note this isn’t remotely a smooth monitor especially when combined with the slightly laid-back bass and forward midrange.
Highs –
The voicing of the top-end showcases a vibrant, airy performance that avoids fatigue and intensity due to its relative lack of sharpness in the audible range combined with a lift in overtones. Emphasis lies chiefly at 5kHz, instigating a crisp foreground and drawing slightly more focus to the leading edge of notes. However, transient response is on the softer side, leading to an airy and free flowing over hyper-defined or focused foreground detail presentation. The 6kHz nadir could contribute to this impression as well. Instruments sound slightly thin, and notes have a delicate presentation. However, notes decay nicely, imbuing impressive shimmer and vibrance. Still, I didn’t find the OH1s to have the best fine detail retrieval nor the best texture or realistic instrument timbre, it is defined more by the atmosphere it creates in the overall image, rather than the minutiae it discerns within the treble itself.
Above, my ears were hearing level emphasis through the 8-10kHz range sitting just behind the lower-treble. This contributes to an airy, open and atmospheric sound; one that retains good but not outstanding focus on the foreground. Still, I found the balance ample to provide a stable image and, at the same time, weave a convincing sense of headroom. Background detail retrieval is above average but nothing exceptional. The driver does start to break up in this region, so you don’t get an immaculate background or sparkly top-octave. It contributes more to a pleasing sense of air, dimension and layers rather than notable audible detail. The airy and open voicing contributes to the impression of an extended treble despite relatively low resolving power in these regions. It works to the benefit of detail presentation over retrieval and accordingly, small details are brought to the listener’s attention without introducing glare or excessive brightness.
Soundstage –
The OH1s provides a moderately intimate stage but with strong separation/smaller note size that means it still feels relatively open. I has an atypical bias towards height, being more intimate in terms of depth and width but well-proportioned between them. Imaging is quite sharp, you get a strong centre image and a nice lateral spread. Directional cues aren’t super sharp nor is localisation. In tune with the treble note presentation, the overall image too is floatier with less stable positioning. While it lacks the speed to attain holography, the image is fairly multi-dimensional, just not especially sharp. The same goes for layers, there isn’t huge separation between background and foreground due to the airy nature, but the OH1s does have a better resolved background than many around this asking price. Separation is the main strength on display. You get a nice foundation in the bass that remains very well separated from the mids at all times. Note size lies on the leaner size throughout so each note is surrounded by a pleasing sense of air and space.
Driveability –
With a moderate 32-ohm impedance and a higher 109dB sensitivity, the OH1s is relatively efficient and also shouldn’t be exceedingly source sensitive. However, in subjective testing I was surprised at how well this IEM scaled with better amplifier sections especially.
Output impedance sensitivity
Going by the rule of eighths, you would ideally want to pair the OH1s with a source with a sub 4-ohm output impedance. Empirically, I tested this by switching between the Shanling M2X (1-ohm) and Hiby R6 (10-ohms) which revealed a surprisingly similar listening experience. The changes were in tune with individual source colouration though I would posit some of this is also impedance coming into play. The R6 sounded a little tubbier in the bass with a softer note presentation. Treble was thinner but similarly positioned as on the M2X. As a result, I wouldn’t concern too much about output impedance here as the changes are quite small even in sub-ideal circumstances. Of course, a lower number is more ideal.
Driving Power
The OH1s definitely benefits from a dedicated source in this regard, for though the tonality was balanced and volume levels were fine from my Xperia 5 II, I did find the bass performance lacking. In this regard, you don’t need to go overkill, even a dongle like the PEE51 or Hiby FC3 will do just fine. But surely having some sort of dedicated source helps to round out the bass. Swithcing to the FC3 for instance, yielded a noticeably more defined and controlled bass alongside better extension and slam. Stepping up to my desktop stack revealed a larger, airier soundstage. Unfortunately, due to the sensitive BA tweeter, the OH1s does pick up more hiss than most IEMs despite not being especially efficient overall. I was hearing faint hiss on the M2X, but this wasn’t an issue when music was playing. Low volume listeners will want to use a source with a quiet/black noise floor.
Suggested Pair Ups
The OH1s doesn’t require an especially low output impedance but benefits from a dedicated source with regards to driving power and noise levels. Tonally, it pairs well with most source, though those with any form of treble brightness should best be avoided. A warmer or more dynamics source such as the M2X/THX789 are great pairings for bass performance, it definitely benefits from a more aggressive note attack. This applies equally so to the treble due to its softer attack however, again, brightness should be avoided.
Comparisons –
Fiio FH3 ($149): The FH3 is a personal favourite around this price and assumes a similar hybrid driver setup. The FH3 is a bit more balanced, it has more bass and less treble. Its bass emphasis is tonally cleaner and more dynamic, more focused in the sub-bass. In turn, it has a thicker, weightier note presentation with thicker rumble and more powerful slam. The OH1s is slightly more articulate and textured in the mid-bass, it also has slightly higher note definition. But it lacks dynamics by comparison, preferring a smoother textured, warmer presentation. The midrange is more neutral on the FH3, sligthly lean but mostly innocuous. It’s a clean, natural tuning that leaves little to be desired.
The OH1s is more vocal-forward, equally lean but more articulate so it is slightly more vibrant and defined but also less coherent. Otherwise, it sounds similar in terms of voicing and both resolve similarly, the OH1s perhaps a little better. The OH1s has a brighter treble tuning, but the FH3 has a more focused detail presentation with sharper foreground note attack. It has better fine detail retrieval and also isn’t as peaky, delivering better note body and texture. The FH3 has a darker, cleaner background while the OH1s is crisper and more energetic with greater air and headroom. The FH3 has a slightly larger soundstage, neither excel here. The FH3 does have better layering while the OH1s has slightly better separation.
Final Audio A4000 ($160): The A4000 takes the bright tuning approach one step further but with greater sub-bass presence balancing it out. The OH1s has slightly better sub-bass extension but less slam and weight here. The OH1s has slightly better driver control and a slightly more textured mid-bass. The A4000 is more dynamics and punchier, it has a cleaner mid-bass tuning. The A4000 has a thinner, cooler midrange with greater upper-mid bias. The OH1s is slightly more balanced here and more structured due to its lower emphasis and greater density.
I find the OH1s to be more naturally voiced, it doesn’t have as much intensity and glare, and better coherence overall. The OH1s is also more resolving here of layers and small details. The A4000 has a brighter, crisper tuning in the foreground. It has a sharper attack and produces similar detail retrieval to the OH1s at a lower price. Its dynamics driver gives it a bit more texture too. The OH1s is more refined sounding, it isn’t as bright and has a better resolved background with more air and openness, the A4000 sounding more aggressive. The A4000 has a wider soundstage while the OH1s has better imaging and layering.
Campfire Audio Satsuma ($199): The Satuma is a single-BA earphone with a vocal-focus making it direct competition to the OH1s. It has a fuller bass with greater sub-bass weight but also far less extension compared to the hybrid OH1s. It lacks pressure and power at the very bottom despite being more forward here in tuning. The OH1s has a more textured, powerful bass response despite having a bit less sub-bass presence. The Satsuma is faster decaying and a bit more articulate but doesn’t have the same natural timbre to my ears. The midrange is slightly more forward on the OH1s, the Satsuma has a smaller vocal size and isn’t quite as intimate. It has a warmer voicing and a smoother articulation giving it higher coherence.
The OH1s is more vivid and immedaite. It is more textured and resolving, with greater vocal size, it sounds more powerful and structured. The Satsuma has a smoother lower-treble but some crispness and air in the middle-treble. While it does have a sharper note attack than the OH1s, its smoother tuning means it is slightly less detailed in practice. The OH1s has a bit more background detail, the Satsuma is similar in its airy approach but less resolving here. The Satsuma has a wider stage despite this, and a darker, cleaner background. It has sharper imaging too while the OH1s has better separation.
Moondrop Blessing 2 ($319): Moondrop doesn’t really have a direct competitor in this price range, I suppose the new KATO is closest but that model wasn’t available to me at the time of writing this review. The question then becomes whether buyers should consider saving another $100 and I think a reasonable case can be made.
The Blessing 2 is equally well extended but has a heftier sub-bass presence. It has more slam and weight. The OH1s is slightly more laid-back and has a less prominent rumble. It is slightly fuller and warmer and also showcases slightly better driver control and note definition, the B2 being more dynamic and linear in return. The OH1s has a slightly more vocal-forward midrange but not by much. The voicing is also not too dissimilar, the OH1s is a touch leaner and has a sharper articulation, but it’s also a little more separated. The B2 is more coherent with more accurate note body. It is more resolving, it has better extension and layering and also a more consistent voicing on tracks of different mastering styles due to its more linear tuning.
The treble plays into this mostly, the B2 is more even throughout, the OH1s has a bumpier tuning. The B2 has a sharper note attack in the lower-treble. Its notes have more bite and it has much better fine detail retrieval, a more focused detail presentation and a cleaner background. The OH1s is brighter, it has a thinner note body but also higher clarity. Chiefly, it is airier in the middle-treble, albeit the B2 is noticeably more resolving of detail here and less polarising in terms of brightness. The B2 has a larger stage in all dimensions but most will appreciate its much sharper imaging. the OH1s has slightly better separation.
Verdict –
The OH1s is a beautifully designed earphone with excellent build quality and a super svelte form factor. The sound has a unique character that will no doubt appeal to some but cannot be universally praised and recommended. I was impressed by its controlled and textured bass and airy treble. Similarly, it has a large, well-resolved yet low-intensity midrange vocal lovers will enjoy. Conversely, this is a somewhat unfocused sound altogether; pressure and power in the sub-bass leaves wanting as does note attack, imaging lacks stability and assertive directional cues in turn. Furthermore, its especially fit dependent middle-treble and lean note body mean it isn’t the most forgiving listen either.
Accordingly, while the OH1s attempts to be an all-rounder and perhaps abstractly address fallibilities of a bright/revealing signature, it ultimately lacks clear direction and falls short on genre versatility too. It isn’t an earphone with many huge flaws to criticise but certainly idiosyncrasies one should consider before purchase. If my comments don’t sound like deal breakers to you, then there is much to enjoy beyond this. Expect industry-leading comfort and compactness, a resolving midrange and airy top-end that surely carve its own clear niche in-class.
The OH1s can be purchased from ikko for $199 USD and a promotional price of $139 USD during September 2021. I am not affiliated with ikko and receive no earnings from purchases through these links.
Thanks for reading! If you enjoyed my review, please see my website for more just like it!
Track List –
Billie Eilish – dont smile at me
Bob Seger – Night Moves
Courtney Barnett – Rae Street
Cream – Wheels of Fire
Dire Straits – Communique
Dirty Loops – Next To You
Eagles – Hotel California
Elton John – Honky Chateau
Fleetwood Mac – Rumours
H.E.R – I Used To Know Her
Jasen – BYE
John Mayer – Continuum
Kanye West – Ye
Missy Higgins – The Sound of White
Radiohead – OK Computer
TALA – ain’t leavin` without you
The Beatles – Abbey Road
The weeknd – After Hours
Vampire Weekend – Father of the Bride
TLDR –
Through its unique combination of qualities and thoughtful execution, the Phoenix is able to carve out a reasonably uncontested niche in the audio market for bass lovers who still value clear vocals and a spacious soundstage.
Introduction –
SIVGA are a Chinese audio company founded in 2016 who focus on stunning wooden designs and competitive pricing. They work hand-in-hand with Sendy Audio, their premium division, who recently achieved renown for their well-received Aiva planar magnetic headphone. The Phoenix is their latest creation, an open-back over-ear headphone featuring a huge 50mm dynamic driver. Signature to Sivga, the Phoenix features a premium bill of materials with special mention going to its gorgeous zebra wood cups. Sivga promises a rich and natural sound from its custom dynamic driver with moderate pricing placing it in direct comparison to some of the most acclaimed planar magnetic options on the market such as the Hifiman Sundara. Still, this is a unique approach and one that does feel well-executed to boot.
The Phoenix sits just below the planar P-II in Sivga’s line-up at $299 USD. You can read all about it and treat yourself to a set on Sivga’s website. See also Sendy’s website for their premium planar offerings here.
Disclaimer –
I would like to thank Collin from Sivga and Mark from Capisco Ltd very much for their quick communication and for providing me with the Phoenix and Upgrade Pads for the purpose of review. All words are my own and there is no monetary incentive for a positive review. Despite receiving the headphones free of cost, I will attempt to be as objective as possible in my evaluation.
Specifications –
Behind the Design –
Special Film
The Phoenix’s dynamic driver features a uniquely developed polycarbonate film and independently developed diaphragm structure. The company specifies a clear focus on rigidity in order to reduce modal breakup at high frequencies. Meanwhile, a lightweight construction with copper-clad aluminium voice coil promises an agile transient response for a detailed, extended and low-distortion sound. This is enhanced by the adoption of a 3mm thick rubidium iron boron magnet that provides strong driver control and low-end drive. A 32-ohm impedance makes the Phoenix easy to drive.
Unboxing –
Sivga creates a premium unboxing experience for the Phoenix with a gorgeous wood-grain and carbon-fibre textured hard box that slides open to reveal a zippered hard case. The case is excellent, moulded specifically for the Phoenix to provide a perfect, extra-secure fit during storage. It has a faux-leather texture and feels very well-constructed, four feet on its base enable the case to stand upright as well. Inside are the headphones and cable within a drawstring hessian pouch. Sivga also provides a 1/4″ adaptor for use with desktop amplifiers. Altogether, a well-considered and high-quality experience!
Design –
Immediately, it’s hard not to appreciate the gorgeous painted stainless steel and zebra wood build that stands out as a defining feature of this headphone. The Phoenix appears premium in materials and provides a timeless retro aesthetic with adjacent chrome and woodgrain drawing the eye. The metal hangers and headband are reasonably lightweight but feel sturdy in the hand, reinforced by well-weighted and smoothly articulating hinges. Due to its compact dimensions, the Phoenix also is far from a heavy headphone at just under 300g despite its construction mostly employing robust metal parts.
This experience is complemented by a slide-to-adjust suspension headband with a wide, padded goat leather strap. It feels super soft and, being authentic leather, should also hold up better over time than faux so long as it is appropriately maintained. The pads are super soft with memory foam interior that conforms well to the individual’s head shape. The sides are pleather, and the face made from a soft suede that provides a comfortable and slightly more breathable experience.
The cable attaches via 2.5mm mono plugs which is a less popular choice these days but still commonly available on aftermarket cables. Unfortunately, I am not so enthusiastic about the Phoenix’s stock cable which is thin and flimsy, barely thick enough to be an IEM cable. Albeit, the cable is very light and unobtrusive, it is also very compliant and doesn’t irk during listening. The connectors are metal and terminations have a nice strain-relief, the 3.5mm plug, in particular, employing a robust spring-loaded one. Still, the thinness is a concern for longevity to me, I would like to have seen a more robust cable that better complements the build of the headphones themselves.
Fit & Isolation –
Looking over the design, I was expecting a very comfortable fit, however, the Phoenix’s compact dimensions mean there are some concessions for all-day at-home listening. The headband has fairly limited adjustment relative to most competitors. I personally felt I required slightly more length as I was just able to fit the headphones with the setting maxed out. Otherwise, the headband is comfortable and didn’t form any hotspots for me over time. Though do keep in mind, that If you find yourself maxing out the slider on most headphones, the Phoenix may not fit.
In addition, while the earpads are soft and compliant, they are also very shallow. The opening is large enough to engulf my ears by a hair, however, the lack of width means the drivers are constantly pressed against them, causing soreness after an hour or two of listening. The discomfort was mild and I was able to listen for longer, though the Phoenix does feel more to me like a portable headphone than a full-size open-back as a result. The lightweight build and slim pads to me seem contradictory for an open-back design that is not ideal for portable use, and yet it almost appears geared towards it.
This may be the intention of the design as it does isolate considerably more than most open-back headphones, albeit not nearly to the extent of a closed-back model yet alone the stronger ANC performers out there around this price. This does mean they do in a pinch for basic commute. Still, they do leak sound which is not ideal for public transport. I feel the pad design is intentional to deliver the best sound, that said.
Upgrade Pads
For those concerned about the earpads, Sivga do offer OEM protein leather replacements that offer an additional half-centimetre of width for only $15. The pads are held in place by a twist-lock like most competitors making pad swapping easy – though of note, they do rotate clockwise rather than anticlockwise to disengage so take care to twist in the right direction during removal. The company was kind enough to send over a pair for evaluation. Though they aren’t as breathable as the stock pads with an entirely faux leather construction without the velour of the stock pads, but do successfully provide more of an over-ear fit. For my ears, they were noticeably more comfortable for longer listening sessions as they reduced contact between the driver and my ears. I think this is a fine option and a reasonably priced extra, though do note that they will change the sound quite noticeably as I will touch on in the
Sound –
Tonality –
As audio enthusiasts, I feel we have a tendency to demonise bass emphasis. I personally feel it is best to consider personal preference here and to judge tonality on a case by case basis. For the Phoenix is a warm, rich and slightly bass-orientated headphone yet also an articulate and charming one. This also makes it quite unconventional for an open-back. Nevertheless, it retains modest balance overall, with a subtle L-shape, bringing the vocal range forward with some upper-midrange emphasis alongside a crisp lower-treble in equal measure. I would not consider this to be an especially high-contrast sound with a generally warmer and fuller expression instigated by its robust bass of which mid-bass steals the show, being most prominent in the sound. There’s a moderate dip entering the midrange for separation before a gentle rise to a small 3kHz hump that brings vocals forward and enhances their clarity. The treble is reasonably even with a small lower-treble peak enhancing articulation and detail presence. Altogether, a coloured yet involving sound that doesn’t sacrifice too much balance.
Upgrade Pads
Sivga’s upgraded earpads offer a strong sealing shape and pleather construction which impacts the sound. Swapping to the upgrade pads, I noticed a more bass-forward sound with a more laid-back midrange. As emphasis appears to be mostly within the sub/deep-bass rather than the mid-bass, bloat is not exacerbated. However, I did find these pads to sound less coherent than the stock units, as bass became a bit boomier and less defined. In return, you do receive a more pressurized and hard-hitting low-end that generally draws more focus. The midrange was more recessed but also higher-contrast with enhanced clarity. The stock pads were more natural to my ear in addition to being more balanced. The high-end appeared relatively unchanged and I didn’t hear a large difference in terms of soundstage either. However, the further increase in bass quantity and more laid-back midrange are something to consider if you currently enjoy the sonic balance but would like more spacious ear pads.
Bass –
The low-end draws attention with its size and power forming the foundation of a fun and engaging sound. It has a clear bias towards the mid-bass, though the sub-bass still provides commanding presence with a satisfying slam and pressure enabled by impressively strong extension, especially for an open-back headphone. Rumble is clearly defined though impact could be more focused. The mid-bass has a moderate hump instigating a punchy, full and warm low-end presentation with a heavier note weight. There’s a gentle slope downwards through the upper-bass and lower-midrange that redeems separation and prevents excess bass spill. Bass itself isn’t bloated to my ears, but notes are clearly enlarged and full which can sap definition on some tracks.
The note presentation as well goes hand in hand with the tuning, being smooth whilst upholding decent speed to retain definition and separation. Sub-bass attack is slightly more diffuse despite the hearty increase in note weight so slam doesn’t pound the skull and the bass is characterised by a smoother texture overall. I see this as a positive, preventing the headphone from becoming overly fatiguing and bass dominated. Mid-bass control is a standout performer, being a bit quicker than the sub-bass and delivering impressive tightness and definition. There isn’t a huge amount of separation due to its fullness though a nice, natural decay enables a presentation that is well-textured, lush and easy to appreciate. Surely compared to some planar competitors, the Phoenix is not quite as agile and defined, but brings its own unique qualities here that reward in equal measure.
Mids –
Relative to the bass, mids occupy a slightly laid-back position though they remain far from veiled or recessed. Considering its bass tuning, the Phoenix has good extension and openness alongside impressively strong note definition. Though do note that separation and definition are not a defining feature of this headphone, which is more characterised by its lushness enabled by its generally warmer and full-bodied character. In turn, it has a rich, filled-in note structure without a hint of dryness whilst maintaining good, if not great separation. There remains as well, admirable balance between male and female vocals. However, instruments do sound more obviously coloured to my ears, being richer, warmer and also slightly more laid-back. Nonetheless, they sound organic and not over-done in terms of colouration which might be to your preferences. Vocals, however, really steal the show, being empowered with a more forward position, sitting just behind the bass.
They possess enhanced clarity and articulation on behalf of the upper-midrange and lower-treble tuning. Accordingly, the vocal presentation is glossy and clear if a touch raspy at times, though also never thin or sharp with the headphone’s rich warmth and body acting as ballast. I find vocals to strike a good balance, they aren’t too intimate or peaky, similarly, not especially prone to muffle or chestiness due to the small lower-mid dip. The midrange on a whole upholds a respectable amount of cleanliness and a natural voicing with its progressive emphasis. Though this remains a clearly coloured sound, linearity was never the intention and I feel the tuning is well-considered for a bass-orientated headphone. It is not so easy to come by a headphone that provides richness and clarity in equal measure and executes this in such a natural fashion, especially within this price range.
Highs –
The Phoenix provides a crisp and energetic high-end expression that lifts its presentation and enhances its atmosphere. Focus centres around a small peak just above the lower-treble that grants treble instrumentation with a lighter note weight and provides the impression of a more sparkly and separated performance. Regardless, there is good texture here alongside ample body to retain a mostly natural presentation altogether, although this is clearly not the Phoenix’s priority here as body remains clearly on the thinner side. Rather, the small emphasis permits treble details to cut through its otherwise thicker voicing, enhancing intelligibility and fine detail retrieval. The Phoenix is far from the most detailed headphone I’ve heard but provides a satisfying combination of focus and clarity here and, much like the midrange, does so sans sharpness and fatigue.
To reiterate, this is not a bright headphone but a slightly more open sounding one, a well-considered tuning decision given its lusher sound below. It has average detail retrieval in-class but details are more apparent given its slightly more energetic tuning. Extension as well never feels lacking though it too is clearly not on the level of a higher-end model with minimal micro-detail and sparkle in its top-octave. The Phoenix nonetheless, provides a distinct foreground and background, creating a nicely layered presentation with good cleanliness that draws further focus to its energetic foreground detail presentation. Despite this, it also has a good amount of air due to the small middle-treble peak and its stronger headroom surely works much to its advantage in crafting the impression of overall balance and continuity.
Soundstage –
Despite not being outstanding from an extension and detail retrieval point of view, the soundstage is impressively expansive, especially considering its slightly less-open form factor. The Phoenix offers a good combination of out of the head width and impressive depth too, providing a slightly oval presentation. It’s no HD800 but never feels remotely closed in either. Imaging is a good performer as well with a defined centre image and reasonably sharp directional cues.
Like most headphones in this price range, it offers a nice lateral spread with an emphasis on organised, defined layers, but little ability to accurately project coronally besides lead vocals. Still, this makes for an involving presentation that is clearly above the average headphone. Separation is a weaker point of this headphone, not a poor performer, but certainly not outstanding either due to its generally lusher presentation. It errs on the rich and coherent side over being separated and highly-defined but has a little added contrast that prevents congestion.
Driveability –
With a 32-ohm impedance and 103dB sensitivity, the Phoenix was designed to be easy to drive. Being an over-ear headphone, it also isn’t especially sensitive to source noise. As always, the numbers do not tell the full story with regards to driveability.
Output impedance sensitivity
I would estimate that the Phoenix has a fairly flat impedance curve given that there were minimal audible differences between the Hiby R6 (10-ohms) and Shanling M2X (1-ohm). Subtle differences were discernible between the sources though likely this is due to the colouration of the sources themselves. This means a low-output impedance is not required to provide a sound faithful to the company’s design and the Phoenix can be enjoyed from high-impedance sources such as tube amplifiers.
Driving power
Switching between my desktop stack with THX789 and Topping D70s with the Shanling M2X revealed that the Phoenix does scale nicely with better sources. The M2X did an admirable job driving the Phoenix, in fact, bass extension was about the same as was overall frequency balance. The Phoenix even sounded balanced from my Xperia 5 II’s integrated headphone jack and no noise was perceptible on any of these sources. That said, the desktop source clearly sounded the best, the transient response was noticeably sharper, with higher note definition from bass to treble. It was more detailed and focused but there wasn’t a huge change in sub-bass power or overall balance. In addition, the desktop stack provided a more spacious soundstage though not by a huge degree.
Suggested Pair Ups
The Phoenix is indeed easy to drive as promised by the company both with regards to power and output impedance. Though it does thrive with a bit more power, aiding a more detailed and defined presentation. In my testing, the Phoenix is best paired with a neutral to analytical source due to its smooth and lush nature. Warmer and smoother sources may overly blunt its presentation. My personal preference is for a more detailed source with a sharp transient response such as the iBasso DX200 with AMP5 which provided the more defined and textured sound.
Comparisons –
Meze 99 Neo ($199): The Meze 99 Neo is a warm and dense portable headphone that shares a beautiful aesthetic and build with the Phoenix. It is even more bass orientated with a more laid-back midrange. Its bass, however, is quite linear with just a little upper-bass emphasis that is mostly responsible for its warm and full sound. The Phoenix is a little cleaner and more dynamic, the 99 Neo is a thicker sounding headphone with greater bass presence but at the cost of being less textured and articulate. The Phoenix has slightly better extension on top, granting it a higher energy bass despite being less bassy overall. The midrange is clearer and cleaner on the Phoenix with higher contrast and better separation.
The 99 Neo is warmer, fuller and more laid-back. It sounds more coherent with a denser upper-midrange which makes it sound noticeably thicker and less open. Both sound quite natural, but the Phoenix strikes a better balance to my ears. The 99 Neo has a more pronounced lower-treble, especially by contrast to its more recessed upper-midrange. The Phoenix is slightly more detailed and also offers greater headroom, though neither are especially resolving at the very top. The 99 Neo, despite its closed-back design, offers almost the same soundstage width. The Phoenix offers better separation and sharper imaging.
Sennheiser HD6XX ($220): The HD6XX is a staple around this price range, its clean and natural tonality making granting it timeless appeal. From a technical point of view, however, it’s easy to see how the industry has progressed over the last decade. The Phoenix has noticeably stronger extension in the bass alongside a generally fuller and more emphasised low-end. Both are warmer headphones, the Phoenix more so. Despite having more bass, the Phoenix has stronger definition and dynamics down low. The midrange is cleaner and more linear on the HD6XX in addition to being less vocal-forward.
The Phoenix is clearly more coloured, having greater clarity and articulation in addition to greater body and warmth, it sounds higher contrast. On the contrary, the HD6XX is more even and accurate, it’s a little over-articulated but altogether, a cleaner and more natural sound. The treble is more forward on the HD6XX but also less detailed with a hazier transient response. The Phoenix sounds more focused in the foreground and has a bit more headroom. In turn, the Phoenix also has a noticeably more spacious soundstage and I find it has sharper imaging too.
Hifiman DEVA/Sundara: The Hifiman models are all staples around this price range. The DEVA is basically a bumpier Sundara with a little less range but at a substantial discount and with wireless functionality. Compared to the Phoenix, the Hifiman headphones are clearly more balanced and linear, the Sundara especially so. The bass extension is clearly the best on the Phoenix and it has the most mid-bass on top, having the fullest voicing and greatest note weight, the Phoenix has the best dynamics by a good amount and hits the hardest down low. The Sundara and DEVA are both lightly warm but mostly balanced headphones, both are more separated and defined than the Phoenix with greater speed and sharper note attack. The Phoenix is actually the most vocal-forward of the lot, the Sundara being u-shaped, the DEVA a touch more vivid.
The Hifiman headphones sound more even, slightly smooth in the case of the Sundara, slightly clear for the DEVA. By comparison, the Phoenix has more upper-midrange presence and noticeably stronger contrast. It is more articulate but also less refined. The treble tells the same story, the Phoenix being slightly more energetic than both, but also less detailed. The Sundara especially has noticeably better extension and headroom, being generally more linear, accurate and resolving in the treble. The Sundara has the largest soundstage, the DEVA being about on par with the Phoenix. The Phoenix has more defined layers but the Sundara and DEVA both have more accurate localisation alongside stronger separation due to their more balanced tuning.
Verdict –
The Phoenix is a fairly unique headphone and this means you should keep your expectations in check. Due to its colouration, those wanting a pure sound should look elsewhere and, accordingly, do not expect perfect genre versatility either. This headphone wears its colours on its sleeve, what buyers receive is a punchy, dynamic yet articulate sound in an aesthetically striking shell; a positive impression further reinforced by a premium build and accessory set. On the contrary, this isn’t the most detailed nor extended sound out there and those requiring a large headband adjustment range or with wider ears may find the Phoenix’s compact dimensions challenging. It cannot be denied that Sivga has admirably executed what they set out to achieve; balancing a hearty bass with a clear yet natural vocal range and energetic high-end without introducing fatigue at any level. This is not so easy to achieve and demonstrates careful consideration on Sivga’s behalf. Through its unique combination of qualities and thoughtful execution, the Phoenix is able to carve out a reasonably uncontested niche in the audio market for bass lovers who still value clear vocals and a spacious soundstage.
The Phoenix is available from Sivga (International) for $299 USD at the time of writing. I am not affiliated with Sivga or Capsico and receive no earnings from purchases made through these links.
Track List –
Arcade Fire – The Suburbs
Archive – Controlling Crows (Parts I – III)
AKMU – SAILING
Bob Segar – Night Moves
Courtney Barnett – Tell Me How Your Really Feel
Eric Clapton – Unplugged
Gorillaz – Plastic Beach
Fleetwood Mac – Greatest Hits
John Legend – Once Again
MAMAMOO – reality in BLACK
MGMT – Oracular Spectacular
Modest House – Good News For People Who Love Bad News
NIKI – lowkey
Nirvana – Nervermind
Radiohead – OK Computer
Social House – Haunt You
suggi – cheer up!
TOTO – Toto IV
Vampire Weekend – Father of the Bride
Vaundy – strobo
Through its unique combination of qualities and thoughtful execution, the Phoenix is able to carve out a reasonably uncontested niche in the audio market for bass lovers who still value clear vocals and a spacious soundstage.
Introduction –
SIVGA are a Chinese audio company founded in 2016 who focus on stunning wooden designs and competitive pricing. They work hand-in-hand with Sendy Audio, their premium division, who recently achieved renown for their well-received Aiva planar magnetic headphone. The Phoenix is their latest creation, an open-back over-ear headphone featuring a huge 50mm dynamic driver. Signature to Sivga, the Phoenix features a premium bill of materials with special mention going to its gorgeous zebra wood cups. Sivga promises a rich and natural sound from its custom dynamic driver with moderate pricing placing it in direct comparison to some of the most acclaimed planar magnetic options on the market such as the Hifiman Sundara. Still, this is a unique approach and one that does feel well-executed to boot.
The Phoenix sits just below the planar P-II in Sivga’s line-up at $299 USD. You can read all about it and treat yourself to a set on Sivga’s website. See also Sendy’s website for their premium planar offerings here.
Disclaimer –
I would like to thank Collin from Sivga and Mark from Capisco Ltd very much for their quick communication and for providing me with the Phoenix and Upgrade Pads for the purpose of review. All words are my own and there is no monetary incentive for a positive review. Despite receiving the headphones free of cost, I will attempt to be as objective as possible in my evaluation.
Specifications –
- Driver: 50mm Dynamic Driver
- Impedance: 32 ohms
- Sensitivity: 103dB
- Frequency Response: 20 Hz – 20 kHz
- Weight: 296g
Behind the Design –
Special Film
The Phoenix’s dynamic driver features a uniquely developed polycarbonate film and independently developed diaphragm structure. The company specifies a clear focus on rigidity in order to reduce modal breakup at high frequencies. Meanwhile, a lightweight construction with copper-clad aluminium voice coil promises an agile transient response for a detailed, extended and low-distortion sound. This is enhanced by the adoption of a 3mm thick rubidium iron boron magnet that provides strong driver control and low-end drive. A 32-ohm impedance makes the Phoenix easy to drive.
Unboxing –
Sivga creates a premium unboxing experience for the Phoenix with a gorgeous wood-grain and carbon-fibre textured hard box that slides open to reveal a zippered hard case. The case is excellent, moulded specifically for the Phoenix to provide a perfect, extra-secure fit during storage. It has a faux-leather texture and feels very well-constructed, four feet on its base enable the case to stand upright as well. Inside are the headphones and cable within a drawstring hessian pouch. Sivga also provides a 1/4″ adaptor for use with desktop amplifiers. Altogether, a well-considered and high-quality experience!
Design –
Immediately, it’s hard not to appreciate the gorgeous painted stainless steel and zebra wood build that stands out as a defining feature of this headphone. The Phoenix appears premium in materials and provides a timeless retro aesthetic with adjacent chrome and woodgrain drawing the eye. The metal hangers and headband are reasonably lightweight but feel sturdy in the hand, reinforced by well-weighted and smoothly articulating hinges. Due to its compact dimensions, the Phoenix also is far from a heavy headphone at just under 300g despite its construction mostly employing robust metal parts.
This experience is complemented by a slide-to-adjust suspension headband with a wide, padded goat leather strap. It feels super soft and, being authentic leather, should also hold up better over time than faux so long as it is appropriately maintained. The pads are super soft with memory foam interior that conforms well to the individual’s head shape. The sides are pleather, and the face made from a soft suede that provides a comfortable and slightly more breathable experience.
The cable attaches via 2.5mm mono plugs which is a less popular choice these days but still commonly available on aftermarket cables. Unfortunately, I am not so enthusiastic about the Phoenix’s stock cable which is thin and flimsy, barely thick enough to be an IEM cable. Albeit, the cable is very light and unobtrusive, it is also very compliant and doesn’t irk during listening. The connectors are metal and terminations have a nice strain-relief, the 3.5mm plug, in particular, employing a robust spring-loaded one. Still, the thinness is a concern for longevity to me, I would like to have seen a more robust cable that better complements the build of the headphones themselves.
Fit & Isolation –
Looking over the design, I was expecting a very comfortable fit, however, the Phoenix’s compact dimensions mean there are some concessions for all-day at-home listening. The headband has fairly limited adjustment relative to most competitors. I personally felt I required slightly more length as I was just able to fit the headphones with the setting maxed out. Otherwise, the headband is comfortable and didn’t form any hotspots for me over time. Though do keep in mind, that If you find yourself maxing out the slider on most headphones, the Phoenix may not fit.
In addition, while the earpads are soft and compliant, they are also very shallow. The opening is large enough to engulf my ears by a hair, however, the lack of width means the drivers are constantly pressed against them, causing soreness after an hour or two of listening. The discomfort was mild and I was able to listen for longer, though the Phoenix does feel more to me like a portable headphone than a full-size open-back as a result. The lightweight build and slim pads to me seem contradictory for an open-back design that is not ideal for portable use, and yet it almost appears geared towards it.
This may be the intention of the design as it does isolate considerably more than most open-back headphones, albeit not nearly to the extent of a closed-back model yet alone the stronger ANC performers out there around this price. This does mean they do in a pinch for basic commute. Still, they do leak sound which is not ideal for public transport. I feel the pad design is intentional to deliver the best sound, that said.
Upgrade Pads
For those concerned about the earpads, Sivga do offer OEM protein leather replacements that offer an additional half-centimetre of width for only $15. The pads are held in place by a twist-lock like most competitors making pad swapping easy – though of note, they do rotate clockwise rather than anticlockwise to disengage so take care to twist in the right direction during removal. The company was kind enough to send over a pair for evaluation. Though they aren’t as breathable as the stock pads with an entirely faux leather construction without the velour of the stock pads, but do successfully provide more of an over-ear fit. For my ears, they were noticeably more comfortable for longer listening sessions as they reduced contact between the driver and my ears. I think this is a fine option and a reasonably priced extra, though do note that they will change the sound quite noticeably as I will touch on in the
Sound –
Tonality –
As audio enthusiasts, I feel we have a tendency to demonise bass emphasis. I personally feel it is best to consider personal preference here and to judge tonality on a case by case basis. For the Phoenix is a warm, rich and slightly bass-orientated headphone yet also an articulate and charming one. This also makes it quite unconventional for an open-back. Nevertheless, it retains modest balance overall, with a subtle L-shape, bringing the vocal range forward with some upper-midrange emphasis alongside a crisp lower-treble in equal measure. I would not consider this to be an especially high-contrast sound with a generally warmer and fuller expression instigated by its robust bass of which mid-bass steals the show, being most prominent in the sound. There’s a moderate dip entering the midrange for separation before a gentle rise to a small 3kHz hump that brings vocals forward and enhances their clarity. The treble is reasonably even with a small lower-treble peak enhancing articulation and detail presence. Altogether, a coloured yet involving sound that doesn’t sacrifice too much balance.
Upgrade Pads
Sivga’s upgraded earpads offer a strong sealing shape and pleather construction which impacts the sound. Swapping to the upgrade pads, I noticed a more bass-forward sound with a more laid-back midrange. As emphasis appears to be mostly within the sub/deep-bass rather than the mid-bass, bloat is not exacerbated. However, I did find these pads to sound less coherent than the stock units, as bass became a bit boomier and less defined. In return, you do receive a more pressurized and hard-hitting low-end that generally draws more focus. The midrange was more recessed but also higher-contrast with enhanced clarity. The stock pads were more natural to my ear in addition to being more balanced. The high-end appeared relatively unchanged and I didn’t hear a large difference in terms of soundstage either. However, the further increase in bass quantity and more laid-back midrange are something to consider if you currently enjoy the sonic balance but would like more spacious ear pads.
Bass –
The low-end draws attention with its size and power forming the foundation of a fun and engaging sound. It has a clear bias towards the mid-bass, though the sub-bass still provides commanding presence with a satisfying slam and pressure enabled by impressively strong extension, especially for an open-back headphone. Rumble is clearly defined though impact could be more focused. The mid-bass has a moderate hump instigating a punchy, full and warm low-end presentation with a heavier note weight. There’s a gentle slope downwards through the upper-bass and lower-midrange that redeems separation and prevents excess bass spill. Bass itself isn’t bloated to my ears, but notes are clearly enlarged and full which can sap definition on some tracks.
The note presentation as well goes hand in hand with the tuning, being smooth whilst upholding decent speed to retain definition and separation. Sub-bass attack is slightly more diffuse despite the hearty increase in note weight so slam doesn’t pound the skull and the bass is characterised by a smoother texture overall. I see this as a positive, preventing the headphone from becoming overly fatiguing and bass dominated. Mid-bass control is a standout performer, being a bit quicker than the sub-bass and delivering impressive tightness and definition. There isn’t a huge amount of separation due to its fullness though a nice, natural decay enables a presentation that is well-textured, lush and easy to appreciate. Surely compared to some planar competitors, the Phoenix is not quite as agile and defined, but brings its own unique qualities here that reward in equal measure.
Mids –
Relative to the bass, mids occupy a slightly laid-back position though they remain far from veiled or recessed. Considering its bass tuning, the Phoenix has good extension and openness alongside impressively strong note definition. Though do note that separation and definition are not a defining feature of this headphone, which is more characterised by its lushness enabled by its generally warmer and full-bodied character. In turn, it has a rich, filled-in note structure without a hint of dryness whilst maintaining good, if not great separation. There remains as well, admirable balance between male and female vocals. However, instruments do sound more obviously coloured to my ears, being richer, warmer and also slightly more laid-back. Nonetheless, they sound organic and not over-done in terms of colouration which might be to your preferences. Vocals, however, really steal the show, being empowered with a more forward position, sitting just behind the bass.
They possess enhanced clarity and articulation on behalf of the upper-midrange and lower-treble tuning. Accordingly, the vocal presentation is glossy and clear if a touch raspy at times, though also never thin or sharp with the headphone’s rich warmth and body acting as ballast. I find vocals to strike a good balance, they aren’t too intimate or peaky, similarly, not especially prone to muffle or chestiness due to the small lower-mid dip. The midrange on a whole upholds a respectable amount of cleanliness and a natural voicing with its progressive emphasis. Though this remains a clearly coloured sound, linearity was never the intention and I feel the tuning is well-considered for a bass-orientated headphone. It is not so easy to come by a headphone that provides richness and clarity in equal measure and executes this in such a natural fashion, especially within this price range.
Highs –
The Phoenix provides a crisp and energetic high-end expression that lifts its presentation and enhances its atmosphere. Focus centres around a small peak just above the lower-treble that grants treble instrumentation with a lighter note weight and provides the impression of a more sparkly and separated performance. Regardless, there is good texture here alongside ample body to retain a mostly natural presentation altogether, although this is clearly not the Phoenix’s priority here as body remains clearly on the thinner side. Rather, the small emphasis permits treble details to cut through its otherwise thicker voicing, enhancing intelligibility and fine detail retrieval. The Phoenix is far from the most detailed headphone I’ve heard but provides a satisfying combination of focus and clarity here and, much like the midrange, does so sans sharpness and fatigue.
To reiterate, this is not a bright headphone but a slightly more open sounding one, a well-considered tuning decision given its lusher sound below. It has average detail retrieval in-class but details are more apparent given its slightly more energetic tuning. Extension as well never feels lacking though it too is clearly not on the level of a higher-end model with minimal micro-detail and sparkle in its top-octave. The Phoenix nonetheless, provides a distinct foreground and background, creating a nicely layered presentation with good cleanliness that draws further focus to its energetic foreground detail presentation. Despite this, it also has a good amount of air due to the small middle-treble peak and its stronger headroom surely works much to its advantage in crafting the impression of overall balance and continuity.
Soundstage –
Despite not being outstanding from an extension and detail retrieval point of view, the soundstage is impressively expansive, especially considering its slightly less-open form factor. The Phoenix offers a good combination of out of the head width and impressive depth too, providing a slightly oval presentation. It’s no HD800 but never feels remotely closed in either. Imaging is a good performer as well with a defined centre image and reasonably sharp directional cues.
Like most headphones in this price range, it offers a nice lateral spread with an emphasis on organised, defined layers, but little ability to accurately project coronally besides lead vocals. Still, this makes for an involving presentation that is clearly above the average headphone. Separation is a weaker point of this headphone, not a poor performer, but certainly not outstanding either due to its generally lusher presentation. It errs on the rich and coherent side over being separated and highly-defined but has a little added contrast that prevents congestion.
Driveability –
With a 32-ohm impedance and 103dB sensitivity, the Phoenix was designed to be easy to drive. Being an over-ear headphone, it also isn’t especially sensitive to source noise. As always, the numbers do not tell the full story with regards to driveability.
Output impedance sensitivity
I would estimate that the Phoenix has a fairly flat impedance curve given that there were minimal audible differences between the Hiby R6 (10-ohms) and Shanling M2X (1-ohm). Subtle differences were discernible between the sources though likely this is due to the colouration of the sources themselves. This means a low-output impedance is not required to provide a sound faithful to the company’s design and the Phoenix can be enjoyed from high-impedance sources such as tube amplifiers.
Driving power
Switching between my desktop stack with THX789 and Topping D70s with the Shanling M2X revealed that the Phoenix does scale nicely with better sources. The M2X did an admirable job driving the Phoenix, in fact, bass extension was about the same as was overall frequency balance. The Phoenix even sounded balanced from my Xperia 5 II’s integrated headphone jack and no noise was perceptible on any of these sources. That said, the desktop source clearly sounded the best, the transient response was noticeably sharper, with higher note definition from bass to treble. It was more detailed and focused but there wasn’t a huge change in sub-bass power or overall balance. In addition, the desktop stack provided a more spacious soundstage though not by a huge degree.
Suggested Pair Ups
The Phoenix is indeed easy to drive as promised by the company both with regards to power and output impedance. Though it does thrive with a bit more power, aiding a more detailed and defined presentation. In my testing, the Phoenix is best paired with a neutral to analytical source due to its smooth and lush nature. Warmer and smoother sources may overly blunt its presentation. My personal preference is for a more detailed source with a sharp transient response such as the iBasso DX200 with AMP5 which provided the more defined and textured sound.
Comparisons –
Meze 99 Neo ($199): The Meze 99 Neo is a warm and dense portable headphone that shares a beautiful aesthetic and build with the Phoenix. It is even more bass orientated with a more laid-back midrange. Its bass, however, is quite linear with just a little upper-bass emphasis that is mostly responsible for its warm and full sound. The Phoenix is a little cleaner and more dynamic, the 99 Neo is a thicker sounding headphone with greater bass presence but at the cost of being less textured and articulate. The Phoenix has slightly better extension on top, granting it a higher energy bass despite being less bassy overall. The midrange is clearer and cleaner on the Phoenix with higher contrast and better separation.
The 99 Neo is warmer, fuller and more laid-back. It sounds more coherent with a denser upper-midrange which makes it sound noticeably thicker and less open. Both sound quite natural, but the Phoenix strikes a better balance to my ears. The 99 Neo has a more pronounced lower-treble, especially by contrast to its more recessed upper-midrange. The Phoenix is slightly more detailed and also offers greater headroom, though neither are especially resolving at the very top. The 99 Neo, despite its closed-back design, offers almost the same soundstage width. The Phoenix offers better separation and sharper imaging.
Sennheiser HD6XX ($220): The HD6XX is a staple around this price range, its clean and natural tonality making granting it timeless appeal. From a technical point of view, however, it’s easy to see how the industry has progressed over the last decade. The Phoenix has noticeably stronger extension in the bass alongside a generally fuller and more emphasised low-end. Both are warmer headphones, the Phoenix more so. Despite having more bass, the Phoenix has stronger definition and dynamics down low. The midrange is cleaner and more linear on the HD6XX in addition to being less vocal-forward.
The Phoenix is clearly more coloured, having greater clarity and articulation in addition to greater body and warmth, it sounds higher contrast. On the contrary, the HD6XX is more even and accurate, it’s a little over-articulated but altogether, a cleaner and more natural sound. The treble is more forward on the HD6XX but also less detailed with a hazier transient response. The Phoenix sounds more focused in the foreground and has a bit more headroom. In turn, the Phoenix also has a noticeably more spacious soundstage and I find it has sharper imaging too.
Hifiman DEVA/Sundara: The Hifiman models are all staples around this price range. The DEVA is basically a bumpier Sundara with a little less range but at a substantial discount and with wireless functionality. Compared to the Phoenix, the Hifiman headphones are clearly more balanced and linear, the Sundara especially so. The bass extension is clearly the best on the Phoenix and it has the most mid-bass on top, having the fullest voicing and greatest note weight, the Phoenix has the best dynamics by a good amount and hits the hardest down low. The Sundara and DEVA are both lightly warm but mostly balanced headphones, both are more separated and defined than the Phoenix with greater speed and sharper note attack. The Phoenix is actually the most vocal-forward of the lot, the Sundara being u-shaped, the DEVA a touch more vivid.
The Hifiman headphones sound more even, slightly smooth in the case of the Sundara, slightly clear for the DEVA. By comparison, the Phoenix has more upper-midrange presence and noticeably stronger contrast. It is more articulate but also less refined. The treble tells the same story, the Phoenix being slightly more energetic than both, but also less detailed. The Sundara especially has noticeably better extension and headroom, being generally more linear, accurate and resolving in the treble. The Sundara has the largest soundstage, the DEVA being about on par with the Phoenix. The Phoenix has more defined layers but the Sundara and DEVA both have more accurate localisation alongside stronger separation due to their more balanced tuning.
Verdict –
The Phoenix is a fairly unique headphone and this means you should keep your expectations in check. Due to its colouration, those wanting a pure sound should look elsewhere and, accordingly, do not expect perfect genre versatility either. This headphone wears its colours on its sleeve, what buyers receive is a punchy, dynamic yet articulate sound in an aesthetically striking shell; a positive impression further reinforced by a premium build and accessory set. On the contrary, this isn’t the most detailed nor extended sound out there and those requiring a large headband adjustment range or with wider ears may find the Phoenix’s compact dimensions challenging. It cannot be denied that Sivga has admirably executed what they set out to achieve; balancing a hearty bass with a clear yet natural vocal range and energetic high-end without introducing fatigue at any level. This is not so easy to achieve and demonstrates careful consideration on Sivga’s behalf. Through its unique combination of qualities and thoughtful execution, the Phoenix is able to carve out a reasonably uncontested niche in the audio market for bass lovers who still value clear vocals and a spacious soundstage.
The Phoenix is available from Sivga (International) for $299 USD at the time of writing. I am not affiliated with Sivga or Capsico and receive no earnings from purchases made through these links.
Track List –
Arcade Fire – The Suburbs
Archive – Controlling Crows (Parts I – III)
AKMU – SAILING
Bob Segar – Night Moves
Courtney Barnett – Tell Me How Your Really Feel
Eric Clapton – Unplugged
Gorillaz – Plastic Beach
Fleetwood Mac – Greatest Hits
John Legend – Once Again
MAMAMOO – reality in BLACK
MGMT – Oracular Spectacular
Modest House – Good News For People Who Love Bad News
NIKI – lowkey
Nirvana – Nervermind
Radiohead – OK Computer
Social House – Haunt You
suggi – cheer up!
TOTO – Toto IV
Vampire Weekend – Father of the Bride
Vaundy – strobo
The Pitch –
The Black Hole is Shozy’s current flagship IEM. It utilises a single DD combined with an intriguing open-back design – hence, the name. The Black Hole retails for $799 USD at the time of writing.
Verdict -
The Black Hole is essentially uncontested if you dislike the wearing pressure of conventional in-ears but still want a focused sound with spotlight on vocals and huge, expansive soundstage presentation.
Introduction –
Over the last year, it’s definitely been the sub $1000 price range that’s really piqued my interest. Where traditionally, innovation has occurred at the top-end of pricing, we are now seeing a shift here towards refinement of existing method. In turn, we have experienced a certain homogenisation according to the stringent references now widely available and known. But jump one price class down and you’ll see a very different story; one rife with daring and risk-taking design. It is my personal opinion that audio is at its most enjoyable under such circumstances.
And who better to undertake such a task than Shozy, known for their experimental designs that push the boundaries of form. The Black Hole is their latest and highest-end in-ear design to date, exemplifying this mantra. Co-engineered by KOOK electro-acoustic engineering lab in the USA throughout a 2-year period, Shozy’s flagship offers one of the first open-back designs on an IEM. Impetus has been placed on the acoustic design so as to maximise the performance of the 10mm dynamic driver, as has always been a priority for the company. The Black Hole is a hugely divergent design from the status quo.
You can read more about the Black Hole and treat yourself to a set on HiFiGO.
Specifications –
Behind the Design –
Front Section Chamber Design
In my conversations with Shozy, I found it intriguing how the company approaches their IEM and earbud design much like a speaker. It appears the Black Hole is the epitome of this approach and a sort of open baffle IEM design. The benefits to this design includes reduced internal reflections which enhances high-frequency clarity and extension and this is aided by the hole-punch faceplate design that minimise standing waves that can interfere with the fidelity of sound output.
Multiple Separation Technology (M.S.T)
I was unable to find further details on this online, but looking at Shozy's material, it appears to be the combination of dense material choice reducing unwanted vibrations in addition to balanced air pressure between the front and rear of the driver. The goal here is a quick transient response with agile decay for a detailed and articulate sound. Such factors are imperative for DD designs and have been shown to be effective in measurement and subjective listening on several competing designs.
Unboxing –
The Black Hole comes in a small hard box with simple metallic Shozy logo embossed on its front, reminiscent of their earbuds. Inside is the carrying case containing the earphones, cable and ear tips. The zippered hard case is of great quality with a hexagonal design and fabric exterior. It feels a little quirky yet also premium and portable, a complement to the in-ears themselves. In a separate box are 6 pairs of silicone ear tips to optimise the fit experience. Pre-installed on the earphones are JVC Spiral Dots, some of my favourite large-bore tips. The walls of the sound tube are dimpled much like the exterior of a golf ball to reduce buffering and reflections, promising a more detailed sound. Common consensus is that they provide a slightly warmer sound with good top-end extension, so they are a good choice for the Black Hole.
Design –
The Black Hole is an IEM that can be enjoyed almost as much out of the ear as within. It has a striking 3-piece alloy construction that is precision milled in-house to achieve minimal unit variance and stringent QC. And indeed, this is the case, seams match to the extent that they are barely palpable and the surface finish is immaculately smooth, creating a play on light that accentuates the housing’s elegant shape and curves. Though offered in silver, black and rose gold too, the gold scheme subjectively achieves the cleanest aesthetic, perfectly matching the alloy cable. Despite being quite a bright gold which is usually too loud for my tastes, it is a handsome realisation here that works in the realm of its already eye-catching design.
The Black Hole utilises recessed 0.78mm 2-pin connectors and comes with a “premium alloy” cable from factory. Though unable to confirm, 3 conductors are clearly visible within the cable’s transparent jacket - silver, copper and gold. The cable itself also provides an excellent ergonomic experience. It is soft and smooth with zero memory which makes it tangle-resistant and easy to coil. The pre-moulded ear guides are well-shaped and comfortable while the metal terminations play well with the metal IEM bodies. My unit is terminated in 4.4mm balanced but it is also available with a 3.5mm TRS plug. I enjoy how IEMs are starting to ship with better cables from factory as it does enhance the wearing experience and feels far more suitable than generic black plastic for premium high-end designs.
Fit & Isolation –
Though slightly larger than your average IEM, the Black Hole’s alloy construction is light and low-profile. It has clearly been shaped to suit the curves and folds of the ear, in turn, I find them exceptionally comfortable to wear even over extended listening and they can be slept on due to the slim housings too. They also achieve a stable fit, with protruding, well-angled nozzles that promote a medium-deep fit depth and orient the housings neutrally in the ear. Upon first wear, the Black Hole immediately feels unlike other IEMs. Though the tip forms a seal with the canal, there is a complete absence of pressure which creates an overtly comfortable if somewhat unconventional wearing experience.
In turn, expect minimal isolation making these most suitable for listening in quiet environments. Outdoors, bass is quickly drowned out and it can be hard to appreciate the full capability of their sound. Due to the obvious venting, wind noise is also very apparent. On the contrary, if you don’t like the sensation of pressure created by most IEMs but find earbuds may not sit securely in your ears, the Black Hole might just be the happy medium you’re looking for. The experience surely is much different to your usual IEM. I do personally enjoy the spatial awareness afforded by their openness and the fit is far more stable and consistent than any earbud design I’ve tried.
Sound –
Testing Methodology: Measured using Arta via IEC 711 coupler to Startech external sound card. 7-9KHz peaks may be artefacts/emphasised due to my measurement setup, less so with deep fit. Measurements besides channel balance are volume matched at 1KHz. Fit depth normalised to my best abilities to reduce coupler resonance. Still, due to these factors, my measurements may not accurately reflect the earphone or measurements taken by others. I gave the Black Hole 100hrs burn-in to ensure maximum performance prior to subjective breakdown.
Tonality –
Similar to its design, the sound of the Black Hole is quite different from what most would be accustomed to and measurements surely don’t do it justice given the unique design. In turn, expectations must be in order; the Black Hole doesn’t deliver balance and fidelity like a traditional IEM, on the flipside, it does provide unique traits that you won’t find elsewhere. Shozy have also implemented a few tuning decisions that can be polarising on regular IEM designs, but in the context of an open-back design, make more sense. At its most fundamental, the Black Hole is a slightly n-shaped in-ear with a clean, upper-midrange focus. That said, coming from balanced BA earphones, it does sound relatively balanced with the DD providing a bit more fullness than measurements would suggest. It has a slightly fuller bass note structure that balances out its atmospheric presentation; but as lows remain laid-back relative to the midrange, don’t expect a bassy or warm sound here. The timbre is different to most in-ears too and surely is not a specialty of this earphone, but it also isn’t an unnatural earphone either. Tone-wise, the Black Hole is neutral to slightly cool depending on track, representing a departure from Shozy’s usual house sound. This is a highly atmospheric in-ear with lighter note weight and clear, open tuning that highlights this quality.
Bass –
It is hard to orientate a product such as this in the market. It does not compete with IEMs in terms of use case due to the lack of isolation, similarly, it cannot be compared to an earbud due to the sealing design. And accordingly, the listening experience is dissimilar to both. The tuning is slightly laid-back which lays the foundation for a revealing and open sound over a coherent and full-bodied one. Bass in and of itself is mostly flat with a slightly sub-bass bias to my ears. Extension impresses, being as strong as you would expect from a good DD in-ear. With such a tuning, I perceive a hefty slam with uptick of note weight despite roll-off on measurement, alongside subtle pressure and a well-defined rumble. The mid-bass is clean and the upper-bass extends linearly into the midrange.
This tuning delivers a subtle warmth and a slightly bolder and fuller note structure that enhances engagement and ensures the Black Hole doesn’t present as thin or anaemic. The note presentation also complements the tuning with a focus on timing and separation. Attack is very quick while decay is longer, contributing to the impression of a fuller note despite absence of bass emphasis. Bass texture is smooth due to the longer decay. Though driver control is high and the earphone is without bloat or muddiness, it does have lower note definition relative to most competitors. Still, the Black Hole is able to keep pace well with faster tracks and it upholds good dynamics considering the laid-back tuning. Though not for the bass lover nor balanced in a conventional sense, the Black Hole’s bass performance provides a good foundation for its sound and very enjoyable timing for musical enjoyment.
Mids –
No doubt the highlight of this earphone, the midrange lies at the forefront of the presentation and is where the open-design is most easily enjoyed. This is a hyper-clear, open and atmospheric sound with an intoxicating sense of space, layering and dimension. In terms of signature, it sees a progressive climb from the lower through to upper-midrange before a small peak in the lower-treble. Despite this, the earphone does not sound intense, sharp or overly intimate, only slightly vocal-forward. It comes across as articulate, delicate, a little raspy and breathy but also very high definition with minimal sibilance. I can only attribute this to the form factor as I do perceive most earbuds to sound quite laid-back relative to most IEMs, so it is possible the Black Hole suffers from similar fall-backs and has been tuned with a forward upper-midrange to compensate.
As with all sculpted sound signatures, the presentation is unique and enjoyable in some regards and less inspiring in others. With its laid-back low-end, the tone is highly clean but also somewhat cool at times. In addition, note body is on the cusp of what I would consider to be just adequate to avoid thinness and stridence. Vocals do hold clear focus over instruments, and they are most flattered in the presentation. Female especially are presented with enhanced size and forwardness in addition to surprising smoothness that makes them sound impressively refined. Still, the timbre is not perfect as they are lacking some density or body to counterbalance. In conjunction with the tonal coolness, this can produce a slightly metallic timbre on some tracks.
Unsurprisingly, the Black Hole is most in its element when listening to Asian pop genres where its outstanding clarity and definition create a hyper-palatable vocal experience. Though biased towards female vocals, male vocals are similarly flattered with liquid smoothness and excellent definition with minimal dryness that is a feat considering the style of tuning. The voicing remains mostly natural that said, despite the unique tonality. Altogether, a somewhat dualistic beast that is difficult to rival when tackling its preferred genres of pop and Asian vocals but can lack some refinement on others requiring a more natural timbre such as jazz.
Highs –
It is here where I most disagree with the measurements posted online in addition to those taken by myself – and I did re-measure quite a few times to confirm. To further complicate matters, when booting up a sine sweep I also did not hear a 6k peak, rather, a fairly even treble sitting just behind the upper-midrange. And in music listening, this is the experience I received. Highs are even, well-bodied and of natural timbre, just a little crisper than neutral in tuning. This is counterbalanced by a slightly smooth note attack, lacking the hard-edge provided by most lower-treble emphasized closed IEMs. Still, fine detail retrieval is quite strong, especially in the foreground, and both body and decay are natural, providing a highly textured portrayal. As emphasis falls off quickly after through the middle-treble, the Black Hole provides a dark, clean background for heightened contrast between layers.
This works to good effect in conjunction with its focused and well-detailed foreground instrument presentation. It isn’t the sparkliest and highest energy performer, but hardly lacking in openness due to its design and upper-midrange tuning – So given the effect of the design on how its sound is perceived by the listener, I feel the treble is in good taste. Extension is also quite good with a nice linear portrayal of the upper-treble that provides a good sense of micro and background detail. This contributes strongly to its ability to portray distance and layers convincingly in tandem with its design. It isn’t the most overtly high resolution in-ear I’ve heard and resolving power is commonly bested in such a competitive price range. However, surely the presentation is the centrepiece here and the Black Hole is put in a disadvantageous position with regards to resolving power due to its lack of isolation and immediacy – so to reiterate, it is not a bad performer here at all, just not the best.
Soundstage –
If you weren’t convinced by my prior comments, the soundstage performance on offer is most likely to change your mind. Forget about comparison to other IEMs, the Black Hole almost rivals open-back headphones in terms of its ability to portray space and imaging. It is here where its tuning starts to make sense even though objectively, it still cannot be dubbed as especially accurate or balanced. Width is sensational, stretching well-beyond the head and depth too, even with its forward vocals, is able to project a great sense of distance. And, despite this, the stage is not sparse or lacking focus, with the treble presentation aiding a sharp sense of direction and location.
Layers separated and hyper-defined, and imaging is very multi-dimensional if not especially holographic due to the lack of energy in the middle and upper-treble. In addition, though note definition is not the highest from an IEM point of view, the excellent separation on offer ensures each detail is easy to pinpoint. The leaner bass tuning makes sense when maximising separation, so too does the forward vocal presentation and crisper treble in the context of such a vast and atmospheric soundstage. The Black Hole ultimately sounds very impressive and quite unlike an IEM which is the highest compliment I can give an in-ear with regards to soundstage performance.
Driveability –
With a fairly standard 16 ohm impedance and a higher 105dB sensitivity, the Black Hole does not present much challenge with regards to driveability. It isn’t too sensitive to hiss, similarly, it doesn’t require heaps of power to achieve a high listening volume. Being a single-DD, it also shouldn’t be too affected by output impedance.
Output Impedance Sensitivity
Comparing between the Hiby R6 (10-ohms) and Shanling M2X (1-ohm) revealed that the Black Hole isn’t too susceptible to output impedance as expected. Still, there were small differences, a slightly fuller and less defined bass on the Hiby alongside a slightly crisper and more forward lower-treble. This may be partially attributed to the colouration of the source itself, and as the changes are very small, the Black Hole can still be enjoyed from high-impedance sources.
Driving Power
The Black Hole scales very well with greater power and larger sources in general. Switching from the Shanling to my THX789 desktop setup revealed a noticeably tighter and more controlled bass with greater definition. Highs had slightly better fine detail retrieval as well. In particular though, the soundstage was substantially larger on the desktop source. It had an altogether, more complex and layered sound that was more immersive and a better showcase of the Black Hole’s unique abilities. Hiss was barely audible on the Shanling and completely inaudible once music was playing, even on the lowest volume setting.
Suggested Pair Ups
The Black Hole is not too source selective in terms of noise and output impedance but does scale well with a bit more power or a source with a larger soundstage. In terms of tonality, I did enjoy the uptick of warmth provided by the Shanling and Hiby despite the slightly softer note presentation. It provided a more natural body and timbre in the midrange especially. Given that it isn’t too affected by output impedance and source noise, the Black Hole would be a good match for a tube amplifier or warmer SS source. Neutral sources like the THX789 and iBasso DX200 with AMP5 module are enjoyable most with Asian genres as aforementioned.
Comparisons –
GAudio Nair (759 CHF): The Nair provides a highly linear sound and similarly strong build quality with custom Satin Audio cable in the box. Both have a similar sonic balance despite measuring far differently. The Black Hole is a touch more upper-mid forward and the Nair generally sounds more linear. The Black Hole has a bit more sub-bass pressure and a slightly bolder note structure while the Nair has a hint more mid-bass warmth but less extension. The quantity is similar on both, the Nair has higher definition while the Black Hole has more texture and stronger dynamics. Through the midrange, both are surprisingly similar in presentation too, and both have a clear yet natural voicing.
The Nair has a bit more smoothness, body and density, enabling a more accurate timbre. The Black Hole is slightly thinner and cooler but also delivers higher clarity and much better layering. The treble actually sounds a bit more forward on the Nair despite the Black Hole measuring brighter here. The Black Hole has a slightly smoother transient response but also a slightly crisper tuning, the Nair being more linear with a bit more body. Both have similar detail retrieval and clean, darker backgrounds. The Nair has a bit more middle-treble while the Black Hole has slightly better extension at the very top. The Black Hole has a much larger soundstage and its positioning is similarly precise. The Nair has slightly more stable imaging and similarly strong separation due to its more even tuning.
Oriveti O800 ($799): The O800 has a smooth voicing signature to Oriveti and is a very technically competent IEM. The O800 has a more robust and powerful voicing with more body in general. Its bass is slightly more forward and fuller with moderate mid-bass emphasis. It has greater heft and punch. The Black Hole has slightly better extension and sub-bass slam while, being quicker decaying, the O800 manages a more textured and defined mid-bass despite having more bass quantity. Mids are naturally voiced and forward on both, the O800 is slightly more vocal forward but has greater body and a smoother articulation that ensures it never comes across as peaky or intense.
The Black Hole has higher definition and clarity and both are well-extended through the upper-midrange. The O800 sounds bigger and more powerful with a more full-bodied whilst maintaining a neutral tone, in turn, it doesn't suffer from the same issues with timbre as the Black Hole can. The treble is a touch more laid-back on the O800 and a bit more balanced on the Black Hole. Despite this, the O800 has slightly better fine detail retrieval that is emphasized with its slightly crisper tuning. Both have good contrast with clean, dark backgrounds, the O800 has similarly strong extension but also slightly more sparkle at the very top. The Black Hole has a much larger stage and better layering though the O800 is no slouch here either, delivering more stable imaging.
NXEars Opera ($799): The Opera is a warmer sounding earphone also with a focus on soundstage. The Opera has similar tonal balance but a bit more fullness and warmth in the bass that draws a bit more attention. The Black Hole has better extension with slightly more slam and pressure. It also has a more linear and cleaner tuning. On the flipside, the Opera has much quicker attack and decay that balances out its fuller tuning. In turn, it is slightly more defined and has slightly better timing while the Black Hole benefits from greater texture and dynamics. The midrange is forward on both, the Opera has a much fuller and smoother voicing with much higher coherence. It provides a foil to the Black Hole's clean, clear and wide open tuning.
The Opera does sound a little roomy and boxy at times but has a smoother articulation and more complete note structure. As such, I found both to be about on par in terms of timbral accuracy, the main difference being with regards to tone. The Opera has a slightly crisper lower-treble. It has a touch more fine detail retrieval here and a slightly cleaner transient response. Neither have huge air or sparkle above. The Black Hole has a much larger stage, both are equally strongly layered. The Opera has sharper, more multi-dimensional imaging while the Black Hole has better separation especially with its cleaner tuning.
Astrotec Phoenix ($799): The Phoenix has a hugely engaging signature. I personally find it more balanced with some alcohol swab covering the nozzle which balances out the high-end. The Phoenix has a much bigger bass with greater emphasis and a fuller, bolder note structure. It isn't as fast but has excellent control with greater texture and superior depth and dynamics. The Black Hole meanwhile, is much cleaner with a more natural voicing, higher separation and greater mid-bass definition. The Phoenix has a large lower-mid dip to aid bass separation, albeit its greater bass emphasis means it comes across as more full-bodied and warmer than the Black Hole. The Black Hole has a more linear tuning, its voicing is slightly more natural and it also sounds more consistent between tracks.
The Black Hole is also cleaner with greater extension and vocal size. The Phoenix sounds a bit more strained with more upper-mid bias and quicker climb to emphasis, it also sounds a bit raspier due to its more aggressive treble on top. On the contrary, this is balanced out to some degree by its greater body and warmth so it remains an enjoyable listen, simply one that is more coloured than the Shozy. The treble is thinner and crisper on the Phoenix. However, it also has a much cleaner transient response, delivering far superior fine detail retrieval and a more convincing sparkle and extension at the very top, the Shozy being smoother and more textured. The Phoenix has a smaller soundstage and less defined layers. The Black Hole also has better separation.
Fiio EM5 ($299): A comparison I felt apt despite the vast difference in price and form, the EM5 is a technically impressive premium earbud that some may consider comparable in use case. I will be using my preferred VE Monk+ foams on the EM5 for this comparison that I feel provide the most balanced sound. The EM5 is a warmer and more coherent sound, also more laid-back up top. The EM5 has good bass extension but cannot best the sealing Black Hole. The EM5 has a bigger and warmer bass with more mid-bass emphasis. The Black Hole is cleaner and more linear, it has a harder-hitting sub-bass and is much tighter in general. The EM5 has slightly longer decay with more textured notes that said. The EM5 is more laid-back through the midrange and is more coloured by its bass, being warmer and fuller.
The EM5 has slightly better layering and a bit more depth due to its even more open form factor. Meanwhile, the Black Hole sounds a lot more revealing and immediate, with higher note definition and substantially better upper-midrange extension. The EM5 is quite a bit smoother, another contributor to its more coherent presentation. The Black Hole definitely has the more resolving and balanced treble response, an area where earbuds do struggle. The EM5 has a thinner lower-treble, it is crisp but still a little laid-back and not the most detailed, especially coming directly from listening to this crop of $800 IEMs. The Black Hole has noticeably better extension and headroom so it has more background detail and a more detailed presentation overall. So, though the EM5 still has some advantage to space, most notable depth and layering, the Black Hole has much sharper imaging aided by better separation - I will call this a successful union between IEM and earbud characteristics.
Verdict –
There are more than a few earphones around this price with trick designs and alluring features. Even then, the Black Hole stands apart for its one of a kind form factor and Shozy’s prudent execution of said open design. Nonetheless, it would be a lie to call this earphone versatile or widely appealing as it simply is not balanced or linear in the conventional sense nor does its non-isolating design make it ideal for portable use. So, in many senses, consider the Black Hole to be the pinnacle of earbud design, retaining the comfort of zero wearing pressure and spatial awareness of an open design whilst introducing the fit stability, bass extension and resolution of a good IEM. That is something you won’t find replicated elsewhere even at a vastly higher price. In and of itself, I also find the Black Hole a very outstanding package in many regards, again, if not the most versatile one. In particular, its laid-back bass and cool tone mean its presentation doesn’t flatter all genres equally. That said, this is not a fatiguing or overly wonky sounding in-ear and one with world class space and layering. The Black Hole is a paragon of openness and sits essentially uncontested if you dislike the wearing pressure of conventional in-ears but still want a focused sound with spotlight on vocals and huge, expansive soundstage presentation.
The Black Hole is available on HiFiGO (International) for $799 USD at the time of writing. I am not affiliated with Shozy or HiFiGO and receive no earnings from purchases through this link.
Track List –
Beck – Mellow Gold
Bob Segar – Night Moves
Brb. – Sorry That I Love You
Courtney Barnett – Sometimes I Sit and Think and Sometimes I Just Sit
Crush – NAPPA
Dire Straits – Communique
Dirty Loops – Next To You
Eagles – Hell Freezes Over
Elton John – Honky Chateau
Eric Clapton – Unplugged
Joji – Sanctuary
Nirvana – Nevermind
Pixies – Doolittle
Post Malone – beerbongs & bentleys
Radiohead – OK Computer
Rich Brain – The Sailor
Vampire Weekend – Father of the Bride
The Black Hole is Shozy’s current flagship IEM. It utilises a single DD combined with an intriguing open-back design – hence, the name. The Black Hole retails for $799 USD at the time of writing.
Verdict -
The Black Hole is essentially uncontested if you dislike the wearing pressure of conventional in-ears but still want a focused sound with spotlight on vocals and huge, expansive soundstage presentation.
Introduction –
Over the last year, it’s definitely been the sub $1000 price range that’s really piqued my interest. Where traditionally, innovation has occurred at the top-end of pricing, we are now seeing a shift here towards refinement of existing method. In turn, we have experienced a certain homogenisation according to the stringent references now widely available and known. But jump one price class down and you’ll see a very different story; one rife with daring and risk-taking design. It is my personal opinion that audio is at its most enjoyable under such circumstances.
And who better to undertake such a task than Shozy, known for their experimental designs that push the boundaries of form. The Black Hole is their latest and highest-end in-ear design to date, exemplifying this mantra. Co-engineered by KOOK electro-acoustic engineering lab in the USA throughout a 2-year period, Shozy’s flagship offers one of the first open-back designs on an IEM. Impetus has been placed on the acoustic design so as to maximise the performance of the 10mm dynamic driver, as has always been a priority for the company. The Black Hole is a hugely divergent design from the status quo.
You can read more about the Black Hole and treat yourself to a set on HiFiGO.
Specifications –
- Type: Semi-open back
- Driver: 10mm Dynamic
- Impedance: 16 ohms
- Sensitivity: 105 dB
- THD: <1% @1 kHz
Behind the Design –
Front Section Chamber Design
In my conversations with Shozy, I found it intriguing how the company approaches their IEM and earbud design much like a speaker. It appears the Black Hole is the epitome of this approach and a sort of open baffle IEM design. The benefits to this design includes reduced internal reflections which enhances high-frequency clarity and extension and this is aided by the hole-punch faceplate design that minimise standing waves that can interfere with the fidelity of sound output.
Multiple Separation Technology (M.S.T)
I was unable to find further details on this online, but looking at Shozy's material, it appears to be the combination of dense material choice reducing unwanted vibrations in addition to balanced air pressure between the front and rear of the driver. The goal here is a quick transient response with agile decay for a detailed and articulate sound. Such factors are imperative for DD designs and have been shown to be effective in measurement and subjective listening on several competing designs.
Unboxing –
The Black Hole comes in a small hard box with simple metallic Shozy logo embossed on its front, reminiscent of their earbuds. Inside is the carrying case containing the earphones, cable and ear tips. The zippered hard case is of great quality with a hexagonal design and fabric exterior. It feels a little quirky yet also premium and portable, a complement to the in-ears themselves. In a separate box are 6 pairs of silicone ear tips to optimise the fit experience. Pre-installed on the earphones are JVC Spiral Dots, some of my favourite large-bore tips. The walls of the sound tube are dimpled much like the exterior of a golf ball to reduce buffering and reflections, promising a more detailed sound. Common consensus is that they provide a slightly warmer sound with good top-end extension, so they are a good choice for the Black Hole.
Design –
The Black Hole is an IEM that can be enjoyed almost as much out of the ear as within. It has a striking 3-piece alloy construction that is precision milled in-house to achieve minimal unit variance and stringent QC. And indeed, this is the case, seams match to the extent that they are barely palpable and the surface finish is immaculately smooth, creating a play on light that accentuates the housing’s elegant shape and curves. Though offered in silver, black and rose gold too, the gold scheme subjectively achieves the cleanest aesthetic, perfectly matching the alloy cable. Despite being quite a bright gold which is usually too loud for my tastes, it is a handsome realisation here that works in the realm of its already eye-catching design.
The Black Hole utilises recessed 0.78mm 2-pin connectors and comes with a “premium alloy” cable from factory. Though unable to confirm, 3 conductors are clearly visible within the cable’s transparent jacket - silver, copper and gold. The cable itself also provides an excellent ergonomic experience. It is soft and smooth with zero memory which makes it tangle-resistant and easy to coil. The pre-moulded ear guides are well-shaped and comfortable while the metal terminations play well with the metal IEM bodies. My unit is terminated in 4.4mm balanced but it is also available with a 3.5mm TRS plug. I enjoy how IEMs are starting to ship with better cables from factory as it does enhance the wearing experience and feels far more suitable than generic black plastic for premium high-end designs.
Fit & Isolation –
Though slightly larger than your average IEM, the Black Hole’s alloy construction is light and low-profile. It has clearly been shaped to suit the curves and folds of the ear, in turn, I find them exceptionally comfortable to wear even over extended listening and they can be slept on due to the slim housings too. They also achieve a stable fit, with protruding, well-angled nozzles that promote a medium-deep fit depth and orient the housings neutrally in the ear. Upon first wear, the Black Hole immediately feels unlike other IEMs. Though the tip forms a seal with the canal, there is a complete absence of pressure which creates an overtly comfortable if somewhat unconventional wearing experience.
In turn, expect minimal isolation making these most suitable for listening in quiet environments. Outdoors, bass is quickly drowned out and it can be hard to appreciate the full capability of their sound. Due to the obvious venting, wind noise is also very apparent. On the contrary, if you don’t like the sensation of pressure created by most IEMs but find earbuds may not sit securely in your ears, the Black Hole might just be the happy medium you’re looking for. The experience surely is much different to your usual IEM. I do personally enjoy the spatial awareness afforded by their openness and the fit is far more stable and consistent than any earbud design I’ve tried.
Sound –
Testing Methodology: Measured using Arta via IEC 711 coupler to Startech external sound card. 7-9KHz peaks may be artefacts/emphasised due to my measurement setup, less so with deep fit. Measurements besides channel balance are volume matched at 1KHz. Fit depth normalised to my best abilities to reduce coupler resonance. Still, due to these factors, my measurements may not accurately reflect the earphone or measurements taken by others. I gave the Black Hole 100hrs burn-in to ensure maximum performance prior to subjective breakdown.
Tonality –
Similar to its design, the sound of the Black Hole is quite different from what most would be accustomed to and measurements surely don’t do it justice given the unique design. In turn, expectations must be in order; the Black Hole doesn’t deliver balance and fidelity like a traditional IEM, on the flipside, it does provide unique traits that you won’t find elsewhere. Shozy have also implemented a few tuning decisions that can be polarising on regular IEM designs, but in the context of an open-back design, make more sense. At its most fundamental, the Black Hole is a slightly n-shaped in-ear with a clean, upper-midrange focus. That said, coming from balanced BA earphones, it does sound relatively balanced with the DD providing a bit more fullness than measurements would suggest. It has a slightly fuller bass note structure that balances out its atmospheric presentation; but as lows remain laid-back relative to the midrange, don’t expect a bassy or warm sound here. The timbre is different to most in-ears too and surely is not a specialty of this earphone, but it also isn’t an unnatural earphone either. Tone-wise, the Black Hole is neutral to slightly cool depending on track, representing a departure from Shozy’s usual house sound. This is a highly atmospheric in-ear with lighter note weight and clear, open tuning that highlights this quality.
Bass –
It is hard to orientate a product such as this in the market. It does not compete with IEMs in terms of use case due to the lack of isolation, similarly, it cannot be compared to an earbud due to the sealing design. And accordingly, the listening experience is dissimilar to both. The tuning is slightly laid-back which lays the foundation for a revealing and open sound over a coherent and full-bodied one. Bass in and of itself is mostly flat with a slightly sub-bass bias to my ears. Extension impresses, being as strong as you would expect from a good DD in-ear. With such a tuning, I perceive a hefty slam with uptick of note weight despite roll-off on measurement, alongside subtle pressure and a well-defined rumble. The mid-bass is clean and the upper-bass extends linearly into the midrange.
This tuning delivers a subtle warmth and a slightly bolder and fuller note structure that enhances engagement and ensures the Black Hole doesn’t present as thin or anaemic. The note presentation also complements the tuning with a focus on timing and separation. Attack is very quick while decay is longer, contributing to the impression of a fuller note despite absence of bass emphasis. Bass texture is smooth due to the longer decay. Though driver control is high and the earphone is without bloat or muddiness, it does have lower note definition relative to most competitors. Still, the Black Hole is able to keep pace well with faster tracks and it upholds good dynamics considering the laid-back tuning. Though not for the bass lover nor balanced in a conventional sense, the Black Hole’s bass performance provides a good foundation for its sound and very enjoyable timing for musical enjoyment.
Mids –
No doubt the highlight of this earphone, the midrange lies at the forefront of the presentation and is where the open-design is most easily enjoyed. This is a hyper-clear, open and atmospheric sound with an intoxicating sense of space, layering and dimension. In terms of signature, it sees a progressive climb from the lower through to upper-midrange before a small peak in the lower-treble. Despite this, the earphone does not sound intense, sharp or overly intimate, only slightly vocal-forward. It comes across as articulate, delicate, a little raspy and breathy but also very high definition with minimal sibilance. I can only attribute this to the form factor as I do perceive most earbuds to sound quite laid-back relative to most IEMs, so it is possible the Black Hole suffers from similar fall-backs and has been tuned with a forward upper-midrange to compensate.
As with all sculpted sound signatures, the presentation is unique and enjoyable in some regards and less inspiring in others. With its laid-back low-end, the tone is highly clean but also somewhat cool at times. In addition, note body is on the cusp of what I would consider to be just adequate to avoid thinness and stridence. Vocals do hold clear focus over instruments, and they are most flattered in the presentation. Female especially are presented with enhanced size and forwardness in addition to surprising smoothness that makes them sound impressively refined. Still, the timbre is not perfect as they are lacking some density or body to counterbalance. In conjunction with the tonal coolness, this can produce a slightly metallic timbre on some tracks.
Unsurprisingly, the Black Hole is most in its element when listening to Asian pop genres where its outstanding clarity and definition create a hyper-palatable vocal experience. Though biased towards female vocals, male vocals are similarly flattered with liquid smoothness and excellent definition with minimal dryness that is a feat considering the style of tuning. The voicing remains mostly natural that said, despite the unique tonality. Altogether, a somewhat dualistic beast that is difficult to rival when tackling its preferred genres of pop and Asian vocals but can lack some refinement on others requiring a more natural timbre such as jazz.
Highs –
It is here where I most disagree with the measurements posted online in addition to those taken by myself – and I did re-measure quite a few times to confirm. To further complicate matters, when booting up a sine sweep I also did not hear a 6k peak, rather, a fairly even treble sitting just behind the upper-midrange. And in music listening, this is the experience I received. Highs are even, well-bodied and of natural timbre, just a little crisper than neutral in tuning. This is counterbalanced by a slightly smooth note attack, lacking the hard-edge provided by most lower-treble emphasized closed IEMs. Still, fine detail retrieval is quite strong, especially in the foreground, and both body and decay are natural, providing a highly textured portrayal. As emphasis falls off quickly after through the middle-treble, the Black Hole provides a dark, clean background for heightened contrast between layers.
This works to good effect in conjunction with its focused and well-detailed foreground instrument presentation. It isn’t the sparkliest and highest energy performer, but hardly lacking in openness due to its design and upper-midrange tuning – So given the effect of the design on how its sound is perceived by the listener, I feel the treble is in good taste. Extension is also quite good with a nice linear portrayal of the upper-treble that provides a good sense of micro and background detail. This contributes strongly to its ability to portray distance and layers convincingly in tandem with its design. It isn’t the most overtly high resolution in-ear I’ve heard and resolving power is commonly bested in such a competitive price range. However, surely the presentation is the centrepiece here and the Black Hole is put in a disadvantageous position with regards to resolving power due to its lack of isolation and immediacy – so to reiterate, it is not a bad performer here at all, just not the best.
Soundstage –
If you weren’t convinced by my prior comments, the soundstage performance on offer is most likely to change your mind. Forget about comparison to other IEMs, the Black Hole almost rivals open-back headphones in terms of its ability to portray space and imaging. It is here where its tuning starts to make sense even though objectively, it still cannot be dubbed as especially accurate or balanced. Width is sensational, stretching well-beyond the head and depth too, even with its forward vocals, is able to project a great sense of distance. And, despite this, the stage is not sparse or lacking focus, with the treble presentation aiding a sharp sense of direction and location.
Layers separated and hyper-defined, and imaging is very multi-dimensional if not especially holographic due to the lack of energy in the middle and upper-treble. In addition, though note definition is not the highest from an IEM point of view, the excellent separation on offer ensures each detail is easy to pinpoint. The leaner bass tuning makes sense when maximising separation, so too does the forward vocal presentation and crisper treble in the context of such a vast and atmospheric soundstage. The Black Hole ultimately sounds very impressive and quite unlike an IEM which is the highest compliment I can give an in-ear with regards to soundstage performance.
Driveability –
With a fairly standard 16 ohm impedance and a higher 105dB sensitivity, the Black Hole does not present much challenge with regards to driveability. It isn’t too sensitive to hiss, similarly, it doesn’t require heaps of power to achieve a high listening volume. Being a single-DD, it also shouldn’t be too affected by output impedance.
Output Impedance Sensitivity
Comparing between the Hiby R6 (10-ohms) and Shanling M2X (1-ohm) revealed that the Black Hole isn’t too susceptible to output impedance as expected. Still, there were small differences, a slightly fuller and less defined bass on the Hiby alongside a slightly crisper and more forward lower-treble. This may be partially attributed to the colouration of the source itself, and as the changes are very small, the Black Hole can still be enjoyed from high-impedance sources.
Driving Power
The Black Hole scales very well with greater power and larger sources in general. Switching from the Shanling to my THX789 desktop setup revealed a noticeably tighter and more controlled bass with greater definition. Highs had slightly better fine detail retrieval as well. In particular though, the soundstage was substantially larger on the desktop source. It had an altogether, more complex and layered sound that was more immersive and a better showcase of the Black Hole’s unique abilities. Hiss was barely audible on the Shanling and completely inaudible once music was playing, even on the lowest volume setting.
Suggested Pair Ups
The Black Hole is not too source selective in terms of noise and output impedance but does scale well with a bit more power or a source with a larger soundstage. In terms of tonality, I did enjoy the uptick of warmth provided by the Shanling and Hiby despite the slightly softer note presentation. It provided a more natural body and timbre in the midrange especially. Given that it isn’t too affected by output impedance and source noise, the Black Hole would be a good match for a tube amplifier or warmer SS source. Neutral sources like the THX789 and iBasso DX200 with AMP5 module are enjoyable most with Asian genres as aforementioned.
Comparisons –
GAudio Nair (759 CHF): The Nair provides a highly linear sound and similarly strong build quality with custom Satin Audio cable in the box. Both have a similar sonic balance despite measuring far differently. The Black Hole is a touch more upper-mid forward and the Nair generally sounds more linear. The Black Hole has a bit more sub-bass pressure and a slightly bolder note structure while the Nair has a hint more mid-bass warmth but less extension. The quantity is similar on both, the Nair has higher definition while the Black Hole has more texture and stronger dynamics. Through the midrange, both are surprisingly similar in presentation too, and both have a clear yet natural voicing.
The Nair has a bit more smoothness, body and density, enabling a more accurate timbre. The Black Hole is slightly thinner and cooler but also delivers higher clarity and much better layering. The treble actually sounds a bit more forward on the Nair despite the Black Hole measuring brighter here. The Black Hole has a slightly smoother transient response but also a slightly crisper tuning, the Nair being more linear with a bit more body. Both have similar detail retrieval and clean, darker backgrounds. The Nair has a bit more middle-treble while the Black Hole has slightly better extension at the very top. The Black Hole has a much larger soundstage and its positioning is similarly precise. The Nair has slightly more stable imaging and similarly strong separation due to its more even tuning.
Oriveti O800 ($799): The O800 has a smooth voicing signature to Oriveti and is a very technically competent IEM. The O800 has a more robust and powerful voicing with more body in general. Its bass is slightly more forward and fuller with moderate mid-bass emphasis. It has greater heft and punch. The Black Hole has slightly better extension and sub-bass slam while, being quicker decaying, the O800 manages a more textured and defined mid-bass despite having more bass quantity. Mids are naturally voiced and forward on both, the O800 is slightly more vocal forward but has greater body and a smoother articulation that ensures it never comes across as peaky or intense.
The Black Hole has higher definition and clarity and both are well-extended through the upper-midrange. The O800 sounds bigger and more powerful with a more full-bodied whilst maintaining a neutral tone, in turn, it doesn't suffer from the same issues with timbre as the Black Hole can. The treble is a touch more laid-back on the O800 and a bit more balanced on the Black Hole. Despite this, the O800 has slightly better fine detail retrieval that is emphasized with its slightly crisper tuning. Both have good contrast with clean, dark backgrounds, the O800 has similarly strong extension but also slightly more sparkle at the very top. The Black Hole has a much larger stage and better layering though the O800 is no slouch here either, delivering more stable imaging.
NXEars Opera ($799): The Opera is a warmer sounding earphone also with a focus on soundstage. The Opera has similar tonal balance but a bit more fullness and warmth in the bass that draws a bit more attention. The Black Hole has better extension with slightly more slam and pressure. It also has a more linear and cleaner tuning. On the flipside, the Opera has much quicker attack and decay that balances out its fuller tuning. In turn, it is slightly more defined and has slightly better timing while the Black Hole benefits from greater texture and dynamics. The midrange is forward on both, the Opera has a much fuller and smoother voicing with much higher coherence. It provides a foil to the Black Hole's clean, clear and wide open tuning.
The Opera does sound a little roomy and boxy at times but has a smoother articulation and more complete note structure. As such, I found both to be about on par in terms of timbral accuracy, the main difference being with regards to tone. The Opera has a slightly crisper lower-treble. It has a touch more fine detail retrieval here and a slightly cleaner transient response. Neither have huge air or sparkle above. The Black Hole has a much larger stage, both are equally strongly layered. The Opera has sharper, more multi-dimensional imaging while the Black Hole has better separation especially with its cleaner tuning.
Astrotec Phoenix ($799): The Phoenix has a hugely engaging signature. I personally find it more balanced with some alcohol swab covering the nozzle which balances out the high-end. The Phoenix has a much bigger bass with greater emphasis and a fuller, bolder note structure. It isn't as fast but has excellent control with greater texture and superior depth and dynamics. The Black Hole meanwhile, is much cleaner with a more natural voicing, higher separation and greater mid-bass definition. The Phoenix has a large lower-mid dip to aid bass separation, albeit its greater bass emphasis means it comes across as more full-bodied and warmer than the Black Hole. The Black Hole has a more linear tuning, its voicing is slightly more natural and it also sounds more consistent between tracks.
The Black Hole is also cleaner with greater extension and vocal size. The Phoenix sounds a bit more strained with more upper-mid bias and quicker climb to emphasis, it also sounds a bit raspier due to its more aggressive treble on top. On the contrary, this is balanced out to some degree by its greater body and warmth so it remains an enjoyable listen, simply one that is more coloured than the Shozy. The treble is thinner and crisper on the Phoenix. However, it also has a much cleaner transient response, delivering far superior fine detail retrieval and a more convincing sparkle and extension at the very top, the Shozy being smoother and more textured. The Phoenix has a smaller soundstage and less defined layers. The Black Hole also has better separation.
Fiio EM5 ($299): A comparison I felt apt despite the vast difference in price and form, the EM5 is a technically impressive premium earbud that some may consider comparable in use case. I will be using my preferred VE Monk+ foams on the EM5 for this comparison that I feel provide the most balanced sound. The EM5 is a warmer and more coherent sound, also more laid-back up top. The EM5 has good bass extension but cannot best the sealing Black Hole. The EM5 has a bigger and warmer bass with more mid-bass emphasis. The Black Hole is cleaner and more linear, it has a harder-hitting sub-bass and is much tighter in general. The EM5 has slightly longer decay with more textured notes that said. The EM5 is more laid-back through the midrange and is more coloured by its bass, being warmer and fuller.
The EM5 has slightly better layering and a bit more depth due to its even more open form factor. Meanwhile, the Black Hole sounds a lot more revealing and immediate, with higher note definition and substantially better upper-midrange extension. The EM5 is quite a bit smoother, another contributor to its more coherent presentation. The Black Hole definitely has the more resolving and balanced treble response, an area where earbuds do struggle. The EM5 has a thinner lower-treble, it is crisp but still a little laid-back and not the most detailed, especially coming directly from listening to this crop of $800 IEMs. The Black Hole has noticeably better extension and headroom so it has more background detail and a more detailed presentation overall. So, though the EM5 still has some advantage to space, most notable depth and layering, the Black Hole has much sharper imaging aided by better separation - I will call this a successful union between IEM and earbud characteristics.
Verdict –
There are more than a few earphones around this price with trick designs and alluring features. Even then, the Black Hole stands apart for its one of a kind form factor and Shozy’s prudent execution of said open design. Nonetheless, it would be a lie to call this earphone versatile or widely appealing as it simply is not balanced or linear in the conventional sense nor does its non-isolating design make it ideal for portable use. So, in many senses, consider the Black Hole to be the pinnacle of earbud design, retaining the comfort of zero wearing pressure and spatial awareness of an open design whilst introducing the fit stability, bass extension and resolution of a good IEM. That is something you won’t find replicated elsewhere even at a vastly higher price. In and of itself, I also find the Black Hole a very outstanding package in many regards, again, if not the most versatile one. In particular, its laid-back bass and cool tone mean its presentation doesn’t flatter all genres equally. That said, this is not a fatiguing or overly wonky sounding in-ear and one with world class space and layering. The Black Hole is a paragon of openness and sits essentially uncontested if you dislike the wearing pressure of conventional in-ears but still want a focused sound with spotlight on vocals and huge, expansive soundstage presentation.
The Black Hole is available on HiFiGO (International) for $799 USD at the time of writing. I am not affiliated with Shozy or HiFiGO and receive no earnings from purchases through this link.
Track List –
Beck – Mellow Gold
Bob Segar – Night Moves
Brb. – Sorry That I Love You
Courtney Barnett – Sometimes I Sit and Think and Sometimes I Just Sit
Crush – NAPPA
Dire Straits – Communique
Dirty Loops – Next To You
Eagles – Hell Freezes Over
Elton John – Honky Chateau
Eric Clapton – Unplugged
Joji – Sanctuary
Nirvana – Nevermind
Pixies – Doolittle
Post Malone – beerbongs & bentleys
Radiohead – OK Computer
Rich Brain – The Sailor
Vampire Weekend – Father of the Bride
ruffandruff
Really curious myself about its soundstage comparison to em5 and here it is. Thanks for comparing the two.
So you conclude that em5 has a bigger stage( feels bigger) than the shozy?
So you conclude that em5 has a bigger stage( feels bigger) than the shozy?
ryanjsoo
@ruffandruff Thanks! Definitely two designs that aren't too common these days. I do feel like the EM5 has the ability to place further away from the listener. The Shozy is more of an IEM/Headphone hybrid and the EM5 is more similar to headphone levels of staging, but not as accurate in terms of imaging.
TLDR –
If you’re looking for a neutral, accurate sound without a fatiguing top-end and value build and ergonomics, the Nair is certainly a strong investment.
Introduction –
GAudio is a new kid on the block from Switzerland who definitely deserves your while. The company is hugely ambitious, their first product release already aiming sites on market leaders. The company design and build all of their products from the ground up. I had a wonderful time getting to know the brains behind GAudio, Nicola, who was very open with their process and receptive to feedback – he definitely gives off mad-scientist vibes so you know he’s onto something good! It is this mentality that underpins their designs and the results show in the finished product. Welcome the Clariden and Nair, GAudio’s first earphones. Both sport gorgeous all-metal shells alongside a 3-BA design. The Nair reviewed here today, is the more reference offering of the two while the Clariden offers a more engaging tuning. From the outset, the package is highly enticing, with a focus on refinement over bulk specification. The shell design and inclusion of premium Satin Audio cable are an indicator that Nicola has very serious intentions in the high-end audio space. As we’ll see, it’s the small touches that make this a convincing package.
The Clariden and Nair are available on GAudio’s website for €759, you can read all about GAudio’s designs and treat yourself to one here.
Disclaimer –
I would like to thank Nicola from GAudio very much for his quick communication and for providing me with the Nair for the purpose of review. All words are my own and there is no monetary incentive for a positive review. I paid a reduced cost for the earphones in return for honest evaluation and will attempt to be as objective as possible.
Specifications –
The Pitch –
3 Drivers – 3-Way
Both earphones are designed to sing from a wide range of sources and avoid hiss with an average 25-ohm impedance. The design has been tuned in both frequency and time domains to match Nicola’s vision – this was a prime reason behind the choice to use a lower driver count.
Satin Audio Hyperion
Both GAudio in-ears include Satin Audio cables from factory. Satin Audio are renowned for their excellent value custom cables and the Hyperion exemplifies this with a reasonable $70 USD asking price. It’s super light with 28AWG wires and features 7N SP-OCC pure SPC conductors with Type 2 Litz geometry. Individually enamelled strands promise no oxidation over time while proprietary TeCu connectors promise enhanced conductivity over standard brass and bronze. All the bells and whistles of a good custom cable are here from factory including a tough Nylon damping core and Cardas solder at all terminations.
Unboxing –
The GAudio packaging is very appealing with a magnetic split-fold box that opens to reveal the earphones within protective foam inlet and leather carrying case below. GAudio includes 5 pairs of Final Audio E-tips out of the box which is a huge plus as these tips are some of my personal favourites both from a sonic and ergonomic standpoint.
In short, the stem is flexible to conform to the bends of the user’s ear canal without obstructing the sound tube-like Spinfits for a more transparent sound and stable fit, excellent stuff. GAudio includes a nice acrylic tip holder to keep things organised. In addition, the user will find the Satin Audio cable and cleaning tool. It’s a very premium and professional experience.
Design –
Surely, the Nair represents one of the most visually appealing earphones on the market. The shells are a gorgeous 3-piece aluminium design – an ebb and flow of curves. They pursue a pseudo-custom design with anti-helix fin for fit stability and elongated nozzles for a strong seal and consistent sound. The shells are relatively light but perfectly sturdy in the hand and the only hint that this product isn’t from an industry veteran is the very slight mismatching of the faceplates and shells. That said, this did not cause discomfort for my ears and Nicola has made it clear that the tolerances are closer on each subsequent batch. An acrylic window denotes the model, the Nair being white, the Clariden being black. These are undoubtedly some of the nicest universal shells currently on the market.
The earphones employ a 0.78mm removable cable system and, as aforementioned, Satin Audio’s Hyperion is included in the box. Though I am not familiar with the original cable, no corners appear to have been cut for mass manufacturing. The cable is thin and light but sturdy with well-anchored terminations and even some visible strain relief. The wire is highly compliant with zero memory and good tangle resistance too on account of a slight springiness. There are no ear guides but a kink just above the connectors that routes the cable over the back of the ear. It is supple enough not to spring over, achieving flawless comfort and stability. Altogether, a highly premium package from an upper-midrange IEM.
Fit & Isolation –
Another highlight of the Nair is its fit which, much like its design, is some of the best I’ve come across. The long nozzles are very well-angled which positions the slightly wider housings neutrally in the ear. The fin does indeed aid fit stability with a very locked-in sensation once fit. I didn’t experience any issues with seal nor comfort, with no hotspot formation over time, they were a great complement to my daily productivity at home or a portable companion when on the go.
What helps with this versatility is their excellent passive noise isolation. The long nozzles promote a deep fit which, in culmination with a dense metal and fully-sealed design, produces some of the best isolation I’ve experienced from a uni. With foam tips, these isolate almost as much as a custom, it’s terrific. If I have one caveat it’s that the nozzles are on the larger side which does limit fit depth to some degree. However, I didn’t experience any issues with fit stability or comfort because of this. The GAudio IEMs are ergonomically excellent.
Sound –
Testing Methodology: Measured using Arta via IEC 711 coupler to Startech external sound card. 7-9KHz peaks may be artefacts/emphasized due to my measurement setup, less so with deep fit. Measurements besides channel balance are volume matched at 1KHz. Fit depth normalized to my best abilities to reduce coupler resonance. Still, due to these factors, my measurements may not accurately reflect the earphone or measurements taken by others.
Tonality –
The Nair has been frequently dubbed as a neutral to reference IEM and I would agree with this statement. It is a touch vocal focussed but, overall, achieves very strong balance and linearity. It doesn’t trace the Harman or Diffuse-field neutral curves but is a rough appropriation of the later with a slightly different midrange tonality. Otherwise, the Nair simply comes across to me as a very tonally clean and balanced earphone with minimal colouration. Sweet and simple, one for the purists.
Bass –
Those looking for a fun signature promptly look away, the Nair is without emphasis of any kind. Rather, its bass is very linear and, in terms of quantity, appears a touch laid-back relative to the midrange to my ears. This means the voicing too, is quite neutral, where a similar style of earphone such as the CFA Ara might draw a bit more attention with bolstered fullness. In return, there is a complete absence of any bloat, bloom or tubbiness and the timbre is very accurate. However, don’t expect bass to ever steal the show nor drive the sound; it is not anaemic but slightly lean with a greater focus on control and agility overpower and warmth. Bass qualities are essentially what you would expect from a midrange BA earphone – that is to say, desirable in terms of detail retrieval but without anything special otherwise.
The presentation is quite typical of the BA earphones of old with limited sub-bass extension producing minimal pressure and a slightly more diffuse slam, defined but slightly diminished rumble. Still, mid-bass is very punchy as notes retain adequate body and weight. They are highly clean and defined, presented with a quick, sharp attack and similarly, rapid decay underpinned by high driver control. In turn, the Nair delivers excellent separation and pace alongside an aggressive texture. Its agile bass is easily able to dissect complex tracks and retrieve fine details in the mid-bass region, though it does lack some depth and drive on bassier tracks.
Mids –
The midrange is naturally voiced and, similar to the low-end, presented in a very neutral and accurate fashion. There are slight deviations from perfect neutral to my ear, perhaps relative to an Etymotic earphone. In particular, the centre midrange peaks around 2.5kHz as opposed to 3kHz. As a result, vocal size is slightly increased and extension is a touch reduced. Some may prefer this as vocals come across as slightly smoother and denser, while positioning remains accurate; neither too intimate nor laid-back. As vocal size is slightly increased, they do tend to take precedence over instruments in both the bass and midrange.
However, all are presented very accurately with superb cleanliness. The tone is dead neutral and articulation, which multi-thousand-dollar earphones often fail to nail, is almost perfectly faithful to the source material. I do hear slightly thinner vocal body as a result of their slight enlargement with only a touch of bolstering around the lower-midrange to compensate. In return, vocal definition and cleanliness is outstanding as is layering and clarity without sounding upper-midrange dominant in any manifestation. This is a naturally voiced and highly accurate midrange rendition with excellent resolving power.
Highs –
Isolated peaks begone, the Nair is linear, even and gradual in its tuning. The lower-treble is especially even-metered and sits in harmony with the midrange. In turn, treble instrumentation is portrayed with accurate body and texture, notes have a pleasing attack and decay naturally too. Cymbals I found to be especially flattered with heaps of texture. Meanwhile, strings and percussion appear accurate and natural too. There isn’t a whiff of aggression or enhanced crispness here, the experience is very well-considered for those wanting an accurate rendition over an energetic one. That said, it’s higher up where we see some limitation of that 3-BA setup, this earphone does not provide the same level of end to end extension as some earphone around this price range – some of which are quite exceptional.
Though the middle-treble too appears well-metered to me, clean but with ample headroom, the extension is not outstanding and there is minimal sparkle at the very top. Listeners will still find a well-layered presentation here and one that balances air and contrast well. The Nair has excellent foreground detail retrieval and a highly accurate portrayal of instruments. However, in its pursuit of realism, sacrifices the additional energy, headroom and sparkle that makes high-end IEMs sound so romantic and magical. This is surely a matter of preference as I don’t find too many earphones here to achieve both accuracy in the lower-treble and energy higher up. So take into account your which you’d like for your listening experience before your final purchase decision.
Soundstage –
The soundstage presentation is, in turn, not the most expansive but roomy enough to avoid ever sounding claustrophobic. There is expansion just beyond the head in width and appeasing projection of depth too with accurate positioning of vocals. Imaging I feel will be a highlight, the transient response is quite clean and directional cues are well represented. Localization is flattered by an accurate portrayal of distance on behalf of the Nair’s very accurate portrayal of volume and size. It isn’t holographic but very stable and well-layered. Separation is also strong throughout while upholding good coherence. So though not the largest presentation, the Nair’s sound is very well-organized and structured which does aid the discernment of smaller details.
Drivability –
The Nair has a 26-ohm impedance and unspecified sensitivity though it is roughly on par with most other high-end BA earphones. As such, it doesn’t require an external amplifier to reach high volumes but its impedance is high enough that it isn’t excessively source sensitive when it comes to output impedance and hiss. I think Nicola has done a pleasing job here at making an earphone that’s quite easy to drive and live with.
Output Impedance Sensitivity
26-ohms is on the higher side, especially for a 3-driver setup and Nicola did specify to me that the earphones were designed to be as source agnostic as possible. And when comparing between the Shanling M2X (1-ohm) and Hiby R6 (10-ohms), I was impressed at how similar the presentation was. Sure, the Hiby was a touch fuller in the bass and vocals were slightly more laid-back as well, however, the treble was very similar as was extension in either direction. The Nair isn’t completely source agnostic like a flat-impedance design but will be forgiving of sources with up to 3-ohm output impedance with only mild changes above.
Driving Power
The Nair doesn’t require much power, it is efficient while not being too sensitive to hiss. The M2X and DD TC35B were both almost silent with minor hiss only audible on the very lowest volume on the M2X, essentially unusable unless you’re superhuman. However, this also meant that stepping up to my desktop THX 789 setup didn’t yield huge benefits which is both a pro and a con. Accordingly, the Nair doesn’t scale up much with higher-end sources. It does sound a bit more linear and the presentation becomes slightly wider from the desktop source, but for the most part, it is not too discerning.
Suggested Pair Ups
As always, this will depend on personal preferences, but at the very least, GAudio has made it easier to source match here. The earphones don’t mind a slightly higher impedance or noise floor and don’t lose too much resolution and width from portable sources either. Tonality wise, I enjoyed the generally warmer AKM sound as provided by the M2X which provided a bit more warmth in the bass alongside a slightly crisper treble. This added a bit more engagement into the Nair’s otherwise very flat sound. The Hiby R6 took the warmth a bit too far, the bass becomes slightly woollier. Neutral sources like the iBasso DX200 are also desirable albeit a bit sterile at times for my tastes. This will depend on implementation, but in general, early ESS sources did not possess the best synergy as, though revealing, they did skew the tonality too lean.
Comparisons –
Audiofly AF1120 MK2 ($699): The AF1120 MK2 sports a 6-BA setup with Butterworth filter. It has a very balanced sound but strikes as more neutral/natural with its warmer tone. The AF1120 extends similarly and the quantity is similar as well. However, the AF1120 introduces a warmer mid-bass, creating a slightly fuller presentation. It is also quickly decaying though the Nair has a cleaner tuning and is more defined. The AF1120 has a slightly more natural presentation to my ears while the Nair is more neutral, trading timbre for detail. The midrange is more open on the AF1120 MK2. It has less body in return for greater extension and clarity. This is counterbalanced by its warmer mid-bass that creates a warmer midrange alongside smoother articulation due to a lower-treble trough.
Meanwhile, the Nair offers the objectively more accurate timbre, being more linear and cleaner in tone, in turn, a bit more resolving. The AF1120 MK2 has smoother articulation so it offers a more coloured presentation and, to me, a more inviting tone while retaining a natural voicing. The treble is more linear on the Nair once again and detail retrieval is better in the foreground as a result. The AF1120 MK2 has a little more headroom and air albeit minimal sparkle as well. The Nair has a larger soundstage, specifically wider, while the AF1120 mk2 has slightly sharper imaging. The Nair is more separated while the AF1120 MK2 is more coherent with its warmer sound and generally fuller note structure.
NXEars Opera ($799): The Opera has a less orthodox tuning but strikes similar overall balance. It’s meatier 8-BA setup is phase-coherent delivering outstanding imaging. The Opera has a larger bass with greater balance between the sub and mid-bass. Neither extend especially well but the Opera comes across as fuller and substantially more robust and weighted. It has similar speed and definition, but the timbre isn’t quite as accurate, the Nair also has a slightly cleaner mid-bass which gives it a slight advantage on busy tracks. The midrange presentation is also quite different. Although both are natural, the Nair is cleaner and more linear while the Opera is again, more robust. The Opera is more full-bodied and a touch warmer, it is smoother but also drier and more truncated sounding.
Both have accurate articulation to me, the Nair comes across as more accurate in timbre overall while the Opera lies on the musical while achieving a natural voicing. The top-end is substantially crisper on the Opera and this is likely why its upper-midrange is denser to compensate. It has better detail retrieval but also thinner instrumentation, the Nair offering more accurate body and decay. The Opera has greater extension and headroom, though neither possess much sparkle. The soundstage is also similarly sized on both, the Opera offering more holographic imaging with quicker, sharper transients while the Nair possesses slightly more accurate positioning. The Nair has a slight leg up on separation as well due to its cleaner tuning.
Astrotec Phoenix ($799): The Phoenix offers a substantially more engaging and fun W-shaped signature with a hybrid DD + EST driver setup. The low-end immediately is much more prominent with substantially greater sub-bass extension and quantity. It delivers a more muscular rumble and slam alongside a fuller, but also tubbier mid-bass. The Phoenix is well-controlled but still quite slowly decaying compared to the Nair. When it comes to detail the Nair has a good advantage, being much cleaner in its tuning in addition to much quicker attacking and decaying. The presentation is very different. The midrange is more upper-midrange biased on the Phoenix and its vocals sound a bit more strained as a result. However, it is a bit more full-bodied than the Nair due to its much larger bass.
Meanwhile, the Nair is a bit more natural and more accurate in timbre. The Phoenix actually has smoother articulation which helps to round off its forward upper-midrange though the Nair comes across as the more linear and resolving performer here, the Phoenix a more engaging. The top-end is much more aggressive on the Phoenix. It has substantially higher detail retrieval and stronger extension with greater headroom and sparkle but also thinner and sharper instrumentation. The Nair is more accurate in terms of quantity and it has much more instrument body. The Phoenix has a larger soundstage in turn, both width and depth. The Nair images better with its more linear tuning and it also has better separation.
Campfire Audio Andromeda 2020 ($1099): Earphone manufacturers certainly should be very careful pricing their earphones. The Nair sits in striking distance to the big Andro and likely at the same price if the buyer is willing to go with a second-hand option. In summary, the Nair is a less technical earphone throughout but it does provide notable benefits with its more linear tuning. The low-end is fuller and warmer on the Andro. It has better extension with more punch in the mid-bass and a weightier sub-bass slam. The Andro sounds more engaging and dynamic but also more bloated due to its fuller mid-bass, the Nair being more defined and discerning of small details. The midrange is warmer and fuller on the Andro, a bit more laid-back relative to the Nair. The Nair has a more linear and accurate voicing where the Andro introduces more colour.
Despite the tone, articulation is also much different, having more emphasis on the Andro and more accuracy on the Nair. This means the Andro sounds glossier and more open but is also more prone to sibilance on poorly mastered tracks especially. The treble tells a similar story, being more aggressive on the Andro and more even on the Nair. The lower-treble is much crisper with more aggressive attack on the Andro and it is more detailed at the cost of losing some body and texture. The Andro has an airier background with much more sparkle that draws focus to its stronger extension and resolution. The Nair is cleaner while the Andro reinforces its stronger technicals with its more energetic tuning. The Andro has a larger soundstage in all aspects and sharper, more holographic imaging while the Nair is more stable with better separation.
Verdict –
Earphones like this are tough to review because they don’t really warrant much compliment nor are they easy to criticize. For the Nair excels with versatility, delivering a reasonably uncompromised experience throughout. The build is excellent, the ergonomics superb, even the cable and ear tips are premium, further enhancing this impression. Sonically, we observe a similar conundrum. There isn’t anything wrong with the tuning beyond whether it matches your personal preference. It is very balanced top to bottom and accurate in tone and timbre. It isn’t the best-in-class technically, possessing neither the sparkle nor the bass extension to best its peers. However, it does have the most accurate tuning of them all. The Nair is not an earphone that excels when reviewed but it might just be one of the most perfect IEMs to live with day to day. If you’re looking for a neutral, accurate sound without a fatiguing top-end and value build and ergonomics, the Nair is certainly a strong investment.
The Nair is available from GAudio (International) for €759 at the time of writing. I am not affiliated with GAudio and receive no earnings from purchases through this link.
Track List –
Ariana Grande – thank u, next
Billy Joel – The Stranger
Bob Seger – Stranger in Town
Courtney Barnett – Sometimes I Sit and Think, and Sometimes I Just Sit
Dire Traits – Communique
Fleetwood Mac – Rumours
Joji – Sanctuary
MGMT – Oracular Spectacular
Nirvana – Nevermind
Phoenix – United
Suggi – cheer up!
The Cranberries – Something Else
The Rolling Stones – Hot Rocks
The Shins – Oh, Inverted World
If you’re looking for a neutral, accurate sound without a fatiguing top-end and value build and ergonomics, the Nair is certainly a strong investment.
Introduction –
GAudio is a new kid on the block from Switzerland who definitely deserves your while. The company is hugely ambitious, their first product release already aiming sites on market leaders. The company design and build all of their products from the ground up. I had a wonderful time getting to know the brains behind GAudio, Nicola, who was very open with their process and receptive to feedback – he definitely gives off mad-scientist vibes so you know he’s onto something good! It is this mentality that underpins their designs and the results show in the finished product. Welcome the Clariden and Nair, GAudio’s first earphones. Both sport gorgeous all-metal shells alongside a 3-BA design. The Nair reviewed here today, is the more reference offering of the two while the Clariden offers a more engaging tuning. From the outset, the package is highly enticing, with a focus on refinement over bulk specification. The shell design and inclusion of premium Satin Audio cable are an indicator that Nicola has very serious intentions in the high-end audio space. As we’ll see, it’s the small touches that make this a convincing package.
The Clariden and Nair are available on GAudio’s website for €759, you can read all about GAudio’s designs and treat yourself to one here.
Disclaimer –
I would like to thank Nicola from GAudio very much for his quick communication and for providing me with the Nair for the purpose of review. All words are my own and there is no monetary incentive for a positive review. I paid a reduced cost for the earphones in return for honest evaluation and will attempt to be as objective as possible.
Specifications –
- 2 Acoustic paths
- 3 Way-System – 1x Bass, 1x Mid, 1x high
- Impedance @1kHz = 26ohm
- Impedance average = 25ohm
The Pitch –
3 Drivers – 3-Way
Both earphones are designed to sing from a wide range of sources and avoid hiss with an average 25-ohm impedance. The design has been tuned in both frequency and time domains to match Nicola’s vision – this was a prime reason behind the choice to use a lower driver count.
Satin Audio Hyperion
Both GAudio in-ears include Satin Audio cables from factory. Satin Audio are renowned for their excellent value custom cables and the Hyperion exemplifies this with a reasonable $70 USD asking price. It’s super light with 28AWG wires and features 7N SP-OCC pure SPC conductors with Type 2 Litz geometry. Individually enamelled strands promise no oxidation over time while proprietary TeCu connectors promise enhanced conductivity over standard brass and bronze. All the bells and whistles of a good custom cable are here from factory including a tough Nylon damping core and Cardas solder at all terminations.
Unboxing –
The GAudio packaging is very appealing with a magnetic split-fold box that opens to reveal the earphones within protective foam inlet and leather carrying case below. GAudio includes 5 pairs of Final Audio E-tips out of the box which is a huge plus as these tips are some of my personal favourites both from a sonic and ergonomic standpoint.
In short, the stem is flexible to conform to the bends of the user’s ear canal without obstructing the sound tube-like Spinfits for a more transparent sound and stable fit, excellent stuff. GAudio includes a nice acrylic tip holder to keep things organised. In addition, the user will find the Satin Audio cable and cleaning tool. It’s a very premium and professional experience.
Design –
Surely, the Nair represents one of the most visually appealing earphones on the market. The shells are a gorgeous 3-piece aluminium design – an ebb and flow of curves. They pursue a pseudo-custom design with anti-helix fin for fit stability and elongated nozzles for a strong seal and consistent sound. The shells are relatively light but perfectly sturdy in the hand and the only hint that this product isn’t from an industry veteran is the very slight mismatching of the faceplates and shells. That said, this did not cause discomfort for my ears and Nicola has made it clear that the tolerances are closer on each subsequent batch. An acrylic window denotes the model, the Nair being white, the Clariden being black. These are undoubtedly some of the nicest universal shells currently on the market.
The earphones employ a 0.78mm removable cable system and, as aforementioned, Satin Audio’s Hyperion is included in the box. Though I am not familiar with the original cable, no corners appear to have been cut for mass manufacturing. The cable is thin and light but sturdy with well-anchored terminations and even some visible strain relief. The wire is highly compliant with zero memory and good tangle resistance too on account of a slight springiness. There are no ear guides but a kink just above the connectors that routes the cable over the back of the ear. It is supple enough not to spring over, achieving flawless comfort and stability. Altogether, a highly premium package from an upper-midrange IEM.
Fit & Isolation –
Another highlight of the Nair is its fit which, much like its design, is some of the best I’ve come across. The long nozzles are very well-angled which positions the slightly wider housings neutrally in the ear. The fin does indeed aid fit stability with a very locked-in sensation once fit. I didn’t experience any issues with seal nor comfort, with no hotspot formation over time, they were a great complement to my daily productivity at home or a portable companion when on the go.
What helps with this versatility is their excellent passive noise isolation. The long nozzles promote a deep fit which, in culmination with a dense metal and fully-sealed design, produces some of the best isolation I’ve experienced from a uni. With foam tips, these isolate almost as much as a custom, it’s terrific. If I have one caveat it’s that the nozzles are on the larger side which does limit fit depth to some degree. However, I didn’t experience any issues with fit stability or comfort because of this. The GAudio IEMs are ergonomically excellent.
Sound –
Testing Methodology: Measured using Arta via IEC 711 coupler to Startech external sound card. 7-9KHz peaks may be artefacts/emphasized due to my measurement setup, less so with deep fit. Measurements besides channel balance are volume matched at 1KHz. Fit depth normalized to my best abilities to reduce coupler resonance. Still, due to these factors, my measurements may not accurately reflect the earphone or measurements taken by others.
Tonality –
The Nair has been frequently dubbed as a neutral to reference IEM and I would agree with this statement. It is a touch vocal focussed but, overall, achieves very strong balance and linearity. It doesn’t trace the Harman or Diffuse-field neutral curves but is a rough appropriation of the later with a slightly different midrange tonality. Otherwise, the Nair simply comes across to me as a very tonally clean and balanced earphone with minimal colouration. Sweet and simple, one for the purists.
Bass –
Those looking for a fun signature promptly look away, the Nair is without emphasis of any kind. Rather, its bass is very linear and, in terms of quantity, appears a touch laid-back relative to the midrange to my ears. This means the voicing too, is quite neutral, where a similar style of earphone such as the CFA Ara might draw a bit more attention with bolstered fullness. In return, there is a complete absence of any bloat, bloom or tubbiness and the timbre is very accurate. However, don’t expect bass to ever steal the show nor drive the sound; it is not anaemic but slightly lean with a greater focus on control and agility overpower and warmth. Bass qualities are essentially what you would expect from a midrange BA earphone – that is to say, desirable in terms of detail retrieval but without anything special otherwise.
The presentation is quite typical of the BA earphones of old with limited sub-bass extension producing minimal pressure and a slightly more diffuse slam, defined but slightly diminished rumble. Still, mid-bass is very punchy as notes retain adequate body and weight. They are highly clean and defined, presented with a quick, sharp attack and similarly, rapid decay underpinned by high driver control. In turn, the Nair delivers excellent separation and pace alongside an aggressive texture. Its agile bass is easily able to dissect complex tracks and retrieve fine details in the mid-bass region, though it does lack some depth and drive on bassier tracks.
Mids –
The midrange is naturally voiced and, similar to the low-end, presented in a very neutral and accurate fashion. There are slight deviations from perfect neutral to my ear, perhaps relative to an Etymotic earphone. In particular, the centre midrange peaks around 2.5kHz as opposed to 3kHz. As a result, vocal size is slightly increased and extension is a touch reduced. Some may prefer this as vocals come across as slightly smoother and denser, while positioning remains accurate; neither too intimate nor laid-back. As vocal size is slightly increased, they do tend to take precedence over instruments in both the bass and midrange.
However, all are presented very accurately with superb cleanliness. The tone is dead neutral and articulation, which multi-thousand-dollar earphones often fail to nail, is almost perfectly faithful to the source material. I do hear slightly thinner vocal body as a result of their slight enlargement with only a touch of bolstering around the lower-midrange to compensate. In return, vocal definition and cleanliness is outstanding as is layering and clarity without sounding upper-midrange dominant in any manifestation. This is a naturally voiced and highly accurate midrange rendition with excellent resolving power.
Highs –
Isolated peaks begone, the Nair is linear, even and gradual in its tuning. The lower-treble is especially even-metered and sits in harmony with the midrange. In turn, treble instrumentation is portrayed with accurate body and texture, notes have a pleasing attack and decay naturally too. Cymbals I found to be especially flattered with heaps of texture. Meanwhile, strings and percussion appear accurate and natural too. There isn’t a whiff of aggression or enhanced crispness here, the experience is very well-considered for those wanting an accurate rendition over an energetic one. That said, it’s higher up where we see some limitation of that 3-BA setup, this earphone does not provide the same level of end to end extension as some earphone around this price range – some of which are quite exceptional.
Though the middle-treble too appears well-metered to me, clean but with ample headroom, the extension is not outstanding and there is minimal sparkle at the very top. Listeners will still find a well-layered presentation here and one that balances air and contrast well. The Nair has excellent foreground detail retrieval and a highly accurate portrayal of instruments. However, in its pursuit of realism, sacrifices the additional energy, headroom and sparkle that makes high-end IEMs sound so romantic and magical. This is surely a matter of preference as I don’t find too many earphones here to achieve both accuracy in the lower-treble and energy higher up. So take into account your which you’d like for your listening experience before your final purchase decision.
Soundstage –
The soundstage presentation is, in turn, not the most expansive but roomy enough to avoid ever sounding claustrophobic. There is expansion just beyond the head in width and appeasing projection of depth too with accurate positioning of vocals. Imaging I feel will be a highlight, the transient response is quite clean and directional cues are well represented. Localization is flattered by an accurate portrayal of distance on behalf of the Nair’s very accurate portrayal of volume and size. It isn’t holographic but very stable and well-layered. Separation is also strong throughout while upholding good coherence. So though not the largest presentation, the Nair’s sound is very well-organized and structured which does aid the discernment of smaller details.
Drivability –
The Nair has a 26-ohm impedance and unspecified sensitivity though it is roughly on par with most other high-end BA earphones. As such, it doesn’t require an external amplifier to reach high volumes but its impedance is high enough that it isn’t excessively source sensitive when it comes to output impedance and hiss. I think Nicola has done a pleasing job here at making an earphone that’s quite easy to drive and live with.
Output Impedance Sensitivity
26-ohms is on the higher side, especially for a 3-driver setup and Nicola did specify to me that the earphones were designed to be as source agnostic as possible. And when comparing between the Shanling M2X (1-ohm) and Hiby R6 (10-ohms), I was impressed at how similar the presentation was. Sure, the Hiby was a touch fuller in the bass and vocals were slightly more laid-back as well, however, the treble was very similar as was extension in either direction. The Nair isn’t completely source agnostic like a flat-impedance design but will be forgiving of sources with up to 3-ohm output impedance with only mild changes above.
Driving Power
The Nair doesn’t require much power, it is efficient while not being too sensitive to hiss. The M2X and DD TC35B were both almost silent with minor hiss only audible on the very lowest volume on the M2X, essentially unusable unless you’re superhuman. However, this also meant that stepping up to my desktop THX 789 setup didn’t yield huge benefits which is both a pro and a con. Accordingly, the Nair doesn’t scale up much with higher-end sources. It does sound a bit more linear and the presentation becomes slightly wider from the desktop source, but for the most part, it is not too discerning.
Suggested Pair Ups
As always, this will depend on personal preferences, but at the very least, GAudio has made it easier to source match here. The earphones don’t mind a slightly higher impedance or noise floor and don’t lose too much resolution and width from portable sources either. Tonality wise, I enjoyed the generally warmer AKM sound as provided by the M2X which provided a bit more warmth in the bass alongside a slightly crisper treble. This added a bit more engagement into the Nair’s otherwise very flat sound. The Hiby R6 took the warmth a bit too far, the bass becomes slightly woollier. Neutral sources like the iBasso DX200 are also desirable albeit a bit sterile at times for my tastes. This will depend on implementation, but in general, early ESS sources did not possess the best synergy as, though revealing, they did skew the tonality too lean.
Comparisons –
Audiofly AF1120 MK2 ($699): The AF1120 MK2 sports a 6-BA setup with Butterworth filter. It has a very balanced sound but strikes as more neutral/natural with its warmer tone. The AF1120 extends similarly and the quantity is similar as well. However, the AF1120 introduces a warmer mid-bass, creating a slightly fuller presentation. It is also quickly decaying though the Nair has a cleaner tuning and is more defined. The AF1120 has a slightly more natural presentation to my ears while the Nair is more neutral, trading timbre for detail. The midrange is more open on the AF1120 MK2. It has less body in return for greater extension and clarity. This is counterbalanced by its warmer mid-bass that creates a warmer midrange alongside smoother articulation due to a lower-treble trough.
Meanwhile, the Nair offers the objectively more accurate timbre, being more linear and cleaner in tone, in turn, a bit more resolving. The AF1120 MK2 has smoother articulation so it offers a more coloured presentation and, to me, a more inviting tone while retaining a natural voicing. The treble is more linear on the Nair once again and detail retrieval is better in the foreground as a result. The AF1120 MK2 has a little more headroom and air albeit minimal sparkle as well. The Nair has a larger soundstage, specifically wider, while the AF1120 mk2 has slightly sharper imaging. The Nair is more separated while the AF1120 MK2 is more coherent with its warmer sound and generally fuller note structure.
NXEars Opera ($799): The Opera has a less orthodox tuning but strikes similar overall balance. It’s meatier 8-BA setup is phase-coherent delivering outstanding imaging. The Opera has a larger bass with greater balance between the sub and mid-bass. Neither extend especially well but the Opera comes across as fuller and substantially more robust and weighted. It has similar speed and definition, but the timbre isn’t quite as accurate, the Nair also has a slightly cleaner mid-bass which gives it a slight advantage on busy tracks. The midrange presentation is also quite different. Although both are natural, the Nair is cleaner and more linear while the Opera is again, more robust. The Opera is more full-bodied and a touch warmer, it is smoother but also drier and more truncated sounding.
Both have accurate articulation to me, the Nair comes across as more accurate in timbre overall while the Opera lies on the musical while achieving a natural voicing. The top-end is substantially crisper on the Opera and this is likely why its upper-midrange is denser to compensate. It has better detail retrieval but also thinner instrumentation, the Nair offering more accurate body and decay. The Opera has greater extension and headroom, though neither possess much sparkle. The soundstage is also similarly sized on both, the Opera offering more holographic imaging with quicker, sharper transients while the Nair possesses slightly more accurate positioning. The Nair has a slight leg up on separation as well due to its cleaner tuning.
Astrotec Phoenix ($799): The Phoenix offers a substantially more engaging and fun W-shaped signature with a hybrid DD + EST driver setup. The low-end immediately is much more prominent with substantially greater sub-bass extension and quantity. It delivers a more muscular rumble and slam alongside a fuller, but also tubbier mid-bass. The Phoenix is well-controlled but still quite slowly decaying compared to the Nair. When it comes to detail the Nair has a good advantage, being much cleaner in its tuning in addition to much quicker attacking and decaying. The presentation is very different. The midrange is more upper-midrange biased on the Phoenix and its vocals sound a bit more strained as a result. However, it is a bit more full-bodied than the Nair due to its much larger bass.
Meanwhile, the Nair is a bit more natural and more accurate in timbre. The Phoenix actually has smoother articulation which helps to round off its forward upper-midrange though the Nair comes across as the more linear and resolving performer here, the Phoenix a more engaging. The top-end is much more aggressive on the Phoenix. It has substantially higher detail retrieval and stronger extension with greater headroom and sparkle but also thinner and sharper instrumentation. The Nair is more accurate in terms of quantity and it has much more instrument body. The Phoenix has a larger soundstage in turn, both width and depth. The Nair images better with its more linear tuning and it also has better separation.
Campfire Audio Andromeda 2020 ($1099): Earphone manufacturers certainly should be very careful pricing their earphones. The Nair sits in striking distance to the big Andro and likely at the same price if the buyer is willing to go with a second-hand option. In summary, the Nair is a less technical earphone throughout but it does provide notable benefits with its more linear tuning. The low-end is fuller and warmer on the Andro. It has better extension with more punch in the mid-bass and a weightier sub-bass slam. The Andro sounds more engaging and dynamic but also more bloated due to its fuller mid-bass, the Nair being more defined and discerning of small details. The midrange is warmer and fuller on the Andro, a bit more laid-back relative to the Nair. The Nair has a more linear and accurate voicing where the Andro introduces more colour.
Despite the tone, articulation is also much different, having more emphasis on the Andro and more accuracy on the Nair. This means the Andro sounds glossier and more open but is also more prone to sibilance on poorly mastered tracks especially. The treble tells a similar story, being more aggressive on the Andro and more even on the Nair. The lower-treble is much crisper with more aggressive attack on the Andro and it is more detailed at the cost of losing some body and texture. The Andro has an airier background with much more sparkle that draws focus to its stronger extension and resolution. The Nair is cleaner while the Andro reinforces its stronger technicals with its more energetic tuning. The Andro has a larger soundstage in all aspects and sharper, more holographic imaging while the Nair is more stable with better separation.
Verdict –
Earphones like this are tough to review because they don’t really warrant much compliment nor are they easy to criticize. For the Nair excels with versatility, delivering a reasonably uncompromised experience throughout. The build is excellent, the ergonomics superb, even the cable and ear tips are premium, further enhancing this impression. Sonically, we observe a similar conundrum. There isn’t anything wrong with the tuning beyond whether it matches your personal preference. It is very balanced top to bottom and accurate in tone and timbre. It isn’t the best-in-class technically, possessing neither the sparkle nor the bass extension to best its peers. However, it does have the most accurate tuning of them all. The Nair is not an earphone that excels when reviewed but it might just be one of the most perfect IEMs to live with day to day. If you’re looking for a neutral, accurate sound without a fatiguing top-end and value build and ergonomics, the Nair is certainly a strong investment.
The Nair is available from GAudio (International) for €759 at the time of writing. I am not affiliated with GAudio and receive no earnings from purchases through this link.
Track List –
Ariana Grande – thank u, next
Billy Joel – The Stranger
Bob Seger – Stranger in Town
Courtney Barnett – Sometimes I Sit and Think, and Sometimes I Just Sit
Dire Traits – Communique
Fleetwood Mac – Rumours
Joji – Sanctuary
MGMT – Oracular Spectacular
Nirvana – Nevermind
Phoenix – United
Suggi – cheer up!
The Cranberries – Something Else
The Rolling Stones – Hot Rocks
The Shins – Oh, Inverted World
MrDelicious
I think you mean Swiss.
TLDR –
The Cupid makes for a highly engaging listen and a truly unique package that’s easily worth more than oBravo’s RRP.
Introduction –
Most will surely be familiar with oBravo, a Taiwanese audio manufacturer who specialises in air-motion transformer (AMT) and planar magnetic drivers (PMD) and whose earphones have been known to stretch into the 5-digit price range. There’s a reason for this, these driver types are immensely difficult to miniaturise and oBravo design and build their driver’s in-house using a patented process. It’s been almost a decade since their first fully formed model was released onto the market and now, we’re seeing that cutting-edge technology filter down to a substantially more attainable price range. Enter the Cupid, a hybrid earphone sporting a custom dynamic driver + planar magnetic tweeter configuration that comes in at a very reasonable £249 asking price. With such a name and legacy, the Cupid competes viciously in one of the most competitive price brackets in the IEM market. You can read more about oBravo and peruse their line-up here and treat yourself to a Cupid here.
Disclaimer –
I would like to thank Danny from oBravo very much for his quick communication and for providing me with the Cupid for the purpose of review. All words are my own and there is no monetary incentive for a positive review. Despite receiving the earphones free of cost, I will attempt to be as objective as possible in my evaluation.
Tech Specs –
Weight: 200g
Technology: Dynamic, Planar Tweeter
Colour: Black Gold
Audio Range: 20Hz~40KHz
Sensitivity: 105dB
Impedance: 16ohms
The Pitch –
DD + PMT with Physical Crossover
The Cupid is a very unique hybrid-driver earphone combining a 6mm dynamic driver (DD) woofer with a 9mm planar magnetic tweeter (PMT). Furthermore, where the vast majority of designs employ circuitry to designate each driver with a frequency range, the Cupid rather utilises acoustics. Usually, this is in the form of a low-pass filter on the DD and maybe a high-pass on the PMT though I would be unable to say as there are no further details on oBravo’s website. Physical cross overs are much harder to tune but can create a more coherent sound with better phase alignment.
For those unfamiliar with the technology, standard dynamic drivers have a diaphragm that pushes air driven by a small central voice coil. Planar magnetic drivers, on the other hand, employ a conductive trace that covers a much larger surface area of the diaphragm. The benefit to this design is that force is exerted equally across the entire surface which means you can employ a lighter, quicker accelerating/decelerating diaphragm material.
It also means that at high frequencies PMD’s experience less modal breakup due to the uniform application of force, hence, they provide better extension and lower distortion. Planars are often lauded for their powerful bass response, able to move more air with their larger driven surface. However, as oBravo are working within the limitations of a minute housing, they have instead decided to capitalise on their low-distortion nature to deliver an insightful top-end.
Accessories –
The Cupid comes in clean and space-efficient packaging. Inside the hard box is a foam inlet containing 3 sealed bags of Comply foam tips of varying size alongside a soft pouch with individual compartments for each earpiece to prevent scratches. An adjacent cut-out houses 3 sizes of whirlwind tips and the Cupids themselves. The whirlwind tips are quite intriguing, with reinforced ridging beneath the mushroom tip that provides a stronger seal when inserted deeper in the ear.
A pull-tab provides easy access to a lower compartment containing the 2.5mm balanced cable and Velcro strap. There are actually 3 variants of the Cupid, standard containing just the aforementioned accessories, the prime version including a 2.5mm to 3.5mm adapter and ultimate version that contains an additional 4.4mm Pentaconn adapter on top. The adapters are very nicely constructed and have a similar build to the cable’s plug, providing a congruent aesthetic.
Design –
Fundamentally, the Cupid assumes a pod-like over-ear design reminiscent of Shure’s highly acclaimed housings along with all their benefits. That said, where a basic acrylic complexion was to be found there, a defining feature of the Cupid is its dense and lustrous electroplated brass construction that exudes a very premium aura. These earphones are a spectacle; smoothly formed and immaculately finished, creating a play of light and shadow that’s certainly very difficult to capture on camera. Meanwhile, as they’re quite compact and produce a tremendously strong seal, the Cupid’s weight doesn’t feel burdensome in the ear while its density feels thoroughly convincing in the hand. The construction quality certainly belies their asking price.
Rather controversially, oBravo have chosen to implement keyed MMCX connectors. The key prevents swivelling and offers some additional reinforcement, however, those wanting to change the cable will have to modify the plug themselves which will naturally void all manufacturer support. The plugs are also ridiculously long which can cause them to rub on the temples, however, I didn’t experience this issue personally. Still, the cable itself provides a similar impression of quality as the earphones. It’s a 4-wire braided unit with OCC conductors in a Litz geometry. The connectors are metal and the jack reminiscent of Ranko plugs.
Fit & Isolation –
The Cupid is one of the best fitting earphones I’ve tested, compact, low-profile and with a very strong seal. Due to their size, they don’t contact any part of my average-sized outer ears, thereby forming no hotspots over time. As they are very slim and lie flush with the outer ear, they would also be a good choice for side-sleepers so long as the longer MMCX connectors don’t cause discomfort for the listener’s ears. I could spot no obvious vents which reinforces their excellent seal and passive noise isolation.
With foam tips especially, the Cupid would be perfect for frequent travellers and commuters. The upside to this is also their use of a dynamic driver, most of which are vented. The Cupid is an oddity in that it provides a rare combination of full, punchy and extended bass alongside excellent isolation and seal. I found the included whirlwind tips an excellent complement to their design in both sound and seal.
Sound –
Testing Methodology: Arta via IEC 711 coupler to Startech external sound card. Note that 7-9KHz peaks are artefacts of my measurement setup. I also did not hear the channel imbalance in that region in subjective listening. Take this graph with a grain of salt. Measurements besides channel balance are volume matched at 1K.
Tonality –
Every now and then an earphone arrives that challenges my ability to analyse sound and the Cupid is such a model. Fundamentally, this earphone is highly engaging, with a naturally voiced albeit thin, vivid and highly revealing voicing. Technicalities are excellent for the price, no question, and this is brought to the fore through its W-shaped tuning that emphasizes the sub-bass, upper-midrange and middle-treble. As many others have mentioned, the Cupid is such a curious mix of qualities that you’d be hard-pressed to find elsewhere in addition to a great technical achievement. What it isn’t is balanced, linear or orthodox in tuning or staging.
Of note, the design of the Cupid makes it quite flexible in terms of fit. As aforementioned, the sound is tip sensitive, however, the stock whirlwind tips are an excellent companion. Should the user want a slightly tighter low-end, they can upsize and push the tips down so the grill of the nozzle is flush with the tip’s surface. This should also shift the high-frequency peaks slightly higher, but I found it a tad bright and fatiguing. My preferred pairing were the medium tips installed standardly on the lip of the nozzle which provided a bit more body to the sound while tapering off the high-end slightly. I also found the angle of the housings to affect the sound quite noticeably, perhaps due to the nature of the PMT. Pushing the housings deeper and angling the housings back provided slightly more coherent imaging to my ears.
Bass –
Weighty, articulate and with solid pressure in the sub-bass, the Cupid’s low-end has excellent extension and technical qualities. It has moderate emphasis, but not too much in the mid-bass so it isn’t ever-present and overbearing. The tonality is pleasing, with emphasis centred mostly around the sub-bass while refraining from over-extending into muddiness, only enough to provide affirming note fullness. The mid-bass is mildly enhanced, retaining a natural, albeit enlarged bass note presentation. Meanwhile, the upper-bass falls off smoothly into the lower-midrange in order to prevent excessive warmth. The result is a sound that is full with great kick and slam, carrying what I consider to be natural warmth but also minimal tubbiness.
Bloat and muddiness are also kept well at bay by excellent driver control delivering a tight sub-bass and concise, punchy mid-bass. This was most apparent to me when listening to David Bowie’s “Moonage Daydream” where the rapid drums around 55s can become confused on slower drivers. It was apparent here, that both attack and decay are quick for a dynamic driver. You don’t get thick, lingering notes, but a tactful and pacey presentation with great definition, texture and kick. The low-end on the Cupid is very dynamic and its emphasized quantity will cater more towards those wanting engagement over perfect balance and linearity. Still, the Cupid will lure in unsuspecting audiophiles and captivate not with huge presence but moderate enhancement and outstanding technicalities.
Mids –
I will admit that personally, I am most sensitive to midrange timbre, which will be informed in part by the bass and treble but ultimately must strike some sort of balance throughout. The Cupid is evidently not balanced in any region, but overall, its vocals aren’t too wonky either. What immediately stands out is a lack of any warmth and diminished midrange body. There’s little upper-bass warmth and a large dip in the lower-midrange before rapidly increasing emphasis to an upper-midrange hump. As such, vocals are brought to the fore but distinctly lack power and density. Nonetheless, they also avoid the fallibilities of most clarity-focussed earphones. They aren’t too intimate for instance, and vocals don’t strike as over-forward nor strident even if they can come across as strained at times.
Evidently, this is not a presentation for those valuing a natural timbre or rich, organic instrumentation. Rather, the Cupid excels with clarity and definition, providing a revealing, delicate and open soundscape. There’s no veil, warmth or density to mire that crystal-clear image while sibilance is a non-issue with sharp 6KHz attenuation providing a very smooth articulation that takes the edge off the Cupid’s clear yet thin vocals. Altogether this weaves a presentation that is highly defined and hyper separated but without stridence or a metallic timbre. To reiterate, the Cupid isn’t especially natural and isn’t precise in its reproduction of albums with differing mastering style, but it never comes across as explicitly wonky either. This is a vivid and engaging presentation first and foremost.
Highs –
The top-end offers a split-character, organic and smooth in the foreground but crisp higher up, all the while upholding excellent clarity, technical qualities and separation throughout. It’s a brighter earphone so those averse to sharpness and crisp instrumentation head warning. It begins with a sharply attenuated lower-treble that saps percussion of any harsh, hard-edged quality before twin peaks in the middle and upper-treble. This grants treble pristine clarity but also results in a thinner instrument body. Higher instruments such as high hats are brought to the fore as are background and micro-details. The foreground, meanwhile, is slightly more laid-back, however, as the PMT provides a very precise attack and concise transient response, the Cupid has fantastic detail retrieval throughout the entire top end; if also further exacerbating the thin character of its presentation.
The tuning is undoubtedly unorthodox, with a bright background and abundant air rather than being aggressive in the foreground. There’s a touch of glare and grain in the background on some tracks that prevents the Cupid from achieving the immaculate, clean and effortless sense of distance rendered by higher-end earphones. Still, there’s excellent extension at play here alongside great resolution. Energy is abundant and there’s even a pleasing amount of sparkle. The Cupid is aggressive and easily one of the most detailed in its price class; it’s certainly very engaging and sheds light on little details that earphones around this price rarely do, if ever. However, in so doing, it also has less focussed and stable imaging than earphones with more orthodox tuning.
Soundstage –
Surely one of the most unique characteristics of this earphone as it is especially track dependent but technically very proficient. In terms of dimensions, the earphone can cast deep and wide, well outside the head in all axis. However, it doesn’t always create such a grand presentation as on some tracks, the background becomes more intimate due to its brightness, creating a more closed in presentation. Depth is always excellent, but not too distant so vocals remain defined and focused. Imaging, however. is a mixed bag.
There’s a sort of dead zone in the middle, vocals are well centred but panning and directional cues only occur to the sides. As transients are clean and sharp, the presentation is almost holographic, but instrument positioning also isn’t quite as precise and organised as one would expect. Additionally, the midrange is highly layered, however, the top end isn’t as the background and foreground lack contrast which can overshadow some fine details. The same can be said for separation which is excellent through the bass and midrange but reduced in the treble due to the lack of contrast and touches of glare that creep in every now and then.
Driveability –
The Cupid has a 16-ohm impedance paired with a higher 105dB sensitivity. I found it required a little more volume than most earphones but it’s easy to drive to high volumes overall. That said, you will want to drive the Cupid from a low impedance source. For instance, comparing between the 1-ohm Shanling M2X and 10-ohm Hiby R6 yielded a slower low-end and the high-end almost disappeared entirely. This smoother sound may suit some listeners, however, so those curious will want to experiment with low-value impedance adapters. Otherwise, the Cupid loves a clean and powerful source, scaling very well. Power is most notable with regards to the bass which gained control on my desktop setup. Meanwhile, the tweeter is a bit more sensitive to hiss, though I didn’t have issue with any of my modern sources.
Comparisons –
Final Audio E5000 ($279): The E5000 is a warmer, smoother earphone. It is noticeably more bass biased, there’s slightly less sub-bass quantity but similarly strong extension. The E5000 has more mid-bass, making it warmer where the Cupid is cleaner but also a touch less linear. Both have excellent control and definition, the Cupid being more agile, the E5000 more natural in decay and voicing. The E5000 has a much fuller and more organic midrange, the Cupid is thinner and more neutral in tone but both are quite smooth up top.
The E5000 has more laid-back vocals while the Cupid is more forward. The E5000 is denser while the Cupid is more open, defined and revealing. The Cupid has a much more aggressive top-end with sharper transients and more detail retrieval throughout. It also isn’t as clean or organised, the E5000 possessing a darker background and more defined layers. Both have excellent soundstage expansion, the Cupid has sharper imaging while the E5000 has more realistic positioning.
Campfire Audio IO ($299): The IO is a more neutral sound overall but possesses a similarly vocal forward character. It has substantially less sub-bass extension but also a similar amount of bass overall, focussing more on the mid and upper-bass instead. As such, the IO is warmer and actually a touch fuller while the Cupid has more weight, rumble and power. The IO has that typical sharper, quicker decaying BA bass where the Cupid decays more naturally delivering more texture and greater dynamics overall. The IO shares a similar midrange presentation too. As its centre midrange is more forward, it is a touch more vocal forward and has more warmth too.
However, it is similarly thin and a bit strained, neither specialising in perfect timbre. Both cater towards high vocal clarity, extension and definition instead. Within the high-end, the IO has a more focussed foreground and a slightly warmer tone while the Cupid has sharper transients with thinner instrumentation but also more resolution and extension. Neither have an especially clean background, but the Cupid has a much larger soundstage, the IO being quite intimate. The IO has slightly more stable imaging while the Cupid has sharper cues and is more holographic.
Periodic Audio Be ($299): Of note, comparison will be to a modded Be (detailed here) which has a more balanced sound than stock. The Be has a more linear low-end with light mid-bass warmth. The Cupid has more sub-bass bias and a bit more extension, delivering a thicker note but also less warmth, it delivers more power while the Be is more natural. Both have similar driver control, the Be has more natural decay and a smoother texture while the Cupid is tighter and quicker decaying, delivering more definition and slightly higher dynamics. The Be is much more linear through the midrange with a very accurate timbre. It’s warmer and fuller but still sufficiently clear. It’s also smoothly articulated and denser, overall, vocals are just as present but larger and more powerful with more life-like representation.
The Cupid has higher clarity and extension, it is more revealing with greater definition and separation. The Cupid has a more aggressive top-end, the Be is smoother in note attack with less concise transients. The Cupid is more detailed too with much better extension and higher resolution, clearly the more resolving top-end. The Be has a warmer treble and more body, slightly more texture in the foreground. It has a cleaner, darker background generating more stable imaging with more defined layers. Meanwhile, the Cupid has a larger soundstage with sharper imaging and higher separation through the bass and midrange especially.
Oriveti OH300($299): Also a W-shaped IEM but substantially smoother in its tuning. Both sport a sub-bass focus paired with a reasonably linear mid-bass and recessed upper-bass for a full yet clean low-end presentation. The Oriveti sounds a bit bassier as its top-end is less forward. The Cupid has slightly higher driver control and quicker decay where the OH300 is a touch smoother and more naturally decaying but also less defined. The OH300 has a slightly more forward vocal range as its emphasis centres mostly around the centre midrange.
It has more lower-midrange quantity with greater body albeit neither are warm in tone, being neutral and clean. The Cupid has higher definition and clarity with more extension, however the OH300 is hardly lacking here, and is noticeably more natural. Both are very smoothly articulated and laid-back in the lower-treble. The Cupid is clearly more detailed in the treble with better extension and micro-detail retrieval. Meanwhile, the OH300 has a much darker, cleaner background so it is a lot more composed, lacking the glare and thin instrument body of the Cupid. The Cupid has a larger soundstage and sharper imaging while the OH300 is more stable and realistic in its positioning with slightly better separation.
Acoustune HS1503AL (~$400): A similar style of sound from a single DD earphone with similar focus on acoustic design. The HS1503AL has a warmer low-end with more linear wide-band emphasis through the low-end, the Cupid being more sub-bass focused. The low-end on the Acoustune is slightly more natural in voicing, driver control is slightly higher on the Acoustune and decay is slightly more natural, it is more dynamic while the Cupid is a touch cleaner and quicker but also with less resolution. The midrange presentation is very similar, the Acoustune has more warmth and body from its low-end and a bit more density in the upper-midrange sounding more orthodox. The Cupid is thinner and more neutrally toned.
It has better extension and sounds slightly more open where the Acoustune sounds more natural while upholding very high clarity and definition. The HS1503AL has a more aggressive foreground and also sports a small middle-treble bump but is much cleaner in the background overall. It has more instrument body and sounds more focussed with better contrast and foreground detail retrieval. The Cupid meanwhile has more sparkle and air but is also a lot thinner, it has slightly better extension and a larger soundstage overall. The Acoustune has more stable imaging representing a more orthodox version of the Cupid’s tuning but also lacking the transient qualities of its PMT.
Verdict –
When you’ve been reviewing audio gear for half a decade you’re never really surprised. Over the years, portable audio has seen maturation not dissimilar to the smartphone industry. There’s no weird and wonderful proof of concepts, it’s been done and now refined, creating a spectrum of what is simply… good, sometimes great. The Cupid is such a surprising rarity, and it sounds different to just about everything else. And yet somehow, it works. Sure, it represents one of oBravo’s most affordable models but it still lies in a price range littered with models punching above their weight. Yet even here, the Cupid is a technical achievement, it is very, very detailed for its asking price and the quality of the low-end is superb; the overall listen, in turn, immensely fun and engaging. Imaging is sharp and holographic but with odd placement. Its design is also unique as you basically never see dynamic driver earphones with a sealed housing, yet alone one this deep-reaching and impactful. If you don’t mind a thin midrange, brighter background and odd cable connectors, the Cupid makes for a highly engaging listen and a truly unique package that’s easily worth more than oBravo’s RRP.
The Cupid is available from on Audio Concierge (International) for £249.00 at the time of writing. I am not affiliated with oBravo or Audio Concierge and receive no earnings from purchases through this link.
Thanks for reading! If you enjoyed my review, please see my website for more just like it!
Track List –
Adam Neely – thank u, next
David Bowie – The Rise and Fall of Ziggy Stardust
Dire Straits – Communique
Eagles – Hell Freezes Over
Joji – Gimme Love
Lauv – I met you when I was 18
Rich Brian – The Sailor
TALA – boy
The Beach Boys – Surfer Girl
The Weeknd – After Hours
Toploader – A Walk To Remember Music
The Cupid makes for a highly engaging listen and a truly unique package that’s easily worth more than oBravo’s RRP.
Introduction –
Most will surely be familiar with oBravo, a Taiwanese audio manufacturer who specialises in air-motion transformer (AMT) and planar magnetic drivers (PMD) and whose earphones have been known to stretch into the 5-digit price range. There’s a reason for this, these driver types are immensely difficult to miniaturise and oBravo design and build their driver’s in-house using a patented process. It’s been almost a decade since their first fully formed model was released onto the market and now, we’re seeing that cutting-edge technology filter down to a substantially more attainable price range. Enter the Cupid, a hybrid earphone sporting a custom dynamic driver + planar magnetic tweeter configuration that comes in at a very reasonable £249 asking price. With such a name and legacy, the Cupid competes viciously in one of the most competitive price brackets in the IEM market. You can read more about oBravo and peruse their line-up here and treat yourself to a Cupid here.
Disclaimer –
I would like to thank Danny from oBravo very much for his quick communication and for providing me with the Cupid for the purpose of review. All words are my own and there is no monetary incentive for a positive review. Despite receiving the earphones free of cost, I will attempt to be as objective as possible in my evaluation.
Tech Specs –
Weight: 200g
Technology: Dynamic, Planar Tweeter
Colour: Black Gold
Audio Range: 20Hz~40KHz
Sensitivity: 105dB
Impedance: 16ohms
The Pitch –
DD + PMT with Physical Crossover
The Cupid is a very unique hybrid-driver earphone combining a 6mm dynamic driver (DD) woofer with a 9mm planar magnetic tweeter (PMT). Furthermore, where the vast majority of designs employ circuitry to designate each driver with a frequency range, the Cupid rather utilises acoustics. Usually, this is in the form of a low-pass filter on the DD and maybe a high-pass on the PMT though I would be unable to say as there are no further details on oBravo’s website. Physical cross overs are much harder to tune but can create a more coherent sound with better phase alignment.
For those unfamiliar with the technology, standard dynamic drivers have a diaphragm that pushes air driven by a small central voice coil. Planar magnetic drivers, on the other hand, employ a conductive trace that covers a much larger surface area of the diaphragm. The benefit to this design is that force is exerted equally across the entire surface which means you can employ a lighter, quicker accelerating/decelerating diaphragm material.
It also means that at high frequencies PMD’s experience less modal breakup due to the uniform application of force, hence, they provide better extension and lower distortion. Planars are often lauded for their powerful bass response, able to move more air with their larger driven surface. However, as oBravo are working within the limitations of a minute housing, they have instead decided to capitalise on their low-distortion nature to deliver an insightful top-end.
Accessories –
The Cupid comes in clean and space-efficient packaging. Inside the hard box is a foam inlet containing 3 sealed bags of Comply foam tips of varying size alongside a soft pouch with individual compartments for each earpiece to prevent scratches. An adjacent cut-out houses 3 sizes of whirlwind tips and the Cupids themselves. The whirlwind tips are quite intriguing, with reinforced ridging beneath the mushroom tip that provides a stronger seal when inserted deeper in the ear.
A pull-tab provides easy access to a lower compartment containing the 2.5mm balanced cable and Velcro strap. There are actually 3 variants of the Cupid, standard containing just the aforementioned accessories, the prime version including a 2.5mm to 3.5mm adapter and ultimate version that contains an additional 4.4mm Pentaconn adapter on top. The adapters are very nicely constructed and have a similar build to the cable’s plug, providing a congruent aesthetic.
Design –
Fundamentally, the Cupid assumes a pod-like over-ear design reminiscent of Shure’s highly acclaimed housings along with all their benefits. That said, where a basic acrylic complexion was to be found there, a defining feature of the Cupid is its dense and lustrous electroplated brass construction that exudes a very premium aura. These earphones are a spectacle; smoothly formed and immaculately finished, creating a play of light and shadow that’s certainly very difficult to capture on camera. Meanwhile, as they’re quite compact and produce a tremendously strong seal, the Cupid’s weight doesn’t feel burdensome in the ear while its density feels thoroughly convincing in the hand. The construction quality certainly belies their asking price.
Rather controversially, oBravo have chosen to implement keyed MMCX connectors. The key prevents swivelling and offers some additional reinforcement, however, those wanting to change the cable will have to modify the plug themselves which will naturally void all manufacturer support. The plugs are also ridiculously long which can cause them to rub on the temples, however, I didn’t experience this issue personally. Still, the cable itself provides a similar impression of quality as the earphones. It’s a 4-wire braided unit with OCC conductors in a Litz geometry. The connectors are metal and the jack reminiscent of Ranko plugs.
Fit & Isolation –
The Cupid is one of the best fitting earphones I’ve tested, compact, low-profile and with a very strong seal. Due to their size, they don’t contact any part of my average-sized outer ears, thereby forming no hotspots over time. As they are very slim and lie flush with the outer ear, they would also be a good choice for side-sleepers so long as the longer MMCX connectors don’t cause discomfort for the listener’s ears. I could spot no obvious vents which reinforces their excellent seal and passive noise isolation.
With foam tips especially, the Cupid would be perfect for frequent travellers and commuters. The upside to this is also their use of a dynamic driver, most of which are vented. The Cupid is an oddity in that it provides a rare combination of full, punchy and extended bass alongside excellent isolation and seal. I found the included whirlwind tips an excellent complement to their design in both sound and seal.
Sound –
Testing Methodology: Arta via IEC 711 coupler to Startech external sound card. Note that 7-9KHz peaks are artefacts of my measurement setup. I also did not hear the channel imbalance in that region in subjective listening. Take this graph with a grain of salt. Measurements besides channel balance are volume matched at 1K.
Tonality –
Every now and then an earphone arrives that challenges my ability to analyse sound and the Cupid is such a model. Fundamentally, this earphone is highly engaging, with a naturally voiced albeit thin, vivid and highly revealing voicing. Technicalities are excellent for the price, no question, and this is brought to the fore through its W-shaped tuning that emphasizes the sub-bass, upper-midrange and middle-treble. As many others have mentioned, the Cupid is such a curious mix of qualities that you’d be hard-pressed to find elsewhere in addition to a great technical achievement. What it isn’t is balanced, linear or orthodox in tuning or staging.
Of note, the design of the Cupid makes it quite flexible in terms of fit. As aforementioned, the sound is tip sensitive, however, the stock whirlwind tips are an excellent companion. Should the user want a slightly tighter low-end, they can upsize and push the tips down so the grill of the nozzle is flush with the tip’s surface. This should also shift the high-frequency peaks slightly higher, but I found it a tad bright and fatiguing. My preferred pairing were the medium tips installed standardly on the lip of the nozzle which provided a bit more body to the sound while tapering off the high-end slightly. I also found the angle of the housings to affect the sound quite noticeably, perhaps due to the nature of the PMT. Pushing the housings deeper and angling the housings back provided slightly more coherent imaging to my ears.
Bass –
Weighty, articulate and with solid pressure in the sub-bass, the Cupid’s low-end has excellent extension and technical qualities. It has moderate emphasis, but not too much in the mid-bass so it isn’t ever-present and overbearing. The tonality is pleasing, with emphasis centred mostly around the sub-bass while refraining from over-extending into muddiness, only enough to provide affirming note fullness. The mid-bass is mildly enhanced, retaining a natural, albeit enlarged bass note presentation. Meanwhile, the upper-bass falls off smoothly into the lower-midrange in order to prevent excessive warmth. The result is a sound that is full with great kick and slam, carrying what I consider to be natural warmth but also minimal tubbiness.
Bloat and muddiness are also kept well at bay by excellent driver control delivering a tight sub-bass and concise, punchy mid-bass. This was most apparent to me when listening to David Bowie’s “Moonage Daydream” where the rapid drums around 55s can become confused on slower drivers. It was apparent here, that both attack and decay are quick for a dynamic driver. You don’t get thick, lingering notes, but a tactful and pacey presentation with great definition, texture and kick. The low-end on the Cupid is very dynamic and its emphasized quantity will cater more towards those wanting engagement over perfect balance and linearity. Still, the Cupid will lure in unsuspecting audiophiles and captivate not with huge presence but moderate enhancement and outstanding technicalities.
Mids –
I will admit that personally, I am most sensitive to midrange timbre, which will be informed in part by the bass and treble but ultimately must strike some sort of balance throughout. The Cupid is evidently not balanced in any region, but overall, its vocals aren’t too wonky either. What immediately stands out is a lack of any warmth and diminished midrange body. There’s little upper-bass warmth and a large dip in the lower-midrange before rapidly increasing emphasis to an upper-midrange hump. As such, vocals are brought to the fore but distinctly lack power and density. Nonetheless, they also avoid the fallibilities of most clarity-focussed earphones. They aren’t too intimate for instance, and vocals don’t strike as over-forward nor strident even if they can come across as strained at times.
Evidently, this is not a presentation for those valuing a natural timbre or rich, organic instrumentation. Rather, the Cupid excels with clarity and definition, providing a revealing, delicate and open soundscape. There’s no veil, warmth or density to mire that crystal-clear image while sibilance is a non-issue with sharp 6KHz attenuation providing a very smooth articulation that takes the edge off the Cupid’s clear yet thin vocals. Altogether this weaves a presentation that is highly defined and hyper separated but without stridence or a metallic timbre. To reiterate, the Cupid isn’t especially natural and isn’t precise in its reproduction of albums with differing mastering style, but it never comes across as explicitly wonky either. This is a vivid and engaging presentation first and foremost.
Highs –
The top-end offers a split-character, organic and smooth in the foreground but crisp higher up, all the while upholding excellent clarity, technical qualities and separation throughout. It’s a brighter earphone so those averse to sharpness and crisp instrumentation head warning. It begins with a sharply attenuated lower-treble that saps percussion of any harsh, hard-edged quality before twin peaks in the middle and upper-treble. This grants treble pristine clarity but also results in a thinner instrument body. Higher instruments such as high hats are brought to the fore as are background and micro-details. The foreground, meanwhile, is slightly more laid-back, however, as the PMT provides a very precise attack and concise transient response, the Cupid has fantastic detail retrieval throughout the entire top end; if also further exacerbating the thin character of its presentation.
The tuning is undoubtedly unorthodox, with a bright background and abundant air rather than being aggressive in the foreground. There’s a touch of glare and grain in the background on some tracks that prevents the Cupid from achieving the immaculate, clean and effortless sense of distance rendered by higher-end earphones. Still, there’s excellent extension at play here alongside great resolution. Energy is abundant and there’s even a pleasing amount of sparkle. The Cupid is aggressive and easily one of the most detailed in its price class; it’s certainly very engaging and sheds light on little details that earphones around this price rarely do, if ever. However, in so doing, it also has less focussed and stable imaging than earphones with more orthodox tuning.
Soundstage –
Surely one of the most unique characteristics of this earphone as it is especially track dependent but technically very proficient. In terms of dimensions, the earphone can cast deep and wide, well outside the head in all axis. However, it doesn’t always create such a grand presentation as on some tracks, the background becomes more intimate due to its brightness, creating a more closed in presentation. Depth is always excellent, but not too distant so vocals remain defined and focused. Imaging, however. is a mixed bag.
There’s a sort of dead zone in the middle, vocals are well centred but panning and directional cues only occur to the sides. As transients are clean and sharp, the presentation is almost holographic, but instrument positioning also isn’t quite as precise and organised as one would expect. Additionally, the midrange is highly layered, however, the top end isn’t as the background and foreground lack contrast which can overshadow some fine details. The same can be said for separation which is excellent through the bass and midrange but reduced in the treble due to the lack of contrast and touches of glare that creep in every now and then.
Driveability –
The Cupid has a 16-ohm impedance paired with a higher 105dB sensitivity. I found it required a little more volume than most earphones but it’s easy to drive to high volumes overall. That said, you will want to drive the Cupid from a low impedance source. For instance, comparing between the 1-ohm Shanling M2X and 10-ohm Hiby R6 yielded a slower low-end and the high-end almost disappeared entirely. This smoother sound may suit some listeners, however, so those curious will want to experiment with low-value impedance adapters. Otherwise, the Cupid loves a clean and powerful source, scaling very well. Power is most notable with regards to the bass which gained control on my desktop setup. Meanwhile, the tweeter is a bit more sensitive to hiss, though I didn’t have issue with any of my modern sources.
Comparisons –
Final Audio E5000 ($279): The E5000 is a warmer, smoother earphone. It is noticeably more bass biased, there’s slightly less sub-bass quantity but similarly strong extension. The E5000 has more mid-bass, making it warmer where the Cupid is cleaner but also a touch less linear. Both have excellent control and definition, the Cupid being more agile, the E5000 more natural in decay and voicing. The E5000 has a much fuller and more organic midrange, the Cupid is thinner and more neutral in tone but both are quite smooth up top.
The E5000 has more laid-back vocals while the Cupid is more forward. The E5000 is denser while the Cupid is more open, defined and revealing. The Cupid has a much more aggressive top-end with sharper transients and more detail retrieval throughout. It also isn’t as clean or organised, the E5000 possessing a darker background and more defined layers. Both have excellent soundstage expansion, the Cupid has sharper imaging while the E5000 has more realistic positioning.
Campfire Audio IO ($299): The IO is a more neutral sound overall but possesses a similarly vocal forward character. It has substantially less sub-bass extension but also a similar amount of bass overall, focussing more on the mid and upper-bass instead. As such, the IO is warmer and actually a touch fuller while the Cupid has more weight, rumble and power. The IO has that typical sharper, quicker decaying BA bass where the Cupid decays more naturally delivering more texture and greater dynamics overall. The IO shares a similar midrange presentation too. As its centre midrange is more forward, it is a touch more vocal forward and has more warmth too.
However, it is similarly thin and a bit strained, neither specialising in perfect timbre. Both cater towards high vocal clarity, extension and definition instead. Within the high-end, the IO has a more focussed foreground and a slightly warmer tone while the Cupid has sharper transients with thinner instrumentation but also more resolution and extension. Neither have an especially clean background, but the Cupid has a much larger soundstage, the IO being quite intimate. The IO has slightly more stable imaging while the Cupid has sharper cues and is more holographic.
Periodic Audio Be ($299): Of note, comparison will be to a modded Be (detailed here) which has a more balanced sound than stock. The Be has a more linear low-end with light mid-bass warmth. The Cupid has more sub-bass bias and a bit more extension, delivering a thicker note but also less warmth, it delivers more power while the Be is more natural. Both have similar driver control, the Be has more natural decay and a smoother texture while the Cupid is tighter and quicker decaying, delivering more definition and slightly higher dynamics. The Be is much more linear through the midrange with a very accurate timbre. It’s warmer and fuller but still sufficiently clear. It’s also smoothly articulated and denser, overall, vocals are just as present but larger and more powerful with more life-like representation.
The Cupid has higher clarity and extension, it is more revealing with greater definition and separation. The Cupid has a more aggressive top-end, the Be is smoother in note attack with less concise transients. The Cupid is more detailed too with much better extension and higher resolution, clearly the more resolving top-end. The Be has a warmer treble and more body, slightly more texture in the foreground. It has a cleaner, darker background generating more stable imaging with more defined layers. Meanwhile, the Cupid has a larger soundstage with sharper imaging and higher separation through the bass and midrange especially.
Oriveti OH300($299): Also a W-shaped IEM but substantially smoother in its tuning. Both sport a sub-bass focus paired with a reasonably linear mid-bass and recessed upper-bass for a full yet clean low-end presentation. The Oriveti sounds a bit bassier as its top-end is less forward. The Cupid has slightly higher driver control and quicker decay where the OH300 is a touch smoother and more naturally decaying but also less defined. The OH300 has a slightly more forward vocal range as its emphasis centres mostly around the centre midrange.
It has more lower-midrange quantity with greater body albeit neither are warm in tone, being neutral and clean. The Cupid has higher definition and clarity with more extension, however the OH300 is hardly lacking here, and is noticeably more natural. Both are very smoothly articulated and laid-back in the lower-treble. The Cupid is clearly more detailed in the treble with better extension and micro-detail retrieval. Meanwhile, the OH300 has a much darker, cleaner background so it is a lot more composed, lacking the glare and thin instrument body of the Cupid. The Cupid has a larger soundstage and sharper imaging while the OH300 is more stable and realistic in its positioning with slightly better separation.
Acoustune HS1503AL (~$400): A similar style of sound from a single DD earphone with similar focus on acoustic design. The HS1503AL has a warmer low-end with more linear wide-band emphasis through the low-end, the Cupid being more sub-bass focused. The low-end on the Acoustune is slightly more natural in voicing, driver control is slightly higher on the Acoustune and decay is slightly more natural, it is more dynamic while the Cupid is a touch cleaner and quicker but also with less resolution. The midrange presentation is very similar, the Acoustune has more warmth and body from its low-end and a bit more density in the upper-midrange sounding more orthodox. The Cupid is thinner and more neutrally toned.
It has better extension and sounds slightly more open where the Acoustune sounds more natural while upholding very high clarity and definition. The HS1503AL has a more aggressive foreground and also sports a small middle-treble bump but is much cleaner in the background overall. It has more instrument body and sounds more focussed with better contrast and foreground detail retrieval. The Cupid meanwhile has more sparkle and air but is also a lot thinner, it has slightly better extension and a larger soundstage overall. The Acoustune has more stable imaging representing a more orthodox version of the Cupid’s tuning but also lacking the transient qualities of its PMT.
Verdict –
When you’ve been reviewing audio gear for half a decade you’re never really surprised. Over the years, portable audio has seen maturation not dissimilar to the smartphone industry. There’s no weird and wonderful proof of concepts, it’s been done and now refined, creating a spectrum of what is simply… good, sometimes great. The Cupid is such a surprising rarity, and it sounds different to just about everything else. And yet somehow, it works. Sure, it represents one of oBravo’s most affordable models but it still lies in a price range littered with models punching above their weight. Yet even here, the Cupid is a technical achievement, it is very, very detailed for its asking price and the quality of the low-end is superb; the overall listen, in turn, immensely fun and engaging. Imaging is sharp and holographic but with odd placement. Its design is also unique as you basically never see dynamic driver earphones with a sealed housing, yet alone one this deep-reaching and impactful. If you don’t mind a thin midrange, brighter background and odd cable connectors, the Cupid makes for a highly engaging listen and a truly unique package that’s easily worth more than oBravo’s RRP.
The Cupid is available from on Audio Concierge (International) for £249.00 at the time of writing. I am not affiliated with oBravo or Audio Concierge and receive no earnings from purchases through this link.
Thanks for reading! If you enjoyed my review, please see my website for more just like it!
Track List –
Adam Neely – thank u, next
David Bowie – The Rise and Fall of Ziggy Stardust
Dire Straits – Communique
Eagles – Hell Freezes Over
Joji – Gimme Love
Lauv – I met you when I was 18
Rich Brian – The Sailor
TALA – boy
The Beach Boys – Surfer Girl
The Weeknd – After Hours
Toploader – A Walk To Remember Music
TLDR –
The Phoenix provides a hyper-attractive visual and auditory experience with a tuning that showcases its profuse technical ability first and foremost.
Introduction –
Astrotec was founded almost 2 decades ago in Shenzhen with the pursuit of innovation and excellence. Since then, they’ve created some of the finest and most exclusive earbuds on the market alongside a line of more value-orientated IEMs. The designers at Astrotec couldn’t stop there, however. Enter the Phoenix, the company’s first flagship IEM. Here, Astrotec pairs cutting-edge electro-static tweeters found more commonly on summit-fi monitors costing multiples more with a huge, custom dynamic driver. Alongside authentic rosewood and titanium alloy housings, creating an optimal acoustic environment, the Phoenix promises a highly resolving and engaging sonic performance that exceeds its not insubstantial $799 YUSD asking price. This is another intriguing almost value-orientated flagship from a company with a rich heritage in quality audio and design. You can read more about the Phoenix and treat yourself to one here.
Disclaimer –
I would like to thank Astrotec very much for their quick communication and for providing me with the Phoenix for the purpose of review. I would also like to thank the company for being so supportive when my initial unit was damaged in the mail. All words are my own and there is no monetary incentive for a positive review. Despite receiving the earphones free of cost, I will attempt to be as objective as possible in my evaluation.
Specs –
Driver Unit: Dual Electrostatic super tweeters+ customized dynamic driver
Impedance: 32 ohms
Sensitivity: 85 dB/1mW
Cable: 6N OCC mixed with Kevlar
Cable Length: 1.2m
Connector: MMCX
Frequency Response: 5Hz – 40000Hz
The Pitch –
Electrostatic tweeters
Sonion quite recently released dual and quad electrostatic tweeter systems that have been the buzz of the high-end IEM world. Electrostatic drivers as many will know from boutique Hi-Fi speakers implement an ultralight charged membrane manipulated by static force, functioning very differently to other driver types. As there is no magnetic trace like a planar magnetic driver, the membrane is even thinner and lighter for a more accurate transient response. Furthermore, force application is exceptionally uniform for very low distortion high frequencies.
True electrostatic drivers represent the pinnacle of high-precision sound reproduction but are difficult to miniaturise, as they must be driven by a high voltage source and struggle to reproduce deep bass. To circumvent this challenge, Sonion introduced a micro-transformer to omit the need for an external high-voltage amp. However, as a result, the sensitivity is especially low so finding suitable bass drivers to match has been an ongoing challenge for manufacturers. Astrotec circumvents this by implementing a large, custom dynamic driver and through delicate tuning of the surrounding acoustics to unite their sound into a coherent whole.
Tuned Acoustics
The Phoenix features authentic rosewood shells in addition to high-precision titanium and aluminium faceplates. Wood is dense and naturally anti-resonant, in the case of the later, more so than plastic and metal. It is a preferred material in speaker design as a result and has been implemented in the past for IEM designs to good effect. In addition, the nozzle implements a brass construction, all providing the ideal acoustic environment for the driver setup inside in addition to tailoring the frequency response to Astrotec’s specifications.
Unboxing –
Astrotec always provides a premium unboxing experience and the very same is exemplified with their flagship Phoenix. Inside an attractive glittered sleeve lies a linen-textured hard box. The earphones are nestled within protective form inside with the leather carrying case and other accessories below. Included are 3 pairs of Sony Hybrids, a pair of memory foam tips, a cleaning tool and a dual compartment sleeve similar to that included with Campfire Audio’s earphones. The sleeve is a protective and pocketable solution with separate compartments for each earpiece and a spongey construction that protects from drops and scratches. The included leather case looks very premium. Unfortunately, it isn’t usable as there is a cable-management pillar in the centre that makes it impossible to accommodate the housings without removing the cable first, hardly practical nor good for wear and tear. I have been informed that later batches come without the pillar which should alleviate this issue.
Design –
As aforementioned, the material choice is opulent and exclusive with a genuine rosewood construction and delicately textured metal faceplates. They assume a pod-shaped housing but with a taller profile similar to the Meze Rai Penta. As such, though large, they occupy the empty space of the outer ear to maximise comfort and it forms an attractive shape with clean lines overall. I’m also nostalgic to see the return of wood housings as I haven’t recalled an earphone with such a construction since the JVX FX-range, all of which possessed very pleasing sounds as well.
And in person, the Phoenix is simply gorgeous; even the best photographs cannot encapsulate the unique wood grain of each hand-finished shell. The level of finish is excellent with gently curved edges and contours showcasing not one noticeable imperfection or frayed edge. Such a complexion is very difficult to achieve with wood and is certainly befitting of a flagship product. The brass nozzle complements their rustic aesthetic while enhancing the acoustics of the earphone. A small but appreciated touch are the reinforced MMCX connectors on the housings themselves; with plastic anchoring addressing an otherwise common point of failure.
I am also very impressed with the stock cable. It’s an MMCX unit with 6N OCC conductors, internal Kevlar reinforcement and a soft fabric jacket that looks simply dapper with the wood housings. Though thick, the cable is supple and compliant making it unobtrusive to comfort. They may wiggle loose during active use but realistically that is not the intended use case of a high-end IEM and they posed no issue to me during daily use. Tangles are also not a problem and there is minimal memory or springiness. The cable has a uniform aesthetic with matching chrome finish on all metal terminations. The 3.5mm straight jack feels well relieved and the pre-moulded ear guides sustain the weight of the earphones and thicker cable comfortably.
Fit & Isolation –
Ergonomics are a strong point for the Phoenix, they slot confidently into the ear, complementing each curve and fold. There’s a gentle fin for the concha to aid fit stability and, though on the larger side, the majority of their dimension is derived from their width. They don’t provide a low profile fit but also don’t feel as large as they look in wearing as a result. I experienced no hotspot formation over several hours of listening and found them perfectly comfortable to wear as a result. They seal very well, and isolation is excellent for a vented hybrid earphone though the front-facing vent is susceptible to wind noise when listening outdoors. I found them to provide easily enough isolation for commute but naturally a bit less than a fully sealed unit.
Sound –
Testing Methodology: Measured using Arta via IEC 711 coupler to Startech external sound card. Note that 7-9KHz peaks are often artefacts of my measurement setup. Measurements besides channel balance are volume matched at 1KHz. Take this graph with a grain of salt.
Tonality –
The Phoenix provides an aggressive W-shaped sound that is immensely engaging but also reasonably balanced between each core frequency band. We observe a prominent low-end focused mainly on the sub-bass before a sharp rise through the centre midrange to redeem vocal presence. A sizeable peak in the upper-midrange brings vocals forward and roughly in line with their meaty bass while also serving to enhance clarity. It has a natural tonality, nonetheless. Highs are crisp and very clean with a dark background while energy is provided by an upper-treble lift that imbues copious sparkle and micro-detail.
Tip Selection
I was not personally a fan of the fit provided by the stock Sony Hybrid-style ear tips. I found Spiral Dots to provide the best combination of comfort and sound. As compared to the stock tips, they yielded a slightly smoother and denser midrange that sounded more coherent to my ear. I also noticed and more linear low-end, attenuating the sub-bass just a touch. These were my preferred tip and will be used for the sound impressions below.
Bass –
Lows are defined by huge power, weight and dynamics derived from generous sub-bass emphasis alongside terrific extension into the sub-audible. There’s solid but not over-bearing pressure at the very bottom alongside heaps of slam and a bold yet highly defined rumble. Meanwhile, a steep slope through the mid and upper-bass ensures bass isn’t overly tubby, warm or congested. Note size is huge yet there isn’t any bloat and the tone is only slightly warm. This isn’t a rich and smooth low-end, but a large and hard-hitting one with great body while avoiding the usual fallibilities of such an enhanced low-end by keeping the mid and upper-bass clean. As sub-bass pressure doesn’t overwhelm the low-end presentation, there’s good definition through the mid-bass and it doesn’t fatigue the ear during long listening sessions.
The earphones showcase strong technical performance too with excellent control that ensures its large notes remain defined and that small details aren’t hazed over. Sub-bass, despite its sheer volume, is detail dense with very concise impact. Attack is hard-hitting and decay is on the slower side, exemplifying the rumble and dynamics signature to dynamic drivers while serving to enhance the perception of bass presence and size. As control is high, the presentation isn’t sloppy or disorganised, resolution is excellent through the low-end and each note retains defined and well-separated. The Phoenix I would struggle to call a bass-head earphone in lieu of similarly potent midrange and top-end emphasis, though it is certainly an earphone that would appeal to bass lovers with its deep, voluminous and highly dynamic image.
Midrange –
I’m usually very averse to 4KHz prominent earphones, but recently, I’ve been forced to re-evaluate that belief as more earphones adopt this tuning and come across quite pleasantly to me. The Phoenix is such an earphone and though certainly off-timbre in some regards due to this tuning, it forms an overall natural image. Both upper-bass and lower-mids are attenuated to reduce colouration. A rise through the centre midrange before a peak at 4KHz brings vocals forward to sit just a hair behind the low-end. Chestiness and muffle are mitigated as a result and vocals also aren’t too forward or intimate in the context of their large bass and treble. I hear a pleasantly transparent tone and outstanding clarity. Vocals achieve accurate size and occupy an enjoyable position within the Phoenix’s stage.
As the lower-treble has been attenuated, though very clear and of reduced density, vocals are smoothly articulated and refined without stridence or sibilance. Still, this isn’t a perfectly coherent presentation, being stretched slightly thin due to upper-midrange emphasis and vocals are somewhat raspy. There’s also a slight bias towards female and male vocals are prone to dryness due to the scoop in the lower-midrange similar to earphones like the Hyla CE-5. No, this won’t be called a linear or reference earphone nor is it organic or warm, but its adjustments are well-compensated to provide a very engaging presentation without overly skewing the timbre. The Phoenix thereby upholds good overall balance and provides a very pleasant, delicate and defined midrange presentation.
Highs –
The top-end is quite different to most earphones I’ve heard with both positive and negative connotation. For one, timbre is not especially accurate. The lower-treble has reduced presence, so foreground detail presentation isn’t overly aggressive and sibilance is mitigated. However, as there is a moderate 7-8KHz peak, instruments remain very crisp and defined but do lack body without that lower-treble foundation. Percussion is especially emphasized working in conjunction with a superbly clean transient response, sharp attack and natural decay yielding well-textured notes, nonetheless. Cymbals retain pleasing shimmer and the presentation isn’t glaring or splashy. However, this does serve to reinforce the thinness of its presentation. What saves the Phoenix from becoming harsh or strident is its clean, dark background which aids a composed image alongside a well-layered one.
Treble also does sit slightly behind the bass in overall quantity which prevents the impression of overt brightness or in your face sharpness. As it commands strong contrast with the midrange, treble details are never lost in the mix, remaining highly defined. It is with regards to technical performance that the Phoenix excels. Detail retrieval is strong, just lacking some bite in the foreground, but micro and background-detail retrieval exceed its asking price. The Phoenix brings minutiae to the fore and showcases very strong extension into the highest octaves. There’s abundant sparkle with strong 16KHz presence that ensures background details are always apparent despite its dark background, and the Phoenix has resolution in spades. If you don’t mind a rather thin foreground presentation, the Phoenix is able to effortlessly deconstruct the smallest details in complex tracks.
Soundstage –
With excellent extension alongside a dark background, the Phoenix crafts a large soundstage that extends beyond the head in all axis. Vocals are mostly forward, creating a generally more oval presentation, but the earphone is able to project great depth on appropriate tracks as well. The presentation is very involving and imaging performance also is not as unorthodox as its tuning might suggest. Vocals occupy a strong centre image while instruments fan out to the sides. Directional cues are very sharp and localisation is reasonably precise too but less pinpoint accurate than some due to a lack of lower-treble presence. Panning and transients are swift and immersive. Separation is excellent between the 3 core frequency bands and also operates at a high level within them, especially the treble where its clean transient response contributes to very defined individual notes.
Rambles
The soundstage is an especially elusive quality to judge as a reviewer, especially on the in-ear form factor as the way sound interacts with the ear is very different to headphones and speakers due to the lack of interaction with the outer ear. You will find most reviews contradict in this regard. I personally was of the belief that treble performance contributed most to the soundstage presentation. However, after a discussion with Paul from About Audio, we determined that the bass plays a large role too. The Phoenix exemplifies this, its grand low-end contributing volume and size to its presentation. Take a listen to Yosi Horikawa’s signature “Bubbles” and you’ll see what I’m talking about. This will be a factor in my reviews henceforth.
Driveability –
The Phoenix has a modest impedance of 32ohms but a noticeably low sensitivity of 93dB. For reference, as far as volume is concerned, they require about as much voltage as the over-ear planar magnetic Hifiman Sundara. As such, a dedicated source or, at the very least an external amplifier is highly recommended to extract optimal volume and performance from the Phoenix.
Pixel 4 & DD TC35B: A good demonstration of a lower-powered phone source with low OI. Noticeably reduced sub-bass extension with blunted slam and reduced volume. Mids are clean and transparent, slightly grainier than my reference desktop setup. The top-end is clean and well-detailed but a touch brighter and less textured. The soundstage remains wide and nicely layered but lacks background detail retrieval.
With Periodic Ni: The setup gains ~40% more volume. Sub-bass extension is improved with perceptibly more solid slam and rumble. Bass is more control with more definition through the mid-bass. Vocals are slightly smoother and more refined with a touch more body. The top-end remains clean and nicely detailed. The soundstage becomes wider with better separation and a cleaner background.
Shanling M2X: Reduced sub-bass extension with lighter slam at the very bottom and less volume. Control is strong and definition is high. Mids are clean and transparent, a touch more forward and less smooth. Highs are well-detailed with very clean transient response and good extension. The soundstage is wide with sharp imaging, slightly less defined layers but good separation overall.
Hiby R6: The R6 has a 10-ohm output impedance that can skew the signature of multi-driver IEMs. The R6 provides strong sub-bass extension, control is good, slightly longer decay for a warmer voicing. The midrange remains transparent, slightly more intimate vocals. Highs are crisper and more forward, very detailed. The soundstage isn’t as wide, but imaging remains very sharp. Overall, the Phoenix isn’t excessively affected by output impedance but does sound brighter from these sources.
iBasso DX220: The portable source that came closest to the desktop setup in my inventory. The DX220 provided strong sub-bass extension and control. Mids were clean and transparent. Highs were very well detailed, slightly more so in the foreground. Excellent resolution with a wide soundstage and sharp localisation.
THX 789 + Khadas Tone Board: My current reference desktop setup with a transparent sound and heaps of clean power. Excellent bass extension, tight with excellent control. Transparent midrange, clean top-end with great resolution and detail retrieval. Wide soundstage with sharp localisation and good separation.
Suggested Pair ups
In my testing, only the larger and higher-end DAPs or a reasonably powerful dedicated amplifier like the Periodic Ni were suitable in terms of driving power. This was especially apparent when it came to bass extension where the smaller sources provided a noticeable drop-off. Still, even the TC35B provided a resolving and balanced sound and the Phoenix resists hiss and output impedance well. Though, as always, a lower OI will keep the sound closest to that intended by the designers. This is one of the few earphones that scales with a desktop amplifier which provided a notice jump even over the DX220 when it came to staging and extension. The Phoenix’s voicing to my ears, best suits a neutral source as its low-end can become dominant on a warmer source and similarly, it’s top-end can become sharp on brighter sources. The delicate balance of the earphone is best showcased by neutral and powerful sources such as the THX 789 or JDS Atom if you’re on a budget, you would not want to run the Phoenix from a smartphone or entry-level BT receiver.
Comparisons –
Custom Art Fibae 6 ($799): A well-performing warm and smooth earphone from a respected Polish company. It sports a 6-BA setup and a uniquely warm, thick tuning. Bass extension is better on the Phoenix and it has more sub-bass emphasis. Meanwhile, the 6 provides a meatier mid and upper-bass. Its low-end is fuller and warmer but also more bloated. With quicker but still reasonably natural decay, the 6 doesn’t gloss over too many fine details but the Phoenix is more defined through its low-end. Both showcase excellent control and dynamics.
Both also see moderate midrange emphasis to bring vocals in line with their prominent low ends. The 6 is a bit more linear, its vocal reconstruction is fuller and warmer but also very clear on behalf of similar 4KHz prominence. The 6 sounds more organic, never congested or muffled and a bit more natural overall. Both are smoothly articulated, the Phoenix is more neutral in tone and has better clarity and separation.
The 6 has a small 6 and 8KHz peaks but its treble is smooth and laid-back relative to its mids and bass. As such, the 6 has a very different presentation, being much smoother and warmer with enhanced body. The Phoenix is more detailed, especially when it comes to micro-detail retrieval. The 6 has more defined layers but clearly lacks the same sparkle and resolution up top. The Phoenix has a wider soundstage and better separation while the ME has slightly sharper localisation.
NXEars Opera ($799): The Opera is an 8-BA earphone with a mid-focussed sound and some very interesting properties. It has a substantially less dynamic and involving low-end with significantly less extension. In terms of tuning, it is less bassy overall but as focus lies in the upper-bass, it remains quite a full sound. The Opera has much faster decay so it doesn’t come across as too warm to me, yet showcases much higher definition while the Phoenix is meatier, thicker and weightier.
Through the midrange, they also diverge quite apparently. The Opera is full-bodied, dense and focussed on timbre while the Phoenix is the inverse, very clear, neutral in tone and high in clarity. The Phoenix has better extension and greater definition and separation while the Opera is more natural and with larger vocal size and a slightly more intimate presentation. The Opera is noticeably more layered too while upholding similar definition. Up top, the Phoenix is noticeably crisper with an even cleaner transient response.
The Opera provides a bit more linearity through the treble with a more present lower-treble but both are somewhat thin up top, the Phoenix more apparently so due to its higher contrast and, by extension, lower coherence. The Opera is more detailed in the foreground while the Phoenix has better micro-detail retrieval alongside superior extension and sparkle. The Phoenix has a noticeably larger soundstage in all aspects while the Opera has uniquely sharp localisation and imaging on behalf of its time-aligned crossover. The Opera has more defined layers and better separation.
Hyla CE-5 ($940): Actually, the CE-5 and Phoenix quite resemble each other which speaks well for the Phoenix as the Hyla has become quite a legendary IEM. The Phoenix has slightly more bass alongside greater sub-bass weight, the Hyla is more linear between sub and mid-bass. Extension and control are excellent on both, the Hyla has natural decay while the Phoenix lingers a little longer, enhancing the thickness of its bass notes. The Hyla is more insightful as a result, while the Phoenix is more dynamic and engaging. Both earphones implement quite a sharp upper-bass/lower-midrange dip before a more present centre midrange.
The Phoenix doesn’t sound as forward as the Hyla in lieu of its bigger bass. The Phoenix is slightly fuller, especially male vocals, but also slightly raspier due to its more forward upper-midrange. The Phoenix has smoother articulation and is less prone to sibilance due to its substantially less present lower-treble and its midrange has more body and smoothness which contributes to a more natural image to my ears while upholding similar clarity and cleanliness. The CE-5 has a more linear treble with small 5 and 7KHz bumps. It has a bit more body, texture and detail retrieval in the foreground while the Phoenix is thinner and its notes lack the same initial bite. However, when it comes to micro-detail retrieval, the Phoenix has a slight edge, resolving finer background details and sparkle more convincingly.
The Hyla has a bit more air while the Phoenix has a darker and cleaner background, both have abundant of sparkle at the very top, the Phoenix again sounds a bit cleaner and more composed. Both have similar soundstage width, the Hyla has a touch more depth due to its more laid-back upper-midrange. To clarify, due to its bigger sub-bass, the Phoenix often sounds grander in presentation though perceived distance is similar under scrutiny. Both also have very sharp imaging with very swift transients, localisation is sharper on the Hyla due to its more linear lower-treble.
Campfire Audio Andromeda 2018 ($1099): The Andromeda is also a resolving, sparkly IEM, and represents a more linear W-shaped sound. It has less sub-bass extension and bass overall but similarly carries satisfying weight and fullness down low with moderate sub and upper-bass emphasis. The Phoenix is thicker, harder-hitting and slower decaying but also more dynamic, it resolves more information at the very bottom especially. Meanwhile, the Andro is much quicker decaying resulting in higher definition and fine detail retrieval but also less textured notes. The Andromeda is a lot more linear through the midrange and has a more integrated bass/midrange transition for a more coherent sound overall.
It has more present vocals and they are endowed with a euphonic warmth and body from the upper-bass and lower-midrange. Meanwhile, the Phoenix has more contrast but sounds less coherent and less balanced between male and female vocals. With more upper-midrange bias, it sounds clearer and cleaner in tone but also stretched thinner and more strained with more rasp. The Andromeda on the contrary, can come across as a bit laid-back in the upper-midrange. Its vocals generally occupy a more distant position in the stage besides the occasional track where male vocals can sound more distant on the Phoenix. The Andromeda carries higher resolution overall and is smoother, fuller and more natural in voicing where the Phoenix is more engaging.
The Andromeda has similar areas of emphasis in the treble with the addition of a small lower-treble peak while continuing the trend of being generally more linear in tuning. The Andromeda’s treble has more body, foreground detail retrieval is a bit higher and instruments such as cymbals have more texture and accurate shimmer. The Phoenix has sharper transients with a bit more emphasis on percussion. The Phoenix has a darker, cleaner background and slightly more resolution of micro-details. Both have excellent sparkle and extension, though slightly more apparent on the Andromeda. The Phoenix has a wider soundstage, the Andromeda has more depth and is more rounded in presentation. The Andromeda has sharper localisation, the Phoenix is more separated.
Verdict –
From my comparisons, we can observe how the Phoenix undercuts many competitors while offering more than parity in technical performance. Its tuning is sculpted, naturally making it more polarising than more balanced models. Though arguably, when reaching the upper echelons of pricing, flatness is no longer key as such can be had for much, much less. The Phoenix offers some contrast with its immensely fun, engaging and simply enjoyable signature, all the while upholding convincing overall balance that maximises its appeal. The Phoenix also exemplifies the high-end IEM experience with its gorgeous and premium construction with a comfortable fit. Perhaps most polarising will be its treble, as the lower-treble does sound quite laid-back which can affect instrument localisation and sap detail presence and instrument body. Source matching is also especially critical given the sensitivity. Still, what the Phoenix provides is a hyper-attractive visual and auditory experience alongside a tuning that showcases its profuse technical ability first and foremost. Those wanting huge, dynamic bass set to clear, delicate mids and sparkly highs will find few that contend with the Phoenix, especially around its asking price.
The Astrotec Phoenix is available from on Astrotec (International) for $799 at the time of writing. I am not affiliated with Astrotec and receive no earnings from purchases through this link
Thanks for reading! If you enjoyed my review, please see my website for more just like it!
Track List –
Billie Eilish – don’t smile at me
brb. – relationshit
Catherine Feeny – Hurricane Glass
Emotional Oranges – The Juice: Vol. II
Father John Misty – Pure Comedy
Kanye West – Only One
Joji – Sanctuary
Missy Higgins – The Sound of White
Nirvana – Nevermind
Radiohead – Pablo Honey
Radiohead – The Bends
Rich Brian – The Sailor
The Cranberries – No Need to Argue
Winner – Remember
Yosi Horikawa – Wandering
The Phoenix provides a hyper-attractive visual and auditory experience with a tuning that showcases its profuse technical ability first and foremost.
Introduction –
Astrotec was founded almost 2 decades ago in Shenzhen with the pursuit of innovation and excellence. Since then, they’ve created some of the finest and most exclusive earbuds on the market alongside a line of more value-orientated IEMs. The designers at Astrotec couldn’t stop there, however. Enter the Phoenix, the company’s first flagship IEM. Here, Astrotec pairs cutting-edge electro-static tweeters found more commonly on summit-fi monitors costing multiples more with a huge, custom dynamic driver. Alongside authentic rosewood and titanium alloy housings, creating an optimal acoustic environment, the Phoenix promises a highly resolving and engaging sonic performance that exceeds its not insubstantial $799 YUSD asking price. This is another intriguing almost value-orientated flagship from a company with a rich heritage in quality audio and design. You can read more about the Phoenix and treat yourself to one here.
Disclaimer –
I would like to thank Astrotec very much for their quick communication and for providing me with the Phoenix for the purpose of review. I would also like to thank the company for being so supportive when my initial unit was damaged in the mail. All words are my own and there is no monetary incentive for a positive review. Despite receiving the earphones free of cost, I will attempt to be as objective as possible in my evaluation.
Specs –
Driver Unit: Dual Electrostatic super tweeters+ customized dynamic driver
Impedance: 32 ohms
Sensitivity: 85 dB/1mW
Cable: 6N OCC mixed with Kevlar
Cable Length: 1.2m
Connector: MMCX
Frequency Response: 5Hz – 40000Hz
The Pitch –
Electrostatic tweeters
Sonion quite recently released dual and quad electrostatic tweeter systems that have been the buzz of the high-end IEM world. Electrostatic drivers as many will know from boutique Hi-Fi speakers implement an ultralight charged membrane manipulated by static force, functioning very differently to other driver types. As there is no magnetic trace like a planar magnetic driver, the membrane is even thinner and lighter for a more accurate transient response. Furthermore, force application is exceptionally uniform for very low distortion high frequencies.
True electrostatic drivers represent the pinnacle of high-precision sound reproduction but are difficult to miniaturise, as they must be driven by a high voltage source and struggle to reproduce deep bass. To circumvent this challenge, Sonion introduced a micro-transformer to omit the need for an external high-voltage amp. However, as a result, the sensitivity is especially low so finding suitable bass drivers to match has been an ongoing challenge for manufacturers. Astrotec circumvents this by implementing a large, custom dynamic driver and through delicate tuning of the surrounding acoustics to unite their sound into a coherent whole.
Tuned Acoustics
The Phoenix features authentic rosewood shells in addition to high-precision titanium and aluminium faceplates. Wood is dense and naturally anti-resonant, in the case of the later, more so than plastic and metal. It is a preferred material in speaker design as a result and has been implemented in the past for IEM designs to good effect. In addition, the nozzle implements a brass construction, all providing the ideal acoustic environment for the driver setup inside in addition to tailoring the frequency response to Astrotec’s specifications.
Unboxing –
Astrotec always provides a premium unboxing experience and the very same is exemplified with their flagship Phoenix. Inside an attractive glittered sleeve lies a linen-textured hard box. The earphones are nestled within protective form inside with the leather carrying case and other accessories below. Included are 3 pairs of Sony Hybrids, a pair of memory foam tips, a cleaning tool and a dual compartment sleeve similar to that included with Campfire Audio’s earphones. The sleeve is a protective and pocketable solution with separate compartments for each earpiece and a spongey construction that protects from drops and scratches. The included leather case looks very premium. Unfortunately, it isn’t usable as there is a cable-management pillar in the centre that makes it impossible to accommodate the housings without removing the cable first, hardly practical nor good for wear and tear. I have been informed that later batches come without the pillar which should alleviate this issue.
Design –
As aforementioned, the material choice is opulent and exclusive with a genuine rosewood construction and delicately textured metal faceplates. They assume a pod-shaped housing but with a taller profile similar to the Meze Rai Penta. As such, though large, they occupy the empty space of the outer ear to maximise comfort and it forms an attractive shape with clean lines overall. I’m also nostalgic to see the return of wood housings as I haven’t recalled an earphone with such a construction since the JVX FX-range, all of which possessed very pleasing sounds as well.
And in person, the Phoenix is simply gorgeous; even the best photographs cannot encapsulate the unique wood grain of each hand-finished shell. The level of finish is excellent with gently curved edges and contours showcasing not one noticeable imperfection or frayed edge. Such a complexion is very difficult to achieve with wood and is certainly befitting of a flagship product. The brass nozzle complements their rustic aesthetic while enhancing the acoustics of the earphone. A small but appreciated touch are the reinforced MMCX connectors on the housings themselves; with plastic anchoring addressing an otherwise common point of failure.
I am also very impressed with the stock cable. It’s an MMCX unit with 6N OCC conductors, internal Kevlar reinforcement and a soft fabric jacket that looks simply dapper with the wood housings. Though thick, the cable is supple and compliant making it unobtrusive to comfort. They may wiggle loose during active use but realistically that is not the intended use case of a high-end IEM and they posed no issue to me during daily use. Tangles are also not a problem and there is minimal memory or springiness. The cable has a uniform aesthetic with matching chrome finish on all metal terminations. The 3.5mm straight jack feels well relieved and the pre-moulded ear guides sustain the weight of the earphones and thicker cable comfortably.
Fit & Isolation –
Ergonomics are a strong point for the Phoenix, they slot confidently into the ear, complementing each curve and fold. There’s a gentle fin for the concha to aid fit stability and, though on the larger side, the majority of their dimension is derived from their width. They don’t provide a low profile fit but also don’t feel as large as they look in wearing as a result. I experienced no hotspot formation over several hours of listening and found them perfectly comfortable to wear as a result. They seal very well, and isolation is excellent for a vented hybrid earphone though the front-facing vent is susceptible to wind noise when listening outdoors. I found them to provide easily enough isolation for commute but naturally a bit less than a fully sealed unit.
Sound –
Testing Methodology: Measured using Arta via IEC 711 coupler to Startech external sound card. Note that 7-9KHz peaks are often artefacts of my measurement setup. Measurements besides channel balance are volume matched at 1KHz. Take this graph with a grain of salt.
Tonality –
The Phoenix provides an aggressive W-shaped sound that is immensely engaging but also reasonably balanced between each core frequency band. We observe a prominent low-end focused mainly on the sub-bass before a sharp rise through the centre midrange to redeem vocal presence. A sizeable peak in the upper-midrange brings vocals forward and roughly in line with their meaty bass while also serving to enhance clarity. It has a natural tonality, nonetheless. Highs are crisp and very clean with a dark background while energy is provided by an upper-treble lift that imbues copious sparkle and micro-detail.
Tip Selection
I was not personally a fan of the fit provided by the stock Sony Hybrid-style ear tips. I found Spiral Dots to provide the best combination of comfort and sound. As compared to the stock tips, they yielded a slightly smoother and denser midrange that sounded more coherent to my ear. I also noticed and more linear low-end, attenuating the sub-bass just a touch. These were my preferred tip and will be used for the sound impressions below.
Bass –
Lows are defined by huge power, weight and dynamics derived from generous sub-bass emphasis alongside terrific extension into the sub-audible. There’s solid but not over-bearing pressure at the very bottom alongside heaps of slam and a bold yet highly defined rumble. Meanwhile, a steep slope through the mid and upper-bass ensures bass isn’t overly tubby, warm or congested. Note size is huge yet there isn’t any bloat and the tone is only slightly warm. This isn’t a rich and smooth low-end, but a large and hard-hitting one with great body while avoiding the usual fallibilities of such an enhanced low-end by keeping the mid and upper-bass clean. As sub-bass pressure doesn’t overwhelm the low-end presentation, there’s good definition through the mid-bass and it doesn’t fatigue the ear during long listening sessions.
The earphones showcase strong technical performance too with excellent control that ensures its large notes remain defined and that small details aren’t hazed over. Sub-bass, despite its sheer volume, is detail dense with very concise impact. Attack is hard-hitting and decay is on the slower side, exemplifying the rumble and dynamics signature to dynamic drivers while serving to enhance the perception of bass presence and size. As control is high, the presentation isn’t sloppy or disorganised, resolution is excellent through the low-end and each note retains defined and well-separated. The Phoenix I would struggle to call a bass-head earphone in lieu of similarly potent midrange and top-end emphasis, though it is certainly an earphone that would appeal to bass lovers with its deep, voluminous and highly dynamic image.
Midrange –
I’m usually very averse to 4KHz prominent earphones, but recently, I’ve been forced to re-evaluate that belief as more earphones adopt this tuning and come across quite pleasantly to me. The Phoenix is such an earphone and though certainly off-timbre in some regards due to this tuning, it forms an overall natural image. Both upper-bass and lower-mids are attenuated to reduce colouration. A rise through the centre midrange before a peak at 4KHz brings vocals forward to sit just a hair behind the low-end. Chestiness and muffle are mitigated as a result and vocals also aren’t too forward or intimate in the context of their large bass and treble. I hear a pleasantly transparent tone and outstanding clarity. Vocals achieve accurate size and occupy an enjoyable position within the Phoenix’s stage.
As the lower-treble has been attenuated, though very clear and of reduced density, vocals are smoothly articulated and refined without stridence or sibilance. Still, this isn’t a perfectly coherent presentation, being stretched slightly thin due to upper-midrange emphasis and vocals are somewhat raspy. There’s also a slight bias towards female and male vocals are prone to dryness due to the scoop in the lower-midrange similar to earphones like the Hyla CE-5. No, this won’t be called a linear or reference earphone nor is it organic or warm, but its adjustments are well-compensated to provide a very engaging presentation without overly skewing the timbre. The Phoenix thereby upholds good overall balance and provides a very pleasant, delicate and defined midrange presentation.
Highs –
The top-end is quite different to most earphones I’ve heard with both positive and negative connotation. For one, timbre is not especially accurate. The lower-treble has reduced presence, so foreground detail presentation isn’t overly aggressive and sibilance is mitigated. However, as there is a moderate 7-8KHz peak, instruments remain very crisp and defined but do lack body without that lower-treble foundation. Percussion is especially emphasized working in conjunction with a superbly clean transient response, sharp attack and natural decay yielding well-textured notes, nonetheless. Cymbals retain pleasing shimmer and the presentation isn’t glaring or splashy. However, this does serve to reinforce the thinness of its presentation. What saves the Phoenix from becoming harsh or strident is its clean, dark background which aids a composed image alongside a well-layered one.
Treble also does sit slightly behind the bass in overall quantity which prevents the impression of overt brightness or in your face sharpness. As it commands strong contrast with the midrange, treble details are never lost in the mix, remaining highly defined. It is with regards to technical performance that the Phoenix excels. Detail retrieval is strong, just lacking some bite in the foreground, but micro and background-detail retrieval exceed its asking price. The Phoenix brings minutiae to the fore and showcases very strong extension into the highest octaves. There’s abundant sparkle with strong 16KHz presence that ensures background details are always apparent despite its dark background, and the Phoenix has resolution in spades. If you don’t mind a rather thin foreground presentation, the Phoenix is able to effortlessly deconstruct the smallest details in complex tracks.
Soundstage –
With excellent extension alongside a dark background, the Phoenix crafts a large soundstage that extends beyond the head in all axis. Vocals are mostly forward, creating a generally more oval presentation, but the earphone is able to project great depth on appropriate tracks as well. The presentation is very involving and imaging performance also is not as unorthodox as its tuning might suggest. Vocals occupy a strong centre image while instruments fan out to the sides. Directional cues are very sharp and localisation is reasonably precise too but less pinpoint accurate than some due to a lack of lower-treble presence. Panning and transients are swift and immersive. Separation is excellent between the 3 core frequency bands and also operates at a high level within them, especially the treble where its clean transient response contributes to very defined individual notes.
Rambles
The soundstage is an especially elusive quality to judge as a reviewer, especially on the in-ear form factor as the way sound interacts with the ear is very different to headphones and speakers due to the lack of interaction with the outer ear. You will find most reviews contradict in this regard. I personally was of the belief that treble performance contributed most to the soundstage presentation. However, after a discussion with Paul from About Audio, we determined that the bass plays a large role too. The Phoenix exemplifies this, its grand low-end contributing volume and size to its presentation. Take a listen to Yosi Horikawa’s signature “Bubbles” and you’ll see what I’m talking about. This will be a factor in my reviews henceforth.
Driveability –
The Phoenix has a modest impedance of 32ohms but a noticeably low sensitivity of 93dB. For reference, as far as volume is concerned, they require about as much voltage as the over-ear planar magnetic Hifiman Sundara. As such, a dedicated source or, at the very least an external amplifier is highly recommended to extract optimal volume and performance from the Phoenix.
Pixel 4 & DD TC35B: A good demonstration of a lower-powered phone source with low OI. Noticeably reduced sub-bass extension with blunted slam and reduced volume. Mids are clean and transparent, slightly grainier than my reference desktop setup. The top-end is clean and well-detailed but a touch brighter and less textured. The soundstage remains wide and nicely layered but lacks background detail retrieval.
With Periodic Ni: The setup gains ~40% more volume. Sub-bass extension is improved with perceptibly more solid slam and rumble. Bass is more control with more definition through the mid-bass. Vocals are slightly smoother and more refined with a touch more body. The top-end remains clean and nicely detailed. The soundstage becomes wider with better separation and a cleaner background.
Shanling M2X: Reduced sub-bass extension with lighter slam at the very bottom and less volume. Control is strong and definition is high. Mids are clean and transparent, a touch more forward and less smooth. Highs are well-detailed with very clean transient response and good extension. The soundstage is wide with sharp imaging, slightly less defined layers but good separation overall.
Hiby R6: The R6 has a 10-ohm output impedance that can skew the signature of multi-driver IEMs. The R6 provides strong sub-bass extension, control is good, slightly longer decay for a warmer voicing. The midrange remains transparent, slightly more intimate vocals. Highs are crisper and more forward, very detailed. The soundstage isn’t as wide, but imaging remains very sharp. Overall, the Phoenix isn’t excessively affected by output impedance but does sound brighter from these sources.
iBasso DX220: The portable source that came closest to the desktop setup in my inventory. The DX220 provided strong sub-bass extension and control. Mids were clean and transparent. Highs were very well detailed, slightly more so in the foreground. Excellent resolution with a wide soundstage and sharp localisation.
THX 789 + Khadas Tone Board: My current reference desktop setup with a transparent sound and heaps of clean power. Excellent bass extension, tight with excellent control. Transparent midrange, clean top-end with great resolution and detail retrieval. Wide soundstage with sharp localisation and good separation.
Suggested Pair ups
In my testing, only the larger and higher-end DAPs or a reasonably powerful dedicated amplifier like the Periodic Ni were suitable in terms of driving power. This was especially apparent when it came to bass extension where the smaller sources provided a noticeable drop-off. Still, even the TC35B provided a resolving and balanced sound and the Phoenix resists hiss and output impedance well. Though, as always, a lower OI will keep the sound closest to that intended by the designers. This is one of the few earphones that scales with a desktop amplifier which provided a notice jump even over the DX220 when it came to staging and extension. The Phoenix’s voicing to my ears, best suits a neutral source as its low-end can become dominant on a warmer source and similarly, it’s top-end can become sharp on brighter sources. The delicate balance of the earphone is best showcased by neutral and powerful sources such as the THX 789 or JDS Atom if you’re on a budget, you would not want to run the Phoenix from a smartphone or entry-level BT receiver.
Comparisons –
Custom Art Fibae 6 ($799): A well-performing warm and smooth earphone from a respected Polish company. It sports a 6-BA setup and a uniquely warm, thick tuning. Bass extension is better on the Phoenix and it has more sub-bass emphasis. Meanwhile, the 6 provides a meatier mid and upper-bass. Its low-end is fuller and warmer but also more bloated. With quicker but still reasonably natural decay, the 6 doesn’t gloss over too many fine details but the Phoenix is more defined through its low-end. Both showcase excellent control and dynamics.
Both also see moderate midrange emphasis to bring vocals in line with their prominent low ends. The 6 is a bit more linear, its vocal reconstruction is fuller and warmer but also very clear on behalf of similar 4KHz prominence. The 6 sounds more organic, never congested or muffled and a bit more natural overall. Both are smoothly articulated, the Phoenix is more neutral in tone and has better clarity and separation.
The 6 has a small 6 and 8KHz peaks but its treble is smooth and laid-back relative to its mids and bass. As such, the 6 has a very different presentation, being much smoother and warmer with enhanced body. The Phoenix is more detailed, especially when it comes to micro-detail retrieval. The 6 has more defined layers but clearly lacks the same sparkle and resolution up top. The Phoenix has a wider soundstage and better separation while the ME has slightly sharper localisation.
NXEars Opera ($799): The Opera is an 8-BA earphone with a mid-focussed sound and some very interesting properties. It has a substantially less dynamic and involving low-end with significantly less extension. In terms of tuning, it is less bassy overall but as focus lies in the upper-bass, it remains quite a full sound. The Opera has much faster decay so it doesn’t come across as too warm to me, yet showcases much higher definition while the Phoenix is meatier, thicker and weightier.
Through the midrange, they also diverge quite apparently. The Opera is full-bodied, dense and focussed on timbre while the Phoenix is the inverse, very clear, neutral in tone and high in clarity. The Phoenix has better extension and greater definition and separation while the Opera is more natural and with larger vocal size and a slightly more intimate presentation. The Opera is noticeably more layered too while upholding similar definition. Up top, the Phoenix is noticeably crisper with an even cleaner transient response.
The Opera provides a bit more linearity through the treble with a more present lower-treble but both are somewhat thin up top, the Phoenix more apparently so due to its higher contrast and, by extension, lower coherence. The Opera is more detailed in the foreground while the Phoenix has better micro-detail retrieval alongside superior extension and sparkle. The Phoenix has a noticeably larger soundstage in all aspects while the Opera has uniquely sharp localisation and imaging on behalf of its time-aligned crossover. The Opera has more defined layers and better separation.
Hyla CE-5 ($940): Actually, the CE-5 and Phoenix quite resemble each other which speaks well for the Phoenix as the Hyla has become quite a legendary IEM. The Phoenix has slightly more bass alongside greater sub-bass weight, the Hyla is more linear between sub and mid-bass. Extension and control are excellent on both, the Hyla has natural decay while the Phoenix lingers a little longer, enhancing the thickness of its bass notes. The Hyla is more insightful as a result, while the Phoenix is more dynamic and engaging. Both earphones implement quite a sharp upper-bass/lower-midrange dip before a more present centre midrange.
The Phoenix doesn’t sound as forward as the Hyla in lieu of its bigger bass. The Phoenix is slightly fuller, especially male vocals, but also slightly raspier due to its more forward upper-midrange. The Phoenix has smoother articulation and is less prone to sibilance due to its substantially less present lower-treble and its midrange has more body and smoothness which contributes to a more natural image to my ears while upholding similar clarity and cleanliness. The CE-5 has a more linear treble with small 5 and 7KHz bumps. It has a bit more body, texture and detail retrieval in the foreground while the Phoenix is thinner and its notes lack the same initial bite. However, when it comes to micro-detail retrieval, the Phoenix has a slight edge, resolving finer background details and sparkle more convincingly.
The Hyla has a bit more air while the Phoenix has a darker and cleaner background, both have abundant of sparkle at the very top, the Phoenix again sounds a bit cleaner and more composed. Both have similar soundstage width, the Hyla has a touch more depth due to its more laid-back upper-midrange. To clarify, due to its bigger sub-bass, the Phoenix often sounds grander in presentation though perceived distance is similar under scrutiny. Both also have very sharp imaging with very swift transients, localisation is sharper on the Hyla due to its more linear lower-treble.
Campfire Audio Andromeda 2018 ($1099): The Andromeda is also a resolving, sparkly IEM, and represents a more linear W-shaped sound. It has less sub-bass extension and bass overall but similarly carries satisfying weight and fullness down low with moderate sub and upper-bass emphasis. The Phoenix is thicker, harder-hitting and slower decaying but also more dynamic, it resolves more information at the very bottom especially. Meanwhile, the Andro is much quicker decaying resulting in higher definition and fine detail retrieval but also less textured notes. The Andromeda is a lot more linear through the midrange and has a more integrated bass/midrange transition for a more coherent sound overall.
It has more present vocals and they are endowed with a euphonic warmth and body from the upper-bass and lower-midrange. Meanwhile, the Phoenix has more contrast but sounds less coherent and less balanced between male and female vocals. With more upper-midrange bias, it sounds clearer and cleaner in tone but also stretched thinner and more strained with more rasp. The Andromeda on the contrary, can come across as a bit laid-back in the upper-midrange. Its vocals generally occupy a more distant position in the stage besides the occasional track where male vocals can sound more distant on the Phoenix. The Andromeda carries higher resolution overall and is smoother, fuller and more natural in voicing where the Phoenix is more engaging.
The Andromeda has similar areas of emphasis in the treble with the addition of a small lower-treble peak while continuing the trend of being generally more linear in tuning. The Andromeda’s treble has more body, foreground detail retrieval is a bit higher and instruments such as cymbals have more texture and accurate shimmer. The Phoenix has sharper transients with a bit more emphasis on percussion. The Phoenix has a darker, cleaner background and slightly more resolution of micro-details. Both have excellent sparkle and extension, though slightly more apparent on the Andromeda. The Phoenix has a wider soundstage, the Andromeda has more depth and is more rounded in presentation. The Andromeda has sharper localisation, the Phoenix is more separated.
Verdict –
From my comparisons, we can observe how the Phoenix undercuts many competitors while offering more than parity in technical performance. Its tuning is sculpted, naturally making it more polarising than more balanced models. Though arguably, when reaching the upper echelons of pricing, flatness is no longer key as such can be had for much, much less. The Phoenix offers some contrast with its immensely fun, engaging and simply enjoyable signature, all the while upholding convincing overall balance that maximises its appeal. The Phoenix also exemplifies the high-end IEM experience with its gorgeous and premium construction with a comfortable fit. Perhaps most polarising will be its treble, as the lower-treble does sound quite laid-back which can affect instrument localisation and sap detail presence and instrument body. Source matching is also especially critical given the sensitivity. Still, what the Phoenix provides is a hyper-attractive visual and auditory experience alongside a tuning that showcases its profuse technical ability first and foremost. Those wanting huge, dynamic bass set to clear, delicate mids and sparkly highs will find few that contend with the Phoenix, especially around its asking price.
The Astrotec Phoenix is available from on Astrotec (International) for $799 at the time of writing. I am not affiliated with Astrotec and receive no earnings from purchases through this link
Thanks for reading! If you enjoyed my review, please see my website for more just like it!
Track List –
Billie Eilish – don’t smile at me
brb. – relationshit
Catherine Feeny – Hurricane Glass
Emotional Oranges – The Juice: Vol. II
Father John Misty – Pure Comedy
Kanye West – Only One
Joji – Sanctuary
Missy Higgins – The Sound of White
Nirvana – Nevermind
Radiohead – Pablo Honey
Radiohead – The Bends
Rich Brian – The Sailor
The Cranberries – No Need to Argue
Winner – Remember
Yosi Horikawa – Wandering
TLDR –
The Craft Six competes in kilo-buck turf in both tonality and technicality at a substantial discount (pre-order).
Introduction –
Craft Ears is a newcomer from Poland with big aspirations. The company’s first two models the Craft Two and Four were very well-received by enthusiasts and critics. Despite this, there was one main aspect that drew me to the company; and that was their transparency about their acoustic designs. The staff are responsive, confident and proficient, happy to lay out all of the science to back their lofty promises. After months of development, their efforts have born fruit in the form of the Craft Six, currently the highest-end model in their line-up featuring 6-BA setup with a 5-way crossover. This earphone also marks a big innovational step forward of the company, implementing multiple proprietary technologies. All of this comes at a highly competitive 745 EUR preorder asking price, and 945 EUR launch price. You can read more about the Craft Six and purchase one for yourself here.
Disclaimer –
I would like to thank Jed from Craft Ears very much for their utmost patience with me while explaining their design and for providing me with the Craft 6 for the purpose of this review. All words are my own and there is no monetary incentive for a positive review. This quick-review will be covering a demo universal unit that is to be sent to the next reviewer after my evaluation. I will attempt to be as objective as possible.
Specs –
Frequency Response: 2Hz – 23KHz
Impedance: 7-ohms
Driver setup: 2x Sub, 1x low-mid, 1x mid-high, 1x tweeter, 1x super-tweeter
Crossover: 5-way electrical
The Pitch –
RASEN Bass
The Craft 6 implements “Reference Acoustic Spiral Enhanced Bass”. This is a patent-pending 3D printed low-pass filter that promises true subwoofer extension from current BA drivers. I’ve been told this operates similarly to that implemented on the legendary Shure SE846 but with modern innovations that increase efficiency.
True Load
The staff behind Craft Ears were proud to tout the extremely flat impedance and phase offered by their latest earphone. This functions similarly to the FIBAE technology pioneered by Piotr at Custom Art, whereby the earphone’s signature does not vary with output impedance, at least, to a much smaller degree than most. Meanwhile, phase-coherence brings benefits to imaging and detail retrieval by minimising destructive interference between the drivers. This successfully circumvents two of the most polarising aspects of multi-driver design.
SES
“Space expansion system” is a field-specific 3D printed horn-loaded tweeter tuned to a particular bandwidth. We’ve seen this implemented on some other high-end IEMs that have been very well-received. I’ll leave it to the professionals to offer in-depth clarification.
Design –
My demo unit arrived in the form of Craft Ears’ new universal housing. Much like their customs, the universal housings are 3D printed and immaculately finished. They assume a deep piano black design set to stunning red-stained wood faceplates inscribed with the model number. A thick clear coat provides additional depth and intrigue and the total lack of seams, orange peel or other imperfections results in a high-class aesthetic. The housings themselves don’t follow any traditional design, being of the faux-custom variety. The Craft Six utilises a 0.78mm removable cable, the OCC MK2 from Rhapsiodio.
It’s a beefy 4-wire unit with copper conductors and carries all of the flare you’d expect from a high-quality custom-cable with chrome/carbon-fibre connectors and pleasing strain relief. The pre-moulded earguides showcase great attention to detail, curving both backward and inwards to offer an especially secure fit without pressure point formation. I also love the matte jacket which routes cleanly through clothing if offering a bit less visual intrigue than clear units. The cable itself is very high-quality, a bit springy but highly tangle-resistant. It represents a great complement to the Craft 6 for a premium overall package.
Fit & Isolation –
They’re very well sculpted earphone, with long, tapered nozzles providing a deep fit and an anti-helix fin providing an exceptionally locked-in sensation. Fit stability is excellent as is isolation, being fully-sealed, easily sufficient for travel and loud environments. That said, the housings are very large, and protrude noticeably from the ear. They also contact a lot of my outer ear and may cause discomfort on those with smaller ears. I personally found them to offer good levels of comfort during long listening sessions, albeit, they never quite disappeared as some IEMs tend to.
Sound –
Testing Methodology: Measured using Arta via IEC 711 coupler to Startech external sound card. 7-9KHz peaks may be artifacts/emphasized due to my measurement setup. Measurements besides channel balance are volume matched at 1KHz. Fit depth normalized to my best abilities – the brighter measurement is with the tips installed, shallow fit while the darker measurement is tip removed, deep insertion.
Due to these factors, my measurements may not accurately reflect the earphone or measurements taken by others.
Tonality –
At its elevated asking price, it almost goes without saying that the Craft 6 is an impressive listen. Yet even among its peers, the Craft 6 shines in many regards; that being its resolving treble and especially powerful, extended bass. Fundamentally, it builds atop the foundation of the Craft Four, while introducing a more neutrally-toned and linear signature. It retains light colouration, being slightly vocal forward and analytical but with a bit of bass emphasis that grants it excellent balance and accurate tone overall. The Six is, in turn, no longer as euphonic as its cheaper sibling. And yet, as it carries quite a substantial boost in technical ability, one would hardly misses the added warmth and body. The Craft Six is a wonderfully insightful listen, but may not appeal to those craving warmth and full, dense notes.
Bass –
The low-end showcases some of the best extension I’ve ever heard from a BA-earphone. This impression is aided by light emphasis through the sub-bass, together with providing a powerful rumble and visceral slam at the very bottom. The timbre is still BA-ish in nature, being quicker decaying than most dynamics if a little more drawn out than most BA’s, and being highly controlled. There is a bit more information and texture in the sub-bass than normal for sure. Working alongside that terrific extension, the commanding presence, power and extension of the Craft Six’s sub-bass might just mislead a fair few. This is followed by a gradual drop through the mid and upper-bass, providing a well-balanced presentation overall with slightly thicker albeit highly defined notes set to a neutral tone.
Mids –
The midrange has a neutral tone and lighter note weight alongside a clear and revealing character. It showcases sound linearity with an upper-midrange emphasis around 3KHz providing a bump to vocal size and clarity in addition to bringing vocals forward over-stepping on intimacy. As the upper-bass and lower-midrange are lightly attenuated, the source of its neutral and highly-defined presentation, vocal body lies on the thinner side. Nonetheless, emphasis falls off through the 4KHz region into a lower-treble trough, providing wicked smooth articulation and a hint of additional density that redeems some note weight and structure. As such, sibilance and raspiness are non-existent despite the superlative clarity of the Craft 6’s vocals. Altogether, the midrange is clear, highly-resolved and very refined, a well-executed demonstration of a neutrally-toned sound.
Highs –
Despite possessing a trough around 5KHz, emphasis picks up quickly after, leading to a moderate 7KHz peak. I hear very quick, concise note attack and accurate decay, superb control and a clean transient response, all contributing to outstanding fine detail retrieval. The background is dark, providing strong foreground/background contrast and a focused foreground. Meanwhile, a peak in the upper-treble works in tandem with excellent extension to provide a surprising amount of air set to abundant sparkle and micro-detail presence. Such a tuning produces thinner but not brittle instrument body alongside a slightly tizzy character. I would argue that the treble strays furthest from linearity, favouring greater engagement and a more aggressive detail presentation over perfectly accurate timbre. Still, as the tone is a touch on the warmer side, this helps to retain a fairly natural image. The Craft Six showcases truly superb detail retrieval front and foremost without wearing on the ear in quantity.
Soundstage –
Such a presentation works wonders for the soundstage too, which stretches beyond the head in width and provides a surprising amount of depth too; albeit slightly reduced due to its more forward vocal presentation. Imaging is sharp and accurate. Vocals occupy a strong centre image and localisation is pinpoint sharp. Separation is strong on account of the Craft Six’s neutral tone and slightly thinner note structure. I would still classify the Six as providing convincing coherence. Its bass provides volume and stability to its stage, avoiding sounding diffuse. The Craft Six is well-structured with defined layers and precise imaging.
Early Verdict –
An earphone like the Craft Six is difficult to evaluate as its technical properties work in tandem with a tuning that emphasizes their presence to the listener. To clarify, it is easy to mistake a forward lower-treble for high detail retrieval, bright background for sparkle. The list goes on, and reviews shall henceforth, be crucified for their misnomers. Thankfully, the Craft Six offers an incredibly solid technical foundation for its vivid yet neutrally toned signature, end to end extension is superb and the organisation of its presentation is excellent too. Surely, this earphone does not represent perfect timbre, being slightly forward, detail aggressive and, in turn, delivering a lighter note weight which may not please all. Still, the Craft Six ticks all the boxes a high-end IEM should, the treble is sparkly and resolving of minutiae, the midrange is revealing yet refined and its bass is a revelation. I was sceptical of the company’s proprietary acronyms, but the product cannot be denied. The Craft Six competes in kilo-buck turf in both tonality and technicality at a substantial discount when bought on preorder, and I will be sad to see this one go.
Comparisons, source synergy and in-depth breakdown coming soon to the extended review!
The Craft Six is available from on Craft Ears (International) for $745 EUR (preorder) with a retail price of $945 EUR after this period has ended. I am not affiliated with Craft Ears and receive no earnings from purchases through this link.
Thanks for reading! If you enjoyed my review, please see my website for more just like it!
Track List –
brb. – relationship
Bob Seger – Stranger in Town
Emotional Oranges – The Juice: Vol. II
Father John Misty – Pure Comedy
Fleetwood Mac – Tango In the Night
George Michael – Listen Without Prejudice
Joji – Sanctuary
Kanye West – Only One
Keshi – skeletons
IU – eight
Nirvana – Nevermind
OOHYO – Honey Tea
Pixies – Surfer Rosa
Radiohead – OK Computer
Rich Brian – Amen
Sharon Van Etten – The End of the World
Sun Rai – Pocket Music
The Rolling Stones – Sticky Fingers
Yosi Horikawa – Wandering
The Craft Six competes in kilo-buck turf in both tonality and technicality at a substantial discount (pre-order).
Introduction –
Craft Ears is a newcomer from Poland with big aspirations. The company’s first two models the Craft Two and Four were very well-received by enthusiasts and critics. Despite this, there was one main aspect that drew me to the company; and that was their transparency about their acoustic designs. The staff are responsive, confident and proficient, happy to lay out all of the science to back their lofty promises. After months of development, their efforts have born fruit in the form of the Craft Six, currently the highest-end model in their line-up featuring 6-BA setup with a 5-way crossover. This earphone also marks a big innovational step forward of the company, implementing multiple proprietary technologies. All of this comes at a highly competitive 745 EUR preorder asking price, and 945 EUR launch price. You can read more about the Craft Six and purchase one for yourself here.
Disclaimer –
I would like to thank Jed from Craft Ears very much for their utmost patience with me while explaining their design and for providing me with the Craft 6 for the purpose of this review. All words are my own and there is no monetary incentive for a positive review. This quick-review will be covering a demo universal unit that is to be sent to the next reviewer after my evaluation. I will attempt to be as objective as possible.
Specs –
Frequency Response: 2Hz – 23KHz
Impedance: 7-ohms
Driver setup: 2x Sub, 1x low-mid, 1x mid-high, 1x tweeter, 1x super-tweeter
Crossover: 5-way electrical
The Pitch –
RASEN Bass
The Craft 6 implements “Reference Acoustic Spiral Enhanced Bass”. This is a patent-pending 3D printed low-pass filter that promises true subwoofer extension from current BA drivers. I’ve been told this operates similarly to that implemented on the legendary Shure SE846 but with modern innovations that increase efficiency.
True Load
The staff behind Craft Ears were proud to tout the extremely flat impedance and phase offered by their latest earphone. This functions similarly to the FIBAE technology pioneered by Piotr at Custom Art, whereby the earphone’s signature does not vary with output impedance, at least, to a much smaller degree than most. Meanwhile, phase-coherence brings benefits to imaging and detail retrieval by minimising destructive interference between the drivers. This successfully circumvents two of the most polarising aspects of multi-driver design.
SES
“Space expansion system” is a field-specific 3D printed horn-loaded tweeter tuned to a particular bandwidth. We’ve seen this implemented on some other high-end IEMs that have been very well-received. I’ll leave it to the professionals to offer in-depth clarification.
Design –
My demo unit arrived in the form of Craft Ears’ new universal housing. Much like their customs, the universal housings are 3D printed and immaculately finished. They assume a deep piano black design set to stunning red-stained wood faceplates inscribed with the model number. A thick clear coat provides additional depth and intrigue and the total lack of seams, orange peel or other imperfections results in a high-class aesthetic. The housings themselves don’t follow any traditional design, being of the faux-custom variety. The Craft Six utilises a 0.78mm removable cable, the OCC MK2 from Rhapsiodio.
It’s a beefy 4-wire unit with copper conductors and carries all of the flare you’d expect from a high-quality custom-cable with chrome/carbon-fibre connectors and pleasing strain relief. The pre-moulded earguides showcase great attention to detail, curving both backward and inwards to offer an especially secure fit without pressure point formation. I also love the matte jacket which routes cleanly through clothing if offering a bit less visual intrigue than clear units. The cable itself is very high-quality, a bit springy but highly tangle-resistant. It represents a great complement to the Craft 6 for a premium overall package.
Fit & Isolation –
They’re very well sculpted earphone, with long, tapered nozzles providing a deep fit and an anti-helix fin providing an exceptionally locked-in sensation. Fit stability is excellent as is isolation, being fully-sealed, easily sufficient for travel and loud environments. That said, the housings are very large, and protrude noticeably from the ear. They also contact a lot of my outer ear and may cause discomfort on those with smaller ears. I personally found them to offer good levels of comfort during long listening sessions, albeit, they never quite disappeared as some IEMs tend to.
Sound –
Testing Methodology: Measured using Arta via IEC 711 coupler to Startech external sound card. 7-9KHz peaks may be artifacts/emphasized due to my measurement setup. Measurements besides channel balance are volume matched at 1KHz. Fit depth normalized to my best abilities – the brighter measurement is with the tips installed, shallow fit while the darker measurement is tip removed, deep insertion.
Due to these factors, my measurements may not accurately reflect the earphone or measurements taken by others.
Tonality –
At its elevated asking price, it almost goes without saying that the Craft 6 is an impressive listen. Yet even among its peers, the Craft 6 shines in many regards; that being its resolving treble and especially powerful, extended bass. Fundamentally, it builds atop the foundation of the Craft Four, while introducing a more neutrally-toned and linear signature. It retains light colouration, being slightly vocal forward and analytical but with a bit of bass emphasis that grants it excellent balance and accurate tone overall. The Six is, in turn, no longer as euphonic as its cheaper sibling. And yet, as it carries quite a substantial boost in technical ability, one would hardly misses the added warmth and body. The Craft Six is a wonderfully insightful listen, but may not appeal to those craving warmth and full, dense notes.
Bass –
The low-end showcases some of the best extension I’ve ever heard from a BA-earphone. This impression is aided by light emphasis through the sub-bass, together with providing a powerful rumble and visceral slam at the very bottom. The timbre is still BA-ish in nature, being quicker decaying than most dynamics if a little more drawn out than most BA’s, and being highly controlled. There is a bit more information and texture in the sub-bass than normal for sure. Working alongside that terrific extension, the commanding presence, power and extension of the Craft Six’s sub-bass might just mislead a fair few. This is followed by a gradual drop through the mid and upper-bass, providing a well-balanced presentation overall with slightly thicker albeit highly defined notes set to a neutral tone.
Mids –
The midrange has a neutral tone and lighter note weight alongside a clear and revealing character. It showcases sound linearity with an upper-midrange emphasis around 3KHz providing a bump to vocal size and clarity in addition to bringing vocals forward over-stepping on intimacy. As the upper-bass and lower-midrange are lightly attenuated, the source of its neutral and highly-defined presentation, vocal body lies on the thinner side. Nonetheless, emphasis falls off through the 4KHz region into a lower-treble trough, providing wicked smooth articulation and a hint of additional density that redeems some note weight and structure. As such, sibilance and raspiness are non-existent despite the superlative clarity of the Craft 6’s vocals. Altogether, the midrange is clear, highly-resolved and very refined, a well-executed demonstration of a neutrally-toned sound.
Highs –
Despite possessing a trough around 5KHz, emphasis picks up quickly after, leading to a moderate 7KHz peak. I hear very quick, concise note attack and accurate decay, superb control and a clean transient response, all contributing to outstanding fine detail retrieval. The background is dark, providing strong foreground/background contrast and a focused foreground. Meanwhile, a peak in the upper-treble works in tandem with excellent extension to provide a surprising amount of air set to abundant sparkle and micro-detail presence. Such a tuning produces thinner but not brittle instrument body alongside a slightly tizzy character. I would argue that the treble strays furthest from linearity, favouring greater engagement and a more aggressive detail presentation over perfectly accurate timbre. Still, as the tone is a touch on the warmer side, this helps to retain a fairly natural image. The Craft Six showcases truly superb detail retrieval front and foremost without wearing on the ear in quantity.
Soundstage –
Such a presentation works wonders for the soundstage too, which stretches beyond the head in width and provides a surprising amount of depth too; albeit slightly reduced due to its more forward vocal presentation. Imaging is sharp and accurate. Vocals occupy a strong centre image and localisation is pinpoint sharp. Separation is strong on account of the Craft Six’s neutral tone and slightly thinner note structure. I would still classify the Six as providing convincing coherence. Its bass provides volume and stability to its stage, avoiding sounding diffuse. The Craft Six is well-structured with defined layers and precise imaging.
Early Verdict –
An earphone like the Craft Six is difficult to evaluate as its technical properties work in tandem with a tuning that emphasizes their presence to the listener. To clarify, it is easy to mistake a forward lower-treble for high detail retrieval, bright background for sparkle. The list goes on, and reviews shall henceforth, be crucified for their misnomers. Thankfully, the Craft Six offers an incredibly solid technical foundation for its vivid yet neutrally toned signature, end to end extension is superb and the organisation of its presentation is excellent too. Surely, this earphone does not represent perfect timbre, being slightly forward, detail aggressive and, in turn, delivering a lighter note weight which may not please all. Still, the Craft Six ticks all the boxes a high-end IEM should, the treble is sparkly and resolving of minutiae, the midrange is revealing yet refined and its bass is a revelation. I was sceptical of the company’s proprietary acronyms, but the product cannot be denied. The Craft Six competes in kilo-buck turf in both tonality and technicality at a substantial discount when bought on preorder, and I will be sad to see this one go.
Comparisons, source synergy and in-depth breakdown coming soon to the extended review!
The Craft Six is available from on Craft Ears (International) for $745 EUR (preorder) with a retail price of $945 EUR after this period has ended. I am not affiliated with Craft Ears and receive no earnings from purchases through this link.
Thanks for reading! If you enjoyed my review, please see my website for more just like it!
Track List –
brb. – relationship
Bob Seger – Stranger in Town
Emotional Oranges – The Juice: Vol. II
Father John Misty – Pure Comedy
Fleetwood Mac – Tango In the Night
George Michael – Listen Without Prejudice
Joji – Sanctuary
Kanye West – Only One
Keshi – skeletons
IU – eight
Nirvana – Nevermind
OOHYO – Honey Tea
Pixies – Surfer Rosa
Radiohead – OK Computer
Rich Brian – Amen
Sharon Van Etten – The End of the World
Sun Rai – Pocket Music
The Rolling Stones – Sticky Fingers
Yosi Horikawa – Wandering
Attachments
TLDR –
The BL-05 isn’t a bad buy when taken holistically, but does receive a limited recommendation from me for its polarising tonality.
Introduction –
Blon really took the audiophile world by storm with the BL-03. Though not especially impressive from a technical point of view, the $40 teardrop-shaped earphone carried a highly natural tonality, something not frequently found at such a low price point. As such, it quickly became the darling of numerous audio forums and for many, served as a gateway drug into the world of the empty wallet. The BL-05 follows hot on its heels. Redesigned from the ground up, Blon promise a more balanced, detailed sound and improved ergonomics, all at a meagre $5 USD price increase. With a stainless steel build, removable cable and CNT dynamic driver, the BL-05 promises a lot more performance than its $43 USD price tag would suggest. You can read all about the BL-05 and purchase one for yourself here.
Disclaimer –
I would like to thank Nappoler from HiFiGO very much for his quick communication and for providing me with the BL-05 for the purpose of review. All words are my own and there is no monetary incentive for a positive review. Despite receiving the earphones free of cost, I will attempt to be as objective as possible in my evaluation.
Specs –
Driver: 10mm Carbon Nanotube Diaphragm Dynamic Driver Unit.
Impedance: 32 Ohms.
Sensitivity: 108dB.
Frequency Response Range: 20Hz-20kHz.
Cable: 0.78mm Two-Pin Cable with 3.5mm Termination Plug.
The Pitch –
2nd Generation CNT DD
CNT drivers have been observed at the high-end of IEM design and are now filtering their way down the price ladder. The BL-05 promises strong performance and low-distortion with a new diaphragm design with a carbon-network framework serving to increase rigidity and agility. Blon also boast an almost linear impedance response.
Tuned Acoustics
The BL03 achieved notoriety for its natural tonality and smooth FR. The BL-05 promises the same with a custom-design interior acoustic chamber. Alongside its new driver, Blon promise and audiophile-orientated tuning with a natural presentation, wide soundstage and coherent imaging.
Unboxing –
The unboxing experience reminds me of most Chi-Fi IEMs, the earphones are showcased through a clear window while the accessories are stored in a box below. Included with the earphones is a stylish canvas pouch, not super protective but a pocketable case that will precent deep scratches. Blon also include 2 types of silicone eartips, 3 pairs of generic grey tips in addition to two pairs of Spinfits, most likely CP155’s but the material is different to the latest generation such as those included with the Fiio FA9.
Design –
A prime area that Blon spent refining over its predecessor, the BL-05 features a stainless steel construction with a pod-like design reminiscent of AKG’s high-end earphones. Users have the choice of black or silver chrome housings, all with premium gold accent faceplates. It’s an impressively well-realised housing, especially as they were design in-house. Of course, the finish cannot compare to higher-end metal earphones with some orange peel on the paintjob to name an example. However, they are well formed with smooth seams and very reassuring density in the hand. A thoughtful addition includes left and right markers on the faceplates.
They use a 0.78mm removable cable system that is a great luxury at this price point and will ensure a longer lifespan for the earphones. The connectors protrude with inset pins on the cable to provide additional support while still permitting compatibility with third party units. The cable itself is of acceptable quality, the jacket is tacky but highly supple and the connectors all have excellent strain relief. Unfortunately, the wires themselves are very thin which makes them more tangle-prone to most. Nonetheless, the cable is not microphonic in the slightest and the pre-moulded ear guides are comfortable and stable fitting.
Fit & Isolation –
One thing that can be difficult to judge in photos and renders is scale. The BL-05 is a tiny earphone and very low-profile. As such, buyers looking for an earphone to sleep on may find this a very suitable choice. The nozzle is on the shorter side so most users will have to either size up tips or just longer tips such as the included Spinfits. Combined with the small housings, this contributes to an exceedingly comfortable wearing experience with zero hotspot formation.
I also found the seal to be quite convincing and, alongside their over-ear fit, they are very stable despite being slightly heavier due to that stainless steel construction. A vent is present, though as it lies on the inner-face, wind noise isn’t exaggerated when wearing the earphones outdoors. Isolation is above average but certainly not outstanding. They will suffice for commute but will struggle in loud environments such as the metro.
Sound –
Testing Methodology: Measured using Arta via IEC 711 coupler to Startech external sound card. 7-9KHz peaks are often artifacts of my measurement setup. Measurements besides channel balance are volume matched at 1KHz. Fit depth normalized to my best abilities. Due to these factors, my measurements may not accurately reflect the earphone or measurements taken by others.
Tonality –
The BL-05 pursues a kind of faux-Harman tuning, tracking essentially identically in the lower-registers through to the lower midrange. That said, the centre-midrange is noticeably more forward as is the upper-midrange, and the treble tuning has been altered in order to compensate. The result is not as coherent nor is this a presentation that comes across to me as immediately natural. Vocals sound forward but thin and detail presentation is forward but with blunted attack. This does improve to some extent with Final Audio E-tips that smooth off the midrange and increase density, however, it hardly seems sensible to recommend a $35 ear tip for a $60 earphone (AUD). All testing below was with the included ear tips.
Bass –
The low-end is pleasantly deep reaching, with notable sub-bass focus providing enhanced note thickness and weight. It lacks the physical slam of pricier models but still provides bold rumble and plenty of voluminous impact at the very bottom. This precedes a slope through the mid and upper-bass that ensures a fairly neutral bass tone regardless. As a result, though carrying fair bass emphasis, there isn’t any bloat or warmth colouring its presentation. Technically, the low-end is also a reasonably astute performer if not an outstanding one too.
There’s better than average driver control here, resulting in a tighte presentation than most competitors. However, the low-end has poorer organisation on complex tracks without adequate separation of its thicker notes. This is somewhat ameliorated by its slightly faster decay and there is a bit more detail retrieval than one might expect for the price. However, sub-bass does have a tendency to overwhelm its mid-bass, resulting in less perceived definition. The BL-05 certainly provides an engaging low-end with enjoyable technical ability, though I would not be mistake it for a costlier earphone.
Mids –
I am personally critical of midrange timbre, preferring a warm, coherent sound over a clear and thin one. Though I try to relay information accurately, naturally there will be some bias in my interpretation. The BL-05 unfortunately, falls into the latter category so it is not especially appealing for my preferences. As above, there is little bass warmth and diminished body in the upper-bass and lower-midrange. As such, the vocal presentation is thinly bodied and cool in tone. This is further exacerbated by a sizeable 2KHz peak that brings vocals to the fore of the presentation, followed by subsequent 4KHz emphasis. Such tuning enhanced clarity and openness while bolstering vocal size and intimacy.
As this comes at the expense of smoothness and body, most earphones implement a warmer bass or smoother lower-treble to compensate. This has been poorly executed here, as emphasis extends to the 5KHz region only dropping off sharply at 6KHz. As such, articulation isn’t especially smooth though sibilance and sharpness are partially mitigated. Such tuning only serves to exacerbate the BL05’s cool, thin and raspy presentation. Indeed, vocals are clean and clear, female vocals especially are showcased. However, these qualities are not enough to offset its unnatural tone to my ear; vocals are simply too strained, lacking foundation and power. Ultimately, transparency is a term that is often misconstrued, not simply the absence of warmth, but the absence of colouration. Arguably, the BL-05 swings too far in the opposite direction in its pursuit.
Highs –
The top-end, thankfully, is quite pleasantly voiced and, similar to the bass, is an admiral performer at such a conservative price point. Nonetheless, we are speaking in relatives as it is not especially focussed or organised relative to pricier models. Still, there’s good crispness to the foreground with above-average detail retrieval. Notes have a smoother attack, lacking aggressive crunch and bite due to their sharp 6KHz trough. But there remains a crisp and slightly forward detail presence on behalf of 5KHz emphasis, nonetheless.
Instrumentation is thin in body and decay is truncated as extension is quite limited, so you do miss the texture and realism seen on higher-priced earphones around the 3-digit mark. The background is slightly brighter than neutral, providing a bit more openness and air, and this region is both detail sparse and devoid of glare as the BL-05 rolls-off sharply through the middle-treble. The transient response remains fairly clean as well, with good separation. Of course, there isn’t any sparkle nor great resolution of fine details here. The BL-05 is firmly a superficial performer, with some layering and enough detail presence to engage.
Soundstage –
Even with the included Spinfits installed that usually offer a wider presentation, the BL-05 is reasonably intimate though never claustrophobic due to its thinner notes that provide a bit more air and separation. Chiefly, the earphone has quite a forward sound both with regards to vocals and highs so though it is capable of rendering some dimension, often it is close to the head. Imaging performance is quite good on behalf of a clean transient response and sharp lower-treble delivering keen directional cues. We observe strongly centred vocals and instruments spread out to the sides. Due to the lower-treble tuning, localisation isn’t pinpoint precise, though direction is easy to discern, nonetheless. Separation is good as aforementioned, there isn’t huge separation in the bass but otherwise, notes feel well isolated which no doubt plays a role in their imaging performance.
Driveability –
The BL05 has a 32ohm impedance and 108dB sensitivity making it quite efficient for use with lower powered sources. Indeed, the BL-05 is quite source agnostic which speaks well for those with lesser quality sources but conversely, it can be ascertained that it doesn’t scale up either. Comparing sound quality from my iPod Touch 6G to my THX 789 revealed a more authoritarian sub-bass slam alongside slightly higher definition and a wider soundstage. Still, the difference was not huge.
Suggested Pair Ups
The BL-05 is suitable for smartphone listeners being neither power hungry nor suffering from a high output impedance. However, it also does not scale well with better sources. A warmer source is advised to help smooth off its midrange.
Comparisons –
Kinera Tyr ($30): The Tyr was quite an impressive affordable in-ear to me, sporting a lightly warm, balanced and simply pleasant tonality. It has a fixed cable that will hold some buyers back prioritising longevity. The low-end of the Blon extends better and showcases better control. The Tyr has a more natural tuning, with light tilt towards the mid-bass granting it a warm, smooth and full voicing. The Blon is a lot cleaner and higher energy with higher definition and detail retrieval. The midrange continues suite, the Blon being more forward, brighter and thinner. The Tyr is slightly laid-back, lightly warm and dense. It’s timbre is pleasantly natural, both instruments and vocals.
The Blon has greater clarity and definition but is quite a bit thinner and more forward, sounding a bit sterile by comparison. The lower-treble is lightly crisp on the Tyr, being sharper and more forwad on the Blon. Nonetheless, the Tyr has a bit more note attack granting its notes slightly more bite. Still, the Blon is slightly more detailed and its presentation draws more attention to this fact too. The Blon has a cleaner transient response and slightly more extension though both are very limited in this regard. The Tyr has a larger soundstage and more defined layers while the Blon has better separation and sharper imaging.
Final Audio E2000 ($40): At the same price, the E2000 provides one of my favourite voicings under $100. This comes at the cost of a thin fixed cable. The Final is more U-shaped with laid-back vocals where the Blon is more W-shaped. The Blon provides a bit more sub-bass extension and slam while the E2000 is more linear with a light mid-bass tilt granting it a warmer tone but a less boisterous bass overall. The Blon has better bass control but the E2000 has more definition through the mid-bass. The midrange is a lot more natural on the E2000. It’s vocals aren’t as prominent, but are more accurate in size and positioning, if being a tad laid-back.
They have more natural tone, body and articulation while retaining pleasing clarity. The Blon is higher definition but not as resolving as it is rather thinned out. The lower-treble is also slightly forward on the E2000 but more linear as it doesn’t have to compensate for a shouty midrange. As such, it has more accurate attack and decay properties and more realistic body and timbre in general. That said, the transient response on the Blon is a bit cleaner, it is a touch more detailed and has a bit more resolution. The E2000 has larger soundstage while the Blong has sharper directional cues if not more accurate imaging overall.
Moondrop Starfield ($109): I’ve included this IEM in the comparison because I feel many buyers would benefit greatly by making the pricier but more long-term investment. Around this price we see a great jump in technical ability in addition to more refined tuning, a double whammy. The Starfield simply sounds a lot more complete to my ears, even coming from much pricier gear that makes the Blon sound truly crappy. The Starfield has slightly similar sub-bass extension alongside a much tighter and more controlled low-end. Though not an outstanding performer in its price range, the Starfield has better definition and separation while upholding similar levels of energy and slam. The Blon sounds larger only because its notes are sloppier. The midrange is where the Starfield jumps most ahead, though not too far off on a FR, there is a world of difference in listening.
It too is a high clarity and slightly forward sound but it showcases so much more refinement then the Blon. The centre midrange isn’t as forward and the upper-midrange has a bit more density and smoothness. As such, the Starfield yields all of the benefits, the clarity, definition and cleanliness without erring into the territory of shoutiness, strain and raspiness. This trend continues into the treble where the Starfield is appreciably more linear, especially around the 5-6KHz region. It has more accurate attack and decay, better detail retrieval and more accurate instrument timbre. As the 5KHz region isn’t as forward, it also isn’t as bright and forward here. Sure, it isn’t the most technically adept in its elevated price category, but the tonality is excellent as many have said. The Starfield has a wider soundstage with more dimension. Imaging benefits greatly from its more balanced, linear tuning and it doesn’t suffer from the same lack of separation in the low-end.
Verdict –
I have always sought objectivity in my reviews as this enables my readers to guide their purchase decisions according to their own personal preferences, rather than my own. In this sense, I’m sure the Blon holds appeal to a certain audience. Should you be interested in a sub-$50 earphone with strong build quality, a design compact enough to sleep on and a removable cable, your options suddenly become very limited. Those favouring clear, intimate and highly defined vocals alongside a crisp yet clean treble will also enjoy this earphone. Still, the bright, forward presentation and off-timbre vocals will heavily limit appeal, as coming from the vast majority of earphones, these simply sound a bit off. In such a competitive market, a low price is never an excuse for mediocrity. And perhaps worse than that, is disappointment – as the BL-05 is an earphone so many had high hopes for. The BL-05 isn’t a bad buy when taken holistically, in fact, quite well-rounded, but does receive a limited recommendation from me for its polarising tonality.
The BL-05 is available from on HifiGO (International) for $43 USD at the time of writing. I am not affiliated with HiFiGO or Blon and receive no earnings from purchases through this link.
Thanks for reading! If you enjoyed my review, please see my website for more just like it!
Track List –
Billie Eilish – don’t smile at me
IU – eight
Johnny Cash – The Legend of Johnny Cash
Minzy – LOVELY
NIKI – Around
OOHYO – Far From the Madding City
Radiohead – Pablo Honey
Sam Smith – In The Lonely Hour
The Cranberries – Something Else
The BL-05 isn’t a bad buy when taken holistically, but does receive a limited recommendation from me for its polarising tonality.
Introduction –
Blon really took the audiophile world by storm with the BL-03. Though not especially impressive from a technical point of view, the $40 teardrop-shaped earphone carried a highly natural tonality, something not frequently found at such a low price point. As such, it quickly became the darling of numerous audio forums and for many, served as a gateway drug into the world of the empty wallet. The BL-05 follows hot on its heels. Redesigned from the ground up, Blon promise a more balanced, detailed sound and improved ergonomics, all at a meagre $5 USD price increase. With a stainless steel build, removable cable and CNT dynamic driver, the BL-05 promises a lot more performance than its $43 USD price tag would suggest. You can read all about the BL-05 and purchase one for yourself here.
Disclaimer –
I would like to thank Nappoler from HiFiGO very much for his quick communication and for providing me with the BL-05 for the purpose of review. All words are my own and there is no monetary incentive for a positive review. Despite receiving the earphones free of cost, I will attempt to be as objective as possible in my evaluation.
Specs –
Driver: 10mm Carbon Nanotube Diaphragm Dynamic Driver Unit.
Impedance: 32 Ohms.
Sensitivity: 108dB.
Frequency Response Range: 20Hz-20kHz.
Cable: 0.78mm Two-Pin Cable with 3.5mm Termination Plug.
The Pitch –
2nd Generation CNT DD
CNT drivers have been observed at the high-end of IEM design and are now filtering their way down the price ladder. The BL-05 promises strong performance and low-distortion with a new diaphragm design with a carbon-network framework serving to increase rigidity and agility. Blon also boast an almost linear impedance response.
Tuned Acoustics
The BL03 achieved notoriety for its natural tonality and smooth FR. The BL-05 promises the same with a custom-design interior acoustic chamber. Alongside its new driver, Blon promise and audiophile-orientated tuning with a natural presentation, wide soundstage and coherent imaging.
Unboxing –
The unboxing experience reminds me of most Chi-Fi IEMs, the earphones are showcased through a clear window while the accessories are stored in a box below. Included with the earphones is a stylish canvas pouch, not super protective but a pocketable case that will precent deep scratches. Blon also include 2 types of silicone eartips, 3 pairs of generic grey tips in addition to two pairs of Spinfits, most likely CP155’s but the material is different to the latest generation such as those included with the Fiio FA9.
Design –
A prime area that Blon spent refining over its predecessor, the BL-05 features a stainless steel construction with a pod-like design reminiscent of AKG’s high-end earphones. Users have the choice of black or silver chrome housings, all with premium gold accent faceplates. It’s an impressively well-realised housing, especially as they were design in-house. Of course, the finish cannot compare to higher-end metal earphones with some orange peel on the paintjob to name an example. However, they are well formed with smooth seams and very reassuring density in the hand. A thoughtful addition includes left and right markers on the faceplates.
They use a 0.78mm removable cable system that is a great luxury at this price point and will ensure a longer lifespan for the earphones. The connectors protrude with inset pins on the cable to provide additional support while still permitting compatibility with third party units. The cable itself is of acceptable quality, the jacket is tacky but highly supple and the connectors all have excellent strain relief. Unfortunately, the wires themselves are very thin which makes them more tangle-prone to most. Nonetheless, the cable is not microphonic in the slightest and the pre-moulded ear guides are comfortable and stable fitting.
Fit & Isolation –
One thing that can be difficult to judge in photos and renders is scale. The BL-05 is a tiny earphone and very low-profile. As such, buyers looking for an earphone to sleep on may find this a very suitable choice. The nozzle is on the shorter side so most users will have to either size up tips or just longer tips such as the included Spinfits. Combined with the small housings, this contributes to an exceedingly comfortable wearing experience with zero hotspot formation.
I also found the seal to be quite convincing and, alongside their over-ear fit, they are very stable despite being slightly heavier due to that stainless steel construction. A vent is present, though as it lies on the inner-face, wind noise isn’t exaggerated when wearing the earphones outdoors. Isolation is above average but certainly not outstanding. They will suffice for commute but will struggle in loud environments such as the metro.
Sound –
Tonality –
The BL-05 pursues a kind of faux-Harman tuning, tracking essentially identically in the lower-registers through to the lower midrange. That said, the centre-midrange is noticeably more forward as is the upper-midrange, and the treble tuning has been altered in order to compensate. The result is not as coherent nor is this a presentation that comes across to me as immediately natural. Vocals sound forward but thin and detail presentation is forward but with blunted attack. This does improve to some extent with Final Audio E-tips that smooth off the midrange and increase density, however, it hardly seems sensible to recommend a $35 ear tip for a $60 earphone (AUD). All testing below was with the included ear tips.
Bass –
The low-end is pleasantly deep reaching, with notable sub-bass focus providing enhanced note thickness and weight. It lacks the physical slam of pricier models but still provides bold rumble and plenty of voluminous impact at the very bottom. This precedes a slope through the mid and upper-bass that ensures a fairly neutral bass tone regardless. As a result, though carrying fair bass emphasis, there isn’t any bloat or warmth colouring its presentation. Technically, the low-end is also a reasonably astute performer if not an outstanding one too.
There’s better than average driver control here, resulting in a tighte presentation than most competitors. However, the low-end has poorer organisation on complex tracks without adequate separation of its thicker notes. This is somewhat ameliorated by its slightly faster decay and there is a bit more detail retrieval than one might expect for the price. However, sub-bass does have a tendency to overwhelm its mid-bass, resulting in less perceived definition. The BL-05 certainly provides an engaging low-end with enjoyable technical ability, though I would not be mistake it for a costlier earphone.
Mids –
I am personally critical of midrange timbre, preferring a warm, coherent sound over a clear and thin one. Though I try to relay information accurately, naturally there will be some bias in my interpretation. The BL-05 unfortunately, falls into the latter category so it is not especially appealing for my preferences. As above, there is little bass warmth and diminished body in the upper-bass and lower-midrange. As such, the vocal presentation is thinly bodied and cool in tone. This is further exacerbated by a sizeable 2KHz peak that brings vocals to the fore of the presentation, followed by subsequent 4KHz emphasis. Such tuning enhanced clarity and openness while bolstering vocal size and intimacy.
As this comes at the expense of smoothness and body, most earphones implement a warmer bass or smoother lower-treble to compensate. This has been poorly executed here, as emphasis extends to the 5KHz region only dropping off sharply at 6KHz. As such, articulation isn’t especially smooth though sibilance and sharpness are partially mitigated. Such tuning only serves to exacerbate the BL05’s cool, thin and raspy presentation. Indeed, vocals are clean and clear, female vocals especially are showcased. However, these qualities are not enough to offset its unnatural tone to my ear; vocals are simply too strained, lacking foundation and power. Ultimately, transparency is a term that is often misconstrued, not simply the absence of warmth, but the absence of colouration. Arguably, the BL-05 swings too far in the opposite direction in its pursuit.
Highs –
The top-end, thankfully, is quite pleasantly voiced and, similar to the bass, is an admiral performer at such a conservative price point. Nonetheless, we are speaking in relatives as it is not especially focussed or organised relative to pricier models. Still, there’s good crispness to the foreground with above-average detail retrieval. Notes have a smoother attack, lacking aggressive crunch and bite due to their sharp 6KHz trough. But there remains a crisp and slightly forward detail presence on behalf of 5KHz emphasis, nonetheless.
Instrumentation is thin in body and decay is truncated as extension is quite limited, so you do miss the texture and realism seen on higher-priced earphones around the 3-digit mark. The background is slightly brighter than neutral, providing a bit more openness and air, and this region is both detail sparse and devoid of glare as the BL-05 rolls-off sharply through the middle-treble. The transient response remains fairly clean as well, with good separation. Of course, there isn’t any sparkle nor great resolution of fine details here. The BL-05 is firmly a superficial performer, with some layering and enough detail presence to engage.
Soundstage –
Even with the included Spinfits installed that usually offer a wider presentation, the BL-05 is reasonably intimate though never claustrophobic due to its thinner notes that provide a bit more air and separation. Chiefly, the earphone has quite a forward sound both with regards to vocals and highs so though it is capable of rendering some dimension, often it is close to the head. Imaging performance is quite good on behalf of a clean transient response and sharp lower-treble delivering keen directional cues. We observe strongly centred vocals and instruments spread out to the sides. Due to the lower-treble tuning, localisation isn’t pinpoint precise, though direction is easy to discern, nonetheless. Separation is good as aforementioned, there isn’t huge separation in the bass but otherwise, notes feel well isolated which no doubt plays a role in their imaging performance.
Driveability –
The BL05 has a 32ohm impedance and 108dB sensitivity making it quite efficient for use with lower powered sources. Indeed, the BL-05 is quite source agnostic which speaks well for those with lesser quality sources but conversely, it can be ascertained that it doesn’t scale up either. Comparing sound quality from my iPod Touch 6G to my THX 789 revealed a more authoritarian sub-bass slam alongside slightly higher definition and a wider soundstage. Still, the difference was not huge.
Suggested Pair Ups
The BL-05 is suitable for smartphone listeners being neither power hungry nor suffering from a high output impedance. However, it also does not scale well with better sources. A warmer source is advised to help smooth off its midrange.
Comparisons –
Kinera Tyr ($30): The Tyr was quite an impressive affordable in-ear to me, sporting a lightly warm, balanced and simply pleasant tonality. It has a fixed cable that will hold some buyers back prioritising longevity. The low-end of the Blon extends better and showcases better control. The Tyr has a more natural tuning, with light tilt towards the mid-bass granting it a warm, smooth and full voicing. The Blon is a lot cleaner and higher energy with higher definition and detail retrieval. The midrange continues suite, the Blon being more forward, brighter and thinner. The Tyr is slightly laid-back, lightly warm and dense. It’s timbre is pleasantly natural, both instruments and vocals.
The Blon has greater clarity and definition but is quite a bit thinner and more forward, sounding a bit sterile by comparison. The lower-treble is lightly crisp on the Tyr, being sharper and more forwad on the Blon. Nonetheless, the Tyr has a bit more note attack granting its notes slightly more bite. Still, the Blon is slightly more detailed and its presentation draws more attention to this fact too. The Blon has a cleaner transient response and slightly more extension though both are very limited in this regard. The Tyr has a larger soundstage and more defined layers while the Blon has better separation and sharper imaging.
Final Audio E2000 ($40): At the same price, the E2000 provides one of my favourite voicings under $100. This comes at the cost of a thin fixed cable. The Final is more U-shaped with laid-back vocals where the Blon is more W-shaped. The Blon provides a bit more sub-bass extension and slam while the E2000 is more linear with a light mid-bass tilt granting it a warmer tone but a less boisterous bass overall. The Blon has better bass control but the E2000 has more definition through the mid-bass. The midrange is a lot more natural on the E2000. It’s vocals aren’t as prominent, but are more accurate in size and positioning, if being a tad laid-back.
They have more natural tone, body and articulation while retaining pleasing clarity. The Blon is higher definition but not as resolving as it is rather thinned out. The lower-treble is also slightly forward on the E2000 but more linear as it doesn’t have to compensate for a shouty midrange. As such, it has more accurate attack and decay properties and more realistic body and timbre in general. That said, the transient response on the Blon is a bit cleaner, it is a touch more detailed and has a bit more resolution. The E2000 has larger soundstage while the Blong has sharper directional cues if not more accurate imaging overall.
Moondrop Starfield ($109): I’ve included this IEM in the comparison because I feel many buyers would benefit greatly by making the pricier but more long-term investment. Around this price we see a great jump in technical ability in addition to more refined tuning, a double whammy. The Starfield simply sounds a lot more complete to my ears, even coming from much pricier gear that makes the Blon sound truly crappy. The Starfield has slightly similar sub-bass extension alongside a much tighter and more controlled low-end. Though not an outstanding performer in its price range, the Starfield has better definition and separation while upholding similar levels of energy and slam. The Blon sounds larger only because its notes are sloppier. The midrange is where the Starfield jumps most ahead, though not too far off on a FR, there is a world of difference in listening.
It too is a high clarity and slightly forward sound but it showcases so much more refinement then the Blon. The centre midrange isn’t as forward and the upper-midrange has a bit more density and smoothness. As such, the Starfield yields all of the benefits, the clarity, definition and cleanliness without erring into the territory of shoutiness, strain and raspiness. This trend continues into the treble where the Starfield is appreciably more linear, especially around the 5-6KHz region. It has more accurate attack and decay, better detail retrieval and more accurate instrument timbre. As the 5KHz region isn’t as forward, it also isn’t as bright and forward here. Sure, it isn’t the most technically adept in its elevated price category, but the tonality is excellent as many have said. The Starfield has a wider soundstage with more dimension. Imaging benefits greatly from its more balanced, linear tuning and it doesn’t suffer from the same lack of separation in the low-end.
Verdict –
I have always sought objectivity in my reviews as this enables my readers to guide their purchase decisions according to their own personal preferences, rather than my own. In this sense, I’m sure the Blon holds appeal to a certain audience. Should you be interested in a sub-$50 earphone with strong build quality, a design compact enough to sleep on and a removable cable, your options suddenly become very limited. Those favouring clear, intimate and highly defined vocals alongside a crisp yet clean treble will also enjoy this earphone. Still, the bright, forward presentation and off-timbre vocals will heavily limit appeal, as coming from the vast majority of earphones, these simply sound a bit off. In such a competitive market, a low price is never an excuse for mediocrity. And perhaps worse than that, is disappointment – as the BL-05 is an earphone so many had high hopes for. The BL-05 isn’t a bad buy when taken holistically, in fact, quite well-rounded, but does receive a limited recommendation from me for its polarising tonality.
The BL-05 is available from on HifiGO (International) for $43 USD at the time of writing. I am not affiliated with HiFiGO or Blon and receive no earnings from purchases through this link.
Thanks for reading! If you enjoyed my review, please see my website for more just like it!
Track List –
Billie Eilish – don’t smile at me
IU – eight
Johnny Cash – The Legend of Johnny Cash
Minzy – LOVELY
NIKI – Around
OOHYO – Far From the Madding City
Radiohead – Pablo Honey
Sam Smith – In The Lonely Hour
The Cranberries – Something Else
dharmasteve
Mindful, articulate and accurate review. The timbre of both the Blon 03 and the Starfield are way more realistic than the Blon 05.
ryanjsoo
@dharmasteve Thanks for the kind words, glad my review was helpful!
TLDR –
The Silversonic sports a tonally transparent, full-bodied and vocal-forward presentation that cleans up warm, laid-back earphones without breaking their smooth character.
Introduction –
Beat Audio was formed by the passion of a handful of dedicated audiophiles over a decade ago with the intention of developing premium cables with emotive sounds. They build cables through a painstaking listening process ensuring that their cables sound great both in person and on paper. Their extensive experience shows; I recall hearing splendid thoughts about their cables when perusing forums online and these positive impressions were reaffirmed through my own listening last year in Japan where I had the privilege of hearing their latest designs. Stephen was kind enough to offer the SIlversonic MKVI for review made to my specification. This is their most affordable model but still carries the same ultra-soft insulation as their flagship models, silver-plated OFC conductors and Beat Audio’s signature build quality. It is available for $199 USD or $299 USD for the 8-wire variant being reviewed. More details, customizer and purchase available on Beat Audio’s website here.
Disclaimer –
I would like to thank Beat Audio very much for their quick communication and for providing me with the Silversonic MKVI for the purpose of review. All words are my own and there is no monetary incentive for a positive review. Despite receiving the cable free of cost, I will attempt to be as objective as possible in my evaluation.
The Pitch –
Material Choice
Perusing their website, I could see that Beat Audio isn’t quite as transparent about their conductor choice as some manufactures, it is simply “silver-plated OFC”. However, this isn’t to beguile the buyer, rather, it is to avoid focussing on specification over implementation, which often bears more impact on the listening experience. The company looks at cable design systematically and holistically seeing the conductor as just one element in a chain of componentry. From the sleeve to the thread count, treatment and connectors, each element has been considered to increase quality and parity between individual units.
In-house Fabrication
Beat Audio also custom fabricate their connectors to ensure durability and strict quality control. They use low-pressure liquid casting that enables high precision manufacturing at a reasonable cost while reducing human error, guaranteeing performance for each cable. Beat Audio are also using a custom solder formula to uphold high conductivity through each join. The result is a practical, ergonomic and aesthetic cable that can still be made to buyer specification.
Customization –
Beat Audio’s configurator is intuitive and provides a straightforward experience. As they make all of their connectors in-house, other brands are not offered which, to me, streamlines the ordering process and takes any confusion out of the equation. I’m sure particular parts can be implemented at the buyer’s cost as these are custom-made cables. For their full range of supported connectors and plugs in addition to the particular setup of my review unit, see the configurator below:
Design –
The Silversonic MKVI lacks the lustre of its competitors instead, providing a beautiful and understated design. Though the conductors are visible, the highlight is its gorgeous blue colour inspired by sci-fi space travel. It is constructed to such a high level of finish that one would second guess whether it is a handmade product. Though my cable employs an 8-wire configuration, it is impressively compact and lightweight, in turn, making it suitable for small IEMs where it isn’t cumbersome in the slightest. The 8-wire square braid itself is perfectly even and consistent, feeling incredibly solid and well-constructed.
Terminations are streamlined with metal construction, chrome on the case-friendly plug and sandblasted aluminium on the 2-pin connectors and y-split. Up top are pre-moulded ear guides that enhance fit stability and hug the ear without causing discomfort. The cable switches from a round to twisted braid beneath the ear guide heat shrink to permit uniform diameter so the edge of the guide doesn’t wear on the ear. The ear guides also curve inwards to prevent them from slipping over the outer ear. Small touches like this demonstrate this is a highly refined and thoughtful 6th generation product.
As showcased on their website, the sleeve/insulation is also incredibly soft and supple with zero memory. Furthermore, I’ve had this cable on hand for months and it hasn’t hardened at all. There also isn’t a hint of tackiness to its surface, being smooth so as to avoid catching when routing through clothing. Microphonic noise is minimized despite a tighter braid and the cable resists tangles exceptionally well. In summation, Beat Audio’s cables are ergonomically outstanding, gorgeous and simply easy to live with, creating a very professional impression.
Sound –
Testing methodology: Subjective AB with Craft Ears Four. This earphone has strong end to end extension and employs a standard OFC plastic cable which serves as a sound benchmark for most listeners. It does not feature a flat impedance design so will be more subject to cable changes than some. I listened from my JDS Atom + Khadas Tone board which measures very linearly, features a low output impedance and plenty of driving power. Select pairings will also be explored to asses synergy alongside comparisons to cables of varying conductor material. Being a cable, my comments do not refer to the same extent of change as that experienced between IEMs.
Tonality –
The Silversonic MKVI in 8-core provides a balanced, full-bodied sound with a very clean transient response. I don’t sense any additional warmth, instead, note body is bolstered through the bass and midrange generating a powerful sound while working simultaneously to the benefit of clarity via a forward vocal range. The high-end is crisp with a slightly more aggressive note attack and it is well-extended without any brightness at the very top, providing enhanced detail retrieval alongside a cleaner background. These qualities work to the benefit of coherence, resolution and the spatial characteristics of its presentation.
Bass –
Great dynamic range and sub-bass power immediately strike the listener; achieved chiefly via excellent sub-bass extension and lightly enhanced quantity. The mid and upper-bass are linear and neutral with warmth being reined in by increased control before a linear transition into a midrange of similar qualities. The Silversonic MKVI, therefore, provides a dynamic image with bold, well-weighted notes and defined, slightly lingering rumble. However, it is also clean and tonally transparent. Accordingly, the low-end never veers into excessive warmth and muddiness even on bassier IEMs. As note size is increased overall, separation is slightly hampered though this is partially mitigated by their enhanced control. As such, this cable best suits quicker decaying BA earphones where it effectively introduces volume, depth and slam without sacrificing cleanliness of tone.
Mids –
The midrange sees a boost to vocal clarity, size and forwardness as a result of a bolstered centre midrange. This is well counterbalanced by a dense, laid-back upper-midrange and slightly full-bodied note structure. Cleaner transients alongside its full and well-resolved notes contribute to high midrange definition and resolution while, like the low-end, the tone is very transparent; as though it does carry its own qualities, this is neither a warm nor bright cable. As vocals are larger and more intimate, clarity is never remiss and conversely, as they become smoother and fuller, vocals maintain a natural timbre and body. As such, the Silversonic is an excellent choice for vocal lovers, increasing resolution and contributing to a more accurate tone and timbre while maintaining a hint of colour in terms of its smooth, full-bodied presentation to engage and enthral.
Highs –
Within the high-end we don’t observe nearly the same degree of colour as the bass and midrange with the primary differences being due to note presentation. It is here that the cleaner transients of the Silversonic are showcased. The lower-treble is surely a touch crisper, producing a more focussed foreground detail presentation. However, increases to detail retrieval are achieved more via slightly more aggressive note attack that produces more defined notes, especially noticeable to me with percussion and strings. Meanwhile, the background is dark with linear extension into the upper-treble. As such, both shimmer and decay are natural and well-controlled with abundant texture. The cable’s dark, clean yet extended upper octaves permit a grand sense of distance and space while maintaining enough resolution to precisely position each element with additional crispness aiding directional cues. This isn’t a cable with huge sparkle or energy but one with a densely detailed image alongside strong spatial qualities.
Soundstage –
The soundstage is a strong point of this cable. There is a moderate increase in width, depth and especially height contributing to a more involving and multi-dimensional image. However, this is not the highlight of this cable. Rather, the imaging is most affected. Vocals are slightly more intimate but hold a strong centre image. Transients are a lot sharper and clearer than the stock cable making directional cues more pinpoint precise and panning more accurate. Exact direction and position are more palpable with the Silversonic where the stock cable is softer and hazier in its presentation. A cleaner background contributes to greater contrast and layering while separation is generally similar as, though clean in tone and high in note definition, the cable is quite full-bodied. This cable prioritises coherence over hyper-separation, energy and scale.
Pairings –
Craft Ears Four: Employs the standard OFC plastic CIEM cable that many will be familiar with. The Silversonic provided greater end to end extension with more sub-bass depth and rumble. Cleaner mid-bass but, due to enhanced note size, slightly reduced mid-bass definition. Slightly more vocal-forward and full-bodied midrange, denser upper-midrange. Cleaner tone and high note resolution. Lower-treble is slightly crisper with more note attack and sharper transients. Darker background with better resolution and detail retrieval. Taller soundstage with more precise imaging.
Hidition NT-8: The NT-8 comes with the Hidition KH3 8-wire cable with 6N OCC SPC conductors, so quite similar on paper yet producing quite a different listening experience. Both share a similar transient response with the KH3 being sharper, the Silversonic slightly cleaner and more controlled. Bass has similar depth, the Silversonic has a grander low-end with more slam and rumble while the KH3 is harder-hitting and more neutral. Vocals are larger on the Silversonic, also fuller and smoother which I find a more natural pairing with the NT-8 which doesn’t carry a lot of warmth and body intrinsically. The high-end is the main differentiator, the KH3 is sharper with a brighter background and a bit of grain while the Silversonic is considerably cleaner with a darker background and slightly better extension. The Silversonic, therefore, has a larger soundstage and both have very sharp imaging.
Hyla CE-5: Unassuming in design, the stock cable houses 6N OFC conductors. Bass has excellent depth on both, but is harder hitting on the Silversonic with more visceral rumble. Bass control is slightly higher and notes are bolder and larger. Mids see the largest difference to me, with more vocal presence and body representing great synergy with the thinner and more laid-back Hyla, the timbre is better lacking some of the dryness of the stock Hyla too. The high-end is similar with the ceramic driver already providing a great transient response. The Silversonic is a touch more aggressive in attack. The background is clean on both, there’s a touch more background detail and extension on the Silversonic producing a larger soundstage. Imaging is sharp on both.
Comparisons –
PWAudio No.5 ($199): A personal favourite cable with OCC Litz copper internals, it has a nice linear and natural sound. The No.5 provides similar extension in the low-end and slightly greater linearity with just a touch of bias towards mid-bass. It is warmer and smoother while the Silversonic is harder-hitting in the sub-bass with a slightly cleaner mid-bass tone. Both have slightly enlarged vocals, the Silversonic slightly more so. The No.5 has a slightly more linear presentation with better vocal extension and clarity while the SIlversonic is slightly more forward but also denser and more laid-back in the upper-midrange.
Up top, the Silversonic has a slightly more aggressive note attack and sharper transients while the No.5 is smoother with a warmer treble tone and more instrument body. Both sport similar detail retrieval and a clean background, the No.5 is slightly more linear towards the highest octaves with more air while the Silversonic is a touch darker with more extension and scale. In terms of soundstage, this grants the Silversonic a slightly larger and more holographic presentation while the No.5 is more coherent with more stable vocals and instruments if lacking the swift transients of the Silversonic.
Effect Audio EROS II ($279): The EROS II is not an SPC cable but combines separate strands of UPOCC copper and silver conductors. The low-end presentation is very similar, being sub-bass focussed with enhanced depth and slam with slight bolstering of note body. The Silversonic is a touch more controlled here with greater definition through the mid-bass and it’s cleaner too despite both having a similarly neutral tone. The midrange is also surprisingly similar here, both are forward and full-bodied, the Silversonic is slightly fuller and denser while the EROS II has a touch more brightness alongside slightly greater upper-midrange extension.
Both are high in definition and resolution, the EROS II has greater separation and more defined layers while the Silversonic is more coherent and wholly resolved in the foreground. Up top, the Silversonic has a more focussed foreground with sharper transients and more concise note attack before a darker background. Meanwhile, the EROS II has more pristine clarity alongside a brighter background with more air and shimmer. The EROS II has thinner instrument body but also greater sparkle and energy at the very top. Its microdetail retrieval is slightly better at the cost of timbre. The EROS II provides a wider soundstage while the Silversonic has a more three-dimensional presentation with more accurate positioning.
Verdict –
Beat Audio has been in the cable industry for quite some time and that is reflected in the refinement of their designs. As their cheapest and likely most popular cable, the Silversonic amends many faults of its predecessors to bring superb ergonomics and attention to detail alongside a highly competitive sound. Imaging is where this cable excels and I think many listeners will be shocked how very sharp imaging can contribute to an involving listen more than huge soundstage dimensions, especially on earphones that already do well in this regard. I do wish for tighter sub-bass and perhaps chrome y-split and connectors for a more congruent aesthetic, however, these are nit-picks for such a reasonably priced 8-core cable. The Silversonic sports a tonally transparent, full-bodied and vocal-forward presentation that cleans up warm, laid-back earphones without breaking their smooth character. It is an easy recommendation if ergonomics and build quality are of prime concern while also representing a versatile sonic upgrade.
The Silversonic MKVI is available from on Beat Audio for $199 USD and $299 USD for the 4-wire and 8-wire configurations respectively. I am not affiliated with Beat Audio and receive no earnings from purchases through this link.
Thanks for reading! If you enjoyed my review, please see my website for more just like it!
The Silversonic sports a tonally transparent, full-bodied and vocal-forward presentation that cleans up warm, laid-back earphones without breaking their smooth character.
Introduction –
Beat Audio was formed by the passion of a handful of dedicated audiophiles over a decade ago with the intention of developing premium cables with emotive sounds. They build cables through a painstaking listening process ensuring that their cables sound great both in person and on paper. Their extensive experience shows; I recall hearing splendid thoughts about their cables when perusing forums online and these positive impressions were reaffirmed through my own listening last year in Japan where I had the privilege of hearing their latest designs. Stephen was kind enough to offer the SIlversonic MKVI for review made to my specification. This is their most affordable model but still carries the same ultra-soft insulation as their flagship models, silver-plated OFC conductors and Beat Audio’s signature build quality. It is available for $199 USD or $299 USD for the 8-wire variant being reviewed. More details, customizer and purchase available on Beat Audio’s website here.
Disclaimer –
I would like to thank Beat Audio very much for their quick communication and for providing me with the Silversonic MKVI for the purpose of review. All words are my own and there is no monetary incentive for a positive review. Despite receiving the cable free of cost, I will attempt to be as objective as possible in my evaluation.
The Pitch –
Material Choice
Perusing their website, I could see that Beat Audio isn’t quite as transparent about their conductor choice as some manufactures, it is simply “silver-plated OFC”. However, this isn’t to beguile the buyer, rather, it is to avoid focussing on specification over implementation, which often bears more impact on the listening experience. The company looks at cable design systematically and holistically seeing the conductor as just one element in a chain of componentry. From the sleeve to the thread count, treatment and connectors, each element has been considered to increase quality and parity between individual units.
In-house Fabrication
Beat Audio also custom fabricate their connectors to ensure durability and strict quality control. They use low-pressure liquid casting that enables high precision manufacturing at a reasonable cost while reducing human error, guaranteeing performance for each cable. Beat Audio are also using a custom solder formula to uphold high conductivity through each join. The result is a practical, ergonomic and aesthetic cable that can still be made to buyer specification.
Customization –
Beat Audio’s configurator is intuitive and provides a straightforward experience. As they make all of their connectors in-house, other brands are not offered which, to me, streamlines the ordering process and takes any confusion out of the equation. I’m sure particular parts can be implemented at the buyer’s cost as these are custom-made cables. For their full range of supported connectors and plugs in addition to the particular setup of my review unit, see the configurator below:
Design –
The Silversonic MKVI lacks the lustre of its competitors instead, providing a beautiful and understated design. Though the conductors are visible, the highlight is its gorgeous blue colour inspired by sci-fi space travel. It is constructed to such a high level of finish that one would second guess whether it is a handmade product. Though my cable employs an 8-wire configuration, it is impressively compact and lightweight, in turn, making it suitable for small IEMs where it isn’t cumbersome in the slightest. The 8-wire square braid itself is perfectly even and consistent, feeling incredibly solid and well-constructed.
Terminations are streamlined with metal construction, chrome on the case-friendly plug and sandblasted aluminium on the 2-pin connectors and y-split. Up top are pre-moulded ear guides that enhance fit stability and hug the ear without causing discomfort. The cable switches from a round to twisted braid beneath the ear guide heat shrink to permit uniform diameter so the edge of the guide doesn’t wear on the ear. The ear guides also curve inwards to prevent them from slipping over the outer ear. Small touches like this demonstrate this is a highly refined and thoughtful 6th generation product.
As showcased on their website, the sleeve/insulation is also incredibly soft and supple with zero memory. Furthermore, I’ve had this cable on hand for months and it hasn’t hardened at all. There also isn’t a hint of tackiness to its surface, being smooth so as to avoid catching when routing through clothing. Microphonic noise is minimized despite a tighter braid and the cable resists tangles exceptionally well. In summation, Beat Audio’s cables are ergonomically outstanding, gorgeous and simply easy to live with, creating a very professional impression.
Sound –
Testing methodology: Subjective AB with Craft Ears Four. This earphone has strong end to end extension and employs a standard OFC plastic cable which serves as a sound benchmark for most listeners. It does not feature a flat impedance design so will be more subject to cable changes than some. I listened from my JDS Atom + Khadas Tone board which measures very linearly, features a low output impedance and plenty of driving power. Select pairings will also be explored to asses synergy alongside comparisons to cables of varying conductor material. Being a cable, my comments do not refer to the same extent of change as that experienced between IEMs.
Tonality –
The Silversonic MKVI in 8-core provides a balanced, full-bodied sound with a very clean transient response. I don’t sense any additional warmth, instead, note body is bolstered through the bass and midrange generating a powerful sound while working simultaneously to the benefit of clarity via a forward vocal range. The high-end is crisp with a slightly more aggressive note attack and it is well-extended without any brightness at the very top, providing enhanced detail retrieval alongside a cleaner background. These qualities work to the benefit of coherence, resolution and the spatial characteristics of its presentation.
Bass –
Great dynamic range and sub-bass power immediately strike the listener; achieved chiefly via excellent sub-bass extension and lightly enhanced quantity. The mid and upper-bass are linear and neutral with warmth being reined in by increased control before a linear transition into a midrange of similar qualities. The Silversonic MKVI, therefore, provides a dynamic image with bold, well-weighted notes and defined, slightly lingering rumble. However, it is also clean and tonally transparent. Accordingly, the low-end never veers into excessive warmth and muddiness even on bassier IEMs. As note size is increased overall, separation is slightly hampered though this is partially mitigated by their enhanced control. As such, this cable best suits quicker decaying BA earphones where it effectively introduces volume, depth and slam without sacrificing cleanliness of tone.
Mids –
The midrange sees a boost to vocal clarity, size and forwardness as a result of a bolstered centre midrange. This is well counterbalanced by a dense, laid-back upper-midrange and slightly full-bodied note structure. Cleaner transients alongside its full and well-resolved notes contribute to high midrange definition and resolution while, like the low-end, the tone is very transparent; as though it does carry its own qualities, this is neither a warm nor bright cable. As vocals are larger and more intimate, clarity is never remiss and conversely, as they become smoother and fuller, vocals maintain a natural timbre and body. As such, the Silversonic is an excellent choice for vocal lovers, increasing resolution and contributing to a more accurate tone and timbre while maintaining a hint of colour in terms of its smooth, full-bodied presentation to engage and enthral.
Highs –
Within the high-end we don’t observe nearly the same degree of colour as the bass and midrange with the primary differences being due to note presentation. It is here that the cleaner transients of the Silversonic are showcased. The lower-treble is surely a touch crisper, producing a more focussed foreground detail presentation. However, increases to detail retrieval are achieved more via slightly more aggressive note attack that produces more defined notes, especially noticeable to me with percussion and strings. Meanwhile, the background is dark with linear extension into the upper-treble. As such, both shimmer and decay are natural and well-controlled with abundant texture. The cable’s dark, clean yet extended upper octaves permit a grand sense of distance and space while maintaining enough resolution to precisely position each element with additional crispness aiding directional cues. This isn’t a cable with huge sparkle or energy but one with a densely detailed image alongside strong spatial qualities.
Soundstage –
The soundstage is a strong point of this cable. There is a moderate increase in width, depth and especially height contributing to a more involving and multi-dimensional image. However, this is not the highlight of this cable. Rather, the imaging is most affected. Vocals are slightly more intimate but hold a strong centre image. Transients are a lot sharper and clearer than the stock cable making directional cues more pinpoint precise and panning more accurate. Exact direction and position are more palpable with the Silversonic where the stock cable is softer and hazier in its presentation. A cleaner background contributes to greater contrast and layering while separation is generally similar as, though clean in tone and high in note definition, the cable is quite full-bodied. This cable prioritises coherence over hyper-separation, energy and scale.
Pairings –
Craft Ears Four: Employs the standard OFC plastic CIEM cable that many will be familiar with. The Silversonic provided greater end to end extension with more sub-bass depth and rumble. Cleaner mid-bass but, due to enhanced note size, slightly reduced mid-bass definition. Slightly more vocal-forward and full-bodied midrange, denser upper-midrange. Cleaner tone and high note resolution. Lower-treble is slightly crisper with more note attack and sharper transients. Darker background with better resolution and detail retrieval. Taller soundstage with more precise imaging.
Hidition NT-8: The NT-8 comes with the Hidition KH3 8-wire cable with 6N OCC SPC conductors, so quite similar on paper yet producing quite a different listening experience. Both share a similar transient response with the KH3 being sharper, the Silversonic slightly cleaner and more controlled. Bass has similar depth, the Silversonic has a grander low-end with more slam and rumble while the KH3 is harder-hitting and more neutral. Vocals are larger on the Silversonic, also fuller and smoother which I find a more natural pairing with the NT-8 which doesn’t carry a lot of warmth and body intrinsically. The high-end is the main differentiator, the KH3 is sharper with a brighter background and a bit of grain while the Silversonic is considerably cleaner with a darker background and slightly better extension. The Silversonic, therefore, has a larger soundstage and both have very sharp imaging.
Hyla CE-5: Unassuming in design, the stock cable houses 6N OFC conductors. Bass has excellent depth on both, but is harder hitting on the Silversonic with more visceral rumble. Bass control is slightly higher and notes are bolder and larger. Mids see the largest difference to me, with more vocal presence and body representing great synergy with the thinner and more laid-back Hyla, the timbre is better lacking some of the dryness of the stock Hyla too. The high-end is similar with the ceramic driver already providing a great transient response. The Silversonic is a touch more aggressive in attack. The background is clean on both, there’s a touch more background detail and extension on the Silversonic producing a larger soundstage. Imaging is sharp on both.
Comparisons –
PWAudio No.5 ($199): A personal favourite cable with OCC Litz copper internals, it has a nice linear and natural sound. The No.5 provides similar extension in the low-end and slightly greater linearity with just a touch of bias towards mid-bass. It is warmer and smoother while the Silversonic is harder-hitting in the sub-bass with a slightly cleaner mid-bass tone. Both have slightly enlarged vocals, the Silversonic slightly more so. The No.5 has a slightly more linear presentation with better vocal extension and clarity while the SIlversonic is slightly more forward but also denser and more laid-back in the upper-midrange.
Up top, the Silversonic has a slightly more aggressive note attack and sharper transients while the No.5 is smoother with a warmer treble tone and more instrument body. Both sport similar detail retrieval and a clean background, the No.5 is slightly more linear towards the highest octaves with more air while the Silversonic is a touch darker with more extension and scale. In terms of soundstage, this grants the Silversonic a slightly larger and more holographic presentation while the No.5 is more coherent with more stable vocals and instruments if lacking the swift transients of the Silversonic.
Effect Audio EROS II ($279): The EROS II is not an SPC cable but combines separate strands of UPOCC copper and silver conductors. The low-end presentation is very similar, being sub-bass focussed with enhanced depth and slam with slight bolstering of note body. The Silversonic is a touch more controlled here with greater definition through the mid-bass and it’s cleaner too despite both having a similarly neutral tone. The midrange is also surprisingly similar here, both are forward and full-bodied, the Silversonic is slightly fuller and denser while the EROS II has a touch more brightness alongside slightly greater upper-midrange extension.
Both are high in definition and resolution, the EROS II has greater separation and more defined layers while the Silversonic is more coherent and wholly resolved in the foreground. Up top, the Silversonic has a more focussed foreground with sharper transients and more concise note attack before a darker background. Meanwhile, the EROS II has more pristine clarity alongside a brighter background with more air and shimmer. The EROS II has thinner instrument body but also greater sparkle and energy at the very top. Its microdetail retrieval is slightly better at the cost of timbre. The EROS II provides a wider soundstage while the Silversonic has a more three-dimensional presentation with more accurate positioning.
Verdict –
Beat Audio has been in the cable industry for quite some time and that is reflected in the refinement of their designs. As their cheapest and likely most popular cable, the Silversonic amends many faults of its predecessors to bring superb ergonomics and attention to detail alongside a highly competitive sound. Imaging is where this cable excels and I think many listeners will be shocked how very sharp imaging can contribute to an involving listen more than huge soundstage dimensions, especially on earphones that already do well in this regard. I do wish for tighter sub-bass and perhaps chrome y-split and connectors for a more congruent aesthetic, however, these are nit-picks for such a reasonably priced 8-core cable. The Silversonic sports a tonally transparent, full-bodied and vocal-forward presentation that cleans up warm, laid-back earphones without breaking their smooth character. It is an easy recommendation if ergonomics and build quality are of prime concern while also representing a versatile sonic upgrade.
The Silversonic MKVI is available from on Beat Audio for $199 USD and $299 USD for the 4-wire and 8-wire configurations respectively. I am not affiliated with Beat Audio and receive no earnings from purchases through this link.
Thanks for reading! If you enjoyed my review, please see my website for more just like it!
TLDR –
The Takt-C is a winning combination of great sound and unobtrusive form factor, now priced for all to enjoy.
Introduction –
Cozoy is a Hong Kong-based company with a vision for ultimate sonic performance and leading design. Though you’ll see very similar sentiments on just about every other company’s website, here, there is a lot of truth to be found. Cozoy has pursued some of the most unique and stunning designs in the industry. And yet, the Takt Pro defied this, while also representing everything the company stands for. This was a hyper-portable DAC/AMP with a gorgeous CNC aluminium design and excellent sound quality. Furthermore, it made no compromise in usability or price in the process. The Takt-C arrives hot on its heels, possessing identical same specifications but with a hard-wired USB-C cable as opposed to flexible micro-USB input. This comes alongside a substantial price cut with an RRP of $115 USD, less than half the price of its forebearer. You can read all about the Takt-C on Cozoy’s website and purchase one for yourself at HifiGO.
Disclaimer –
I would like to thank Nappoler from HifiGO very much for his quick communication and for providing me with the Takt-C for the purpose of review. All words are my own and there is no monetary incentive for a positive review. Despite receiving the dongle free of cost, I will attempt to be as objective as possible in my evaluation.
Tech Specs –
DAC: SABRE 9018Q2C with time-domain jitter eliminator
TCO crystal oscillators inside
File support: Master file decoding up to 32bit 384KHz, native decoding DSD256-11, 289, 600 (11.2MHz)
Output power: 1.5V RMS@32Ω per channel, 28mW @ 32 ohms per channel
Housing material: 6063 Aluminium Alloy
Input power: depend on device
Input: USB Type-C
Output connector: 3.5mm TRS Stereo earphone
SNR: 120dB
Cable length: 10cm
Power supply design, without built-in battery
The Pitch –
Power supply
Cozoy have demonstrated themselves to be masters when it comes to power supply circuitry which is an often overlooked aspect of source design as it is hard to quantify on the spec sheet. When it comes to a device that is externally powered, such expertise is more important than ever. The Takt-C features a 4-layer PCB with gold-plated traces. It has a custom PSU with low ripple, asynchronous clock and six discreet voltage regulation circuits. This translates to a clean, low-distortion sound and greater isolation from noise generated by the source, especially in conjunction with its shielded aluminium housing.
Design –
The Takt Pro assumes the same design as its predecessor, so all positive comments made in that review translate here too. The Takt-C is just as compact, with a slender and unobtrusive form factor. The CNC milled 6063 aluminium housings feels relentless in the hand while maintaining an impossibly lightweight construction. The satin finish is immaculate, unmarred by screws and complimented by smooth and tapered transitions. The Takt-C logo is now laser engraved as opposed to printed, contributing to greater scratch resistance. There is but one key difference here besides a lighter coloured coat, the micro-USB port has been replaced with a fixed 6cm USB-C cable.
As it’s fixed, it’s imperative that the cable itself has a solid construction and Cozoy deliver; with a smooth jacket, high-flexibility and just a little springiness. The strain relief on the type-C plug is excellent, identical to Cozoy’s expensive audiophile interconnect cables, while the connector itself assumes a high-quality extruded, gold-plated design. This ensures a more reliable connection than the majority that implement cheap, pressed metal connectors. Obvious consideration has gone into the design of the Takt-C to optimise both aesthetics, practicality and longevity.
Usability –
As above, the Takt-C is also functionally very identical to the Takt Pro before it but will be limited to USB-C devices in addition to USB-A with an adapter (not included). Functionality is straight-forward and intuitive, plug and play on both my Google Pixel 4 and Gigabyte Aero 15 running Windows 10. The dongle is powered by the source device and draws a fair amount of power. Though smartphones tend to be pickier in this regard, I had no issues with my Pixel, Samsung and HTC devices on hand. As the Takt-C does not pass through remote commands from the attached earphone, it employs physical controls on the dongle itself. All are metal, suiting its premium aesthetic with tactile action. The use of a volume rocker also aids easy identification of each button when in a pocket. I found that all buttons worked well on both Android and Windows apps such as Spotify and Foobar in my testing.
Though most smartphone’s limit their output to 44.1KHz over USB, it is possible to take advantage of the Takt-C’s expanded decoding ability via third-party apps such as Poweramp. I experienced no dropouts and a stable connection with the dongle connected to my phone, even when placed in my pocket during commute. As such, the Takt-C is slightly less finicky than the Takt Pro as there are fewer variables to interrupt the connection. I experienced no pops when plugging in and unplugging the dongle with earphones connected. Background noise also wasn’t affected by CPU utilisation or radio activity when connected to my smartphone or laptop suggesting that it’s a well shielded and isolated design. Much like the Pro, the Takt-C’s higher power draw and small metal housings do permeate quite a bit of heat, though this never becomes uncomfortable to the hand or pocket.
Sound –
Small or large, there are fundamentals we expect from a good quality audiophile source, that being a linear frequency response, low output-impedance and an absence of hiss and interference. I’ll be analysing the performance of this dongle in isolation, then by comparison to competitors in its price and form factor to better establish price/performance and its best use cases.
Frequency Response –
Testing Methodology: RMAA via Startech External Sound Card
The Cozoy Takt-C has a perfectly linear frequency response with no bass roll-off or other oddities. This suggests that it represents audio with great fidelity. Due to the quality of my sound card, I am unable to reliably test other measures such as distortion and crosstalk so they will be used as a personal reference only. Qualities here can also impact the sound as I will detail via subjective listening.
Output Impedance & Hiss –
Testing Methodology: SPL volume matched comparison through an inline splitter to JDS Labs Atom + Khadas tone board to Campfire Audio Andromeda
The Cozoy Takt-C, like the Pro before it, has a sub-1.5-ohm output impedance given that I was not able to detect or measure any deviation in sound signature between the Atom and Takt-C with the highly source sensitive Campfire Audio Andromeda. This is an excellent result which ensures that the DAC/AMP will drive low-impedance multi-driver IEMs faithfully and without colouration. With regards to noise, Cozoy’s efforts with power supply have paid off in spades. There is zero hiss, even on the Andromeda which is especially prone in this regard too. I also didn’t note hiss scaling with volume or noise from the source such as EMI interference. Low volume listeners sensitive to background noise will love the Takt-C for its black background and this design is perfect for even the most sensitive IEMs.
Subjective –
While you can achieve excellent fidelity from even a modestly priced desktop setup, I don’t get such a generally positive impression from portable sources that tend to be less transparent about their specifications for good reason. That was not my impression with the Takt Pro and, luckily, the Takt-C follows suite. It’s simply a nice, clean sounding source. As always, this being a source with low output impedance and a linear frequency response, my sound analysis comments will be referring to the minutiae that cannot be compared to the differences between different earphones per say.
Testing Methodology: SPL volume matched comparison through an inline splitter to JDS Labs Atom + Khadas tone board to Custom Art Fibae 7 (flat impedance). Powered by Pixel 4 with Poweramp Pro via high-resolution output.
The Takt-C is a clean, transparent and delightfully musical portable source. ABing from reference sources such as the Atom setup and iBasso DX200 with AMP5 reveals very minimal colouration. Bass has excellent depth and drive for a dongle but does lack a hint of sub-bass weight compared to the aforementioned sources. Meanwhile, there’s a hint of warmth and fullness in the mid-bass, just a touch, that imbues a full, punchy and musical character. Despite a slightly warm leaning tone, both control and separation remain excellent and notes are highly defined. I attribute this to the Takt-C’s concise note attack alongside natural decay that contributes to excellent pace and timing and grants bass convincing dynamics and solidity.
Such character continues through the midrange which extends linearly from the bass. Timbre is very accurate with realistic vocal size and positioning. There’s an uptick of both body and density to be observed counterbalanced by a clean tone that retains a high level of clarity and definition. The result is a gorgeous smooth and refined midrange presentation with great coherence and wholly resolved notes. I am especially enamoured by this presentation as dongles and small DAC/AMP combo devices rarely provide such a natural and resolving sound here. Even without scrutinising the minutiae, the Takt-C is simply an enjoyable listen.
The high-end keeps character with clean transients and an insightful lower-treble. Detail retrieval is strong with a slight crispness paired with smooth note attack which takes any sharpness out of its presentation. The result is slightly less micro-detail retrieval than more aggressive sources in return for a natural and well-textured image that still upholds a good level of energy and engagement. Instruments have ample body and texture with accurate shimmer and decay. Treble extends linearly before rolling off into the upper-treble. A clean transient response alongside a black noise floor permits an immaculate background which aids the directionality and dimension of its presentation. There isn’t quite the resolution, sparkle and background detail retrieval of a larger high-end source, but impressive balance between timbre and technical performance with none of the 9018Q2X fallibilities of earlier models.
And, as suggested, these qualities work much to the benefit of the Takt-C’s staging properties, boasting outstanding dimensions for its size. Again, the Takt-C doesn’t have quite the resolution of higher-end sources, but instruments fall away naturally to its dark, clean background, creating a sense of space that immerses if not enthrals. Meanwhile, a clean transient response and linear sound signature aid impressively stable imaging.
Driving Power–
NX Ears Opera (106dB, 18ohm): A sensitive IEM with phase-coherent crossover producing excellent imaging. The Takt-C provided great bass kick with good drive and excellent pace. I hear an uptick of bass body paired with concise attack and excellent control enabling high definition overall. Mids are natural and linear, not too full-bodied despite the Opera already being warm leaning. Highs are well detailed, the slightly more energetic foreground is welcome given the Opera’s more laid-back image. Meanwhile, the background is jet black immaculate. The soundstage isn’t huge but has very immersive imaging, holographic with quick, highly clean transients. Zero hiss.
Final E5000 (93dB, 14ohm): This earphone requires a lot of power as it is a warm, bassy earphone with low-efficiency. My desktop setup provides a slightly quicker, cleaner low end with more information in the sub-bass. Still, the Takt-C provides great depth and solid slam if not the highest definition at the very bottom. Mid-bass remains very well-controlled and well-defined, bass is dynamic and tactile overall. Vocals are a touch warmer, but coherent and well-resolved. Highs are slightly smoother but retain good attack and detail retrieval. The background is black and well-extended fading into an expansive soundstage if lacking a little background detail. Imaging is sharp and precise while separation is slightly reduced due to increased warmth. Zero hiss.
Hifiman Sundara (94dB, 37ohm): The Sundara requires a good amount of volume but mostly a stable current output and low impedance as it’s a planar magnetic headphone. The Takt-C is surprisingly balanced here. As usual, I did miss a bit of sub-bass power and definition compared to my desktop setup, but there is solidity beyond most of my BT receivers and small DAPs. Furthermore, the mid-bass is well-controlled with both good presence and definition. This translates to a clean and linear midrange that is natural and resolving. The high-end also demonstrates good control with clean transients and defined layering. The desktop setup does yield noticeably more resolution here, with a bit more foreground detail retrieval and greater air. That said, the soundstage expansion is very good for a portable source and the dynamic range is very impressive on a whole. Zero hiss.
Suggested Pair-ups
HifiGO quote a power output of 28mW per channel into a 32-ohm load. That may sound paltry compared to a dedicated DAP, but it’s higher than most portable DAC/AMPs and receivers, easily substantial enough to drive basically any IEM in addition to portable headphones. Also note that this is a per-channel specification so it is almost double the power offered by most products in its class. Of course, the Takt-C was never intended to drive full-size headphones, though here too, the results may surprise you. There isn’t the drive of a desktop amp but convincing dynamics and balance remains. The Takt-C likely won’t leave you wanting on either power or volume for any earphone or portable headphone and will do in a pinch for larger gear if not representing the absolute ideal in that regard.
Comparisons –
DD TC35B ($40): The TC35B is a fine sounding source in its own right but invariably focusses more on form factor and accessible pricing over outright sound quality. The Takt-C is a more focussed device, boasting a lower noise floor and output impedance and bringing immediately greater dynamic range. Both are surely very balanced yet, even from flat-impedance earphones, I perceive the Takt-C as more linear, transparent and resolving throughout.
There’s better drive to the low-end with more sub-bass extension and definition; these qualities also continue through the midrange where there is better note resolution. Meanwhile, the top-end is more detailed with better extension and resolution, producing a much cleaner background and a larger soundstage. Altogether, a grander and more involving sound yet one that is never artificially enhanced in any way.
Zorloo ZuperDAC-S ($89): Slightly cheaper and sharing the same DAC chip, the ZuperDAC-S also sports a minute form factor but with micro-USB input like the pricier Takt Pro. Both the Takt-C and ZuperDAC-S have very linear, resolving presentations, an essentially black noise floor and a low output impedance so they are fundamentally very good options at this price range. I hear a touch more sub-bass weight from the Zorloo granting it slightly thicker bass notes while the Takt-C is cleaner and more defined. The Takt-C has smoother note attack while the Zorloo is more aggressive and harder hitting.
The Takt-C has a slightly more refined midrange, it is denser and more tonally transparent where the Zorloo has a hint of warmth but also a touch less note resolution. The high-end tells a similar story, the Zorloo being slightly more aggressive and crisp but also thinner, the Takt-C being more smoothly articulated but also more natural in timbre. The Takt-C also has noticeably better extension with more resolution and background detail. This works to the benefit of its similarly larger soundstage.
Cozoy Takt Pro ($289): At a considerable price premium, the Takt Pro has identical specifications with the only difference being the design. I would also suggest that there aren’t any sonic changes as, when volume matched through an in-line splitter, I could not detect even the slightest difference between the two. The Takt-C brings the same refined, musical and resolving sound at less than half the price. To my ear, the Takt-C also punches above its price class so spending more for the Takt-Pro does not necessarily make it a poor value investment.
Still, it only makes sense if you don’t have a USB-C device or want one DAC/AMP that will interface with multiple devices. The Takt-C very much supersedes the Pro with its considerably more aggressive pricing and it’s very good to see that Cozoy haven’t diluted the listening experience in the process.
JDS Labs Atom + Khadas Tone Board (~$200): The desktop setup provides excellent value, both boasting outstanding measurements that are confirmed by a transparent and dynamic real world listen. The setup provides more sub-bass extension and power but also higher control with more bass note definition and higher separation. The presentation isn’t bassier, instead, there is simply more bass as it is deeper reaching.
The midrange presentation is actually quite similar, there’s a slightly cleaner tone on the desktop setup in addition to a hair more note resolution. Up top, the comparison reflects the bass, with the desktop setup being more detailed, albeit similarly articulated which makes the Takt-C a very convincing listen on its own. That said, the desktop stack has notably more resolution and background detail, boasting greater soundstage expansion and more involving imaging.
Fiio M7 ($129): I think it’s also important to keep in mind that, for just $10 more, Fiio are offering a full DAP package with the same ESS DAC chip and full Android touchscreen interface. There are obviously clear distinctions between the use cases for both devices that will be up to the buyer such as wanting a dedicated device for the car/workout or wanting to save battery life on your smartphone. The M7 also supports USB audio out so it can serve as a UI to a better audio implementation. But from a sonic standpoint, the results do intrigue. Both sport a low output impedance and low noise floor.
Both sound very similar. Sub-bass extends identically and both have a close presentation. The Takt-C has a slightly fuller note structure through the mid-bass and more concise attack making it a bit more defined and detailed. Through the midrange, this character continues, both are quite tonally transparent, the Takt-C is a touch fuller and warmer while the M7 is instead denser. The Takt-C has slightly higher note resolution. Up top, the M7 is crisper and less extended while the Takt-C is smoother and more natural with a darker background and higher resolution. The M7 has a touch more soundstage width while the Takt-C has more depth. The Takt-C comes across as a bit more refined and musical, the imaging is a bit more stable too.
Verdict –
I was a big fan of the Takt Pro, even at its substantially higher price tag. However, that was a few years ago and the market has since come far. Though I am not one to live and die by measurements, I do admire how they have empowered buyers/reviewers in such a way that manufacturers can no longer get away with subpar products. As such, the vast majority perform to a good standard. So, instead of reinventing the wheel here, Cozoy has instead reinvented their pricing and to great effect. At just 37% of the Pro’s price, the Takt-C brings an identical sonic performance. That means versatile driving power, a refined, resolving sound with great musicality and a stunning form factor that is easily among the most premium on the market. I’m sure some may have concerns over a fixed cable while others may argue that a full player could be had for little more. Still, the Takt-C is a winning combination of great sound in an unobtrusive form factor perfect to invigorate a pre-existing portable audio setup, and it is now priced for all to enjoy.
The Takt-C is available from on HifiGo (International) for $109 USD at the time of writing. I am not affiliated with HiFiGO or Cozoy and receive no earnings from purchases through this link.
Thanks for reading! If you enjoyed my review, please see my website for more just like it!
The Takt-C is a winning combination of great sound and unobtrusive form factor, now priced for all to enjoy.
Introduction –
Cozoy is a Hong Kong-based company with a vision for ultimate sonic performance and leading design. Though you’ll see very similar sentiments on just about every other company’s website, here, there is a lot of truth to be found. Cozoy has pursued some of the most unique and stunning designs in the industry. And yet, the Takt Pro defied this, while also representing everything the company stands for. This was a hyper-portable DAC/AMP with a gorgeous CNC aluminium design and excellent sound quality. Furthermore, it made no compromise in usability or price in the process. The Takt-C arrives hot on its heels, possessing identical same specifications but with a hard-wired USB-C cable as opposed to flexible micro-USB input. This comes alongside a substantial price cut with an RRP of $115 USD, less than half the price of its forebearer. You can read all about the Takt-C on Cozoy’s website and purchase one for yourself at HifiGO.
Disclaimer –
I would like to thank Nappoler from HifiGO very much for his quick communication and for providing me with the Takt-C for the purpose of review. All words are my own and there is no monetary incentive for a positive review. Despite receiving the dongle free of cost, I will attempt to be as objective as possible in my evaluation.
Tech Specs –
DAC: SABRE 9018Q2C with time-domain jitter eliminator
TCO crystal oscillators inside
File support: Master file decoding up to 32bit 384KHz, native decoding DSD256-11, 289, 600 (11.2MHz)
Output power: 1.5V RMS@32Ω per channel, 28mW @ 32 ohms per channel
Housing material: 6063 Aluminium Alloy
Input power: depend on device
Input: USB Type-C
Output connector: 3.5mm TRS Stereo earphone
SNR: 120dB
Cable length: 10cm
Power supply design, without built-in battery
The Pitch –
Power supply
Cozoy have demonstrated themselves to be masters when it comes to power supply circuitry which is an often overlooked aspect of source design as it is hard to quantify on the spec sheet. When it comes to a device that is externally powered, such expertise is more important than ever. The Takt-C features a 4-layer PCB with gold-plated traces. It has a custom PSU with low ripple, asynchronous clock and six discreet voltage regulation circuits. This translates to a clean, low-distortion sound and greater isolation from noise generated by the source, especially in conjunction with its shielded aluminium housing.
Design –
The Takt Pro assumes the same design as its predecessor, so all positive comments made in that review translate here too. The Takt-C is just as compact, with a slender and unobtrusive form factor. The CNC milled 6063 aluminium housings feels relentless in the hand while maintaining an impossibly lightweight construction. The satin finish is immaculate, unmarred by screws and complimented by smooth and tapered transitions. The Takt-C logo is now laser engraved as opposed to printed, contributing to greater scratch resistance. There is but one key difference here besides a lighter coloured coat, the micro-USB port has been replaced with a fixed 6cm USB-C cable.
As it’s fixed, it’s imperative that the cable itself has a solid construction and Cozoy deliver; with a smooth jacket, high-flexibility and just a little springiness. The strain relief on the type-C plug is excellent, identical to Cozoy’s expensive audiophile interconnect cables, while the connector itself assumes a high-quality extruded, gold-plated design. This ensures a more reliable connection than the majority that implement cheap, pressed metal connectors. Obvious consideration has gone into the design of the Takt-C to optimise both aesthetics, practicality and longevity.
Usability –
As above, the Takt-C is also functionally very identical to the Takt Pro before it but will be limited to USB-C devices in addition to USB-A with an adapter (not included). Functionality is straight-forward and intuitive, plug and play on both my Google Pixel 4 and Gigabyte Aero 15 running Windows 10. The dongle is powered by the source device and draws a fair amount of power. Though smartphones tend to be pickier in this regard, I had no issues with my Pixel, Samsung and HTC devices on hand. As the Takt-C does not pass through remote commands from the attached earphone, it employs physical controls on the dongle itself. All are metal, suiting its premium aesthetic with tactile action. The use of a volume rocker also aids easy identification of each button when in a pocket. I found that all buttons worked well on both Android and Windows apps such as Spotify and Foobar in my testing.
Though most smartphone’s limit their output to 44.1KHz over USB, it is possible to take advantage of the Takt-C’s expanded decoding ability via third-party apps such as Poweramp. I experienced no dropouts and a stable connection with the dongle connected to my phone, even when placed in my pocket during commute. As such, the Takt-C is slightly less finicky than the Takt Pro as there are fewer variables to interrupt the connection. I experienced no pops when plugging in and unplugging the dongle with earphones connected. Background noise also wasn’t affected by CPU utilisation or radio activity when connected to my smartphone or laptop suggesting that it’s a well shielded and isolated design. Much like the Pro, the Takt-C’s higher power draw and small metal housings do permeate quite a bit of heat, though this never becomes uncomfortable to the hand or pocket.
Sound –
Small or large, there are fundamentals we expect from a good quality audiophile source, that being a linear frequency response, low output-impedance and an absence of hiss and interference. I’ll be analysing the performance of this dongle in isolation, then by comparison to competitors in its price and form factor to better establish price/performance and its best use cases.
Frequency Response –
Testing Methodology: RMAA via Startech External Sound Card
The Cozoy Takt-C has a perfectly linear frequency response with no bass roll-off or other oddities. This suggests that it represents audio with great fidelity. Due to the quality of my sound card, I am unable to reliably test other measures such as distortion and crosstalk so they will be used as a personal reference only. Qualities here can also impact the sound as I will detail via subjective listening.
Output Impedance & Hiss –
Testing Methodology: SPL volume matched comparison through an inline splitter to JDS Labs Atom + Khadas tone board to Campfire Audio Andromeda
The Cozoy Takt-C, like the Pro before it, has a sub-1.5-ohm output impedance given that I was not able to detect or measure any deviation in sound signature between the Atom and Takt-C with the highly source sensitive Campfire Audio Andromeda. This is an excellent result which ensures that the DAC/AMP will drive low-impedance multi-driver IEMs faithfully and without colouration. With regards to noise, Cozoy’s efforts with power supply have paid off in spades. There is zero hiss, even on the Andromeda which is especially prone in this regard too. I also didn’t note hiss scaling with volume or noise from the source such as EMI interference. Low volume listeners sensitive to background noise will love the Takt-C for its black background and this design is perfect for even the most sensitive IEMs.
Subjective –
While you can achieve excellent fidelity from even a modestly priced desktop setup, I don’t get such a generally positive impression from portable sources that tend to be less transparent about their specifications for good reason. That was not my impression with the Takt Pro and, luckily, the Takt-C follows suite. It’s simply a nice, clean sounding source. As always, this being a source with low output impedance and a linear frequency response, my sound analysis comments will be referring to the minutiae that cannot be compared to the differences between different earphones per say.
Testing Methodology: SPL volume matched comparison through an inline splitter to JDS Labs Atom + Khadas tone board to Custom Art Fibae 7 (flat impedance). Powered by Pixel 4 with Poweramp Pro via high-resolution output.
The Takt-C is a clean, transparent and delightfully musical portable source. ABing from reference sources such as the Atom setup and iBasso DX200 with AMP5 reveals very minimal colouration. Bass has excellent depth and drive for a dongle but does lack a hint of sub-bass weight compared to the aforementioned sources. Meanwhile, there’s a hint of warmth and fullness in the mid-bass, just a touch, that imbues a full, punchy and musical character. Despite a slightly warm leaning tone, both control and separation remain excellent and notes are highly defined. I attribute this to the Takt-C’s concise note attack alongside natural decay that contributes to excellent pace and timing and grants bass convincing dynamics and solidity.
Such character continues through the midrange which extends linearly from the bass. Timbre is very accurate with realistic vocal size and positioning. There’s an uptick of both body and density to be observed counterbalanced by a clean tone that retains a high level of clarity and definition. The result is a gorgeous smooth and refined midrange presentation with great coherence and wholly resolved notes. I am especially enamoured by this presentation as dongles and small DAC/AMP combo devices rarely provide such a natural and resolving sound here. Even without scrutinising the minutiae, the Takt-C is simply an enjoyable listen.
The high-end keeps character with clean transients and an insightful lower-treble. Detail retrieval is strong with a slight crispness paired with smooth note attack which takes any sharpness out of its presentation. The result is slightly less micro-detail retrieval than more aggressive sources in return for a natural and well-textured image that still upholds a good level of energy and engagement. Instruments have ample body and texture with accurate shimmer and decay. Treble extends linearly before rolling off into the upper-treble. A clean transient response alongside a black noise floor permits an immaculate background which aids the directionality and dimension of its presentation. There isn’t quite the resolution, sparkle and background detail retrieval of a larger high-end source, but impressive balance between timbre and technical performance with none of the 9018Q2X fallibilities of earlier models.
And, as suggested, these qualities work much to the benefit of the Takt-C’s staging properties, boasting outstanding dimensions for its size. Again, the Takt-C doesn’t have quite the resolution of higher-end sources, but instruments fall away naturally to its dark, clean background, creating a sense of space that immerses if not enthrals. Meanwhile, a clean transient response and linear sound signature aid impressively stable imaging.
Driving Power–
NX Ears Opera (106dB, 18ohm): A sensitive IEM with phase-coherent crossover producing excellent imaging. The Takt-C provided great bass kick with good drive and excellent pace. I hear an uptick of bass body paired with concise attack and excellent control enabling high definition overall. Mids are natural and linear, not too full-bodied despite the Opera already being warm leaning. Highs are well detailed, the slightly more energetic foreground is welcome given the Opera’s more laid-back image. Meanwhile, the background is jet black immaculate. The soundstage isn’t huge but has very immersive imaging, holographic with quick, highly clean transients. Zero hiss.
Final E5000 (93dB, 14ohm): This earphone requires a lot of power as it is a warm, bassy earphone with low-efficiency. My desktop setup provides a slightly quicker, cleaner low end with more information in the sub-bass. Still, the Takt-C provides great depth and solid slam if not the highest definition at the very bottom. Mid-bass remains very well-controlled and well-defined, bass is dynamic and tactile overall. Vocals are a touch warmer, but coherent and well-resolved. Highs are slightly smoother but retain good attack and detail retrieval. The background is black and well-extended fading into an expansive soundstage if lacking a little background detail. Imaging is sharp and precise while separation is slightly reduced due to increased warmth. Zero hiss.
Hifiman Sundara (94dB, 37ohm): The Sundara requires a good amount of volume but mostly a stable current output and low impedance as it’s a planar magnetic headphone. The Takt-C is surprisingly balanced here. As usual, I did miss a bit of sub-bass power and definition compared to my desktop setup, but there is solidity beyond most of my BT receivers and small DAPs. Furthermore, the mid-bass is well-controlled with both good presence and definition. This translates to a clean and linear midrange that is natural and resolving. The high-end also demonstrates good control with clean transients and defined layering. The desktop setup does yield noticeably more resolution here, with a bit more foreground detail retrieval and greater air. That said, the soundstage expansion is very good for a portable source and the dynamic range is very impressive on a whole. Zero hiss.
Suggested Pair-ups
HifiGO quote a power output of 28mW per channel into a 32-ohm load. That may sound paltry compared to a dedicated DAP, but it’s higher than most portable DAC/AMPs and receivers, easily substantial enough to drive basically any IEM in addition to portable headphones. Also note that this is a per-channel specification so it is almost double the power offered by most products in its class. Of course, the Takt-C was never intended to drive full-size headphones, though here too, the results may surprise you. There isn’t the drive of a desktop amp but convincing dynamics and balance remains. The Takt-C likely won’t leave you wanting on either power or volume for any earphone or portable headphone and will do in a pinch for larger gear if not representing the absolute ideal in that regard.
Comparisons –
DD TC35B ($40): The TC35B is a fine sounding source in its own right but invariably focusses more on form factor and accessible pricing over outright sound quality. The Takt-C is a more focussed device, boasting a lower noise floor and output impedance and bringing immediately greater dynamic range. Both are surely very balanced yet, even from flat-impedance earphones, I perceive the Takt-C as more linear, transparent and resolving throughout.
There’s better drive to the low-end with more sub-bass extension and definition; these qualities also continue through the midrange where there is better note resolution. Meanwhile, the top-end is more detailed with better extension and resolution, producing a much cleaner background and a larger soundstage. Altogether, a grander and more involving sound yet one that is never artificially enhanced in any way.
Zorloo ZuperDAC-S ($89): Slightly cheaper and sharing the same DAC chip, the ZuperDAC-S also sports a minute form factor but with micro-USB input like the pricier Takt Pro. Both the Takt-C and ZuperDAC-S have very linear, resolving presentations, an essentially black noise floor and a low output impedance so they are fundamentally very good options at this price range. I hear a touch more sub-bass weight from the Zorloo granting it slightly thicker bass notes while the Takt-C is cleaner and more defined. The Takt-C has smoother note attack while the Zorloo is more aggressive and harder hitting.
The Takt-C has a slightly more refined midrange, it is denser and more tonally transparent where the Zorloo has a hint of warmth but also a touch less note resolution. The high-end tells a similar story, the Zorloo being slightly more aggressive and crisp but also thinner, the Takt-C being more smoothly articulated but also more natural in timbre. The Takt-C also has noticeably better extension with more resolution and background detail. This works to the benefit of its similarly larger soundstage.
Cozoy Takt Pro ($289): At a considerable price premium, the Takt Pro has identical specifications with the only difference being the design. I would also suggest that there aren’t any sonic changes as, when volume matched through an in-line splitter, I could not detect even the slightest difference between the two. The Takt-C brings the same refined, musical and resolving sound at less than half the price. To my ear, the Takt-C also punches above its price class so spending more for the Takt-Pro does not necessarily make it a poor value investment.
Still, it only makes sense if you don’t have a USB-C device or want one DAC/AMP that will interface with multiple devices. The Takt-C very much supersedes the Pro with its considerably more aggressive pricing and it’s very good to see that Cozoy haven’t diluted the listening experience in the process.
JDS Labs Atom + Khadas Tone Board (~$200): The desktop setup provides excellent value, both boasting outstanding measurements that are confirmed by a transparent and dynamic real world listen. The setup provides more sub-bass extension and power but also higher control with more bass note definition and higher separation. The presentation isn’t bassier, instead, there is simply more bass as it is deeper reaching.
The midrange presentation is actually quite similar, there’s a slightly cleaner tone on the desktop setup in addition to a hair more note resolution. Up top, the comparison reflects the bass, with the desktop setup being more detailed, albeit similarly articulated which makes the Takt-C a very convincing listen on its own. That said, the desktop stack has notably more resolution and background detail, boasting greater soundstage expansion and more involving imaging.
Fiio M7 ($129): I think it’s also important to keep in mind that, for just $10 more, Fiio are offering a full DAP package with the same ESS DAC chip and full Android touchscreen interface. There are obviously clear distinctions between the use cases for both devices that will be up to the buyer such as wanting a dedicated device for the car/workout or wanting to save battery life on your smartphone. The M7 also supports USB audio out so it can serve as a UI to a better audio implementation. But from a sonic standpoint, the results do intrigue. Both sport a low output impedance and low noise floor.
Both sound very similar. Sub-bass extends identically and both have a close presentation. The Takt-C has a slightly fuller note structure through the mid-bass and more concise attack making it a bit more defined and detailed. Through the midrange, this character continues, both are quite tonally transparent, the Takt-C is a touch fuller and warmer while the M7 is instead denser. The Takt-C has slightly higher note resolution. Up top, the M7 is crisper and less extended while the Takt-C is smoother and more natural with a darker background and higher resolution. The M7 has a touch more soundstage width while the Takt-C has more depth. The Takt-C comes across as a bit more refined and musical, the imaging is a bit more stable too.
Verdict –
I was a big fan of the Takt Pro, even at its substantially higher price tag. However, that was a few years ago and the market has since come far. Though I am not one to live and die by measurements, I do admire how they have empowered buyers/reviewers in such a way that manufacturers can no longer get away with subpar products. As such, the vast majority perform to a good standard. So, instead of reinventing the wheel here, Cozoy has instead reinvented their pricing and to great effect. At just 37% of the Pro’s price, the Takt-C brings an identical sonic performance. That means versatile driving power, a refined, resolving sound with great musicality and a stunning form factor that is easily among the most premium on the market. I’m sure some may have concerns over a fixed cable while others may argue that a full player could be had for little more. Still, the Takt-C is a winning combination of great sound in an unobtrusive form factor perfect to invigorate a pre-existing portable audio setup, and it is now priced for all to enjoy.
The Takt-C is available from on HifiGo (International) for $109 USD at the time of writing. I am not affiliated with HiFiGO or Cozoy and receive no earnings from purchases through this link.
Thanks for reading! If you enjoyed my review, please see my website for more just like it!
Introduction –
NXEars is a new audio manufacturer from the USA that was spearheaded by former Knowles employee Casey Ng whose notable work includes the NuForce NE, HEM and Primo line-ups in addition to the new Erato TWS earphones. NuForce is most fond to me for their Primo 8 quad driver earphone which made a lot of noise for its phase-coherent crossover that ensured all drivers were time-aligned; you can read more about it in RinChoi’s excellent analysis here. NXEars takes this design to the next level, aiming for a sound more akin to an over-ear headphone or speaker over an in-ear.
This has been achieved with numerous technological innovations with the addition of AGL (aperiodic ground loading) which mitigates the pressurization often used to achieve sub-bass extension in IEMs and standing wave resonances within the ear canal. Their line-up consists of 3-models, all utilising Knowles BA drivers. In for listening today is the 4-driver Basso coming in at $499 USD. Read more about the line-up and technology behind NXEars here.
Sound –
The Basso has a distinctly brighter sound, opening up the top-end and imbuing a pleasing amount of air and headroom. Meanwhile, its bass is more linear than the flagship Opera, deeper reaching and with more accurate timbre. It doesn’t possess quite the same magic but provides its own unique voicing that caters towards a different audience.
NXEars mention that the Basso is utilising two of Knowles’ largest BA woofer drivers alongside heavy copper faceplates that I’m assuming serve to decrease resonances. And indeed, the Basso provides more sub-bass extension than the Opera in addition to a more mid-bass centric tuning that makes it more orthodox in its presentation. Lows are slightly warm, pleasantly full and smoothly textured. Decay is slower than the Opera but it still retains that a typical BA response, being controlled and quickly decaying nonetheless. The combination of increased extension and a slight increase in note weight creates a perceptibly more dynamic low-end which is somewhat reaffirmed by its slightly slower but also more natural decay. The transition to the midrange is more linear on the Basso as its upper-bass is less present, while vocals are more laid-back, creating a roughly U-shaped sound overall. However, as opposed to competitors, the Basso is a highly coherent U with bolstered lower-midrange body; it isn’t vivid or clarity boosted in the slightest.
As the upper-bass isn’t overly warm nor the low-end too emphasized, the midrange is similarly devoid of muffle or congestion. The centre midrange is relatively flat with a natural 3KHz bump which helps to redeem a natural image after which the earphones have a substantial 4KHz trough. As such, mids are very dense and smooth in addition to being full-bodied. In turn, there isn’t a lot of vocal definition or layering and they clearly lack the extension and clarity of the Opera. Up top is where they falter most. The Basso is a clear step down technically from the Opera, as can be expected. However, its lower-treble is smoothed to the extent that detail presence is largely diminished even if raw detail retrieval upon scrutiny is ample. The superlative imaging and layering performance of the Opera is vaguely apparent, however, due to a sizable middle-treble emphasis, the Basso tends to glare over foreground instruments and micro-details higher up. As the background is bright and the Basso lacks the extension to project immersive dimension or resolve fine background details, it suffers from a less involving soundstage and foreground presentation that can comes across as detail deficient.
Early Verdict –
NXEars’ latest earphones are easily the most intriguing that have come into my hands for review in a long while. The Basso takes the most “normie” approach with its sound tuning to my ears, only with a polarising middle-treble peak and reduced bass/midrange separation.
It is designed for live stage monitoring and mainstream genres like pop and EDM that require more high-end energy. The earphones is still evidently very purposeful in its tuning and a standout mention goes to NXEars’ proprietary innovations; it’s clear that these earphones have been the source of much deliberation for Casey. The 3D printed housings are also gorgeous and have delightful ergonomics to my ears. This experience is made especially enticing by pricing as Casey’s ties with Knowles grant him access to the best supply chains. The Basso sports a $499 USD price tag, thereby undercutting most of the competition when compared driver for driver. The NXEars range deserves a listen and you might just find that one deserves your hard-earned cash too.
Thanks for reading! If you enjoyed my review, please see my website for more just like it!
NXEars is a new audio manufacturer from the USA that was spearheaded by former Knowles employee Casey Ng whose notable work includes the NuForce NE, HEM and Primo line-ups in addition to the new Erato TWS earphones. NuForce is most fond to me for their Primo 8 quad driver earphone which made a lot of noise for its phase-coherent crossover that ensured all drivers were time-aligned; you can read more about it in RinChoi’s excellent analysis here. NXEars takes this design to the next level, aiming for a sound more akin to an over-ear headphone or speaker over an in-ear.
This has been achieved with numerous technological innovations with the addition of AGL (aperiodic ground loading) which mitigates the pressurization often used to achieve sub-bass extension in IEMs and standing wave resonances within the ear canal. Their line-up consists of 3-models, all utilising Knowles BA drivers. In for listening today is the 4-driver Basso coming in at $499 USD. Read more about the line-up and technology behind NXEars here.
Sound –
The Basso has a distinctly brighter sound, opening up the top-end and imbuing a pleasing amount of air and headroom. Meanwhile, its bass is more linear than the flagship Opera, deeper reaching and with more accurate timbre. It doesn’t possess quite the same magic but provides its own unique voicing that caters towards a different audience.
NXEars mention that the Basso is utilising two of Knowles’ largest BA woofer drivers alongside heavy copper faceplates that I’m assuming serve to decrease resonances. And indeed, the Basso provides more sub-bass extension than the Opera in addition to a more mid-bass centric tuning that makes it more orthodox in its presentation. Lows are slightly warm, pleasantly full and smoothly textured. Decay is slower than the Opera but it still retains that a typical BA response, being controlled and quickly decaying nonetheless. The combination of increased extension and a slight increase in note weight creates a perceptibly more dynamic low-end which is somewhat reaffirmed by its slightly slower but also more natural decay. The transition to the midrange is more linear on the Basso as its upper-bass is less present, while vocals are more laid-back, creating a roughly U-shaped sound overall. However, as opposed to competitors, the Basso is a highly coherent U with bolstered lower-midrange body; it isn’t vivid or clarity boosted in the slightest.
As the upper-bass isn’t overly warm nor the low-end too emphasized, the midrange is similarly devoid of muffle or congestion. The centre midrange is relatively flat with a natural 3KHz bump which helps to redeem a natural image after which the earphones have a substantial 4KHz trough. As such, mids are very dense and smooth in addition to being full-bodied. In turn, there isn’t a lot of vocal definition or layering and they clearly lack the extension and clarity of the Opera. Up top is where they falter most. The Basso is a clear step down technically from the Opera, as can be expected. However, its lower-treble is smoothed to the extent that detail presence is largely diminished even if raw detail retrieval upon scrutiny is ample. The superlative imaging and layering performance of the Opera is vaguely apparent, however, due to a sizable middle-treble emphasis, the Basso tends to glare over foreground instruments and micro-details higher up. As the background is bright and the Basso lacks the extension to project immersive dimension or resolve fine background details, it suffers from a less involving soundstage and foreground presentation that can comes across as detail deficient.
Early Verdict –
NXEars’ latest earphones are easily the most intriguing that have come into my hands for review in a long while. The Basso takes the most “normie” approach with its sound tuning to my ears, only with a polarising middle-treble peak and reduced bass/midrange separation.
It is designed for live stage monitoring and mainstream genres like pop and EDM that require more high-end energy. The earphones is still evidently very purposeful in its tuning and a standout mention goes to NXEars’ proprietary innovations; it’s clear that these earphones have been the source of much deliberation for Casey. The 3D printed housings are also gorgeous and have delightful ergonomics to my ears. This experience is made especially enticing by pricing as Casey’s ties with Knowles grant him access to the best supply chains. The Basso sports a $499 USD price tag, thereby undercutting most of the competition when compared driver for driver. The NXEars range deserves a listen and you might just find that one deserves your hard-earned cash too.
Thanks for reading! If you enjoyed my review, please see my website for more just like it!
TLDR -
The Opera’s magic lies in its ability to bring every element together into a highly coherent, composed and effortless whole.
Introduction –
If you’re reading this article, chances are you’re familiar with Knowles, NuForce or Erato. If that’s the case, then you would be well acquainted with Casey Ng whose expertise was invaluable to all. NXEars is his latest venture, uniting the core principles of each brand. These earphones feature strong value per driver from his relationship to Knowles, a phase-coherent crossover ala NuForce and have been tuned to perform well in both time and frequency domains. The Opera is NXEars’ statement product, with a 3-way, 8-driver configuration and a $799 USD asking price. You can read more about the line-up and technology behind NXEars here. With that in mind, these are my impressions.
Disclaimer –
I would like to thank Casey very much for his quick communication, clarification and for providing me with the Opera for the purpose of review. All words are my own and there is no monetary incentive for a positive review. The earphones have been reviewed under flexible terms meaning that they will be shipped back as required by NXEars. As always, I will attempt to be as objective as possible in my evaluation. This review also features a pre-production unit that came with no packaging nor the full set of accessories. The retail units will also feature heavy copper faceplates that Casey assures will enhance bass heft.
The Pitch –
Aperiodic Ground Loading
Casey’s patent-pending AGL technology isn’t fleshed out on NXEars’ website but is a development that is worth taking some time to understand as it contributes to some key characteristics of the Opera’s sound. It consists of driver body damping on the faceplate in conjunction with a vent that controls driver resonance while bleeding over-pressure. As a result, these will be very non-fatiguing on the eardrum and low in distortion.
Multi-way Crossover
The Opera implements a sophisticated crossover system to achieve a low-distortion and linear sound. It is both frequency and time-aligned ensuring phase coherence in addition to a smooth and coherent frequency response. In real-world listening, this should translate to clean transients and sharp imaging. There are only a handful of phase-coherent earphones on the market, notable to me are the JH and Custom Art flagships that are all more expensive than the Opera.
Design –
I personally love the design of the Opera which merges elements of custom and universal IEMs to create a very unique aesthetic alongside excellent ergonomics. The 3D printed housings are perfectly realised with an immaculate gloss finish and a complete absence of bubbles, seams or defects. The smoke design provides a window into the complex driver and crossover designs inside. Meanwhile, stardust blue faceplates glittered with lustrous gold accents provide a truly otherworldly aesthetic that is gorgeous to photograph and even more captivating in person.
This is complemented by a removable MMCX cable with 8-core 6N mono-crystal copper conductors. It’s very soft and easily coiled for storage. The jacket is a touch rubbery which can make untangling difficult; however, the 8-wire braid does resist tangling very well. There is ample strain relief and convincing build quality without cumbersome weight. The memory wire ear guides hold their position well and provide a confident fit. Meanwhile, the MMCX connectors themselves are snappy and even in tension between sides.
Fit & Isolation –
The housings are on the larger side both in terms of height and depth, however, they are very smoothly formed and sculpted to complement the features of the outer ear. In conjunction with long, tapered nozzles that provide a deep fit, the Opera feels very stable and locked into the ear. I also found the deeper fit to permit the earphones to sit flush with my outer ear while their sculpted design avoided hotspot formation over longer listening.
Due to their vented nature, isolation is good but not outstanding like a custom or fully sealed design. They are still perfectly suitable for commute and potentially air travel with foam tips that said. On the contrary, though functionally different, I did find AGL to provide similar pressure relief to my ADEL and APEX earphones which makes them very comfortable for extended listening despite their fit depth. They provide a similarly strong seal to other high-end IEMs but without the vacuum so the Opera will be a good choice for those sensitive to that kind of discomfort.
Sound –
Testing Methodology: Arta via IEC 711 coupler to Startech external sound card. Note that 7-9KHz peaks are artefacts of my measurement setup. Casey confirmed to me that the earphones do have a small ~10KHz emphasis but not nearly to the degree indicated here. Take this graph with a grain of salt. Measurements besides channel balance are volume matched at 1K.
Tonality –
The Opera is a mid-centric earphone with a powerful full-bodied, dense voicing and excellent layering. Sub-bass takes a backseat to a very linear mid-bass while a moderate emphasis in the upper-bass imbues a pleasing warmth and euphony into its presentation. There’s a small dip in the lower-midrange that heightens tonal transparency before a rise into the centre midrange for vocal presence and clarity. A dense upper-midrange and smooth lower-treble yield a velvety smooth articulation, while an uptick of 5KHz emphasis retains pleasing crispness and clarity. The background is dark and clean rounding off a highly resolved and coherent if not highly dynamic and separated presentation, I certainly do not hear anything like the peak showcased on my measurement but a nice presence that grants some additional air and headroom. This is another unique earphone that doesn’t trace any conventional curve but does yield a highly pleasing listen with some impressive technical qualities on top.
Bass –
I deliberated over these comments for quite a while, due to AGL there’s zero sense of pressure from the sub-bass. As such, I would be inclined to suggest that extension isn’t the best, however, any audible if not visceral sub-bass information is present in the track. There remains a very tight slam and defined rumble occupying a laid-back position but due to the lack of pressure, you never feel the sensation of moving air which can make sub-bass feel insubstantial. Meanwhile, mid-bass is flat, linear and clean while a moderate bump in the upper-bass imbues warmth and satisfying note fullness that prevents the presentation from straying into sterility. This creates a low-end that is clean yet musical and never stark if a touch tubby on tracks already mastered with additional warmth.
Casey mentioned that PRAT was a prime focus with this earphone and though I find the earphone’s transient response is best showcase by its treble, bass carries some very convincing properties too. Lows are agile and tactful, driver control is very high and notes are presented in standard BA fashion, being very quick in both attack and decay. It’s a punchy if not hard-hitting presentation that showcases outstanding definition and strong organisation, even when reproducing complex and bass abundant tracks. This comes at the cost of dynamics as the Opera dissects tracks but with subjectively limited range. Still, that is not to say this is not a satisfying listen, not in the slightest; bolstered body and warmth contribute to a grand stage propagated by full, well-resolved notes.
Mids –
Over extended listening, it’s the midrange that’s really grown on me; the presentation is sublime. The Opera places vocals at the forefront of its presentation yet sans any form of intensity or forwardness. These are also vocals worth showcasing; high-resolution and naturally toned and voiced. With moderate warmth in the low-end, a small lower-midrange dip prevents spill and veil while retaining body and smooth integration for precise instrument and vocal reconstruction. Meanwhile, rising emphasis to a natural hump around 3KHz before subsequent 4KHz dip yields a natural voicing with good clarity.
This is a delightfully musical presentation that finds harmony between musicality and transparency. Sure, the presentation carries a light warmth and full notes but it is wholly resolved without a hint of thinness, rasp or over-articulation. Similarly, though reasonably clear and intimate, never is the vocal presentation chesty or veiled nor strident and overly-forward. The presentation is rather, naturally toned, not perfectly accurate in timbre but rich and portrayed with perfect density and great smoothness so as to maintain ample extension.
The earphones possess convincing vocal clarity and very impressive resolution with excellent layering and notes that are highly defined despite their smooth articulation and full body. The Opera is, therefore, perfect for the vocal lover and boasts a very sound instrument timbre that enables them to excel with acoustic, classical and jazz while upholding enough clarity and energy to flatter other genres too. Unlike many high-end models out there, the midrange steals the show to my ears and this is an excellent thing as the bulk of musical information is contained in this frequency range.
Highs –
The top-end is crisp and well-detailed with very clean transients. It is defined by a modest 5KHz peak followed by a 6KHz trough and lack of any subsequent background brightness. Despite being small in magnitude, this is a narrower emphasis that produces a thinner instrument body. Nonetheless, texture and decay are both natural and notes are well resolved overall. By attenuating the 6KHz region, sibilance and sharpness are mitigated and this tuning retains a crisp image with just a hair of warmth. The net result is a slightly smoother note attack which results in a note presentation that is thin and highly defined but never fatiguing or uncontrolled. Detail retrieval is good both in the foreground and background but some competitors offer slightly more insight here.
Meanwhile, the especially clean transient response aids this IEM’s outstanding note definition and spatial positioning. Upper-octave extension is also what you would want from a high-end IEM, but there is little sparkle and diminished air due to the darkness of its tuning within the middle and upper-treble. Still, the Opera provides an immaculately clean space that greatly contributes to its defined and layered presentation in addition to retrieving enough background detail to enable an involving sense of distance and scale. Again, there isn’t abundant shimmer, pristine clarity or energy up top, but a controlled and focussed detail presentation with great contrast between foreground and background.
Soundstage –
The presentation is something special. After trying a few of Casey’s earphones such as those from NuForce and the NX Ears Basso, the Opera exemplifies everything he’s strived to achieve. Some will be surprised that the soundstage isn’t the largest, expanding just beyond the head in width with more intimate depth but certainly not providing boundless presentation of say, the Campfire Audio Andromeda. Instead, the focus of the Opera is its imaging. Vocals occupy a very strong centre image while layers are highly defined and the background well resolved. Defined, clean transients produce pinpoint precise directional cues and panning. These qualities give its presentation great dimension and a holographic sense of positioning. Separation is also quite good. Though the earphone is warm with large notes, tending to prioritise coherence, the highly organised nature of its presentation makes it easy to pinpoint small details.
Driveability –
The Opera is efficient with a 106dB sensitivity and 18-ohm impedance. It has been designed to keep impedance within a range friendly for most devices. In turn, I found the Opera impressively resistant to hiss but still susceptible to output impedance if to a lesser degree than some competitors. Comparing between the 10-ohm Hiby R6 and Shanling M2X, for example, I heard a markedly smoother and darker sound from the Hiby. Bass transients became softer while mids became fuller and smoother. Highs were attenuated losing some shimmer and crispness. As such, a low output impedance source is desirable to extract maximum fidelity from the Opera but those wanting a warmer sound can experiment with impedance adapters. The earphones’ resolving nature also lends them well towards dedicated sources where they sound noticeably cleaner with more involving imaging.
Comparisons –
Audiofly AF1120MK2 ($699): The AF1120MK2 is also a nicely balanced and natural sounding earphone. It provides more slam at the very bottom and a more mid-bass focussed low-end, being warmer and fuller with more natural decay on top. Altogether, this makes it more dynamic with greater range. The Opera, meanwhile, is more controlled and agile, with noticeably more note definition and organisation on complex tracks. The midrange shares similar values but different approaches. Both are also smooth, natural and place vocals forward. Where they most differ is with regards to vocal size, being bigger and more powerful on the Opera, and density, the Opera also offering meatier notes. The AF1120MK2 isn’t as full-bodied, instead providing a touch more warmth counterbalanced by greater clarity and upper-midrange extension.
The Opera has noticeably higher resolution through the midrange. Both earphones feature a lower-treble dip and peak tuning, 5KHz emphasis on the Opera, 6KHz on the Af1120MK2. Neither are sharp or bright, nor sibilant. The Opera is a touch more detail-forward, it has slightly more defined transients while the AF1120MK2 has a touch more warmth and instrument body. The Opera is more detailed, it has a more immaculate background and better extension. The Opera’s soundstage trumps the Audiofly, being larger and also more organised, with a stronger centre image and slightly more defined layers.
Campfire Audio Andromeda ($1099): A staple around this price range, providing a more u-shaped and vivid tuning. Sub-bass extension is better on the Andromeda with more slam and rumble. It has noticeably more mid-bass presence and a touch of emphasis in the upper-bass too. As such, it’s low-end is noticeably larger, warmer and fuller but also more dynamic. The Opera has less depth and power but greater cleanliness, higher control and more defined notes, being punchier and more tactful. The Opera has noticeably more forward vocals and a more natural timbre, the Andromeda rather has greater clarity with more upper-midrange presence and it’s a touch warmer too from its bass. The Opera has more body and is much denser with smoother articulation, it is more coherent with greater note definition and resolution.
On the contrary, the Andromeda is more delicate but also over-articulated and raspy making it sound very glossy if less accurate. However, it also has greater ability to project distance and depth. The high-end is brighter throughout on the Andromeda. It is more aggressively detailed with more pristine clarity and air. The Andromeda has more detail retrieval but it is also splashier which will depend on listener preference. The Andro has better extension and a lot more sparkle, while the Opera is darker and more layered. The Andro has a much larger soundstage, especially depth due to its more laid-back vocals and though it also has a clean transient response, the Opera has more defined directional cues and layers, being more intimate but also more holographic and organised.
Meze Rai Penta ($1099): The Rai Penta sports a similar style of sound too but is more W-shaped with greater tri-frequency separation. It has much more bass extension and lows are more mid-bass focused. The Penta has a fuller low-end with more natural decay and greater dynamics and drive. The Opera is more controlled and much quicker decaying, so it is more defined and organised but also lacking the same depth and information in the sub-bass. Both have similar midrange tuning, being smooth and well-bodied. The Opera has larger vocal size while the Penta has more forward vocals but without the same body and power as it lacks the same kind of upper-bass bolstering. Still, it carries a light warmth but is clearly not as dense and full-bodied as the Opera.
The Opera has higher midrange resolution while the Rai Penta has better extension, depth and clarity. Up top, the Opera is slightly crisper and more aggressive while the Rai Penta is smoother and more organic. The Rai Penta has slightly more foreground detail retrieval, while the Opera has slightly more background detail retrieval. Both extend similarly and feature clean, dark backgrounds, the Opera to a slightly greater extent while the Rai Penta has a touch more air. The Rai Penta has a larger soundstage, especially width. Depth is more intimate on both, the Penta also projects a bit better here too. Both also layer very well, but there is more definition on the Opera and sharper directional cues and directionality.
Custom Art Fibae 7 (~$1225): The Fibae 7 is a formidable earphone, highly rated even at its higher price and praised for its timbre and balance. It immediately has much better sub-bass extension with more solid slam and rumble. The Fibae 7 has similar mid-bass presence and a cleaner upper-bass, producing a cleaner and more linear low-end than the Opera. The Opera meanwhile is quicker decaying and more defined through the mid-bass with a bit more separation while the Fibae 7 is invariably the more dynamic earphone. Through the midrange, the Fibae 7 treads a very impressively reference line, the tone, body and smoothness all operate at relatively neutral levels compared to the dense and powerful Opera. The Opera is more full-bodied and smoother while the Fibae 7 is a touch more forward in positioning with more neutral vocal size.
The Fibae 7 has slightly higher resolution and definition in addition to boasting more extension while the Opera has meatier notes with more defined layers. The top-end is more detailed and extended on the Fibae 7. Its foreground is more linear with more accurate instrument body, texture and greater detail retrieval. The background is immaculately clean on both, darker on the Opera but with more resolution and micro-detail on the Fibae 7. Neither have much sparkle, the Fibae 7 has a larger soundstage, it doesn’t have quite the same layering and holographic imaging as the Opera, however, it has better separation and similarly strong organisation.
Verdict –
The hallmark of a great high-end IEM is a certain je ne sais quoi; some fine quality that can’t necessarily be reasoned but one that captivates, nonetheless. The Opera provides such character, a vector with direction and magnitude. The midrange enthrals the listener, with powerful, meaty notes accompanying larger than life vocal size and impeccable definition and resolution. Meanwhile, highs showcase a clean transient response that contributes to a highly organised presentation with truly outstanding imaging. The low-end is perhaps the weakest link. Though it certainly carries itself with excellent pace and organisation, bass sounds flat and lacking in dynamics in addition to being somewhat strange and unconventional in terms of tonality. This is unfortunate as many listeners tend to start their analysis from bottom to top, leaving a poor first impression. However, give the Opera some time – this is not one to awe in the way that it construes any particular frequency range. Rather, the magic lies in its ability to bring many elements together into a highly coherent, composed and effortless whole.
The Opera is available from on NXEars for $799 USD. I am not affiliated with NXEars and receive no earnings from purchases through this link.
Thanks for reading! If you enjoyed my review, please see my website for more just like it!
Track List –
Billy Joel – The Stranger
Blur – The Magic Whip
Courtney Barnett – MTV Unplugged
Dire Straits – Communique
Fleetwood Mac – Greatest Hits
Joji – Sanctuary
keshi – skeletons
Lauv – I met you when I was 18
Nirvana – Nevermind
Radiohead – The Bends
Rich Brian – The Sailor
Tears for Fears – Songs From The Big Chair
The Velvet Underground – Loaded
The Opera’s magic lies in its ability to bring every element together into a highly coherent, composed and effortless whole.
Introduction –
If you’re reading this article, chances are you’re familiar with Knowles, NuForce or Erato. If that’s the case, then you would be well acquainted with Casey Ng whose expertise was invaluable to all. NXEars is his latest venture, uniting the core principles of each brand. These earphones feature strong value per driver from his relationship to Knowles, a phase-coherent crossover ala NuForce and have been tuned to perform well in both time and frequency domains. The Opera is NXEars’ statement product, with a 3-way, 8-driver configuration and a $799 USD asking price. You can read more about the line-up and technology behind NXEars here. With that in mind, these are my impressions.
Disclaimer –
I would like to thank Casey very much for his quick communication, clarification and for providing me with the Opera for the purpose of review. All words are my own and there is no monetary incentive for a positive review. The earphones have been reviewed under flexible terms meaning that they will be shipped back as required by NXEars. As always, I will attempt to be as objective as possible in my evaluation. This review also features a pre-production unit that came with no packaging nor the full set of accessories. The retail units will also feature heavy copper faceplates that Casey assures will enhance bass heft.
The Pitch –
Aperiodic Ground Loading
Casey’s patent-pending AGL technology isn’t fleshed out on NXEars’ website but is a development that is worth taking some time to understand as it contributes to some key characteristics of the Opera’s sound. It consists of driver body damping on the faceplate in conjunction with a vent that controls driver resonance while bleeding over-pressure. As a result, these will be very non-fatiguing on the eardrum and low in distortion.
Multi-way Crossover
The Opera implements a sophisticated crossover system to achieve a low-distortion and linear sound. It is both frequency and time-aligned ensuring phase coherence in addition to a smooth and coherent frequency response. In real-world listening, this should translate to clean transients and sharp imaging. There are only a handful of phase-coherent earphones on the market, notable to me are the JH and Custom Art flagships that are all more expensive than the Opera.
Design –
I personally love the design of the Opera which merges elements of custom and universal IEMs to create a very unique aesthetic alongside excellent ergonomics. The 3D printed housings are perfectly realised with an immaculate gloss finish and a complete absence of bubbles, seams or defects. The smoke design provides a window into the complex driver and crossover designs inside. Meanwhile, stardust blue faceplates glittered with lustrous gold accents provide a truly otherworldly aesthetic that is gorgeous to photograph and even more captivating in person.
This is complemented by a removable MMCX cable with 8-core 6N mono-crystal copper conductors. It’s very soft and easily coiled for storage. The jacket is a touch rubbery which can make untangling difficult; however, the 8-wire braid does resist tangling very well. There is ample strain relief and convincing build quality without cumbersome weight. The memory wire ear guides hold their position well and provide a confident fit. Meanwhile, the MMCX connectors themselves are snappy and even in tension between sides.
Fit & Isolation –
The housings are on the larger side both in terms of height and depth, however, they are very smoothly formed and sculpted to complement the features of the outer ear. In conjunction with long, tapered nozzles that provide a deep fit, the Opera feels very stable and locked into the ear. I also found the deeper fit to permit the earphones to sit flush with my outer ear while their sculpted design avoided hotspot formation over longer listening.
Due to their vented nature, isolation is good but not outstanding like a custom or fully sealed design. They are still perfectly suitable for commute and potentially air travel with foam tips that said. On the contrary, though functionally different, I did find AGL to provide similar pressure relief to my ADEL and APEX earphones which makes them very comfortable for extended listening despite their fit depth. They provide a similarly strong seal to other high-end IEMs but without the vacuum so the Opera will be a good choice for those sensitive to that kind of discomfort.
Sound –
Testing Methodology: Arta via IEC 711 coupler to Startech external sound card. Note that 7-9KHz peaks are artefacts of my measurement setup. Casey confirmed to me that the earphones do have a small ~10KHz emphasis but not nearly to the degree indicated here. Take this graph with a grain of salt. Measurements besides channel balance are volume matched at 1K.
Tonality –
The Opera is a mid-centric earphone with a powerful full-bodied, dense voicing and excellent layering. Sub-bass takes a backseat to a very linear mid-bass while a moderate emphasis in the upper-bass imbues a pleasing warmth and euphony into its presentation. There’s a small dip in the lower-midrange that heightens tonal transparency before a rise into the centre midrange for vocal presence and clarity. A dense upper-midrange and smooth lower-treble yield a velvety smooth articulation, while an uptick of 5KHz emphasis retains pleasing crispness and clarity. The background is dark and clean rounding off a highly resolved and coherent if not highly dynamic and separated presentation, I certainly do not hear anything like the peak showcased on my measurement but a nice presence that grants some additional air and headroom. This is another unique earphone that doesn’t trace any conventional curve but does yield a highly pleasing listen with some impressive technical qualities on top.
Bass –
I deliberated over these comments for quite a while, due to AGL there’s zero sense of pressure from the sub-bass. As such, I would be inclined to suggest that extension isn’t the best, however, any audible if not visceral sub-bass information is present in the track. There remains a very tight slam and defined rumble occupying a laid-back position but due to the lack of pressure, you never feel the sensation of moving air which can make sub-bass feel insubstantial. Meanwhile, mid-bass is flat, linear and clean while a moderate bump in the upper-bass imbues warmth and satisfying note fullness that prevents the presentation from straying into sterility. This creates a low-end that is clean yet musical and never stark if a touch tubby on tracks already mastered with additional warmth.
Casey mentioned that PRAT was a prime focus with this earphone and though I find the earphone’s transient response is best showcase by its treble, bass carries some very convincing properties too. Lows are agile and tactful, driver control is very high and notes are presented in standard BA fashion, being very quick in both attack and decay. It’s a punchy if not hard-hitting presentation that showcases outstanding definition and strong organisation, even when reproducing complex and bass abundant tracks. This comes at the cost of dynamics as the Opera dissects tracks but with subjectively limited range. Still, that is not to say this is not a satisfying listen, not in the slightest; bolstered body and warmth contribute to a grand stage propagated by full, well-resolved notes.
Mids –
Over extended listening, it’s the midrange that’s really grown on me; the presentation is sublime. The Opera places vocals at the forefront of its presentation yet sans any form of intensity or forwardness. These are also vocals worth showcasing; high-resolution and naturally toned and voiced. With moderate warmth in the low-end, a small lower-midrange dip prevents spill and veil while retaining body and smooth integration for precise instrument and vocal reconstruction. Meanwhile, rising emphasis to a natural hump around 3KHz before subsequent 4KHz dip yields a natural voicing with good clarity.
This is a delightfully musical presentation that finds harmony between musicality and transparency. Sure, the presentation carries a light warmth and full notes but it is wholly resolved without a hint of thinness, rasp or over-articulation. Similarly, though reasonably clear and intimate, never is the vocal presentation chesty or veiled nor strident and overly-forward. The presentation is rather, naturally toned, not perfectly accurate in timbre but rich and portrayed with perfect density and great smoothness so as to maintain ample extension.
The earphones possess convincing vocal clarity and very impressive resolution with excellent layering and notes that are highly defined despite their smooth articulation and full body. The Opera is, therefore, perfect for the vocal lover and boasts a very sound instrument timbre that enables them to excel with acoustic, classical and jazz while upholding enough clarity and energy to flatter other genres too. Unlike many high-end models out there, the midrange steals the show to my ears and this is an excellent thing as the bulk of musical information is contained in this frequency range.
Highs –
The top-end is crisp and well-detailed with very clean transients. It is defined by a modest 5KHz peak followed by a 6KHz trough and lack of any subsequent background brightness. Despite being small in magnitude, this is a narrower emphasis that produces a thinner instrument body. Nonetheless, texture and decay are both natural and notes are well resolved overall. By attenuating the 6KHz region, sibilance and sharpness are mitigated and this tuning retains a crisp image with just a hair of warmth. The net result is a slightly smoother note attack which results in a note presentation that is thin and highly defined but never fatiguing or uncontrolled. Detail retrieval is good both in the foreground and background but some competitors offer slightly more insight here.
Meanwhile, the especially clean transient response aids this IEM’s outstanding note definition and spatial positioning. Upper-octave extension is also what you would want from a high-end IEM, but there is little sparkle and diminished air due to the darkness of its tuning within the middle and upper-treble. Still, the Opera provides an immaculately clean space that greatly contributes to its defined and layered presentation in addition to retrieving enough background detail to enable an involving sense of distance and scale. Again, there isn’t abundant shimmer, pristine clarity or energy up top, but a controlled and focussed detail presentation with great contrast between foreground and background.
Soundstage –
The presentation is something special. After trying a few of Casey’s earphones such as those from NuForce and the NX Ears Basso, the Opera exemplifies everything he’s strived to achieve. Some will be surprised that the soundstage isn’t the largest, expanding just beyond the head in width with more intimate depth but certainly not providing boundless presentation of say, the Campfire Audio Andromeda. Instead, the focus of the Opera is its imaging. Vocals occupy a very strong centre image while layers are highly defined and the background well resolved. Defined, clean transients produce pinpoint precise directional cues and panning. These qualities give its presentation great dimension and a holographic sense of positioning. Separation is also quite good. Though the earphone is warm with large notes, tending to prioritise coherence, the highly organised nature of its presentation makes it easy to pinpoint small details.
Driveability –
The Opera is efficient with a 106dB sensitivity and 18-ohm impedance. It has been designed to keep impedance within a range friendly for most devices. In turn, I found the Opera impressively resistant to hiss but still susceptible to output impedance if to a lesser degree than some competitors. Comparing between the 10-ohm Hiby R6 and Shanling M2X, for example, I heard a markedly smoother and darker sound from the Hiby. Bass transients became softer while mids became fuller and smoother. Highs were attenuated losing some shimmer and crispness. As such, a low output impedance source is desirable to extract maximum fidelity from the Opera but those wanting a warmer sound can experiment with impedance adapters. The earphones’ resolving nature also lends them well towards dedicated sources where they sound noticeably cleaner with more involving imaging.
Comparisons –
Audiofly AF1120MK2 ($699): The AF1120MK2 is also a nicely balanced and natural sounding earphone. It provides more slam at the very bottom and a more mid-bass focussed low-end, being warmer and fuller with more natural decay on top. Altogether, this makes it more dynamic with greater range. The Opera, meanwhile, is more controlled and agile, with noticeably more note definition and organisation on complex tracks. The midrange shares similar values but different approaches. Both are also smooth, natural and place vocals forward. Where they most differ is with regards to vocal size, being bigger and more powerful on the Opera, and density, the Opera also offering meatier notes. The AF1120MK2 isn’t as full-bodied, instead providing a touch more warmth counterbalanced by greater clarity and upper-midrange extension.
The Opera has noticeably higher resolution through the midrange. Both earphones feature a lower-treble dip and peak tuning, 5KHz emphasis on the Opera, 6KHz on the Af1120MK2. Neither are sharp or bright, nor sibilant. The Opera is a touch more detail-forward, it has slightly more defined transients while the AF1120MK2 has a touch more warmth and instrument body. The Opera is more detailed, it has a more immaculate background and better extension. The Opera’s soundstage trumps the Audiofly, being larger and also more organised, with a stronger centre image and slightly more defined layers.
Campfire Audio Andromeda ($1099): A staple around this price range, providing a more u-shaped and vivid tuning. Sub-bass extension is better on the Andromeda with more slam and rumble. It has noticeably more mid-bass presence and a touch of emphasis in the upper-bass too. As such, it’s low-end is noticeably larger, warmer and fuller but also more dynamic. The Opera has less depth and power but greater cleanliness, higher control and more defined notes, being punchier and more tactful. The Opera has noticeably more forward vocals and a more natural timbre, the Andromeda rather has greater clarity with more upper-midrange presence and it’s a touch warmer too from its bass. The Opera has more body and is much denser with smoother articulation, it is more coherent with greater note definition and resolution.
On the contrary, the Andromeda is more delicate but also over-articulated and raspy making it sound very glossy if less accurate. However, it also has greater ability to project distance and depth. The high-end is brighter throughout on the Andromeda. It is more aggressively detailed with more pristine clarity and air. The Andromeda has more detail retrieval but it is also splashier which will depend on listener preference. The Andro has better extension and a lot more sparkle, while the Opera is darker and more layered. The Andro has a much larger soundstage, especially depth due to its more laid-back vocals and though it also has a clean transient response, the Opera has more defined directional cues and layers, being more intimate but also more holographic and organised.
Meze Rai Penta ($1099): The Rai Penta sports a similar style of sound too but is more W-shaped with greater tri-frequency separation. It has much more bass extension and lows are more mid-bass focused. The Penta has a fuller low-end with more natural decay and greater dynamics and drive. The Opera is more controlled and much quicker decaying, so it is more defined and organised but also lacking the same depth and information in the sub-bass. Both have similar midrange tuning, being smooth and well-bodied. The Opera has larger vocal size while the Penta has more forward vocals but without the same body and power as it lacks the same kind of upper-bass bolstering. Still, it carries a light warmth but is clearly not as dense and full-bodied as the Opera.
The Opera has higher midrange resolution while the Rai Penta has better extension, depth and clarity. Up top, the Opera is slightly crisper and more aggressive while the Rai Penta is smoother and more organic. The Rai Penta has slightly more foreground detail retrieval, while the Opera has slightly more background detail retrieval. Both extend similarly and feature clean, dark backgrounds, the Opera to a slightly greater extent while the Rai Penta has a touch more air. The Rai Penta has a larger soundstage, especially width. Depth is more intimate on both, the Penta also projects a bit better here too. Both also layer very well, but there is more definition on the Opera and sharper directional cues and directionality.
Custom Art Fibae 7 (~$1225): The Fibae 7 is a formidable earphone, highly rated even at its higher price and praised for its timbre and balance. It immediately has much better sub-bass extension with more solid slam and rumble. The Fibae 7 has similar mid-bass presence and a cleaner upper-bass, producing a cleaner and more linear low-end than the Opera. The Opera meanwhile is quicker decaying and more defined through the mid-bass with a bit more separation while the Fibae 7 is invariably the more dynamic earphone. Through the midrange, the Fibae 7 treads a very impressively reference line, the tone, body and smoothness all operate at relatively neutral levels compared to the dense and powerful Opera. The Opera is more full-bodied and smoother while the Fibae 7 is a touch more forward in positioning with more neutral vocal size.
The Fibae 7 has slightly higher resolution and definition in addition to boasting more extension while the Opera has meatier notes with more defined layers. The top-end is more detailed and extended on the Fibae 7. Its foreground is more linear with more accurate instrument body, texture and greater detail retrieval. The background is immaculately clean on both, darker on the Opera but with more resolution and micro-detail on the Fibae 7. Neither have much sparkle, the Fibae 7 has a larger soundstage, it doesn’t have quite the same layering and holographic imaging as the Opera, however, it has better separation and similarly strong organisation.
Verdict –
The hallmark of a great high-end IEM is a certain je ne sais quoi; some fine quality that can’t necessarily be reasoned but one that captivates, nonetheless. The Opera provides such character, a vector with direction and magnitude. The midrange enthrals the listener, with powerful, meaty notes accompanying larger than life vocal size and impeccable definition and resolution. Meanwhile, highs showcase a clean transient response that contributes to a highly organised presentation with truly outstanding imaging. The low-end is perhaps the weakest link. Though it certainly carries itself with excellent pace and organisation, bass sounds flat and lacking in dynamics in addition to being somewhat strange and unconventional in terms of tonality. This is unfortunate as many listeners tend to start their analysis from bottom to top, leaving a poor first impression. However, give the Opera some time – this is not one to awe in the way that it construes any particular frequency range. Rather, the magic lies in its ability to bring many elements together into a highly coherent, composed and effortless whole.
The Opera is available from on NXEars for $799 USD. I am not affiliated with NXEars and receive no earnings from purchases through this link.
Thanks for reading! If you enjoyed my review, please see my website for more just like it!
Track List –
Billy Joel – The Stranger
Blur – The Magic Whip
Courtney Barnett – MTV Unplugged
Dire Straits – Communique
Fleetwood Mac – Greatest Hits
Joji – Sanctuary
keshi – skeletons
Lauv – I met you when I was 18
Nirvana – Nevermind
Radiohead – The Bends
Rich Brian – The Sailor
Tears for Fears – Songs From The Big Chair
The Velvet Underground – Loaded
TLDR –
The UBOOM is a versatile speaker suiting mixed-use cases, especially with its tough, waterproof build and excellent battery life.
Introduction –
Earfun is a new audio manufacturer from China with a focus on the ultra-budget market. Their team comprises of industrial and acoustic engineers in addition to music enthusiasts that enable them to bring some surprisingly refined products to life at reasonable prices affordable to all. The UBOOM is one of their lesser discussed models on the net, but to my ears strikes as one of their most impressive. Fundamentally, this speaker competes with market leaders such as the UE Boom but at a very palatable $60 USD asking price. And from first listen, that money gets you one hell of a Bluetooth speaker. You can read more about Earfun and treat yourself to a UBOOM here.
Disclaimer –
I would like to thank Earfun very much for their quick communication and for providing me with the UBOOM for the purpose of review. I purchased the Oluv X Earfun Free with my own funds from their Indigogo campaign and was contacted by the company after releasing impressions online. All words are my own and there is no monetary incentive for a positive review, however, I did conduct a paid photoshoot for the company. Despite receiving the speaker itself free of cost, I will attempt to be as objective as possible in my evaluation.
Tech Specs –
Bluetooth Version: V5.0 (A2DP, AVRCP, HFP, HSP)
Transducer: 2 x 45mm
Output Power: 2 x 12W
Signal-to-noise Ratio: >=80dB
Battery: 7.4V, 2200mAh
Input Power: 5V/2A
Play Time: Up to 16 hours (varies by volume level and audio content)
Charging Time: About 4 hours
Dimensions: 166.5x88x88(mm) / 6.5×3.5×3.5(inch)
Weight: 585g / 20.63oz
The Pitch –
Premium Acoustics
The UBOOM features a sophisticated driver setup with two 12W 45mm full-range drivers paired with dual passive radiators and DSP to achieve full sound over a wide listening field. Passive radiators increase the effective volume of the enclosure and therefore, permits better low-frequency extension, but only with wide excursion drivers as they possess no voice coil of their own. As such, these speakers often sound anemic at low volumes.
Source: Earfun UBOOM Product Page
However, much like the more premium Envaya Mini, I hear some volume compensation on behalf of that sound processing chip too. This aids a warm, punchy sound throughout the volume range by increasing bass at lower volumes and tapering it off at higher volumes where this isn’t necessary and may cause further distortion. The speaker also features two eQ presets, a fuller setting for indoor listening and an outdoor setting for greater intelligibility and volume output sans distortion.
Design –
The Speaker is simple yet appealing with a tough fabric exterior and rubber end caps that absorb shock and prevent the speaker from vibrating on solid surfaces. A yellow tag adds some accent while aiding portable use by enabling attachment to a backpack when used outdoors. It can only be used upright but is stable and without rattles or wandering at high volumes due to its thick rubber base and pleasing density. The speaker feels very solid in the hand and well-constructed on a whole with no give or rough edges.
The top panel contains the power, pairing and music control buttons housed beneath a rubber fascia. They are embellished for tactility and provide good feedback. Meanwhile, aux and power input are located on the rear of the base with grommet sealed lid for ingress protection. The UBOOM charges over USB-C which is good to see on a budget speaker. This is a medium-sized speaker overall and reasonably heavy at 585g, so it isn’t pocketable but is certainly still very portable, its round form factor slotting comfortably into cup or bottle holders especially.
Usability –
Pairing the speaker is very simple as there is a dedicated Bluetooth pairing button and once connected, it will auto-connect to previously paired devices. When paired, connection was stable with no dropouts and very decent range too. I was able to cross two rooms with double brick walls before audio became intermittent and with line of sight, the range will be substantially higher. The speaker supports BT5.0 and can be paired in stereo alongside a second UBOOM unit. Codec support is limited, however, with no higher bitrate codecs such as LDAC, Apt-X or AAC being supported. Arguably, there isn’t enough fidelity in a portable BT speaker to appreciate the difference, and I can agree with cost-saving here especially considering the asking price and that the rest of the wireless experience is sound.
Latency was quite low too, with noticeable but not obtrusive lip sync when watching videos. Meanwhile, ingress protection is rated at IPX7 meaning the speaker can be fully submerged for up to 30 minutes, great for pool parties and the beach where these types of products excel. The speaker also floats and the fabric itself is tough and plasticky so it resists fraying and doesn’t pick up water meaning the speaker can easily be dried after use. Meanwhile, battery life is excellent rated at 16 hours. Of course, this depends on volume and content being played, at medium volumes, I saw a consistent 14.5 hrs of playback time which remains an excellent result. Besides the basic controls, a 6th button toggles between two sound profiles. The outdoor mode lowers bass quantity and rolls-off extension but increases clarity and maximum volume. I preferred to keep it off, however, I can see applications where this feature would be very welcome too.
Sound –
Testing Methodology: Paired over BT (SBC) to Google Pixel 4.
I’ve found it good practice to include some disclaimers in my sound analysis and a reference for my comments. I find the gold standard for Bluetooth speakers to be the Denon Envaya mini which showcases strong end to end extension, respectable balance and even some stereo separation. That said, I do not expect chest-thumping sub-bass or pinpoint precise transients. These are portable speakers with small transducers, I believe a successful design may convince me that this is not the case. Some do, most do not.
Tonality –
With that said, the UBOOM is pretty darn convincing. This speaker offers a warm, laid-back top-end with smooth, intelligible vocals and impressive warmth and fullness down low. Bass extension is no surprise, there’s no sub-bass and just a little mid-bass thump, warmth and body being derived from the upper-bass. The midrange is well-present, lightly warmed and mostly clear. Highs take a backseat and carry little crispness or detail presence. It’s a punchy and full sound that’s easy to like at first impression as it really carries no critical flaws. Similarly, there’s nothing spectacular about it technically or tonally, simply a safe and palatable experience. At a low asking price and alongside a convincing set of features, I see nothing wrong with that.
Bass –
I have never been enthusiastic about the low end on small-medium Bluetooth speaker that either lack fullness entirely or offer some thump but only at high volumes. Few buck that trend, the UBOOM is one of them. There isn’t any sub-bass and little mid-bass as aforementioned, but a punchy low-end nonetheless. Notes are full, inflated by virtue of a hump in the upper-bass. Timbre is off and it sounds tubby and bloated but also thick, warm and full, even at low volumes which already makes this speaker a winner in its size category.
Furthermore, there’s still some note separation and definition with enough punch to maintain rhythm and pace in addition to enough fullness to suit outdoor listening. The outdoor mode is basically a low-pass filter, cutting out the mid-bass entirely and serving mostly to clean up the midrange. This isn’t a HiFi low-end but a pleasant one for a small Bluetooth speaker, yet alone one so affordable.
Mids –
I was relieved to hear that such fullness didn’t come at the cost of vocal intelligibility especially as buyers investing in portable speakers may also want to use them to stream videos. As there is a dip in the frequency response between bass and midrange, vocals are not overly warm and they have a pleasing sirrupy smoothness without any stridence or shoutiness. There’s a hint of muffle creeping into male vocals and they can be a touch laid-back at times. However, for the most part, vocals are defined and separated from the low-end.
Female vocals are well-represented, smooth, euphonic and lightly warm yet balanced with the bass in presence and possessing good clarity. This is improved with the outdoor mode that enhances the upper-midrange, aiding clarity and vocal extension in addition to filtering out some warmth from the bass which contributes to a more transparent image. As such, the eQ system serves to increase the versatility of its sound. There’s greater fullness when off, suiting music, while turning the mode on cleans up the male vocal muffle, well-suiting videos and other media.
Highs –
The top-end is smooth and unoffensive, providing a bit of presence in the lower-treble but without much crispness or note attack yet alone extension higher up. Of course, you would be hard-pressed to find a portable Bluetooth speaker with a real treble response, the 1st gen UE Boom has basically no treble just to name an example and the Envaya Mini is the only one I would call even mediocre. But critical listening has never been the intention of these products so instead what the UBOOM provides is smooth, laid-back highs with just enough presence to create some openness and to remind the listener that the instruments are there in the music.
Percussion is blunted but there also isn’t a hint of fatigue or sharpness. This is a palatable result and fairly common for consumer gear; I find it aligns well with the ethos of the product, giving the bass and midrange more room to breathe whilst avoiding stridence at high volume listening. Additionally, though the UBOOM is technically a stereo speaker, due to its design there isn’t real stereo separation, rather favouring a wider listening field. I also hear some sort of cross feed effect which contributes to this impression, so while there is some directionality, it’s clear this isn’t the purpose of this speaker.
Comparisons –
Blitzwolf BW-AS1 ($59): Now the same price as the UBOOM, the AS1 brings a more conventional stereo form factor with similar driver setup and a more premium aluminium build. In so doing, it has no water resistance, less output power (20W vs 24W), an older BT standard and a lower battery life rating. The AS1 has better bass extension with better balance between the mid and upper-bass but also less bass overall, meaning it sounds deeper but also leaner. The UBOOM will probably please more listeners with its fuller and warmer sound here. This works to the AS1’s advantage in the midrange, however, which is more defined and balanced with no muffle. On the contrary, the AS1 is rather thin in the midrange so though clear some may prefer the UBOOM’s smoother, warmer sound even at the cost of occasional male vocal muffle.
Highs are a touch crisper on the AS1, there’s more note attack and a bit more separation and detail retrieval. The AS1 also has better directionality and stereo separation though off-axis it drops off in volume where the UBOOM projects over a larger field. Both have very high maximum volume, the UBOOM especially so with outdoor mode. I think this will come down to user preference. The UBOOM is a warmer, smoother and more musical sounding speaker, the AS1 is cleaner and clearer. The UBOOM has the benefit of two sound profiles which to me, makes it more sonically versatile.
Denon Envaya Mini ($99): At a modest price premium, the Envaya Mini brings a more premium sound and build and similar feature set. In addition, it is more compact and supports Apt-X but also has substantially shorter battery life, around 5 hours, and lower max volume by a fair degree. However, within its volume range which I’ve found sufficient for smaller outdoor get-togethers, the Envaya sounds noticeably better, more balanced, more controlled, more extended on both ends. It has a real mid-bass response, delivering more extension and definition in addition to less of a humped presentation in the upper-bass while retaining enough presence to uphold fullness and warmth.
As it is more linear, its midrange is clearer and cleaner with less muffle and more separation and vocal intelligibility. The female vocal presentation is actually a bit better on the UBOOM, being a bit over-smooth on the Envaya. However, the Denon is more balanced between male and female vocals in terms of presence. The Envaya Mini also has a more substantial treble. It’s crisp with a lot more detail. The Envaya also has a soundstage with directionality and some form of imaging, very impressive stuff for a portable speaker. If you can find one, hold onto it as this market isn’t really innovating at the moment. Still, it’s good to see some great value products come out such as the UBOOM.
Verdict –
The portable Bluetooth speaker market has come far from the first generation and we’re now reliably seeing some bass reproduction and more recently, the ability to work that into a more coherent whole. The UBOOM is a strong option, not just in its price class but amongst smaller speakers in general. It keeps up well with consumer options costing multiples more such as the UE Boom and provides a warm, full sound that is easily likeable and appealing. In a nutshell, the UBOOM doesn’t do things competitors can’t, but nails the same fundamentals with similar refinement at a lower asking price. The entire experience feels polished and quality while the RRP is kept affordable for the consumer. The two sound profiles serve as a great addition for those with mixed-use cases, making the speaker very versatile, especially alongside its tough, waterproof build and excellent battery life. If you’re looking for a portable Bluetooth speaker, the UBOOM will leave the majority of buyers wanting little more. If you’re looking for a bit more balance without sacrificing fullness, expect to pay quite a bit more.
Thanks for reading! If you enjoyed my review, please see my website for more just like it!
Track List –
Bazzi – Soul Searching
Chance the Rapper – The big Day
City Girl – Neon Impasse
Eagles – Hell Freezes Over
Jackson Lundy – Calypso
Keshi – skeletons
NIKI – Zephyr
Post Malone – beerbongs & Bentleys
The UBOOM is a versatile speaker suiting mixed-use cases, especially with its tough, waterproof build and excellent battery life.
Introduction –
Earfun is a new audio manufacturer from China with a focus on the ultra-budget market. Their team comprises of industrial and acoustic engineers in addition to music enthusiasts that enable them to bring some surprisingly refined products to life at reasonable prices affordable to all. The UBOOM is one of their lesser discussed models on the net, but to my ears strikes as one of their most impressive. Fundamentally, this speaker competes with market leaders such as the UE Boom but at a very palatable $60 USD asking price. And from first listen, that money gets you one hell of a Bluetooth speaker. You can read more about Earfun and treat yourself to a UBOOM here.
Disclaimer –
I would like to thank Earfun very much for their quick communication and for providing me with the UBOOM for the purpose of review. I purchased the Oluv X Earfun Free with my own funds from their Indigogo campaign and was contacted by the company after releasing impressions online. All words are my own and there is no monetary incentive for a positive review, however, I did conduct a paid photoshoot for the company. Despite receiving the speaker itself free of cost, I will attempt to be as objective as possible in my evaluation.
Tech Specs –
Bluetooth Version: V5.0 (A2DP, AVRCP, HFP, HSP)
Transducer: 2 x 45mm
Output Power: 2 x 12W
Signal-to-noise Ratio: >=80dB
Battery: 7.4V, 2200mAh
Input Power: 5V/2A
Play Time: Up to 16 hours (varies by volume level and audio content)
Charging Time: About 4 hours
Dimensions: 166.5x88x88(mm) / 6.5×3.5×3.5(inch)
Weight: 585g / 20.63oz
The Pitch –
Premium Acoustics
The UBOOM features a sophisticated driver setup with two 12W 45mm full-range drivers paired with dual passive radiators and DSP to achieve full sound over a wide listening field. Passive radiators increase the effective volume of the enclosure and therefore, permits better low-frequency extension, but only with wide excursion drivers as they possess no voice coil of their own. As such, these speakers often sound anemic at low volumes.
Source: Earfun UBOOM Product Page
However, much like the more premium Envaya Mini, I hear some volume compensation on behalf of that sound processing chip too. This aids a warm, punchy sound throughout the volume range by increasing bass at lower volumes and tapering it off at higher volumes where this isn’t necessary and may cause further distortion. The speaker also features two eQ presets, a fuller setting for indoor listening and an outdoor setting for greater intelligibility and volume output sans distortion.
Design –
The Speaker is simple yet appealing with a tough fabric exterior and rubber end caps that absorb shock and prevent the speaker from vibrating on solid surfaces. A yellow tag adds some accent while aiding portable use by enabling attachment to a backpack when used outdoors. It can only be used upright but is stable and without rattles or wandering at high volumes due to its thick rubber base and pleasing density. The speaker feels very solid in the hand and well-constructed on a whole with no give or rough edges.
The top panel contains the power, pairing and music control buttons housed beneath a rubber fascia. They are embellished for tactility and provide good feedback. Meanwhile, aux and power input are located on the rear of the base with grommet sealed lid for ingress protection. The UBOOM charges over USB-C which is good to see on a budget speaker. This is a medium-sized speaker overall and reasonably heavy at 585g, so it isn’t pocketable but is certainly still very portable, its round form factor slotting comfortably into cup or bottle holders especially.
Usability –
Pairing the speaker is very simple as there is a dedicated Bluetooth pairing button and once connected, it will auto-connect to previously paired devices. When paired, connection was stable with no dropouts and very decent range too. I was able to cross two rooms with double brick walls before audio became intermittent and with line of sight, the range will be substantially higher. The speaker supports BT5.0 and can be paired in stereo alongside a second UBOOM unit. Codec support is limited, however, with no higher bitrate codecs such as LDAC, Apt-X or AAC being supported. Arguably, there isn’t enough fidelity in a portable BT speaker to appreciate the difference, and I can agree with cost-saving here especially considering the asking price and that the rest of the wireless experience is sound.
Latency was quite low too, with noticeable but not obtrusive lip sync when watching videos. Meanwhile, ingress protection is rated at IPX7 meaning the speaker can be fully submerged for up to 30 minutes, great for pool parties and the beach where these types of products excel. The speaker also floats and the fabric itself is tough and plasticky so it resists fraying and doesn’t pick up water meaning the speaker can easily be dried after use. Meanwhile, battery life is excellent rated at 16 hours. Of course, this depends on volume and content being played, at medium volumes, I saw a consistent 14.5 hrs of playback time which remains an excellent result. Besides the basic controls, a 6th button toggles between two sound profiles. The outdoor mode lowers bass quantity and rolls-off extension but increases clarity and maximum volume. I preferred to keep it off, however, I can see applications where this feature would be very welcome too.
Sound –
Testing Methodology: Paired over BT (SBC) to Google Pixel 4.
I’ve found it good practice to include some disclaimers in my sound analysis and a reference for my comments. I find the gold standard for Bluetooth speakers to be the Denon Envaya mini which showcases strong end to end extension, respectable balance and even some stereo separation. That said, I do not expect chest-thumping sub-bass or pinpoint precise transients. These are portable speakers with small transducers, I believe a successful design may convince me that this is not the case. Some do, most do not.
Tonality –
With that said, the UBOOM is pretty darn convincing. This speaker offers a warm, laid-back top-end with smooth, intelligible vocals and impressive warmth and fullness down low. Bass extension is no surprise, there’s no sub-bass and just a little mid-bass thump, warmth and body being derived from the upper-bass. The midrange is well-present, lightly warmed and mostly clear. Highs take a backseat and carry little crispness or detail presence. It’s a punchy and full sound that’s easy to like at first impression as it really carries no critical flaws. Similarly, there’s nothing spectacular about it technically or tonally, simply a safe and palatable experience. At a low asking price and alongside a convincing set of features, I see nothing wrong with that.
Bass –
I have never been enthusiastic about the low end on small-medium Bluetooth speaker that either lack fullness entirely or offer some thump but only at high volumes. Few buck that trend, the UBOOM is one of them. There isn’t any sub-bass and little mid-bass as aforementioned, but a punchy low-end nonetheless. Notes are full, inflated by virtue of a hump in the upper-bass. Timbre is off and it sounds tubby and bloated but also thick, warm and full, even at low volumes which already makes this speaker a winner in its size category.
Furthermore, there’s still some note separation and definition with enough punch to maintain rhythm and pace in addition to enough fullness to suit outdoor listening. The outdoor mode is basically a low-pass filter, cutting out the mid-bass entirely and serving mostly to clean up the midrange. This isn’t a HiFi low-end but a pleasant one for a small Bluetooth speaker, yet alone one so affordable.
Mids –
I was relieved to hear that such fullness didn’t come at the cost of vocal intelligibility especially as buyers investing in portable speakers may also want to use them to stream videos. As there is a dip in the frequency response between bass and midrange, vocals are not overly warm and they have a pleasing sirrupy smoothness without any stridence or shoutiness. There’s a hint of muffle creeping into male vocals and they can be a touch laid-back at times. However, for the most part, vocals are defined and separated from the low-end.
Female vocals are well-represented, smooth, euphonic and lightly warm yet balanced with the bass in presence and possessing good clarity. This is improved with the outdoor mode that enhances the upper-midrange, aiding clarity and vocal extension in addition to filtering out some warmth from the bass which contributes to a more transparent image. As such, the eQ system serves to increase the versatility of its sound. There’s greater fullness when off, suiting music, while turning the mode on cleans up the male vocal muffle, well-suiting videos and other media.
Highs –
The top-end is smooth and unoffensive, providing a bit of presence in the lower-treble but without much crispness or note attack yet alone extension higher up. Of course, you would be hard-pressed to find a portable Bluetooth speaker with a real treble response, the 1st gen UE Boom has basically no treble just to name an example and the Envaya Mini is the only one I would call even mediocre. But critical listening has never been the intention of these products so instead what the UBOOM provides is smooth, laid-back highs with just enough presence to create some openness and to remind the listener that the instruments are there in the music.
Percussion is blunted but there also isn’t a hint of fatigue or sharpness. This is a palatable result and fairly common for consumer gear; I find it aligns well with the ethos of the product, giving the bass and midrange more room to breathe whilst avoiding stridence at high volume listening. Additionally, though the UBOOM is technically a stereo speaker, due to its design there isn’t real stereo separation, rather favouring a wider listening field. I also hear some sort of cross feed effect which contributes to this impression, so while there is some directionality, it’s clear this isn’t the purpose of this speaker.
Comparisons –
Blitzwolf BW-AS1 ($59): Now the same price as the UBOOM, the AS1 brings a more conventional stereo form factor with similar driver setup and a more premium aluminium build. In so doing, it has no water resistance, less output power (20W vs 24W), an older BT standard and a lower battery life rating. The AS1 has better bass extension with better balance between the mid and upper-bass but also less bass overall, meaning it sounds deeper but also leaner. The UBOOM will probably please more listeners with its fuller and warmer sound here. This works to the AS1’s advantage in the midrange, however, which is more defined and balanced with no muffle. On the contrary, the AS1 is rather thin in the midrange so though clear some may prefer the UBOOM’s smoother, warmer sound even at the cost of occasional male vocal muffle.
Highs are a touch crisper on the AS1, there’s more note attack and a bit more separation and detail retrieval. The AS1 also has better directionality and stereo separation though off-axis it drops off in volume where the UBOOM projects over a larger field. Both have very high maximum volume, the UBOOM especially so with outdoor mode. I think this will come down to user preference. The UBOOM is a warmer, smoother and more musical sounding speaker, the AS1 is cleaner and clearer. The UBOOM has the benefit of two sound profiles which to me, makes it more sonically versatile.
Denon Envaya Mini ($99): At a modest price premium, the Envaya Mini brings a more premium sound and build and similar feature set. In addition, it is more compact and supports Apt-X but also has substantially shorter battery life, around 5 hours, and lower max volume by a fair degree. However, within its volume range which I’ve found sufficient for smaller outdoor get-togethers, the Envaya sounds noticeably better, more balanced, more controlled, more extended on both ends. It has a real mid-bass response, delivering more extension and definition in addition to less of a humped presentation in the upper-bass while retaining enough presence to uphold fullness and warmth.
As it is more linear, its midrange is clearer and cleaner with less muffle and more separation and vocal intelligibility. The female vocal presentation is actually a bit better on the UBOOM, being a bit over-smooth on the Envaya. However, the Denon is more balanced between male and female vocals in terms of presence. The Envaya Mini also has a more substantial treble. It’s crisp with a lot more detail. The Envaya also has a soundstage with directionality and some form of imaging, very impressive stuff for a portable speaker. If you can find one, hold onto it as this market isn’t really innovating at the moment. Still, it’s good to see some great value products come out such as the UBOOM.
Verdict –
The portable Bluetooth speaker market has come far from the first generation and we’re now reliably seeing some bass reproduction and more recently, the ability to work that into a more coherent whole. The UBOOM is a strong option, not just in its price class but amongst smaller speakers in general. It keeps up well with consumer options costing multiples more such as the UE Boom and provides a warm, full sound that is easily likeable and appealing. In a nutshell, the UBOOM doesn’t do things competitors can’t, but nails the same fundamentals with similar refinement at a lower asking price. The entire experience feels polished and quality while the RRP is kept affordable for the consumer. The two sound profiles serve as a great addition for those with mixed-use cases, making the speaker very versatile, especially alongside its tough, waterproof build and excellent battery life. If you’re looking for a portable Bluetooth speaker, the UBOOM will leave the majority of buyers wanting little more. If you’re looking for a bit more balance without sacrificing fullness, expect to pay quite a bit more.
Thanks for reading! If you enjoyed my review, please see my website for more just like it!
Track List –
Bazzi – Soul Searching
Chance the Rapper – The big Day
City Girl – Neon Impasse
Eagles – Hell Freezes Over
Jackson Lundy – Calypso
Keshi – skeletons
NIKI – Zephyr
Post Malone – beerbongs & Bentleys
TLDR -
The Hi-mDAC isn’t perfectly neutral but provides an open, tonally transparent and surprisingly expansive listen at a compact price and size.
Introduction –
The Taiwanese company NuPrime is a fairly new name to the audio industry and certainly reminiscent of NuForce with which many will be familiar with. The name change occurred when the company was re-acquired by its co-founder Jason Lim who bought back the high-end division and formed the new company. NuPrime focus on in-house research and development, with their own engineering and design team, they are able to deliver highly competitive pricing for the consumer. Their main focus is high-end reference sources that extend well into the 4-digit price range. Yet, here for review is a very accessible portable DAC/AMP with a modest 139 Euro price tag. The Hi-mDAC is the company’s first portable source and one that filters down a lot of their team’s expertise. You can read more about NuPrime and the Hi-mDAC and treat yourself to one here.
Disclaimer –
I would like to thank NuPrime very much for providing me with the Hi-mDAC for the purpose of review. All words are my own and there is no monetary incentive for a positive review. Despite receiving the DAC/AMP free of cost, I will attempt to be as objective as possible in my evaluation.
Tech Specs –
Input: 1 X USB (32-bit/384kHz & DSD256 decoding)
Output: 3.5mm analogue or 3.5mm optical (PCM 192kHz, DoP64)
Frequency Response: 20-20kHz +/- 0.5dB
S/N Ratio: > 100 dB (20-20kHz A-weighted)
THD+N: 0.005% @ 1mW
Dimensions: 5.0cm x 2.2cm x 1.2cm
The Pitch –
Cirrus Logic DAC
The Hi-mDAC is using the CS43131 lower power DAC with integrated amplifier. It can decode up to 32-bit/384KHz PCM and native DSD 256. The DAC also features optical output in the form of S/PDIF and DoP stream. The integrated amplifier is capable of outputting up to 2v RMS into a 600ohm load and around 30mW per channel into a 32ohm load. This means heaps of volume and pretty decent current output for a low-power chipset. Furthermore, NuPrime is using their own discrete USB communication chipset which has wider support than the XMOS 2XX chips more commonly available on the market.
Design –
The Hi-mDAC is CNC machined from two pieces of aluminium with mirror glass faceplate. It’s a very industrial design with squared-off edges and a rugged texture that provides great tactility. The level of finish is good but not outstanding. For instance, the two halves of the housing were slightly offset on my unit as can be observed above. I would also have preferred smoother edges as the sharp corners may scratch the accompanying device if not used with a case and screen protector.
Otherwise, it’s a clean and minimalist device. There’s a USB-C input on one end and headphone/optical output on the other. The left side houses matching aluminium volume buttons that provide a satisfying clicky action. The mirrored faceplate also houses a status LED that only becomes visible when the device is powered on. Ultimately, the design is attractive while upholding convincing density and sense of quality, just watch those corners.
Usability –
The Hi-mDAC will be immediately familiar to anyone who’s used a portable DAC/AMP before. There’s a driver on NuPrime’s website, however, I found it was recognized without it on my Windows 10 laptop. The DAC also functioned perfectly with my Google Pixel 4. It automatically powers on when connected to a source, through which it derives power, and a headphone or earphone is connected to the output. When either is removed, the device powers off.
Listening to the Hi-mDAC, there is clearly very solid power at play, however, I did also notice a fairly obnoxious pop when plugging in or unplugging earphones or the DAC itself. As such, it’s best to ensure no music is playing before plugging the earphones in. This is good practice, but not something that most DAC/AMPs require these days. There are a plethora of very fine volume steps which is great for those that intend to use them for both IEMs and headphones. However, conversely, it can become tiring shuffling through so many volume steps between gear of different sensitivity.
Sound –
As always, there are fundamentals we expect from a good quality audiophile source. With a portable DAC/AMP such as this, huge driving power is not feasible, especially given the limited output power offered by most source devices to power them. As such, it is reasonable to instead prioritise a linear frequency response, low output-impedance and an absence of hiss and interference. I’ll be analysing the performance of this DAC/AMP in isolation, then by comparison to competitors in its price and form factor to better establish price/performance and its best use cases.
Frequency Response –
Testing Methodology: RMAA via Startech External Sound Card
The Hi-mDAC measures perfectly linear with no bass roll-off or other oddities, thereby, reproducing audio with great fidelity and without introduction colouration. Due to the quality of my sound card, I am unable to reliably test other measures such as distortion and crosstalk so they will be used as a personal reference only. Qualities here can also impact the sound as I will detail via subjective listening.
Output Impedance & Hiss –
Testing Methodology: SPL volume matched comparison through an inline splitter to JDS Labs Atom + Khadas tone board to Campfire Audio Andromeda
Comparing between the Atom and Hi-mDAC provided very similar tonality to the extent that I would suggest the NuPrime has a sub-1.5-ohm output impedance. This is expected given that this is an integrated Cirrus amplifier which generally produces such results. As such, the Hi-mDAC will be a great choice for low-impedance multi-driver IEMs and will not skew their signature. This is compounded upon by a black noise floor. On low to medium volumes, which was all my ears could handle with such a sensitive IEM, I noticed zero background noise. No hiss, no odd interference, I would intimate that the Hi-mDAC is well-shielded and will be a great companion to laptops and phones as a result. As such, this DAC/AMP is a great choice even for low-volume listeners with sensitive IEMs who want a perfectly black noise floor.
Subjective –
Though I am confident in NuPrime’s products, I was apprehensive about the Hi-mDAC’s lack of specifications. Many manufacturers are proud to tout their ruler flat measurements and specs on their website, however, few are to be found on NuPrime’s. That said, what I hear here is a very sound Cirrus implementation that carries the strong traits of an integrated chipset. Despite my best efforts to volume match, I did hear a slightly brighter presentation from the Hi-mDAC but one that was underpinned by excellent technical ability with clean, defined transients. As always, this being a source with low output impedance and a linear frequency response, my sound analysis comments will be referring to the minutiae that cannot be compared to the differences between different earphones per say.
Testing Methodology: SPL volume matched comparison through an inline splitter to JDS Labs Atom + Khadas tone board to Custom Art Fibae 7 (flat impedance). Powered by Pixel 4 with Poweramp Pro via high-resolution output.
Immediately, sub-bass extension is good but not its strongest asset, lacking the extension and power of the desktop stack, which is to be expected. That said, this impression was exacerbated by the Hi-mDAC’s generally lighter sub-bass character, with slightly softer slam and rumble in exchange for a smaller note size that enables greater separation through the mid-bass. The remaining bass is linear and very clean as a result, aided by concise attack and quick decay that uphold great pace and low-end organisation. This is an especially punchy and highly defined presentation with good dynamics, if one that’s lacking just a little depth.
The midrange is transparent besides a hint of additional vocal extension that gives it an open presentation. Mids possess neutral tone and body, instigating an accurate timbre to both vocals and instruments. I hear the slightest addition of energy in the upper-midrange that grants its open and floaty character, trading density and placement stability for enhanced clarity. Vocals are also brought slightly forward though without becoming intense or thin. Still, notes have more substance on the desktop setup in addition to higher resolution. Regardless, for a portable source, the presentation is well-resolved and is especially tonally neutral which will surely suit warmer IEMs and headphones.
Highs are slightly aggressive in terms of detail presentation and the background is a touch brighter than my desktop stack too. There’s a hint of warmth to foreground treble instrumentation, they are portrayed with convincing bodied and euphony which mitigates some of the DAC’s brightness. Meanwhile, note attack is sharp and decay is on the natural side, producing a densely detailed and textured portrayal of instruments while retaining pleasing control and composition. The background is slightly bright which brings background details to the fore. Resolution is surprisingly good as is extension and micro-detail retrieval but I find the background to glare over these fine details in some instances, again I find this source to appeal best to warmer, smoother earphones where listeners will find it to invigorate their presentation.
It is with regards to soundstage that the Hi-mDAC performs best, crafting a very spacious presentation that belies its diminutive form factor. Width essentially matches the desktop stack while depth is just slightly more intimate due to its slightly forward vocals. Its main downfall is imaging, which certainly offers a keen sense of direction due to clean and defined transients, but also less stable positioning. The centre image is slightly diffuse with a tendency to push vocals and instruments to the sides. Furthermore, layers aren’t especially defined as there is reduced foreground/background contrast. This also affects treble separation though their transient response does do a lot to redeem fine details there. Separation is best showcased in the bass and midrange where the source is more transparent and performs at a good level.
Driving Power –
Meze Rai Penta (110dB, 20 ohms): The Penta is efficient and scales very well with clean power. Sub-bass is lacking just a hint of weight but is very tight. Meanwhile, mid-bass is defined with keen attack and natural decay. Mids are slightly forward but natural in timbre and tone. Highs are very well-detailed with pleasing air and resolution. The soundstage is very wide, slightly more intimate in depth and imaging is sharp. No hiss.
Final Audio E5000 (93dB, 14 ohms): There is plenty of volume and good extension, the NuPrime actually helps to clean up the low-end with reduced sub-bass presence and a more separated mid-bass. Notes are defined with good attack and drive. Mids are natural and retain their smoothness, there’s a hint of additional vocal intimacy and clarity which is also welcome on the warm, dense E5000. Highs are well-detailed with clean transients and the background is black. The soundstage is very large and imaging is sharp, a great pairing with no hiss.
Hifiman Sundara (94dB, 37ohms): Being a planar the Sundara needs some power and a low output impedance. I was very shocked by this pairing, the NuPrime did a terrific job driving these headphones. Surely, the Atom provided a more sub-bass depth and power, but the mid-bass was tight and well-present on both, dynamics were surprisingly convincing. The mids and highs very much resembled each other, vocals were just a touch warmer on the NuPrime and cleaner on the Atom but similar in size and positioning. There was a touch more resolution on the desktop setup in the highs in addition to slightly more defined layering and a slightly larger stage. But again, the presentation was very convincing on a whole from the NuPrime.
Suggested Pair-ups
Cirrus state 30mW per channel into a 32-ohm load which sounds appropriate for a DAC/AMP this size. However, as it’s not stated on the NuPrime website, I have no real way of discerning its actual specifications. That said, I do hear very solid driving power for a compact, portable source. I would suggest that use cases for the Hi-mDAC are similar to the DragonFly dongles, being sufficient for in-ears, portable headphones and some full-size headphones. I wouldn’t want to power a 600-ohm behemoth, but even modestly efficient dynamic driver and planar headphones actually sound quite convincing with the mDAC. Due to its tonality, I find it to best suit smooth, warm gear where it injects a bit more clarity and openness.
Comparisons –
Shanling UP2 ($79): The UP2 makes for interesting comparison as one of the more concise and balanced sounding Bluetooth receivers I’ve tested. Both represent great solutions to the jack-less smartphone epidemic. The Hi-mDAC provides noticeably better sub-bass extension but both have a similarly light quantity here, producing a slightly thinner note body and more separated mid-bass. Notes are more defined on the Hi-mDAC, the UP2 having a slower decay and softer attack.
Through the midrange, both have a similar intimacy, the Hi-mDAC having a more forward vocal presentation, the UP2 just having a narrower presentation. The Hi-mDAC has higher resolution and note definition, it is more tonally transparent while the UP2 has a touch more warmth. Up top, the Hi-mDAC is more detailed with noticeably more extension and air. The UP2 has a smoother foreground and its transients are hazier. The Hi-mDAC has a much wider soundstage while the UP2 is more intimate but with a more stable presentation.
Zorloo ZuperDAC-S ($89): The ZuperDAC is a more dynamic source, quite linear besides a slight sub-bass bump. It offers more depth and a surprising amount of additional sub-bass weight at the very bottom. Its notes are thicker and fuller but its transients are a touch hazier. Still, the ZuperDAC plenty of attack and a very punchy low-end where the Hi-mDAC is more neutral, somewhat clinical and less dynamic. The midrange presentation is quite similar on both, being fairly neutral in body and a touch forward in positioning.
There’s a slight warmth on the ZuperDAC from its more prominent low-end. Meanwhile, the Hi-mDAC is more neutral but slightly more vocal forward. It has noticeably higher note resolution and definition than the ZuperDAC, sounding more refined. Up top, the Zorloo is more aggressive once again but also thinner and less detailed with the Hi-mDAC being more realistic if with a brighter background. The Hi-mDAC has better extension with greater background detail retrieval. The Hi-mDAC has a larger soundstage with sharper imaging.
Cozoy Takt Pro ($289): The Takt Pro is a bit more linear sounding overall, chiefly due to its low-end. There is noticeably more sub-bass power and depth on the Takt Pro. Furthermore, the mid-bass carries a light warmth granting it a fuller note body and more solid punch. The Hi-mDAC is cleaner and more separated with similarly concise attack, however, overall it is less commanding. The midrange follows suit, the Hi-mDAC offering a touch more clarity and extension, the Takt Pro greater body and density. Resolution is higher on the Hi-mDAC and the presentation is more clinical while the Takt Pro is smoother and more musical.
Up top, both sound similar, being slightly crisp with sharp note attack, the Hi-mDAC ‘s transient response being a touch sharper though I hear similar extension and resolution here. The chief difference is the background, being darker on the Takt-C, brighter and more open on the Hi-mDAC, suiting different pairings. Nonetheless, the Hi-mDAC has a noticeably wider soundstage where the Takt Pro has more depth on behalf of the mDAC’s more intimate vocal presentation. Imaging is just as sharp on both with the Takt Pro offering a more stable presentation with a stronger centre image, the Hi-mDAC have more defined layers and atmosphere.
JDS Labs Atom + Khadas Tone Board (~$200): The budget desktop reference setup offers a very transparent sound throughout and I subjectively hear a small sub-bass emphasis. Much like the other sources, it has noticeably more sub-bass body, both as a result of greater linearity into the lowest lows and better extension and drive. The setup has a slightly thicker note body, its attack isn’t as fast but decay is quicker so separation and note definition are essentially as good. The midrange is more transparent in size and position on the Atom/Khadas with the Hi-mDAC being more forward and clear but also a touch bright and nasal in terms of timbre. Up top, the desktop setup is again, more linear with a touch more detail retrieval in the foreground and sparkle at the very top.
It is more easily discerned as the background is cleaner and darker, granting it more foreground/background contrast and more defined layers. The desktop rig has a slightly larger soundstage and more stable imaging. We would all expect this given the size differences and less conventional presentation of the Hi-mDAC, yet many would consider sources to be just as much about synergy as about individual performance. Still, the benefit of a reference setup is that it enables the characters of other gear and the source material to shine through and, therefore, for myself especially as a reviewer represents the ideal.
Verdict –
Starting at the basics, the Hi-mDAC ticks all the boxed; the output impedance is low, the noise floor black to my ears and the frequency response ruler flat. Add on high volume output and strong driving power that even suits some full-size headphones and this is already a very versatile purchase. The bane of the compact source is that it sounds, well, compact. A few have bucked this trend, offering surprising refinement though none that I’ve tried have really broken out of that box. And it with regards to this quality that the Hi-mDAC finds its the strongest asset, delivering a grand, expansive soundstage that essentially matches an entry-level reference desktop setup. That’s not to say that it mirrors its presentation, but it does get shockingly close at times. The caveats will come down to its slight brightness within the upper-midrange and middle-treble meaning that it best suits a warmer setup alongside its sharp-edged design. Otherwise, the Hi-mDAC really surprised me, it isn’t perfectly neutral but is open, tonally transparent and surprisingly expansive listen at a compact price and size.
The Hi-mDAC is available from on NuPrime (International) for EUR 139 at the time of writing. I am not affiliated with NuPrime and receive no earnings from purchases through this link.
Thanks for reading! If you enjoyed my review, please see my website for more just like it!
The Hi-mDAC isn’t perfectly neutral but provides an open, tonally transparent and surprisingly expansive listen at a compact price and size.
Introduction –
The Taiwanese company NuPrime is a fairly new name to the audio industry and certainly reminiscent of NuForce with which many will be familiar with. The name change occurred when the company was re-acquired by its co-founder Jason Lim who bought back the high-end division and formed the new company. NuPrime focus on in-house research and development, with their own engineering and design team, they are able to deliver highly competitive pricing for the consumer. Their main focus is high-end reference sources that extend well into the 4-digit price range. Yet, here for review is a very accessible portable DAC/AMP with a modest 139 Euro price tag. The Hi-mDAC is the company’s first portable source and one that filters down a lot of their team’s expertise. You can read more about NuPrime and the Hi-mDAC and treat yourself to one here.
Disclaimer –
I would like to thank NuPrime very much for providing me with the Hi-mDAC for the purpose of review. All words are my own and there is no monetary incentive for a positive review. Despite receiving the DAC/AMP free of cost, I will attempt to be as objective as possible in my evaluation.
Tech Specs –
Input: 1 X USB (32-bit/384kHz & DSD256 decoding)
Output: 3.5mm analogue or 3.5mm optical (PCM 192kHz, DoP64)
Frequency Response: 20-20kHz +/- 0.5dB
S/N Ratio: > 100 dB (20-20kHz A-weighted)
THD+N: 0.005% @ 1mW
Dimensions: 5.0cm x 2.2cm x 1.2cm
The Pitch –
Cirrus Logic DAC
The Hi-mDAC is using the CS43131 lower power DAC with integrated amplifier. It can decode up to 32-bit/384KHz PCM and native DSD 256. The DAC also features optical output in the form of S/PDIF and DoP stream. The integrated amplifier is capable of outputting up to 2v RMS into a 600ohm load and around 30mW per channel into a 32ohm load. This means heaps of volume and pretty decent current output for a low-power chipset. Furthermore, NuPrime is using their own discrete USB communication chipset which has wider support than the XMOS 2XX chips more commonly available on the market.
Design –
The Hi-mDAC is CNC machined from two pieces of aluminium with mirror glass faceplate. It’s a very industrial design with squared-off edges and a rugged texture that provides great tactility. The level of finish is good but not outstanding. For instance, the two halves of the housing were slightly offset on my unit as can be observed above. I would also have preferred smoother edges as the sharp corners may scratch the accompanying device if not used with a case and screen protector.
Otherwise, it’s a clean and minimalist device. There’s a USB-C input on one end and headphone/optical output on the other. The left side houses matching aluminium volume buttons that provide a satisfying clicky action. The mirrored faceplate also houses a status LED that only becomes visible when the device is powered on. Ultimately, the design is attractive while upholding convincing density and sense of quality, just watch those corners.
Usability –
The Hi-mDAC will be immediately familiar to anyone who’s used a portable DAC/AMP before. There’s a driver on NuPrime’s website, however, I found it was recognized without it on my Windows 10 laptop. The DAC also functioned perfectly with my Google Pixel 4. It automatically powers on when connected to a source, through which it derives power, and a headphone or earphone is connected to the output. When either is removed, the device powers off.
Listening to the Hi-mDAC, there is clearly very solid power at play, however, I did also notice a fairly obnoxious pop when plugging in or unplugging earphones or the DAC itself. As such, it’s best to ensure no music is playing before plugging the earphones in. This is good practice, but not something that most DAC/AMPs require these days. There are a plethora of very fine volume steps which is great for those that intend to use them for both IEMs and headphones. However, conversely, it can become tiring shuffling through so many volume steps between gear of different sensitivity.
Sound –
As always, there are fundamentals we expect from a good quality audiophile source. With a portable DAC/AMP such as this, huge driving power is not feasible, especially given the limited output power offered by most source devices to power them. As such, it is reasonable to instead prioritise a linear frequency response, low output-impedance and an absence of hiss and interference. I’ll be analysing the performance of this DAC/AMP in isolation, then by comparison to competitors in its price and form factor to better establish price/performance and its best use cases.
Frequency Response –
Testing Methodology: RMAA via Startech External Sound Card
The Hi-mDAC measures perfectly linear with no bass roll-off or other oddities, thereby, reproducing audio with great fidelity and without introduction colouration. Due to the quality of my sound card, I am unable to reliably test other measures such as distortion and crosstalk so they will be used as a personal reference only. Qualities here can also impact the sound as I will detail via subjective listening.
Output Impedance & Hiss –
Testing Methodology: SPL volume matched comparison through an inline splitter to JDS Labs Atom + Khadas tone board to Campfire Audio Andromeda
Comparing between the Atom and Hi-mDAC provided very similar tonality to the extent that I would suggest the NuPrime has a sub-1.5-ohm output impedance. This is expected given that this is an integrated Cirrus amplifier which generally produces such results. As such, the Hi-mDAC will be a great choice for low-impedance multi-driver IEMs and will not skew their signature. This is compounded upon by a black noise floor. On low to medium volumes, which was all my ears could handle with such a sensitive IEM, I noticed zero background noise. No hiss, no odd interference, I would intimate that the Hi-mDAC is well-shielded and will be a great companion to laptops and phones as a result. As such, this DAC/AMP is a great choice even for low-volume listeners with sensitive IEMs who want a perfectly black noise floor.
Subjective –
Though I am confident in NuPrime’s products, I was apprehensive about the Hi-mDAC’s lack of specifications. Many manufacturers are proud to tout their ruler flat measurements and specs on their website, however, few are to be found on NuPrime’s. That said, what I hear here is a very sound Cirrus implementation that carries the strong traits of an integrated chipset. Despite my best efforts to volume match, I did hear a slightly brighter presentation from the Hi-mDAC but one that was underpinned by excellent technical ability with clean, defined transients. As always, this being a source with low output impedance and a linear frequency response, my sound analysis comments will be referring to the minutiae that cannot be compared to the differences between different earphones per say.
Testing Methodology: SPL volume matched comparison through an inline splitter to JDS Labs Atom + Khadas tone board to Custom Art Fibae 7 (flat impedance). Powered by Pixel 4 with Poweramp Pro via high-resolution output.
Immediately, sub-bass extension is good but not its strongest asset, lacking the extension and power of the desktop stack, which is to be expected. That said, this impression was exacerbated by the Hi-mDAC’s generally lighter sub-bass character, with slightly softer slam and rumble in exchange for a smaller note size that enables greater separation through the mid-bass. The remaining bass is linear and very clean as a result, aided by concise attack and quick decay that uphold great pace and low-end organisation. This is an especially punchy and highly defined presentation with good dynamics, if one that’s lacking just a little depth.
The midrange is transparent besides a hint of additional vocal extension that gives it an open presentation. Mids possess neutral tone and body, instigating an accurate timbre to both vocals and instruments. I hear the slightest addition of energy in the upper-midrange that grants its open and floaty character, trading density and placement stability for enhanced clarity. Vocals are also brought slightly forward though without becoming intense or thin. Still, notes have more substance on the desktop setup in addition to higher resolution. Regardless, for a portable source, the presentation is well-resolved and is especially tonally neutral which will surely suit warmer IEMs and headphones.
Highs are slightly aggressive in terms of detail presentation and the background is a touch brighter than my desktop stack too. There’s a hint of warmth to foreground treble instrumentation, they are portrayed with convincing bodied and euphony which mitigates some of the DAC’s brightness. Meanwhile, note attack is sharp and decay is on the natural side, producing a densely detailed and textured portrayal of instruments while retaining pleasing control and composition. The background is slightly bright which brings background details to the fore. Resolution is surprisingly good as is extension and micro-detail retrieval but I find the background to glare over these fine details in some instances, again I find this source to appeal best to warmer, smoother earphones where listeners will find it to invigorate their presentation.
It is with regards to soundstage that the Hi-mDAC performs best, crafting a very spacious presentation that belies its diminutive form factor. Width essentially matches the desktop stack while depth is just slightly more intimate due to its slightly forward vocals. Its main downfall is imaging, which certainly offers a keen sense of direction due to clean and defined transients, but also less stable positioning. The centre image is slightly diffuse with a tendency to push vocals and instruments to the sides. Furthermore, layers aren’t especially defined as there is reduced foreground/background contrast. This also affects treble separation though their transient response does do a lot to redeem fine details there. Separation is best showcased in the bass and midrange where the source is more transparent and performs at a good level.
Driving Power –
Meze Rai Penta (110dB, 20 ohms): The Penta is efficient and scales very well with clean power. Sub-bass is lacking just a hint of weight but is very tight. Meanwhile, mid-bass is defined with keen attack and natural decay. Mids are slightly forward but natural in timbre and tone. Highs are very well-detailed with pleasing air and resolution. The soundstage is very wide, slightly more intimate in depth and imaging is sharp. No hiss.
Final Audio E5000 (93dB, 14 ohms): There is plenty of volume and good extension, the NuPrime actually helps to clean up the low-end with reduced sub-bass presence and a more separated mid-bass. Notes are defined with good attack and drive. Mids are natural and retain their smoothness, there’s a hint of additional vocal intimacy and clarity which is also welcome on the warm, dense E5000. Highs are well-detailed with clean transients and the background is black. The soundstage is very large and imaging is sharp, a great pairing with no hiss.
Hifiman Sundara (94dB, 37ohms): Being a planar the Sundara needs some power and a low output impedance. I was very shocked by this pairing, the NuPrime did a terrific job driving these headphones. Surely, the Atom provided a more sub-bass depth and power, but the mid-bass was tight and well-present on both, dynamics were surprisingly convincing. The mids and highs very much resembled each other, vocals were just a touch warmer on the NuPrime and cleaner on the Atom but similar in size and positioning. There was a touch more resolution on the desktop setup in the highs in addition to slightly more defined layering and a slightly larger stage. But again, the presentation was very convincing on a whole from the NuPrime.
Suggested Pair-ups
Cirrus state 30mW per channel into a 32-ohm load which sounds appropriate for a DAC/AMP this size. However, as it’s not stated on the NuPrime website, I have no real way of discerning its actual specifications. That said, I do hear very solid driving power for a compact, portable source. I would suggest that use cases for the Hi-mDAC are similar to the DragonFly dongles, being sufficient for in-ears, portable headphones and some full-size headphones. I wouldn’t want to power a 600-ohm behemoth, but even modestly efficient dynamic driver and planar headphones actually sound quite convincing with the mDAC. Due to its tonality, I find it to best suit smooth, warm gear where it injects a bit more clarity and openness.
Comparisons –
Shanling UP2 ($79): The UP2 makes for interesting comparison as one of the more concise and balanced sounding Bluetooth receivers I’ve tested. Both represent great solutions to the jack-less smartphone epidemic. The Hi-mDAC provides noticeably better sub-bass extension but both have a similarly light quantity here, producing a slightly thinner note body and more separated mid-bass. Notes are more defined on the Hi-mDAC, the UP2 having a slower decay and softer attack.
Through the midrange, both have a similar intimacy, the Hi-mDAC having a more forward vocal presentation, the UP2 just having a narrower presentation. The Hi-mDAC has higher resolution and note definition, it is more tonally transparent while the UP2 has a touch more warmth. Up top, the Hi-mDAC is more detailed with noticeably more extension and air. The UP2 has a smoother foreground and its transients are hazier. The Hi-mDAC has a much wider soundstage while the UP2 is more intimate but with a more stable presentation.
Zorloo ZuperDAC-S ($89): The ZuperDAC is a more dynamic source, quite linear besides a slight sub-bass bump. It offers more depth and a surprising amount of additional sub-bass weight at the very bottom. Its notes are thicker and fuller but its transients are a touch hazier. Still, the ZuperDAC plenty of attack and a very punchy low-end where the Hi-mDAC is more neutral, somewhat clinical and less dynamic. The midrange presentation is quite similar on both, being fairly neutral in body and a touch forward in positioning.
There’s a slight warmth on the ZuperDAC from its more prominent low-end. Meanwhile, the Hi-mDAC is more neutral but slightly more vocal forward. It has noticeably higher note resolution and definition than the ZuperDAC, sounding more refined. Up top, the Zorloo is more aggressive once again but also thinner and less detailed with the Hi-mDAC being more realistic if with a brighter background. The Hi-mDAC has better extension with greater background detail retrieval. The Hi-mDAC has a larger soundstage with sharper imaging.
Cozoy Takt Pro ($289): The Takt Pro is a bit more linear sounding overall, chiefly due to its low-end. There is noticeably more sub-bass power and depth on the Takt Pro. Furthermore, the mid-bass carries a light warmth granting it a fuller note body and more solid punch. The Hi-mDAC is cleaner and more separated with similarly concise attack, however, overall it is less commanding. The midrange follows suit, the Hi-mDAC offering a touch more clarity and extension, the Takt Pro greater body and density. Resolution is higher on the Hi-mDAC and the presentation is more clinical while the Takt Pro is smoother and more musical.
Up top, both sound similar, being slightly crisp with sharp note attack, the Hi-mDAC ‘s transient response being a touch sharper though I hear similar extension and resolution here. The chief difference is the background, being darker on the Takt-C, brighter and more open on the Hi-mDAC, suiting different pairings. Nonetheless, the Hi-mDAC has a noticeably wider soundstage where the Takt Pro has more depth on behalf of the mDAC’s more intimate vocal presentation. Imaging is just as sharp on both with the Takt Pro offering a more stable presentation with a stronger centre image, the Hi-mDAC have more defined layers and atmosphere.
JDS Labs Atom + Khadas Tone Board (~$200): The budget desktop reference setup offers a very transparent sound throughout and I subjectively hear a small sub-bass emphasis. Much like the other sources, it has noticeably more sub-bass body, both as a result of greater linearity into the lowest lows and better extension and drive. The setup has a slightly thicker note body, its attack isn’t as fast but decay is quicker so separation and note definition are essentially as good. The midrange is more transparent in size and position on the Atom/Khadas with the Hi-mDAC being more forward and clear but also a touch bright and nasal in terms of timbre. Up top, the desktop setup is again, more linear with a touch more detail retrieval in the foreground and sparkle at the very top.
It is more easily discerned as the background is cleaner and darker, granting it more foreground/background contrast and more defined layers. The desktop rig has a slightly larger soundstage and more stable imaging. We would all expect this given the size differences and less conventional presentation of the Hi-mDAC, yet many would consider sources to be just as much about synergy as about individual performance. Still, the benefit of a reference setup is that it enables the characters of other gear and the source material to shine through and, therefore, for myself especially as a reviewer represents the ideal.
Verdict –
Starting at the basics, the Hi-mDAC ticks all the boxed; the output impedance is low, the noise floor black to my ears and the frequency response ruler flat. Add on high volume output and strong driving power that even suits some full-size headphones and this is already a very versatile purchase. The bane of the compact source is that it sounds, well, compact. A few have bucked this trend, offering surprising refinement though none that I’ve tried have really broken out of that box. And it with regards to this quality that the Hi-mDAC finds its the strongest asset, delivering a grand, expansive soundstage that essentially matches an entry-level reference desktop setup. That’s not to say that it mirrors its presentation, but it does get shockingly close at times. The caveats will come down to its slight brightness within the upper-midrange and middle-treble meaning that it best suits a warmer setup alongside its sharp-edged design. Otherwise, the Hi-mDAC really surprised me, it isn’t perfectly neutral but is open, tonally transparent and surprisingly expansive listen at a compact price and size.
The Hi-mDAC is available from on NuPrime (International) for EUR 139 at the time of writing. I am not affiliated with NuPrime and receive no earnings from purchases through this link.
Thanks for reading! If you enjoyed my review, please see my website for more just like it!
Introduction –
Though BQEYZ doesn’t quite roll off the tongue, the company is another ChiFi hit who I somewhat remiss not involving myself with sooner. The company is new, but not at all inexperienced and similar to other now prominent players such as Kinera, they’ve been working as an earphone and headphone OEM for over 20-years. The Spring 1 showcases their experience and prowess, possessing a peculiar tribrid driver setup not dissimilar to much more expensive IEMs. Alongside a custom 13mm dynamic driver, the BQEYZ has a custom-tuned balanced armature driver handling mids and highs with an additional 7-layer piezoelectric super tweeter. No sir, this is no generic earphone and, at a modest $139 USD, it’s no surprise that it’s become such a staple. You can read more about the BQEYZ and treat yourself to one on BQEYZ’s Aliexpress page and on HiFiGO.
Disclaimer –
I would like to thank Elle from BQEYZ very much for her quick communication and for providing me with the Spring 1 for the purpose of review. All words are my own and there is no monetary incentive for a positive review. Despite receiving the earphones free of cost, I will attempt to be as objective as possible in my evaluation.
Specs –
Driver unit: 1 Coaxial dynamic driver+7 Layers piezoelectric+1 Balanced armature
Impedance: 43Ω
Sensitivity: 108dB
Frequency: 7-40KHz
Cable Length: 1.2m
Pin Type: 0.78mm 2 Pin
Plug Type: 3.5mm jack adapter
Cable Length: 120cm
Whether with Mic: No
The Pitch –
Custom-tuned drivers
With their manufacturing processes developed over their 20 years of experience, BQEYZ is able to custom tune and manufacture all of their drivers in-house. This grants them great control over both the tuning and quality of the sound in addition to minimising the cost of more sophisticated driver setups as observed on the Spring 1.
Ceramic super-tweeter
Those watching the high-end IEM space might have seen Sonion’s new EST drivers pop up in a few models to much elation and critique. Electrostatic drivers provide much lower distortion and greater high-frequency extension than BA drivers, however, as they can only be driven at high-voltages, they require a transformer making them highly inefficient. This is compounded upon by their inability to reproduce low frequencies, necessitating the addition of dynamic or balanced armature drivers with much higher sensitivity. In addition to their exorbitant cost, you can already see just how difficult the tuning process becomes.
Source: BQEYZ Aliexpress product page
Ceramic tweeters are functionally similar to EST drivers but substitute a charged mylar film with ceramic. They are considerably cheaper and easier to pair with other driver types while bringing similar characteristics with regards to extension and distortion, if to a lesser extent. The Piezo driver has its own problem, a ceramic resonance at 10KHz which made first-generation ceramic earphones sound thin and sharp. By implementing a multi-layer design and optimising the sound cavity, a few later designs from high-end manufacturers like Noble and Hyla successfully shifted this resonance into more palatable ranges. Though the ceramic implementation is not nearly as refined, the Spring 1 implements the same design and takes cost-efficiency one step further with a unibody dynamic + ceramic design that represents the same key qualities at a significantly lower price.
Accessories –
The Spring 1 has a pleasing unboxing experience and has a comprehensive accessory set. Inside the box, users will be greeted by a leatherette zippered carrying case, the earphones themselves alongside a silver-plated removable cable. There’s a lovely metal tip selector that sits comfortably within the case with 2 sets of tips featuring reference and atmospheric sound profiles. A pair of foam tips are also included to bolster isolation.
Design –
I was impressed to hear that BQEYZ have their own CNC workshop that specialises in IEM production. It should then come as no surprise that the Spring 1 has an entirely metal enclosure. Though the design is simple, the finish is on par with a pricier model. Its seams are imperceptible by touch while edges are rounded and perfect. The black model has gorgeous dark gold accents that complement their shape and form. They are of quite a unique shape; however, they are reasonably sized and ergonomically contoured.
The cable utilises 0.78mm 2-pin connectors. It’s a beefy 8-core unit with silver-plated conductors and smooth plastic insulation. The cable is supple with zero memory, coiling easily for storage. It produces minimal microphonic noise in culmination with an over-ear fit and feels very beefy and built to last. Gunmetal BQEYZ inscribed terminations provide a premium impression alongside the case-friendly 3.5mm plug and ample strain relief. The cable has pre-moulded ear guides that weren’t perfectly suited to my ear shape but provided comfortable wear, nonetheless.
Fit & Isolation –
As the housings are reasonably compact, I didn’t find them to contact much of the outer ear nor form hotspots over extended listening. The nozzles are on the longer side and angled to position them neutrally, aiding wearing comfort. Meanwhile, the crescent-housings follow the natural curves of the outer ear, providing good stability if not the same locked-in sensation of faux custom earphones. Numerous vents are clearly visible on the inner face of the earphones, making them quite open and without vacuum-like seal. As they’re on the inner face, wind noise isn’t prevalent when wearing the earphones outdoors, however, isolation is only mediocre which may limit appeal for commute yet alone travel. Due to the large nozzles, fit depth is on the shallower side and I was unable to increase this by sizing down tips.
Sound –
Testing Methodology: Arta via IEC 711 coupler to Startech external sound card. Note that 7-8KHz peaks are artefacts of my measurement setup. Measurements besides channel balance are volume matched at 1K.
Tonality –
The Spring 1 has what I would describe as a high-end IEM tuning, that being W-shaped, vocal-forward but boosted at the extremities. This is not to say that it performs like a high-end IEM, but it does provide an engaging listen with great contrast while maintaining tri-frequency balance. There’s really solid sub-bass body alongside enhanced mid and upper-bass warmth mitigated by a clean vocal push through the centre midrange. Lower-treble has been attenuated in order to combat sibilance, sharpness and thinness before a reasonable middle-treble peak as I’ve been told, is quite a common resonant point for ceramic drivers. The unique combination of drivers certainly does produce similarly intriguing qualities in real-world listening. This earphone isn’t linear and doesn’t trace any conventional curve but remains a fun and insightful listen.
Tip Selection –
The Spring 1 comes with a delightful metal tip selector with three tuning choices, reference for human voices, atmosphere for bass and foam for max isolation. In listening, I found the reference tips most desirable to my ear, both of the options from BQEYZ and third party. They provided the most balanced sound while the atmosphere tips provided a more bass focussed sound with even thinner treble and more laid-back vocals. Take my measurements above with a grain of salt, in reality, the tips also affect the fit depth and seal which can have a profound impact on the sound perceived by the listener. The foam tips were an acceptable compromise but overly attenuated the highs for my liking. The following comments will be using the reference tips.
Bass –
Colour me impressed, if you’re looking for power, depth and definition, the low end on the Spring 1 delivers – it’s clear this isn’t a generic dynamic driver implantation and the company has considered the acoustics around it. The low-end is on the more diffuse over coherent side due to a notable sub-bass focus and comparatively reduced mid-bass body. Regardless, this is for good reason as sub-bass has terrific extension, tightness and pressure, delivering visceral slam and defined rumble. Meanwhile, mid and upper-bass are both moderately enhanced just to a lesser degree, and demonstrate good linearity, producing a low-end with thick, bold notes while avoiding excessive warmth or tubbiness.
Driver quality is a high point for the Spring 1, with excellent driver control, keen attack and natural decay providing a handsome balance between pace and dynamics. The earphone’s driver control, in particular, goes far to rein in its bold notes, minimising the smearing of fine details and upholding as much separation as one would hope for given this level of fullness. This isn’t a hyper-fast BA low-end nor a perfectly linear and natural one, and it doesn’t retrieve detail as such with heavier and slightly more lingering notes. The Spring 1 rather delivers a powerful, rumbling bass with good technical ability and great dynamics for engagement over accuracy.
Mids –
In accordance with their W-shaped tuning, vocals are clean, clear and slightly smooth in presentation. They hold precedence over instruments within the midrange due to a lower-midrange dip that mitigates bass spill followed by wideband centre midrange emphasis. As there is no upper-midrange bias, vocals are brought forward but retain a reasonably natural tone. Instead, emphasis sustains linearly from 2KHz all the way through to 4KHz. The midrange, therefore, isn’t especially dense nor is it full-bodied, but provides excellent vocal extension in addition to high clarity while sibilance, thinness and sharpness are mitigated by a sharp trough in the lower-treble.
Vocals are, therefore, smoothly articulated with ample body derived from the midrange itself and a hint of euphonic warmth permeating from the upper-bass. Though a slightly more linear transition into the midrange would have yielded a more accurate timbre and note body, these traits work well in harmony; with bolstered vocal body and warmth counterbalancing enhanced vocal size and intimacy. Again, timbre isn’t nearly perfect and note resolution leaves to be desired. However, there are no immediate flaws in its presentation which cannot be said for a lot of budget hybrids. Simply put, the Spring 1’s midrange is well-balanced between male and female in addition to being layered, defined and natural in tone.
Highs –
Though we have a very small number of ceramic tweeter earphones, they all have a distinct sound, being emphasized around the middle-treble region, and providing thin but immaculately clean transients. Though the lowest cost-implementation I’ve heard, many of the same qualities can be observed here. Actually, I was relieved to see a laid-back lower-treble which may smooth off attack but also takes the sharpness and sibilance out of its presentation. To redeem clarity and crispness, there’s a modest peak around 7-8KHz that bolsters both air and detail presence. The background remains fairly clean nonetheless, as quantity diminishes quickly after. As this is a narrow peak, note body is thin though instruments such as cymbals retain nice texture if with somewhat truncated shimmer, while lacking hard-edged percussion due to the earphone’s lower-treble tuning.
What the ceramic driver provides here is immense cleanliness and agility within the foreground which translates to a focussed and resolving presentation. There’s also a touch of warmth in the treble which, in conjunction with excellent detail retrieval, makes this earphone a great choice for acoustic. They also suit rock where their clean transients control any brittle or splashy character. There’s a pleasing amount of air but little upper-treble sparkle and extension so the immaculate and resolving character of high-end ceramic IEMs is not present here. Nonetheless, micro-details are impressively abundant and the background is reasonably well-defined. Though not the most aggressive earphone, the ceramic driver retains a crisp, well-detailed image despite their smoother attack at the expense of distinctly thin note body.
Soundstage –
The Spring 1 provides a reasonably large stage that extends just beyond the head in terms of width and, despite its vocal presentation, is able to project pleasing depth too. As such, it presents a nicely rounded sound. Imaging is sharp if not perfectly coherent or accurate to my ears. Quick, clean treble transients permit sharp directional cues and strong directionality if not perfect precision to panning and transitions. Meanwhile, vocals maintain a strong centre image providing defined and distinct layering. The earphones possess strong separation on behalf of their controlled bass and W-shaped signature that heightens the distinction between each core frequency band in addition to high driver control and note body that generally errs on the slightly thinner side of neutral.
Driveability –
With a higher 43ohm impedance paired with a similarly high 108dB sensitivity, the Spring 1 is reasonably efficient in addition to being impressively agnostic to output impedance. In fact, comparing between my desktop JDS Atom setup with the 10-ohm Hiby R6 yielded very minimal differences to signature beyond the tone of the sources themselves. The Hiby has a touch warmer and smoother up top most notably due to a small difference within the upper-midrange; the Atom being a touch more forward, the Hiby more laid-back. The Spring 1 scales well with a bit of power, especially within the bass where control is noticeably improved alongside associated qualities of definition, detail retrieval and separation. Still, the Spring 1 is very forgiving of the source and a great choice for smartphone listeners due to its efficiency and stable signature.
Comparisons –
Moondrop Starfield ($109): The Moondrop is a legend in its price class, I haven’t seen such unanimous praise for a long time. By comparison, it is more linear and less dynamic with a generally smoother and more coherent voicing. Its low end lacks the same pressure but extends similarly well. The Spring 1 has more bass presence, especially sub-bass, and higher driver control with a lot more bass note definition and separation. The midrange is forward on both, more upper-midrange biased on the Starfield but also denser and more linear in transition from the bass. The Starfield has a slightly more natural voicing and a more accurate timbre as a result, possessing better balance between body, tone and density.
Contrarily, the Spring 1 has more vocal definition but is also less coherent with lower note resolution. The Starfield has a more linear top-end too, the Spring 1 has cleaner transients, more extension and resolution with superior detail retrieval. Meanwhile, the Starfield sounds more natural, its instruments have more body and texture alongside more coherent positioning within its stage. Both have similar soundstage expansion, the Spring 1 has a touch more width and better separation while the Starfield possesses more accurate imaging.
Final Audio E4000 ($140): The E4000 is a more L-shaped earphone with more bass emphasis and a laid-back top-end. The E4000 has more bass quantity overall, it has similar extension but less sub-bass bias, being more linear. As it has more mid and upper-bass presence, it is warmer and slightly fuller where the Spring 1 is cleaner in tone but also less natural sounding. Both have excellent driver control, the Spring 1’s cleaner tuning results in greater separation and definition, it has slightly sharper attack where the E4000 is smoother. The E4000 has more substantial vocals, with greater body and slightly more warmth.
It has similar definition but higher note resolution and better coherence. The E4000 sounds more natural and accurate in timbre while the Spring 1 has better separation and more defined layers. The Spring 1 has a crisper, thinner treble with a cleaner tone and sharper note attack. The E4000 has a warmer treble with a lot more body and greater texture. The E4000 has a darker background while the Spring 1 has better extension with more background detail retrieval and resolution. The E4000 has a slightly larger soundstage with more accurate imaging while the Spring 1 has a lot more separation.
Shozy CP ($170): The CP is another well-balanced offering around this price range, sporting an all BA setup. It has less substantial bass, the Spring 1 has a more quantity and extension, delivering a weightier, fuller presentation. The CP is much quicker decaying with tighter, punchier notes and more definition while the Spring 1 has bolder more naturally decaying notes with greater dynamics. Both have strong vocal presence, the CP is slightly more neutral where the Spring 1 is a touch forward. The CP also transitions more linearly into the midrange, so alongside greater upper-midrange bias, it has more clarity and similar body.
The CP is also a touch warmer from its upper-bass and sounds slightly more natural to my ear. Meanwhile, the Spring 1 has slightly higher vocal definition and separation, I also hear more defined layers especially due to its more resolving top-end. The CP has a small lower treble peak for clarity and energy, it has a crisper and sharper treble. Meanwhile, the Spring 1 is cleaner in its presentation, being less aggressive in the foreground but offering greater extension and slightly better resolution. The Spring 1 has a larger soundstage while the imaging is a bit more stable on the CP.
Hyla CE-5 ($940): Obviously no comparison is to be had regarding price, however, as one of the pioneers of piezoelectric tribrids, I felt it apt. The CE-5 offers slightly less bass quantity with better extension linearity between sub and mid-bass. It has higher driver control with more texture and detail retrieval, the CE-5 has better dynamics and a more natural note presentation. The CE-5 has a more forward midrange with greater upper-midrange bias. Neither are dense actually, the Spring 1 is a bit more natural here while the CE-5 has quite a sharp lower-midrange attenuation that can make it sound a bit thin and dry at times.
The Spring 1 has more body and isn’t quite as forward sounding, both are quite smooth due to lower-treble attenuation. Up top, the CE-5 has a crisper presentation with more aggressive attack. It is brighter overall but also a lot more detailed with higher resolution and stronger extension, even a good amount of sparkle. The Spring 1 has slightly more treble warmth and body, being smoother and more balanced but lacking the same transient cleanliness. The CE-5 provides a larger soundstage, neither have perfectly coherent imaging but the CE-5 has stronger directionality due to its keener treble transients.
Verdict –
To my ears, the hallmark of nailing an outstanding budget earphone is to make the listener forget that they’re listening to a budget earphone, not to convince the listener that they’re listening to a high-end one. In that sense, the market has come far, I’m seeing substantially more natural tonalities and less treble peakiness than before. I also have an ever-increasing repertoire of models where the former comment applies, as seen in my comparisons. The Spring 1 is a curious offering as it treads a fine line down the middle of the two. In terms of technical ability, the Spring 1 will likely fool many listeners, especially with regards to its stringently controlled bass and clean, resolving treble, there’s some proper design going on there. The tuning is also relatively balanced and quite mature if not especially linear or conventional. This earphone, therefore, isn’t for those wanting huge engagement and doesn’t suit those valuing timbre either. Rather, the Spring 1 excels in its careful modulation of both, delivering strong tri-frequency contrast balanced by a tasteful tone and natural midrange voicing.
The Spring 1 is available from on Aliexpress and HiFiGO (International) for $139 USD at the time of writing. I am not affiliated with BQEYZ, Aliexpress or HiFiGO and receive no earnings from purchases through this link.
Thanks for reading! If you enjoyed my review, please see my website for more just like it!
Track List –
88rising – NIKI Acoustic Sessions
Eagles – Hell Freezes Over
Father John Misty – Pure Comedy
Jeremy Zucker – comethru
Joji – Sanctuary
Lauv – I met you when I was 18
Michael Jackson – XSCAPE
Post Malone – beerbongs & Bentleys
Rich Brian – The Sailor
Sun Rai – Pocket music
The Mamas & Papas – If You Can Believe Your Eyes & Ears
TALA – nothing personal
Yosi Horikawa – Wandering
Though BQEYZ doesn’t quite roll off the tongue, the company is another ChiFi hit who I somewhat remiss not involving myself with sooner. The company is new, but not at all inexperienced and similar to other now prominent players such as Kinera, they’ve been working as an earphone and headphone OEM for over 20-years. The Spring 1 showcases their experience and prowess, possessing a peculiar tribrid driver setup not dissimilar to much more expensive IEMs. Alongside a custom 13mm dynamic driver, the BQEYZ has a custom-tuned balanced armature driver handling mids and highs with an additional 7-layer piezoelectric super tweeter. No sir, this is no generic earphone and, at a modest $139 USD, it’s no surprise that it’s become such a staple. You can read more about the BQEYZ and treat yourself to one on BQEYZ’s Aliexpress page and on HiFiGO.
Disclaimer –
I would like to thank Elle from BQEYZ very much for her quick communication and for providing me with the Spring 1 for the purpose of review. All words are my own and there is no monetary incentive for a positive review. Despite receiving the earphones free of cost, I will attempt to be as objective as possible in my evaluation.
Specs –
Driver unit: 1 Coaxial dynamic driver+7 Layers piezoelectric+1 Balanced armature
Impedance: 43Ω
Sensitivity: 108dB
Frequency: 7-40KHz
Cable Length: 1.2m
Pin Type: 0.78mm 2 Pin
Plug Type: 3.5mm jack adapter
Cable Length: 120cm
Whether with Mic: No
The Pitch –
Custom-tuned drivers
With their manufacturing processes developed over their 20 years of experience, BQEYZ is able to custom tune and manufacture all of their drivers in-house. This grants them great control over both the tuning and quality of the sound in addition to minimising the cost of more sophisticated driver setups as observed on the Spring 1.
Ceramic super-tweeter
Those watching the high-end IEM space might have seen Sonion’s new EST drivers pop up in a few models to much elation and critique. Electrostatic drivers provide much lower distortion and greater high-frequency extension than BA drivers, however, as they can only be driven at high-voltages, they require a transformer making them highly inefficient. This is compounded upon by their inability to reproduce low frequencies, necessitating the addition of dynamic or balanced armature drivers with much higher sensitivity. In addition to their exorbitant cost, you can already see just how difficult the tuning process becomes.
Source: BQEYZ Aliexpress product page
Ceramic tweeters are functionally similar to EST drivers but substitute a charged mylar film with ceramic. They are considerably cheaper and easier to pair with other driver types while bringing similar characteristics with regards to extension and distortion, if to a lesser extent. The Piezo driver has its own problem, a ceramic resonance at 10KHz which made first-generation ceramic earphones sound thin and sharp. By implementing a multi-layer design and optimising the sound cavity, a few later designs from high-end manufacturers like Noble and Hyla successfully shifted this resonance into more palatable ranges. Though the ceramic implementation is not nearly as refined, the Spring 1 implements the same design and takes cost-efficiency one step further with a unibody dynamic + ceramic design that represents the same key qualities at a significantly lower price.
Accessories –
The Spring 1 has a pleasing unboxing experience and has a comprehensive accessory set. Inside the box, users will be greeted by a leatherette zippered carrying case, the earphones themselves alongside a silver-plated removable cable. There’s a lovely metal tip selector that sits comfortably within the case with 2 sets of tips featuring reference and atmospheric sound profiles. A pair of foam tips are also included to bolster isolation.
Design –
I was impressed to hear that BQEYZ have their own CNC workshop that specialises in IEM production. It should then come as no surprise that the Spring 1 has an entirely metal enclosure. Though the design is simple, the finish is on par with a pricier model. Its seams are imperceptible by touch while edges are rounded and perfect. The black model has gorgeous dark gold accents that complement their shape and form. They are of quite a unique shape; however, they are reasonably sized and ergonomically contoured.
The cable utilises 0.78mm 2-pin connectors. It’s a beefy 8-core unit with silver-plated conductors and smooth plastic insulation. The cable is supple with zero memory, coiling easily for storage. It produces minimal microphonic noise in culmination with an over-ear fit and feels very beefy and built to last. Gunmetal BQEYZ inscribed terminations provide a premium impression alongside the case-friendly 3.5mm plug and ample strain relief. The cable has pre-moulded ear guides that weren’t perfectly suited to my ear shape but provided comfortable wear, nonetheless.
Fit & Isolation –
As the housings are reasonably compact, I didn’t find them to contact much of the outer ear nor form hotspots over extended listening. The nozzles are on the longer side and angled to position them neutrally, aiding wearing comfort. Meanwhile, the crescent-housings follow the natural curves of the outer ear, providing good stability if not the same locked-in sensation of faux custom earphones. Numerous vents are clearly visible on the inner face of the earphones, making them quite open and without vacuum-like seal. As they’re on the inner face, wind noise isn’t prevalent when wearing the earphones outdoors, however, isolation is only mediocre which may limit appeal for commute yet alone travel. Due to the large nozzles, fit depth is on the shallower side and I was unable to increase this by sizing down tips.
Sound –
Testing Methodology: Arta via IEC 711 coupler to Startech external sound card. Note that 7-8KHz peaks are artefacts of my measurement setup. Measurements besides channel balance are volume matched at 1K.
Tonality –
The Spring 1 has what I would describe as a high-end IEM tuning, that being W-shaped, vocal-forward but boosted at the extremities. This is not to say that it performs like a high-end IEM, but it does provide an engaging listen with great contrast while maintaining tri-frequency balance. There’s really solid sub-bass body alongside enhanced mid and upper-bass warmth mitigated by a clean vocal push through the centre midrange. Lower-treble has been attenuated in order to combat sibilance, sharpness and thinness before a reasonable middle-treble peak as I’ve been told, is quite a common resonant point for ceramic drivers. The unique combination of drivers certainly does produce similarly intriguing qualities in real-world listening. This earphone isn’t linear and doesn’t trace any conventional curve but remains a fun and insightful listen.
Tip Selection –
The Spring 1 comes with a delightful metal tip selector with three tuning choices, reference for human voices, atmosphere for bass and foam for max isolation. In listening, I found the reference tips most desirable to my ear, both of the options from BQEYZ and third party. They provided the most balanced sound while the atmosphere tips provided a more bass focussed sound with even thinner treble and more laid-back vocals. Take my measurements above with a grain of salt, in reality, the tips also affect the fit depth and seal which can have a profound impact on the sound perceived by the listener. The foam tips were an acceptable compromise but overly attenuated the highs for my liking. The following comments will be using the reference tips.
Bass –
Colour me impressed, if you’re looking for power, depth and definition, the low end on the Spring 1 delivers – it’s clear this isn’t a generic dynamic driver implantation and the company has considered the acoustics around it. The low-end is on the more diffuse over coherent side due to a notable sub-bass focus and comparatively reduced mid-bass body. Regardless, this is for good reason as sub-bass has terrific extension, tightness and pressure, delivering visceral slam and defined rumble. Meanwhile, mid and upper-bass are both moderately enhanced just to a lesser degree, and demonstrate good linearity, producing a low-end with thick, bold notes while avoiding excessive warmth or tubbiness.
Driver quality is a high point for the Spring 1, with excellent driver control, keen attack and natural decay providing a handsome balance between pace and dynamics. The earphone’s driver control, in particular, goes far to rein in its bold notes, minimising the smearing of fine details and upholding as much separation as one would hope for given this level of fullness. This isn’t a hyper-fast BA low-end nor a perfectly linear and natural one, and it doesn’t retrieve detail as such with heavier and slightly more lingering notes. The Spring 1 rather delivers a powerful, rumbling bass with good technical ability and great dynamics for engagement over accuracy.
Mids –
In accordance with their W-shaped tuning, vocals are clean, clear and slightly smooth in presentation. They hold precedence over instruments within the midrange due to a lower-midrange dip that mitigates bass spill followed by wideband centre midrange emphasis. As there is no upper-midrange bias, vocals are brought forward but retain a reasonably natural tone. Instead, emphasis sustains linearly from 2KHz all the way through to 4KHz. The midrange, therefore, isn’t especially dense nor is it full-bodied, but provides excellent vocal extension in addition to high clarity while sibilance, thinness and sharpness are mitigated by a sharp trough in the lower-treble.
Vocals are, therefore, smoothly articulated with ample body derived from the midrange itself and a hint of euphonic warmth permeating from the upper-bass. Though a slightly more linear transition into the midrange would have yielded a more accurate timbre and note body, these traits work well in harmony; with bolstered vocal body and warmth counterbalancing enhanced vocal size and intimacy. Again, timbre isn’t nearly perfect and note resolution leaves to be desired. However, there are no immediate flaws in its presentation which cannot be said for a lot of budget hybrids. Simply put, the Spring 1’s midrange is well-balanced between male and female in addition to being layered, defined and natural in tone.
Highs –
Though we have a very small number of ceramic tweeter earphones, they all have a distinct sound, being emphasized around the middle-treble region, and providing thin but immaculately clean transients. Though the lowest cost-implementation I’ve heard, many of the same qualities can be observed here. Actually, I was relieved to see a laid-back lower-treble which may smooth off attack but also takes the sharpness and sibilance out of its presentation. To redeem clarity and crispness, there’s a modest peak around 7-8KHz that bolsters both air and detail presence. The background remains fairly clean nonetheless, as quantity diminishes quickly after. As this is a narrow peak, note body is thin though instruments such as cymbals retain nice texture if with somewhat truncated shimmer, while lacking hard-edged percussion due to the earphone’s lower-treble tuning.
What the ceramic driver provides here is immense cleanliness and agility within the foreground which translates to a focussed and resolving presentation. There’s also a touch of warmth in the treble which, in conjunction with excellent detail retrieval, makes this earphone a great choice for acoustic. They also suit rock where their clean transients control any brittle or splashy character. There’s a pleasing amount of air but little upper-treble sparkle and extension so the immaculate and resolving character of high-end ceramic IEMs is not present here. Nonetheless, micro-details are impressively abundant and the background is reasonably well-defined. Though not the most aggressive earphone, the ceramic driver retains a crisp, well-detailed image despite their smoother attack at the expense of distinctly thin note body.
Soundstage –
The Spring 1 provides a reasonably large stage that extends just beyond the head in terms of width and, despite its vocal presentation, is able to project pleasing depth too. As such, it presents a nicely rounded sound. Imaging is sharp if not perfectly coherent or accurate to my ears. Quick, clean treble transients permit sharp directional cues and strong directionality if not perfect precision to panning and transitions. Meanwhile, vocals maintain a strong centre image providing defined and distinct layering. The earphones possess strong separation on behalf of their controlled bass and W-shaped signature that heightens the distinction between each core frequency band in addition to high driver control and note body that generally errs on the slightly thinner side of neutral.
Driveability –
With a higher 43ohm impedance paired with a similarly high 108dB sensitivity, the Spring 1 is reasonably efficient in addition to being impressively agnostic to output impedance. In fact, comparing between my desktop JDS Atom setup with the 10-ohm Hiby R6 yielded very minimal differences to signature beyond the tone of the sources themselves. The Hiby has a touch warmer and smoother up top most notably due to a small difference within the upper-midrange; the Atom being a touch more forward, the Hiby more laid-back. The Spring 1 scales well with a bit of power, especially within the bass where control is noticeably improved alongside associated qualities of definition, detail retrieval and separation. Still, the Spring 1 is very forgiving of the source and a great choice for smartphone listeners due to its efficiency and stable signature.
Comparisons –
Moondrop Starfield ($109): The Moondrop is a legend in its price class, I haven’t seen such unanimous praise for a long time. By comparison, it is more linear and less dynamic with a generally smoother and more coherent voicing. Its low end lacks the same pressure but extends similarly well. The Spring 1 has more bass presence, especially sub-bass, and higher driver control with a lot more bass note definition and separation. The midrange is forward on both, more upper-midrange biased on the Starfield but also denser and more linear in transition from the bass. The Starfield has a slightly more natural voicing and a more accurate timbre as a result, possessing better balance between body, tone and density.
Contrarily, the Spring 1 has more vocal definition but is also less coherent with lower note resolution. The Starfield has a more linear top-end too, the Spring 1 has cleaner transients, more extension and resolution with superior detail retrieval. Meanwhile, the Starfield sounds more natural, its instruments have more body and texture alongside more coherent positioning within its stage. Both have similar soundstage expansion, the Spring 1 has a touch more width and better separation while the Starfield possesses more accurate imaging.
Final Audio E4000 ($140): The E4000 is a more L-shaped earphone with more bass emphasis and a laid-back top-end. The E4000 has more bass quantity overall, it has similar extension but less sub-bass bias, being more linear. As it has more mid and upper-bass presence, it is warmer and slightly fuller where the Spring 1 is cleaner in tone but also less natural sounding. Both have excellent driver control, the Spring 1’s cleaner tuning results in greater separation and definition, it has slightly sharper attack where the E4000 is smoother. The E4000 has more substantial vocals, with greater body and slightly more warmth.
It has similar definition but higher note resolution and better coherence. The E4000 sounds more natural and accurate in timbre while the Spring 1 has better separation and more defined layers. The Spring 1 has a crisper, thinner treble with a cleaner tone and sharper note attack. The E4000 has a warmer treble with a lot more body and greater texture. The E4000 has a darker background while the Spring 1 has better extension with more background detail retrieval and resolution. The E4000 has a slightly larger soundstage with more accurate imaging while the Spring 1 has a lot more separation.
Shozy CP ($170): The CP is another well-balanced offering around this price range, sporting an all BA setup. It has less substantial bass, the Spring 1 has a more quantity and extension, delivering a weightier, fuller presentation. The CP is much quicker decaying with tighter, punchier notes and more definition while the Spring 1 has bolder more naturally decaying notes with greater dynamics. Both have strong vocal presence, the CP is slightly more neutral where the Spring 1 is a touch forward. The CP also transitions more linearly into the midrange, so alongside greater upper-midrange bias, it has more clarity and similar body.
The CP is also a touch warmer from its upper-bass and sounds slightly more natural to my ear. Meanwhile, the Spring 1 has slightly higher vocal definition and separation, I also hear more defined layers especially due to its more resolving top-end. The CP has a small lower treble peak for clarity and energy, it has a crisper and sharper treble. Meanwhile, the Spring 1 is cleaner in its presentation, being less aggressive in the foreground but offering greater extension and slightly better resolution. The Spring 1 has a larger soundstage while the imaging is a bit more stable on the CP.
Hyla CE-5 ($940): Obviously no comparison is to be had regarding price, however, as one of the pioneers of piezoelectric tribrids, I felt it apt. The CE-5 offers slightly less bass quantity with better extension linearity between sub and mid-bass. It has higher driver control with more texture and detail retrieval, the CE-5 has better dynamics and a more natural note presentation. The CE-5 has a more forward midrange with greater upper-midrange bias. Neither are dense actually, the Spring 1 is a bit more natural here while the CE-5 has quite a sharp lower-midrange attenuation that can make it sound a bit thin and dry at times.
The Spring 1 has more body and isn’t quite as forward sounding, both are quite smooth due to lower-treble attenuation. Up top, the CE-5 has a crisper presentation with more aggressive attack. It is brighter overall but also a lot more detailed with higher resolution and stronger extension, even a good amount of sparkle. The Spring 1 has slightly more treble warmth and body, being smoother and more balanced but lacking the same transient cleanliness. The CE-5 provides a larger soundstage, neither have perfectly coherent imaging but the CE-5 has stronger directionality due to its keener treble transients.
Verdict –
To my ears, the hallmark of nailing an outstanding budget earphone is to make the listener forget that they’re listening to a budget earphone, not to convince the listener that they’re listening to a high-end one. In that sense, the market has come far, I’m seeing substantially more natural tonalities and less treble peakiness than before. I also have an ever-increasing repertoire of models where the former comment applies, as seen in my comparisons. The Spring 1 is a curious offering as it treads a fine line down the middle of the two. In terms of technical ability, the Spring 1 will likely fool many listeners, especially with regards to its stringently controlled bass and clean, resolving treble, there’s some proper design going on there. The tuning is also relatively balanced and quite mature if not especially linear or conventional. This earphone, therefore, isn’t for those wanting huge engagement and doesn’t suit those valuing timbre either. Rather, the Spring 1 excels in its careful modulation of both, delivering strong tri-frequency contrast balanced by a tasteful tone and natural midrange voicing.
The Spring 1 is available from on Aliexpress and HiFiGO (International) for $139 USD at the time of writing. I am not affiliated with BQEYZ, Aliexpress or HiFiGO and receive no earnings from purchases through this link.
Thanks for reading! If you enjoyed my review, please see my website for more just like it!
Track List –
88rising – NIKI Acoustic Sessions
Eagles – Hell Freezes Over
Father John Misty – Pure Comedy
Jeremy Zucker – comethru
Joji – Sanctuary
Lauv – I met you when I was 18
Michael Jackson – XSCAPE
Post Malone – beerbongs & Bentleys
Rich Brian – The Sailor
Sun Rai – Pocket music
The Mamas & Papas – If You Can Believe Your Eyes & Ears
TALA – nothing personal
Yosi Horikawa – Wandering
rvalero
thanx for a nice review mate
Introduction –
I was first introduced to the China-based company by my friend and fellow reviewer Klaus, who is certainly very knowledgeable about audio and whose opinion I hold in high regard. He was enthusiastic about a new company, Moondrop, and their first in-ear, the Kansas Pro. Though I never had the opportunity to demo this earphone, the company’s name stuck in my mind and seemingly, many others, as they’ve now climbed to international notoriety and are currently inundated with review requests. For the company has come far, delicately refining their interpretations of the famous Harman curve. The Starfield is one of their most successful ventures, tracing the curve just as religiously as its predecessors but at a more approachable $109 USD asking price. As we’re about to see, Moondrop makes every dollar count in their designs. You can read all about the Starfield here and treat yourself to one here.
The Pitch –
Harman-neutral Tuning
Though neutral has become a more subjective term over the years as more minds contribute to different curves simulating different acoustic environments, the Harman Curve has achieved special notoriety. It has been designed for mass appeal and is flexible between different form factors, you can read Tyll’s infinitely more eloquent breakdown here. The Starfield traces the Harman Curve incredibly well and makes some key changes that are very agreeable to my ear. Most notably, the upper-midrange is just a tad smoother while we observe an uptick of energy, instead, within the lower-treble. Though considered by most critics not to showcase perfect balance, this is a refined and mostly natural-sounding tuning that is a pleasure to see at this price range.
Carbon Nanotube Driver
Where the former KXXS implemented a diamond-like carbon coating on the same diaphragm as the Kansas Pro before it, the Starfield employs a redesigned driver. It features carbon-nanotubes woven into a polymer film to create a combination of lightness and rigidity. Alongside, Japanese imported Daikoku CCAW voice coils, the Starfield’s driver is rapid accelerating, low in distortion and well-controlled, promising improved transient response in addition to strong end to end extension. Readers familiar with my work will know that I’m all for a well-done single driver over a model that fails to juggle the numerous variables involved in tuning a multi-driver design.
Litz Cable
The Starfield comes with a 24AWG 4N OFC cable with Litz structure. The Litz configuration consists of multiple thin strands of wire with individual insulation that minimises skin effect and transmission loss due to opposing EMF in other strands. This is said to be especially suitable for high-frequency signals. There are 6 Litz configurations in ascending order of complexity, though the exact configuration of the Starfield’s cable is not stated. Some also consider Litz wires to be more resistant to oxidation due to their more insulated design.
Unboxing –
The Starfield assumes a minimalist unboxing experience with a clean box adorned with appealing artwork. Inside is a hard box containing the earphones and accessories within a card inlet. Moondrop includes 6 pairs of silicone ear tips, all in various sizes to ensure a comfortable seal. As there is such a wide range of sizes, the user can also slightly alter the fit depth and sound to their preference. The Starfield comes with a solid zipper case for travel. It’s also good to see Moondrop providing additional metal mesh nozzle filters in addition to a pair of plastic tweezers to install them.
Design –
The Starfield is a pleasure to look at, nailing the fundamentals with practicality and style. The housings adopt a 2-piece metal construction with gorgeous pearlescent blue paintwork. The central seem is prominent but smoothly finished and the earphones possess a premium density in the hand and ear. Two vents are visible on the inner face, as such, wind noise is not an issue when wearing these earphones outside. Though I’ve heard that chipping can be an issue, I didn’t experience any during my weeks of testing. This issue can be mitigated by wrapping the earphones around 4 fingers from the earpieces rather than the plug to avoid impact and chips in addition to using the included carrying case.
Up top, it employs a 0.78mm 2-pin removable cable. As aforementioned, the cable is of excellent construction with 4N OFC conductors arranged in a Litz geometry. It’s a 4-wire braided unit with a soft, supple jacket. Alongside an over-ear fit, the cable carries no microphonic noise and coils easily for storage with no memory. The metal Y-split is very fashionable, featuring the Moondrop insignia printed on its surface and its weight takes the slack off the cable to keep it routed over the ear, a nice touch. Meanwhile, the right-angle 3.5mm plug demonstrates good construction with ample strain relief while the ear-guides provide comfortable and stable wear with their soft pre-moulded design.
Fit & Isolation –
Though certainly on the larger side, the Starfield is ergonomically shaped with flattened rear and contoured inner face that conforms well to the curves of the outer ear. As the housings are thin, the Starfield provides a reasonably low-profile fit too. The nozzles are tapered and nicely angled to neutrally position the earphones, thereby, avoiding contact with the outer ear and hotspot formation over long listening sessions. Fit depth is medium but can be quite deep when sizing down tips. I found a slightly shallower fit provided a more balanced sound by preventing over-intimate vocals and a slightly warmer low-end. The earphones provide a strong seal but no driver flex or pressure due to their more open, vented nature. As a result, noise isolation is average, just suitable for general commute but definitely not adequate for loud environments such as air travel.
Sound –
Testing Methodology: Arta via IEC 711 coupler to Startech external sound card. Note that 7-8KHz peaks are artefacts of my measurement setup. Measurements besides channel balance are volume matched at 1K.
Tonality –
The Starfield has excellent channel balance, suggesting strict quality control. It provides a mostly balanced if slightly mid-forward and neutrally toned sound overall. To my ears, this is not a sound of perfect linearity, matching my impression of other Harman-target earphones. There is sound technical ability at play, sub-bass has good quantity and power while mid and upper-bass are clean and balanced. There’s a smooth transition into a lightly subdued lower-midrange before a climb to 3KHz prominence, creating a clear, open and somewhat forward vocal presentation. Meanwhile, the 4KHz region is a touch attenuated while the treble is fairly linear. As such, this is a signature that comes across as clean, forward and revealing without being excessively bright, sharp or fatiguing up top.
Bass –
Lows altogether are clean and natural and represent modest performance. Sub-bass extension is very good which, alongside lifted quantity, delivers concise, physical slam at the very bottom in addition to pleasing power and weight. The mid-bass and upper-bass are both linear and well-balanced instigating a light low-end warmth and slightly fuller notes. As will become a running theme in this review, the tuning is very well-executed, there is no bloat or tubbiness and the tone is natural.
It is with regards to technicality that the Starfield falters. Driver control is only moderate, not muddy or boomy as its tuning is well-metered, but a touch loose and lacking the defined transients of some competitors. Decay is reasonably quick but there is a distinct lack of definition and a smoother texture so the sound is lacking some separation and organisation, especially noticeable on complex tracks such as Dirty Loop’s Next To You. Nonetheless, this low-end isn’t overtly sloppy and will be sure to engage with its depth, dynamics and clean tuning.
Mids –
The midrange, I find to be especially sensitive to the whims of the bass and treble. It is Moondrop’s close adoption of the Harman curve that grants this earphone a delightfully natural and refined midrange presentation one would not expect at this price. There’s a small dip in the lower-midrange providing bass/midrange separation before rising to prominent around 3KHz. As such, this isn’t a full-bodied sound, but one with mostly neutral tone and warmth alongside a slightly bright and vocal-forward presentation. In turn, its presentation is revealing and clean while well-metered bass emphasis upholds balance and imbues some additional body.
Vocals are a touch thin and slightly enlarged size with accurate articulation; lacking rasp or sibilance. The 4KHz region is also impressively linear, imbuing a lovely balance between delicacy and density while maintaining alluring openness and extension. There isn’t a hint of truncation here nor coolness despite lying on the brighter side. As the upper-midrange does sit forward, they are a touch intimate and, in terms of timbre, aren’t perfectly accurate. Still, they get darn close, the tuning is superb if you’re looking for clean, clear and natural vocals.
Of course, such a positive impression comes with a disclaimer, personal preference is key. Those valuing coherence will still want to consider that this isn’t a warm or rich earphone with perfectly resolved notes. From a technical standpoint, I can also see a similar trend as the low-end with resolution being middle of the road as are layering and dimension. In the grand scheme of things, I would personally have preferred a slightly denser and smoother voicing by toning down the upper-midrange. However, I would honestly be challenged to find a more desirable combination of midrange qualities around this price point.
Highs –
Beyond establishing a detailed and extended image, tuning the high-end has been a source of much deliberation in the audio world and surely is an area that many are sensitive to. The Starfield is well refined here, with the dynamic driver taking the sharp edge off transients while retaining plenty of crispness and presence. The lower-treble is a touch smooth, sitting just behind the upper-mids while the middle-treble has a small peak around 8KHz before a sharp fall-off. This imbues a pristine sense of clarity while ample instrument body is derived from lower emphasis. Resultantly, highs don’t sound brittle, splashy or strident in the slightest.
Instrumentation is clean and crisp while detail retrieval is excellent even if this isn’t immediately apparent due to their smoothness. Body is somewhat thin while note attack is smooth, thereby preventing the top-end from fatiguing the listener and contributing to a more controlled and composed image. The background is dark and clean with a moderate amount of air and background detail retrieval. A peak in the upper-treble also contributes to clean transients and even a touch of sparkle. Extension is quite good as is resolution though obviously, the sound isn’t abounding with micro-details and minutiae. It is, nonetheless, a well-metered tuning that is natural for the most part with an uptick of air and final octave energy
Soundstage –
The Starfield creates quite an expansive soundstage that extends just beyond the periphery of the head. It is well-rounded with pleasing ability to project depth and vocals too. Imaging is accurate if not razer sharp, vocals are strongly centred while instruments fan out to the side. Layers are defined with good contrast between background and foreground, while instruments are organised coherently crafting a pleasing sense of directionality and immersion. Separation is also good, some fine textures are lost in the bass, but the midrange is nicely defined as is the high-end on behalf of the earphone’s darker background.
Driveability –
This is an easy earphone to drive with a 122dB sensitivity and 32 ohm impedance, meaning that it is both efficient and fairly resistant to hiss. Being a single dynamic driver, the earphone also is very source agnostic, sounding basically identical in terms of signature from the 10-ohm Hiby R6 as my JDS Labs Atom desktop setup. The Starfield scales well with a bit more power and drive from a dedicated source. Comparing the Pixel 4 dongle to Earmen TR-AMP yielded greater driver control with cleaner transients. The midrange became a touch smoother and the highs more refined, sounding a touch brittle with the dongle. That said, the Starfield is surely more forgiving of the source than most earphones and, therefore, represents a good choice for listeners who may not own a high-end source or simply want an earphone to listen from their smartphone on the go.
Comparisons –
iBasso IT01 ($99): The IT01 has a more V-shaped sound and its Tesla driver delivers excellent quality for the price. It has better extension and noticeably more bass quantity, especially within the mid-bass, being fuller and warmer. It has more bloat but immediately superior driver control yielding better note definition and separation. The IT01 has a similar midrange tuning but is more laid-back compared to its bigger bass. It too is quite natural, warmer due to its greater bass, less cohrerent due to a more recessed lower-midrange.
The Starfield is more vocal-forward while the IT01 is a bit glossier with a touch less body, more low-end warmth and more lower-treble presence. The Starfield sounds more linear and with a more accurate timbre while the IT01 is a touch more engaging without sounding overly skewed. The IT01’s treble is crisper and more aggressive with a 5KHz peak while the Starfield is more linear with smoother note attack. The Starfield has more instrument texture and foreground detail retrieval where the IT01 has more detail presence but thinner instruments lacking the same resolution. The Starfield has more air and better extension enabling a slightly wider soundstage alongside more coherent imaging and layering.
Samsung Galaxy Buds ($129): Following Samsung’s acquisition of AKG and Harman, it’s unsurprising that their products have provided some impressive fidelity and stay faithful to the Harman curve in terms of tuning. This begs the question, is there much more to this comparison besides tuning? Simply put, yes, the Starfield provides a noticeably more insightful and immersive image. Though they share their signatures very closely bottom to top, the Starfield provides noticeably better sub-bass extension in addition to a tighter, more controlled low-end. Both are very natural through the midrange and similar in tone and body.
The Starfield’s transients are a touch cleaner with greater note resolution, though they are strikingly similar. The Starfield has a touch more vocal extension and lower-treble crispness alongside noticeably greater detail retrieval. It extends better with a cleaner background and more sparkle. As a result, the Starfield has a wider soundstage and better imaging. Those looking for a nicely tuned Bluetooth earphone will want to look into the Galaxy Buds which seem to the buck the trend of overly bass-heavy wireless earphones.
Final Audio E4000 ($149): The E4000 is a slightly more L-shaped earphone with more bass and smoother treble. The E4000 has better sub-bass extension with more pressure and more mid and sub-bass quantity. As its sub and mid-bass are quite linear, the E4000 doesn’t suffer from too much bloat while the more balanced Starfield is slightly cleaner. Both resemble each other closely through the lower and centre-midrange region with 3KHz prominence, the E4000 tones it down a bit, aligning with my ideal smother and denser image slightly more where the Starfield is more neutrally toned with better vocal extension and clarity.
As the E4000 has more bass and a smoother lower-treble and upper-midrange, it is notably fuller and smoother and its tone is slightly warmer, it also lacks the intensity of the Starfield. Both earphones have a smoother treble with excellent retrieval for the price, the E4000 is slightly warmer and more organic, the Starfield is cleaner and crisper with more air and separation. The E4000 has a darker background, both extend similarly. The E4000 has a slightly wider soundstage where the Starfield has better separation besides the bass where it is noticeably less controlled.
Simgot EN700 Pro ($149): The EN700 Pro features a more U-shaped sound with bigger bass and slightly crisper treble. The EN700 Pro has slightly more impact and slam with greater mid-bass emphasis. Its low-end has slightly better control and quicker decay, resulting in a more aggressive texture. The cleaner Starfield has more separation but is smoother and less defined. The EN700 Pro has a natural, warm midrange and is a touch laid-back while the Starfield is cleaner in tone, smoother and more forward. Both have an accurate timbre in addition to appropriate body and articulation.
The EN700 Pro is a touch warmer and less intense sounding, it also has slightly more focus on articulation due to its more forward lower-treble where the Starfield is noticeably smoother. The EN700 Pro has a crisper top-end with more note attack and thinner instrument body on behalf of its 6KHz peak. The Starfield is cleaner and has better detail retrieval. It has more air while the EN700 Pro has a slightly cleaner background. The Starfield extends a touch more with more sparkle and background detail while the EN700 Pro is more open with a wider soundstage on behalf of its form factor.
Verdict –
Moondrop has carved out a very loyal niche in the hobby. With the Starfield, as my first experience with the company, I can see this is for good reason. The Starfield is priced well and doesn’t make any fatal compromises in either build or sound. Its tuning showcases remarkable refinement, accurately tracing the Harman curve alongside its pros and faults. In turn, it is a tad intense in the upper-midrange though elsewhere, balanced and progressive with an uptick of engagement in the bass to retain drive and fullness. The low-end itself does mire its performance, being neither tight nor especially well-controlled. As such, this earphone appeals best to listeners wanting a delicate and revealing midrange alongside a natural and well-detailed treble while those wanting deep, defined bass will want to investigate the myriad excellent alternatives within this price range. Which brings me to my final say, the Starfield is modestly priced for what it offers. Though not perfect, it specialises in versatility. Accordingly, the Starfield makes for a strong purchase and an excellent introduction for newcomers to the best aspects of the audio hobby.
Thanks for reading! If you enjoyed my review, please see my website for more just like it!
Track List –
Crush – NAPPA
Dirty Loops – Next To You
H.E.R – I Used To Know Her
Missy Higgins – The Sound of White
Nirvana – Nevermind
Pixies – Doolittle
The Weeknd – After Hours
Vampire Weekend – Father of the Bride
I was first introduced to the China-based company by my friend and fellow reviewer Klaus, who is certainly very knowledgeable about audio and whose opinion I hold in high regard. He was enthusiastic about a new company, Moondrop, and their first in-ear, the Kansas Pro. Though I never had the opportunity to demo this earphone, the company’s name stuck in my mind and seemingly, many others, as they’ve now climbed to international notoriety and are currently inundated with review requests. For the company has come far, delicately refining their interpretations of the famous Harman curve. The Starfield is one of their most successful ventures, tracing the curve just as religiously as its predecessors but at a more approachable $109 USD asking price. As we’re about to see, Moondrop makes every dollar count in their designs. You can read all about the Starfield here and treat yourself to one here.
The Pitch –
Harman-neutral Tuning
Though neutral has become a more subjective term over the years as more minds contribute to different curves simulating different acoustic environments, the Harman Curve has achieved special notoriety. It has been designed for mass appeal and is flexible between different form factors, you can read Tyll’s infinitely more eloquent breakdown here. The Starfield traces the Harman Curve incredibly well and makes some key changes that are very agreeable to my ear. Most notably, the upper-midrange is just a tad smoother while we observe an uptick of energy, instead, within the lower-treble. Though considered by most critics not to showcase perfect balance, this is a refined and mostly natural-sounding tuning that is a pleasure to see at this price range.
Carbon Nanotube Driver
Where the former KXXS implemented a diamond-like carbon coating on the same diaphragm as the Kansas Pro before it, the Starfield employs a redesigned driver. It features carbon-nanotubes woven into a polymer film to create a combination of lightness and rigidity. Alongside, Japanese imported Daikoku CCAW voice coils, the Starfield’s driver is rapid accelerating, low in distortion and well-controlled, promising improved transient response in addition to strong end to end extension. Readers familiar with my work will know that I’m all for a well-done single driver over a model that fails to juggle the numerous variables involved in tuning a multi-driver design.
Litz Cable
The Starfield comes with a 24AWG 4N OFC cable with Litz structure. The Litz configuration consists of multiple thin strands of wire with individual insulation that minimises skin effect and transmission loss due to opposing EMF in other strands. This is said to be especially suitable for high-frequency signals. There are 6 Litz configurations in ascending order of complexity, though the exact configuration of the Starfield’s cable is not stated. Some also consider Litz wires to be more resistant to oxidation due to their more insulated design.
Unboxing –
The Starfield assumes a minimalist unboxing experience with a clean box adorned with appealing artwork. Inside is a hard box containing the earphones and accessories within a card inlet. Moondrop includes 6 pairs of silicone ear tips, all in various sizes to ensure a comfortable seal. As there is such a wide range of sizes, the user can also slightly alter the fit depth and sound to their preference. The Starfield comes with a solid zipper case for travel. It’s also good to see Moondrop providing additional metal mesh nozzle filters in addition to a pair of plastic tweezers to install them.
Design –
The Starfield is a pleasure to look at, nailing the fundamentals with practicality and style. The housings adopt a 2-piece metal construction with gorgeous pearlescent blue paintwork. The central seem is prominent but smoothly finished and the earphones possess a premium density in the hand and ear. Two vents are visible on the inner face, as such, wind noise is not an issue when wearing these earphones outside. Though I’ve heard that chipping can be an issue, I didn’t experience any during my weeks of testing. This issue can be mitigated by wrapping the earphones around 4 fingers from the earpieces rather than the plug to avoid impact and chips in addition to using the included carrying case.
Up top, it employs a 0.78mm 2-pin removable cable. As aforementioned, the cable is of excellent construction with 4N OFC conductors arranged in a Litz geometry. It’s a 4-wire braided unit with a soft, supple jacket. Alongside an over-ear fit, the cable carries no microphonic noise and coils easily for storage with no memory. The metal Y-split is very fashionable, featuring the Moondrop insignia printed on its surface and its weight takes the slack off the cable to keep it routed over the ear, a nice touch. Meanwhile, the right-angle 3.5mm plug demonstrates good construction with ample strain relief while the ear-guides provide comfortable and stable wear with their soft pre-moulded design.
Fit & Isolation –
Though certainly on the larger side, the Starfield is ergonomically shaped with flattened rear and contoured inner face that conforms well to the curves of the outer ear. As the housings are thin, the Starfield provides a reasonably low-profile fit too. The nozzles are tapered and nicely angled to neutrally position the earphones, thereby, avoiding contact with the outer ear and hotspot formation over long listening sessions. Fit depth is medium but can be quite deep when sizing down tips. I found a slightly shallower fit provided a more balanced sound by preventing over-intimate vocals and a slightly warmer low-end. The earphones provide a strong seal but no driver flex or pressure due to their more open, vented nature. As a result, noise isolation is average, just suitable for general commute but definitely not adequate for loud environments such as air travel.
Sound –
Testing Methodology: Arta via IEC 711 coupler to Startech external sound card. Note that 7-8KHz peaks are artefacts of my measurement setup. Measurements besides channel balance are volume matched at 1K.
Tonality –
The Starfield has excellent channel balance, suggesting strict quality control. It provides a mostly balanced if slightly mid-forward and neutrally toned sound overall. To my ears, this is not a sound of perfect linearity, matching my impression of other Harman-target earphones. There is sound technical ability at play, sub-bass has good quantity and power while mid and upper-bass are clean and balanced. There’s a smooth transition into a lightly subdued lower-midrange before a climb to 3KHz prominence, creating a clear, open and somewhat forward vocal presentation. Meanwhile, the 4KHz region is a touch attenuated while the treble is fairly linear. As such, this is a signature that comes across as clean, forward and revealing without being excessively bright, sharp or fatiguing up top.
Bass –
Lows altogether are clean and natural and represent modest performance. Sub-bass extension is very good which, alongside lifted quantity, delivers concise, physical slam at the very bottom in addition to pleasing power and weight. The mid-bass and upper-bass are both linear and well-balanced instigating a light low-end warmth and slightly fuller notes. As will become a running theme in this review, the tuning is very well-executed, there is no bloat or tubbiness and the tone is natural.
It is with regards to technicality that the Starfield falters. Driver control is only moderate, not muddy or boomy as its tuning is well-metered, but a touch loose and lacking the defined transients of some competitors. Decay is reasonably quick but there is a distinct lack of definition and a smoother texture so the sound is lacking some separation and organisation, especially noticeable on complex tracks such as Dirty Loop’s Next To You. Nonetheless, this low-end isn’t overtly sloppy and will be sure to engage with its depth, dynamics and clean tuning.
Mids –
The midrange, I find to be especially sensitive to the whims of the bass and treble. It is Moondrop’s close adoption of the Harman curve that grants this earphone a delightfully natural and refined midrange presentation one would not expect at this price. There’s a small dip in the lower-midrange providing bass/midrange separation before rising to prominent around 3KHz. As such, this isn’t a full-bodied sound, but one with mostly neutral tone and warmth alongside a slightly bright and vocal-forward presentation. In turn, its presentation is revealing and clean while well-metered bass emphasis upholds balance and imbues some additional body.
Vocals are a touch thin and slightly enlarged size with accurate articulation; lacking rasp or sibilance. The 4KHz region is also impressively linear, imbuing a lovely balance between delicacy and density while maintaining alluring openness and extension. There isn’t a hint of truncation here nor coolness despite lying on the brighter side. As the upper-midrange does sit forward, they are a touch intimate and, in terms of timbre, aren’t perfectly accurate. Still, they get darn close, the tuning is superb if you’re looking for clean, clear and natural vocals.
Of course, such a positive impression comes with a disclaimer, personal preference is key. Those valuing coherence will still want to consider that this isn’t a warm or rich earphone with perfectly resolved notes. From a technical standpoint, I can also see a similar trend as the low-end with resolution being middle of the road as are layering and dimension. In the grand scheme of things, I would personally have preferred a slightly denser and smoother voicing by toning down the upper-midrange. However, I would honestly be challenged to find a more desirable combination of midrange qualities around this price point.
Highs –
Beyond establishing a detailed and extended image, tuning the high-end has been a source of much deliberation in the audio world and surely is an area that many are sensitive to. The Starfield is well refined here, with the dynamic driver taking the sharp edge off transients while retaining plenty of crispness and presence. The lower-treble is a touch smooth, sitting just behind the upper-mids while the middle-treble has a small peak around 8KHz before a sharp fall-off. This imbues a pristine sense of clarity while ample instrument body is derived from lower emphasis. Resultantly, highs don’t sound brittle, splashy or strident in the slightest.
Instrumentation is clean and crisp while detail retrieval is excellent even if this isn’t immediately apparent due to their smoothness. Body is somewhat thin while note attack is smooth, thereby preventing the top-end from fatiguing the listener and contributing to a more controlled and composed image. The background is dark and clean with a moderate amount of air and background detail retrieval. A peak in the upper-treble also contributes to clean transients and even a touch of sparkle. Extension is quite good as is resolution though obviously, the sound isn’t abounding with micro-details and minutiae. It is, nonetheless, a well-metered tuning that is natural for the most part with an uptick of air and final octave energy
Soundstage –
The Starfield creates quite an expansive soundstage that extends just beyond the periphery of the head. It is well-rounded with pleasing ability to project depth and vocals too. Imaging is accurate if not razer sharp, vocals are strongly centred while instruments fan out to the side. Layers are defined with good contrast between background and foreground, while instruments are organised coherently crafting a pleasing sense of directionality and immersion. Separation is also good, some fine textures are lost in the bass, but the midrange is nicely defined as is the high-end on behalf of the earphone’s darker background.
Driveability –
This is an easy earphone to drive with a 122dB sensitivity and 32 ohm impedance, meaning that it is both efficient and fairly resistant to hiss. Being a single dynamic driver, the earphone also is very source agnostic, sounding basically identical in terms of signature from the 10-ohm Hiby R6 as my JDS Labs Atom desktop setup. The Starfield scales well with a bit more power and drive from a dedicated source. Comparing the Pixel 4 dongle to Earmen TR-AMP yielded greater driver control with cleaner transients. The midrange became a touch smoother and the highs more refined, sounding a touch brittle with the dongle. That said, the Starfield is surely more forgiving of the source than most earphones and, therefore, represents a good choice for listeners who may not own a high-end source or simply want an earphone to listen from their smartphone on the go.
Comparisons –
iBasso IT01 ($99): The IT01 has a more V-shaped sound and its Tesla driver delivers excellent quality for the price. It has better extension and noticeably more bass quantity, especially within the mid-bass, being fuller and warmer. It has more bloat but immediately superior driver control yielding better note definition and separation. The IT01 has a similar midrange tuning but is more laid-back compared to its bigger bass. It too is quite natural, warmer due to its greater bass, less cohrerent due to a more recessed lower-midrange.
The Starfield is more vocal-forward while the IT01 is a bit glossier with a touch less body, more low-end warmth and more lower-treble presence. The Starfield sounds more linear and with a more accurate timbre while the IT01 is a touch more engaging without sounding overly skewed. The IT01’s treble is crisper and more aggressive with a 5KHz peak while the Starfield is more linear with smoother note attack. The Starfield has more instrument texture and foreground detail retrieval where the IT01 has more detail presence but thinner instruments lacking the same resolution. The Starfield has more air and better extension enabling a slightly wider soundstage alongside more coherent imaging and layering.
Samsung Galaxy Buds ($129): Following Samsung’s acquisition of AKG and Harman, it’s unsurprising that their products have provided some impressive fidelity and stay faithful to the Harman curve in terms of tuning. This begs the question, is there much more to this comparison besides tuning? Simply put, yes, the Starfield provides a noticeably more insightful and immersive image. Though they share their signatures very closely bottom to top, the Starfield provides noticeably better sub-bass extension in addition to a tighter, more controlled low-end. Both are very natural through the midrange and similar in tone and body.
The Starfield’s transients are a touch cleaner with greater note resolution, though they are strikingly similar. The Starfield has a touch more vocal extension and lower-treble crispness alongside noticeably greater detail retrieval. It extends better with a cleaner background and more sparkle. As a result, the Starfield has a wider soundstage and better imaging. Those looking for a nicely tuned Bluetooth earphone will want to look into the Galaxy Buds which seem to the buck the trend of overly bass-heavy wireless earphones.
Final Audio E4000 ($149): The E4000 is a slightly more L-shaped earphone with more bass and smoother treble. The E4000 has better sub-bass extension with more pressure and more mid and sub-bass quantity. As its sub and mid-bass are quite linear, the E4000 doesn’t suffer from too much bloat while the more balanced Starfield is slightly cleaner. Both resemble each other closely through the lower and centre-midrange region with 3KHz prominence, the E4000 tones it down a bit, aligning with my ideal smother and denser image slightly more where the Starfield is more neutrally toned with better vocal extension and clarity.
As the E4000 has more bass and a smoother lower-treble and upper-midrange, it is notably fuller and smoother and its tone is slightly warmer, it also lacks the intensity of the Starfield. Both earphones have a smoother treble with excellent retrieval for the price, the E4000 is slightly warmer and more organic, the Starfield is cleaner and crisper with more air and separation. The E4000 has a darker background, both extend similarly. The E4000 has a slightly wider soundstage where the Starfield has better separation besides the bass where it is noticeably less controlled.
Simgot EN700 Pro ($149): The EN700 Pro features a more U-shaped sound with bigger bass and slightly crisper treble. The EN700 Pro has slightly more impact and slam with greater mid-bass emphasis. Its low-end has slightly better control and quicker decay, resulting in a more aggressive texture. The cleaner Starfield has more separation but is smoother and less defined. The EN700 Pro has a natural, warm midrange and is a touch laid-back while the Starfield is cleaner in tone, smoother and more forward. Both have an accurate timbre in addition to appropriate body and articulation.
The EN700 Pro is a touch warmer and less intense sounding, it also has slightly more focus on articulation due to its more forward lower-treble where the Starfield is noticeably smoother. The EN700 Pro has a crisper top-end with more note attack and thinner instrument body on behalf of its 6KHz peak. The Starfield is cleaner and has better detail retrieval. It has more air while the EN700 Pro has a slightly cleaner background. The Starfield extends a touch more with more sparkle and background detail while the EN700 Pro is more open with a wider soundstage on behalf of its form factor.
Verdict –
Moondrop has carved out a very loyal niche in the hobby. With the Starfield, as my first experience with the company, I can see this is for good reason. The Starfield is priced well and doesn’t make any fatal compromises in either build or sound. Its tuning showcases remarkable refinement, accurately tracing the Harman curve alongside its pros and faults. In turn, it is a tad intense in the upper-midrange though elsewhere, balanced and progressive with an uptick of engagement in the bass to retain drive and fullness. The low-end itself does mire its performance, being neither tight nor especially well-controlled. As such, this earphone appeals best to listeners wanting a delicate and revealing midrange alongside a natural and well-detailed treble while those wanting deep, defined bass will want to investigate the myriad excellent alternatives within this price range. Which brings me to my final say, the Starfield is modestly priced for what it offers. Though not perfect, it specialises in versatility. Accordingly, the Starfield makes for a strong purchase and an excellent introduction for newcomers to the best aspects of the audio hobby.
Thanks for reading! If you enjoyed my review, please see my website for more just like it!
Track List –
Crush – NAPPA
Dirty Loops – Next To You
H.E.R – I Used To Know Her
Missy Higgins – The Sound of White
Nirvana – Nevermind
Pixies – Doolittle
The Weeknd – After Hours
Vampire Weekend – Father of the Bride
Introduction –
Astrotec is one of the oldest companies putting the HiFi in ChiFi. Their portfolio spans myriad offerings ranging from entry-level single dynamic earphones to a cutting edge electro-static flagship. Somewhere in between lies the S80, a TWS in-ear featuring a single Beryllium dynamic driver with ultra-thin diaphragm enabling a powerful yet controlled sound. It comes well-equipped from factory and offers the latest Bluetooth standard, all at just $70 USD. With specification parity with market leaders and a rich audiophile heritage, the S80 represents one of the cheapest enthusiast models on the market. You can read more about the S80 here and buy one for yourself here.
Disclaimer –
I would like to thank Astrotec very much for their quick communication and for providing me with the S80 for the purpose of review. All words are my own and there is no monetary incentive for a positive review. Despite receiving the earphones free of cost, I will attempt to be as objective as possible in my evaluation.
Accessories –
The S80 is well packaged as with all Astrotec earphones and also very well equipped for a product of such conservative pricing. Inside the hard box, buyers will find the earphones and charging case alongside a zippered hard case to keep everything protected. In addition, the earphones include two sizes of elongated silicone ear tips not dissimilar to Westone star tips that provide a more reassuring fit. They also provided a slightly brighter sound to my ear as compared to the mushroom style tips included on most TWS earphones and Spinfit CP360’s, a good fit to the S80’s smoother sound. In addition, two sizes of more traditionally shaped silicone tips are provided in addition to a pair of memory foam tips that aid isolation. A USB-C charging cable completes a positive unboxing experience.
Design –
The S80 is a medium-sized and lightweight earphone with plastic housings. Though they don’t possess a premium aesthetic or feel like more expensive competitors, their non-frills design is very smooth in all aspects and achieves a solid fit and seal. Thoughtful additions such as a matte inner face that resist oils from the ear alongside a rubber ring that runs the perimeter provides tactility when removing the earphone from the case aids stability in the ear. Meanwhile, gloss faceplates conceal large capacitive touch control panels.
They are uniquely shaped with oblong dimensions, however, tapered nozzles and unique elongated ear tips enable the majority of bulk to sit outside the ear, thereby avoiding hotspots. And during wear, the earphones have a medium depth fit and a strong seal that proved stable during runs and workouts. In addition, isolation is very good, on behalf of their ear-filling design and strong seal, easily adequate for public transport, especially with foam tips. Microphone holes are located on the outer faces but do not impede a respectable IPX5 water resistance rating.
Contrarily, Astrotec’s included carrying case looks quite stunning with chrome lid and linen base. Four LED indicators shine through the fabric but are otherwise concealed for a clean aesthetic. A USB-C charging port is located on the right side of the case. Meanwhile, the hinge is stiff but serviceable with a subtle lockout at end range. The earphones are secured magnetically and charge via 2-pin terminals. The case is a little chunky but is compact in all dimensions and one of the more pocketable I’ve come across.
Usage –
Upon initial removal from the included case, the earphones instantly enter pairing mode with accompanying spoken audio cues that confirm pairing to the source and between each channel. By disabling BT on the paired source, the earphones will be available to pair to more. In addition, both earpieces can be independently paired by holding the touch control for 5s. They support BT5.0 but do not offer APT-X. Still, AAC is available for both Android and Apple sources. Furthermore, connection was rock solid in my testing with no cut-out between sides or from the source device in close proximity. This impression was reinforced in crowded areas such as Sydney CBD where, paired to my Pixel 4, the earphones didn’t stutter or cut-out.
The S80 also provides very respectable battery life, rated at 5-6hrs with an additional 4 charges from the case totalling 25hrs of playback time. I was able to confidently meet 5hrs of playback time at medium/low volumes. Meanwhile, call quality through the integrated mics is disappointing with callers often reporting that I sounded distant and muffled, in noisy areas, my voice was rendered indiscernible. Astrotec has assured me that this will be an area of focus for their future models, however, those requiring an earphone to handle call and music duties may be disappointed with the S80 in this regard.
To add fuel to the fire, the touch controls were highly unreliable for me. The single tap to play/pause gesture very rarely functioned while the double tap volume control managed a 30% success rate regardless of tap speed or location. That said, the song skip hold gesture was reliable which is arguably the most convenient. Still, as the earphones lack an aware mode, physical controls or more reliable single-taps would have mitigated much frustration. The earphones lack app integration, however, ultimately provide a simple and, with the exceptions of touch controls, reliable user experience.
Sound –
Tonality –
Though Berrylium drivers tend to provide a more aggressive sound, the S80 is warm and smooth. Its presentation is defined by its powerful bass that feeds into a warm midrange. However, unlike the majority of bass orientated TWS earphones, its high-end is smooth and refined. The result is a sound that can be listened to for extended periods of time or high volumes without fatigue, suitable for listening in noisy environments.
Bass –
Lows extend well and roll-off naturally at the very bottom, providing a more diffuse slam but enabling convincing rumble. Mid-bass holds the spotlight and bass notes are full and warm as a result. Some emphasis continues through the upper-bass reinforcing a warmer and smoother presentation. Control is quite good for this price category and surely represents the quicker decay properties and more textured presentation of Beryllium driver earphones. Mid-bass is slightly tubby though notes remain well-defined and, especially as sub-bass isn’t over present, bass isn’t muddy in the slightest. The S80’s low-end is nicely executed with moderate emphasis and warmth that will be sure to please many listeners so long as you aren’t expecting balance and absolute cleanliness.
Mids –
To counteract the warmth of their low-end, lower-mids receive are slightly recessed, thereby achieving a cleaner midrange tone. Besides this, the tuning here represents a very natural tonality that is only slightly mired by additional warmth from the bass and a very dark middle-treble. A small centre midrange bump brings vocals forward yet, by comparison to the low-end, vocals are still fairly recessed. The 4KHz region is also slightly recessed, providing a dense and smooth presentation. As mids are already on the warmer and fuller side, the S80 runs the risk of sounding a touch thick at times. Still, this tuning yields enjoyable vocal clarity and presence, vocals are well-distinguished from instruments and distinct layers are apparent. Vocals timbre is also respectable for the most part, and will appeal to those wanting an organic and rich presentation.
Highs –
The lower-treble has a well-executed bump centred around 6KHz that provides extra crispness and brings foreground treble details to the fore. The S80 isn’t aggressive, but treble instrumentation has pleasing energy and presence with just slightly enhanced percussion alongside natural shimmer and decay. Meanwhile, the middle-treble is significantly attenuated, providing a pitch-black background upon which foreground elements are easy to localise and differentiate. As such, the S80 comes across as a very clean and composed earphone without a hint of glare or brightness. And, despite its small bump in the lower-treble, the S80 comes across as smooth and very refined. As one would expect, treble extension is very mediocre with no micro-detail or sparkle and background information is just sufficient to remind you that it exists. Still, there is ample detail retrieval here to provide layers and dimension to its presentation.
Soundstage –
As upper-treble extension and background detail retrieval are minimal, the S80 has a fairly intimate soundstage contained mostly within the head. It does, however, provide a well-rounded presentation with good depth and vocal projection. Layers are also well-defined, attributed to a well-focused foreground that sits atop a black background. Instruments are pushed to the side while vocals are strongly centred. Directional cues are clear and the S80 achieves solid separation throughout on behalf of its well-controlled bass and a tuning that isn’t overly sculpted in any other regard.
Comparisons –
Lypertek TEVI ($89): Slightly pricier but a staple audiophile TWS earphone. The TEVI offers a significantly more balanced sound on behalf of its substantially less present bass. The TEVI has more of a sub-bass focus while its mid and upper-bass are neutral. It has a more controlled and defined low-end but the S80 is surprisingly detailed given its substantially greater emphasis. Through the midrange, both are quite similar though the TEVI has more vocal presence and also less bass, sounding cleaner, clearer and more balanced. It too has a 4KHz dip providing very clean, dense vocals similar to the S80, it also never sounds thin as a result of this tuning. The TEVI actually has a recessed lower-treble making it smoother within the foreground. Meanwhile, it has a more emphasized middle-treble giving a bit more headroom and clarity. The TEVI has a more open presentation and it is more separated while the S80 sounds darker, warmer and more layered.
M&D MW07 GO ($199): At almost 3x the price, this is hardly fair, however, seeing as both possess similar driver types, this comparison felt justified. Instantly, the MW07 is more W-shaped. It has better sub-bass extension and, though lows are just as present throughout, the MW07 is more controlled and detailed by a fair margin. It also has a fair less upper-bass so it sounds a little cleaner. The MW07 has a more recessed lower-midrange and a larger centre midrange bump, providing more vocal presence but also a less natural timbre. Meanwhile, the S80 is warmer, thicker and more recessed but also more natural and coherent. The MW07 has a more energetic high-end with a similarly emphasized lower-treble, sounding crisp but also has more headroom and extension. It has more detail retrieval, a larger soundstage and more separation. Meanwhile, the S80 sounds cleaner and more composed with more defined layers.
Verdict –
The advent of TWS was something I was very much excited for at the end of 2018 though a year later, we’re almost seeing saturation with an abundance of models from new and pre-established manufacturers. As such, it’s easy to lose orientation and settle for suboptimal performance. However, as I’ve experimented more with the segment, it seems clear that wireless is not the weakest link in the chain with new TWS earphones hardly resembling the muddy acoustics and generic designs of the first wave. The S80 is no such earphone.
Though surely generic on the outside and with call capabilities that are little more than specifications on the box, the S80 rewards with a rich and natural sound that has surely received some thoughtful engineering. A solid fit and seal in addition to respectable battery life round off the experience. Of course, those averse to bass will want to pursue an option like the more balanced TEVI while those coming from high-end IEMs fearful of missing technical ability will want to spend more for options like the MW07 earphones. However, at a very conservative price, the S80 provides buyers with reliable connectivity and a natural if bass-focused sound that is clean and impressively controlled.
The S80 can be purchased from Aliexpress for $70 USD. I am not affiliated with Aliexpress or Astrotec and receive no earnings from purchases through this link.
Astrotec is one of the oldest companies putting the HiFi in ChiFi. Their portfolio spans myriad offerings ranging from entry-level single dynamic earphones to a cutting edge electro-static flagship. Somewhere in between lies the S80, a TWS in-ear featuring a single Beryllium dynamic driver with ultra-thin diaphragm enabling a powerful yet controlled sound. It comes well-equipped from factory and offers the latest Bluetooth standard, all at just $70 USD. With specification parity with market leaders and a rich audiophile heritage, the S80 represents one of the cheapest enthusiast models on the market. You can read more about the S80 here and buy one for yourself here.
Disclaimer –
I would like to thank Astrotec very much for their quick communication and for providing me with the S80 for the purpose of review. All words are my own and there is no monetary incentive for a positive review. Despite receiving the earphones free of cost, I will attempt to be as objective as possible in my evaluation.
Accessories –
The S80 is well packaged as with all Astrotec earphones and also very well equipped for a product of such conservative pricing. Inside the hard box, buyers will find the earphones and charging case alongside a zippered hard case to keep everything protected. In addition, the earphones include two sizes of elongated silicone ear tips not dissimilar to Westone star tips that provide a more reassuring fit. They also provided a slightly brighter sound to my ear as compared to the mushroom style tips included on most TWS earphones and Spinfit CP360’s, a good fit to the S80’s smoother sound. In addition, two sizes of more traditionally shaped silicone tips are provided in addition to a pair of memory foam tips that aid isolation. A USB-C charging cable completes a positive unboxing experience.
Design –
The S80 is a medium-sized and lightweight earphone with plastic housings. Though they don’t possess a premium aesthetic or feel like more expensive competitors, their non-frills design is very smooth in all aspects and achieves a solid fit and seal. Thoughtful additions such as a matte inner face that resist oils from the ear alongside a rubber ring that runs the perimeter provides tactility when removing the earphone from the case aids stability in the ear. Meanwhile, gloss faceplates conceal large capacitive touch control panels.
They are uniquely shaped with oblong dimensions, however, tapered nozzles and unique elongated ear tips enable the majority of bulk to sit outside the ear, thereby avoiding hotspots. And during wear, the earphones have a medium depth fit and a strong seal that proved stable during runs and workouts. In addition, isolation is very good, on behalf of their ear-filling design and strong seal, easily adequate for public transport, especially with foam tips. Microphone holes are located on the outer faces but do not impede a respectable IPX5 water resistance rating.
Contrarily, Astrotec’s included carrying case looks quite stunning with chrome lid and linen base. Four LED indicators shine through the fabric but are otherwise concealed for a clean aesthetic. A USB-C charging port is located on the right side of the case. Meanwhile, the hinge is stiff but serviceable with a subtle lockout at end range. The earphones are secured magnetically and charge via 2-pin terminals. The case is a little chunky but is compact in all dimensions and one of the more pocketable I’ve come across.
Usage –
Upon initial removal from the included case, the earphones instantly enter pairing mode with accompanying spoken audio cues that confirm pairing to the source and between each channel. By disabling BT on the paired source, the earphones will be available to pair to more. In addition, both earpieces can be independently paired by holding the touch control for 5s. They support BT5.0 but do not offer APT-X. Still, AAC is available for both Android and Apple sources. Furthermore, connection was rock solid in my testing with no cut-out between sides or from the source device in close proximity. This impression was reinforced in crowded areas such as Sydney CBD where, paired to my Pixel 4, the earphones didn’t stutter or cut-out.
The S80 also provides very respectable battery life, rated at 5-6hrs with an additional 4 charges from the case totalling 25hrs of playback time. I was able to confidently meet 5hrs of playback time at medium/low volumes. Meanwhile, call quality through the integrated mics is disappointing with callers often reporting that I sounded distant and muffled, in noisy areas, my voice was rendered indiscernible. Astrotec has assured me that this will be an area of focus for their future models, however, those requiring an earphone to handle call and music duties may be disappointed with the S80 in this regard.
To add fuel to the fire, the touch controls were highly unreliable for me. The single tap to play/pause gesture very rarely functioned while the double tap volume control managed a 30% success rate regardless of tap speed or location. That said, the song skip hold gesture was reliable which is arguably the most convenient. Still, as the earphones lack an aware mode, physical controls or more reliable single-taps would have mitigated much frustration. The earphones lack app integration, however, ultimately provide a simple and, with the exceptions of touch controls, reliable user experience.
Sound –
Tonality –
Though Berrylium drivers tend to provide a more aggressive sound, the S80 is warm and smooth. Its presentation is defined by its powerful bass that feeds into a warm midrange. However, unlike the majority of bass orientated TWS earphones, its high-end is smooth and refined. The result is a sound that can be listened to for extended periods of time or high volumes without fatigue, suitable for listening in noisy environments.
Bass –
Lows extend well and roll-off naturally at the very bottom, providing a more diffuse slam but enabling convincing rumble. Mid-bass holds the spotlight and bass notes are full and warm as a result. Some emphasis continues through the upper-bass reinforcing a warmer and smoother presentation. Control is quite good for this price category and surely represents the quicker decay properties and more textured presentation of Beryllium driver earphones. Mid-bass is slightly tubby though notes remain well-defined and, especially as sub-bass isn’t over present, bass isn’t muddy in the slightest. The S80’s low-end is nicely executed with moderate emphasis and warmth that will be sure to please many listeners so long as you aren’t expecting balance and absolute cleanliness.
Mids –
To counteract the warmth of their low-end, lower-mids receive are slightly recessed, thereby achieving a cleaner midrange tone. Besides this, the tuning here represents a very natural tonality that is only slightly mired by additional warmth from the bass and a very dark middle-treble. A small centre midrange bump brings vocals forward yet, by comparison to the low-end, vocals are still fairly recessed. The 4KHz region is also slightly recessed, providing a dense and smooth presentation. As mids are already on the warmer and fuller side, the S80 runs the risk of sounding a touch thick at times. Still, this tuning yields enjoyable vocal clarity and presence, vocals are well-distinguished from instruments and distinct layers are apparent. Vocals timbre is also respectable for the most part, and will appeal to those wanting an organic and rich presentation.
Highs –
The lower-treble has a well-executed bump centred around 6KHz that provides extra crispness and brings foreground treble details to the fore. The S80 isn’t aggressive, but treble instrumentation has pleasing energy and presence with just slightly enhanced percussion alongside natural shimmer and decay. Meanwhile, the middle-treble is significantly attenuated, providing a pitch-black background upon which foreground elements are easy to localise and differentiate. As such, the S80 comes across as a very clean and composed earphone without a hint of glare or brightness. And, despite its small bump in the lower-treble, the S80 comes across as smooth and very refined. As one would expect, treble extension is very mediocre with no micro-detail or sparkle and background information is just sufficient to remind you that it exists. Still, there is ample detail retrieval here to provide layers and dimension to its presentation.
Soundstage –
As upper-treble extension and background detail retrieval are minimal, the S80 has a fairly intimate soundstage contained mostly within the head. It does, however, provide a well-rounded presentation with good depth and vocal projection. Layers are also well-defined, attributed to a well-focused foreground that sits atop a black background. Instruments are pushed to the side while vocals are strongly centred. Directional cues are clear and the S80 achieves solid separation throughout on behalf of its well-controlled bass and a tuning that isn’t overly sculpted in any other regard.
Comparisons –
Lypertek TEVI ($89): Slightly pricier but a staple audiophile TWS earphone. The TEVI offers a significantly more balanced sound on behalf of its substantially less present bass. The TEVI has more of a sub-bass focus while its mid and upper-bass are neutral. It has a more controlled and defined low-end but the S80 is surprisingly detailed given its substantially greater emphasis. Through the midrange, both are quite similar though the TEVI has more vocal presence and also less bass, sounding cleaner, clearer and more balanced. It too has a 4KHz dip providing very clean, dense vocals similar to the S80, it also never sounds thin as a result of this tuning. The TEVI actually has a recessed lower-treble making it smoother within the foreground. Meanwhile, it has a more emphasized middle-treble giving a bit more headroom and clarity. The TEVI has a more open presentation and it is more separated while the S80 sounds darker, warmer and more layered.
M&D MW07 GO ($199): At almost 3x the price, this is hardly fair, however, seeing as both possess similar driver types, this comparison felt justified. Instantly, the MW07 is more W-shaped. It has better sub-bass extension and, though lows are just as present throughout, the MW07 is more controlled and detailed by a fair margin. It also has a fair less upper-bass so it sounds a little cleaner. The MW07 has a more recessed lower-midrange and a larger centre midrange bump, providing more vocal presence but also a less natural timbre. Meanwhile, the S80 is warmer, thicker and more recessed but also more natural and coherent. The MW07 has a more energetic high-end with a similarly emphasized lower-treble, sounding crisp but also has more headroom and extension. It has more detail retrieval, a larger soundstage and more separation. Meanwhile, the S80 sounds cleaner and more composed with more defined layers.
Verdict –
The advent of TWS was something I was very much excited for at the end of 2018 though a year later, we’re almost seeing saturation with an abundance of models from new and pre-established manufacturers. As such, it’s easy to lose orientation and settle for suboptimal performance. However, as I’ve experimented more with the segment, it seems clear that wireless is not the weakest link in the chain with new TWS earphones hardly resembling the muddy acoustics and generic designs of the first wave. The S80 is no such earphone.
Though surely generic on the outside and with call capabilities that are little more than specifications on the box, the S80 rewards with a rich and natural sound that has surely received some thoughtful engineering. A solid fit and seal in addition to respectable battery life round off the experience. Of course, those averse to bass will want to pursue an option like the more balanced TEVI while those coming from high-end IEMs fearful of missing technical ability will want to spend more for options like the MW07 earphones. However, at a very conservative price, the S80 provides buyers with reliable connectivity and a natural if bass-focused sound that is clean and impressively controlled.
The S80 can be purchased from Aliexpress for $70 USD. I am not affiliated with Aliexpress or Astrotec and receive no earnings from purchases through this link.
Pros –
Perfect ergonomics with tiny, low-profile housings, Universal MMCX, Excellent balance, Outstanding midrange timbre and resolution
Cons –
Smooth treble can lack detail presence, Modest end to end extension
Verdict –
The AF1120 rewards those valuing accuracy, balance and a natural tone with perfect ergonomics and a newly upgradeable cable on top
Introduction –
Forged in the passionate flames of local music lovers, Australian audio company Audiofly seeks to provide sounds that suit both professionals and enthusiasts at flexible price points. In accordance, their product line-up is split between convenient consumer models and high-end monitors only found in specialist stores. The AF1120 is their magnum opus monitor, featuring a whopping 6 balanced armature drivers per side coordinated via 3-way electronic + acoustic crossover with Butterworth filter that keep the sound as flat as possible. Fans of the site might have read my review of their 1st generation flagship that blew me away with its linear, almost perfectly balanced sound and superb ergonomics. However, there were caveats, most notably its thin, tangle-prone cable with keyed MMCX that prevented the use of third party replacements. Audiofly has since updated their entire line-up with new models and 2nd generation refreshes of their hit classics. The 2nd Generation AF1120 features the same gorgeous sound and design now with universal MMCX connectors. You can read more about the AF1120 MK2 and treat yourself to a set here.
Disclaimer –
I would like to thank Audio Fly very much for their quick communication and for providing me with the AF1120 MK2 for the purpose of review. All words are my own and there is no monetary incentive for a positive review. Despite receiving the earphones free of cost, I will attempt to be as objective as possible in my evaluation.
Accessories –
The new AF1120 has a beefed-up accessory set that showcases its professional application. From a pelican style hard-case with non-scratch velvet interior to the 1/4″ adapter and assortment of silicone, foam and tri-flange ear tips, the AF1120 includes anything an audiophile could want. The addition of genuine Comply foams that offer greater noise isolation is a great addition for frequent travellers too in addition to a gold-plated aeroplane adapter.
Design –
Similar to the 1st generation model, and the rest of Audiofly’s universal monitors on that note, the AF1120 MK2 has perfect ergonomics for my medium-sized ears. The housings are transparent acrylic, showcasing the technology inside, and they are exceptionally compact especially when considering the driver count. Furthermore, the housings are very slim, forming a low-profile fit that is flat enough to sleep on, and wind-noise is also mitigated as a result.
The housings are fully-sealed with thin, well-angled nozzles that contribute towards a deep fit and a strong seal, providing excellent passive noise isolation. The earphones fit T100 size tips and my preferred Westone Star tips provided excellent comfort alongside a desirable sound. With foams, noise isolation is further increased, silencing commute and suiting air travel, though I personally found them to attenuate the highs too much for my ears. The light, compact housings also stay put during active use and disappear in the ear, forming no hotspots extended listening sessions.
A hallmark feature of the MK2 is the new universal MMCX connectors. The stock cable is thin with a twisted braid above the y-split and Cordura fabric sheath below leading to a rubberized right angle plug. It’s smooth, sturdy and supple, however, the tight braid does result in slightly higher microphonic noise that is only somewhat mitigated by an over-ear fit. The pre-moulded ear guides are soft and comfortable, and the ability to swap in a 3rd party replacement cable is surely appealing; especially for those wanting to use Bluetooth cables or modules in addition to audiophiles looking to upgrade and professionals who may want to replace the cable more frequently due to wear and tear.
Sound –
Tonality –
I visited the AF1120 a few years ago where it stunned me with its excellent balance and tone. Sonically, I have been informed that nothing has changed, and to me, that’s a positive as I didn’t see many issues with the original – if it ain’t broke, don’t fix it. So, the same can be said here with the MK2, which offers great balance from bottom to top and trades the sparkle and range of most flagships for a presentation that is rather exceptionally clean and composed. There are notable bumps lying in the upper-midrange and middle-treble to redeem clarity and some headroom. However, this is counterbalanced by a smooth lower-treble and light mid to upper-bass warmth that results in a coherent and natural sound overall.
Bass –
It’s clear upon comparison to other modern IEMs in this class that sub-bass extension is not a prime strength of the AF1120 MK2. Though it does possess some slam and rumble, sub-bass rolls of smoothly where others provide a bit more thump. This is redeemed by a punchy, lightly emphasized mid-bass that injects additional bass note body and size, resulting in a pleasantly full low-end presentation. Emphasis continues into the upper-bass which may spark more contention as this does make the AF1120 sound just a touch tubby. Nonetheless, it is not congested, bloated or overdone in any manifestation, this is a tastefully warm low-end with good depth and great coherence.
Part of the AF1120’s appeal surely stems from its bass qualities. Though contemporary offerings from Custom Art, to name an example, offer curated decay properties, the AF1120 employs old-fashioned carburettor tuning to achieve its presentation. It is clearly a quick, agile and BA-timbre low-end with surgical driver control on top, and these qualities ensure its warmth never becomes a deficit. Detail retrieval is excellent as a result, and there isn’t an iota of flab or bloom with surprisingly good separation on top. The AF1120 has excellent pace and definition, though not perfectly transparent, it has natural quantity and its organic tone is a pleasure to the ear.
Mids –
Easily a prime strength of this earphone is its vocal presentation that is accurate, natural and resolving. As a result of bass emphasis, especially its upper-bass, the midrange is a touch full-bodied. In turn, a small dip in the lower-midrange can be observed followed by a gradual climb to a natural 3KHz emphasis. As a result, the AF1120 MK2 isn’t overly warm as the additional body derived from its low-end is effectively counterbalanced by its lifted clarity. The result is well-resolved midrange notes and vocals that lie in perfect balance with its bass. Though not perfectly linear, vocal timbre is excellent on the vast majority of tracks.
As there is some emphasis here, the earphones are a touch more track dependent than earphones with less bass warmth. However, Audiofly’s colourations are very well-measured and listeners are rewarded with a sound that retains impressive vocal clarity and extension while maintaining lush body and a slightly warm tone. Furthermore, as the lower-treble is smooth, sibilance is non-existent and the AF1120’s vocals are smooth yet without a hint of veil. What we observe here is a masterful balance between body, tone and clarity with strong technical qualities.
Highs –
The AF1120’s high-end is quite a curiosity, with a sizeable dip in the lower-treble at 5KHz that takes some edge off percussion and strings, a rise to a small middle-treble peak and subsequent fall-off. As the 6KHz region is also a touch attenuated, the foreground of the earphone is smooth, flattering the midrange, but perhaps lacking some attack and aggression for some listeners and genres such as rock. Meanwhile, that small middle-treble bump adds a touch of clarity, so strings are still crisp and cymbal hits have ample attack with just slightly faster shimmer and decay. This contributes to a very clean foreground but can make high-hats sound slightly truncated. Notes also aren’t brittle or thin, a trait that lower-treble emphasized earphones can suffer from. Furthermore, as the emphasis is just above the lower-treble, the background remains dark, further contributing towards immaculate cleanliness.
This enables the listener to focus on foreground details despite their smoothness. Compared to the pricier EE Phantom that bears a similar treble presentation, the same micro-detail retrieval and resolving power in the upper registers cannot be observed. The earphones still possess solid headroom and extension though they do trade sparkle and some resolution for cleanliness. Still, they are resolving of fine details in the foreground and their background, though dark, does possess ample information to provide contrast and distinction between layers, providing the multi-faceted high-end IEM presentation that one would expect for the price.
Soundstage –
It’s clear from analysis of its treble that the AF1120 prioritizes composition, coherence and cleanliness over extension and sparkle. The result is a more intimate soundstage with expansion just beyond the head in all axis. The stage is redeemed by its excellent positioning and imaging, a by-product of the earphone’s superb balance. Chiefly, the stage is well-rounded and vocals have a strong centre image while instruments are clearly located to the sides. Layers are defined on behalf of its darker background though there isn’t huge background/foreground distinction as vocals haven’t received notable push through the centre midrange. Meanwhile, that small middle-treble emphasis translates to crisp and sharp directional cues if not a sparkly and holographic presentation. The sound is well separated despite its warmth due to rapid decay and strong separation between the three core frequency bands. Details are easy to discern and the presentation impresses especially with its coherence, remaining well-resolved throughout.
Driveability –
With a low 11-ohm impedance and 109dB sensitivity, the AF1120 MK2 is very efficient and easily driven to high volumes from portable sources. With a higher driver count and sophisticated crossover, the AF1120 MK2 sounds most faithful through a low-impedance source. The 10-ohm Hiby R6, for instance, resulted in a markedly brighter and more aggressive sound. Its bass rolls off sooner and is more neutral, meanwhile, the midrange is brighter and more upper-midrange dominated. Highs are considerably more forward and aggressive. Those searching for a more typical BA sound heavier on details may want to experiment with impedance adapters while those wanting the most coherent sound will surely benefit from a low-impedance DAP or IEMatch.
Comparisons –
Custom Art Fibae Black ($495): The Fibae Black pursues a similar tuning, however, with a smoother upper-midrange and without the middle-treble bump. The Black has a more sub-bass quantity and possesses slightly more extension than the AF1120, delivering slightly more rumble and slam. It has noticeably more mid-bass, producing a fuller, warmer low-end. This extends to the upper-bass so although bass is elevated, it doesn’t sound humped or especially off-timbre, and a sharper dip into the lower-midrange aids the retention of clean vocals. The AF1120 is cleaner yet and has faster decay. It is slightly more controlled where the Black has slower decay but also sounds more dynamic. Both are well-defined, the Black has a slightly smoother texture while the AF1120 is more separated and defined. The midrange presentation is intriguing on the Black, taking smoothness and cleanliness to new heights. With its full fundamental, modest centre midrange emphasis climbing to a 3K hump and subsequent drop off through the upper-midrange and lower-treble, it is dense, velvety and vocal forward, delivering ample clarity on top. As the lower-midrange is slightly recessed, the tone is only slightly warm and there isn’t a hint of raspiness, thinness or sibilance, vocals are defined and clear yet delightfully lush.
The AF1120 has a more transparent midrange, boasting a more progressive climb through the centre midrange and greater lower-midrange linearity. Its timbre is slightly more accurate and its upper-midrange extension is substantially better. As the Audiofly derives its smoothness and cleanliness from the treble instead, it sounds clearer and more open but also lacks the same sense of lushness and density, pursuing a more accurate timbre and tone. The Black actually has a bit more bite in the lower-treble with a small 6K peak that redeems crispness and detail presence. Meanwhile, the AF1120 has higher emphasis, its treble sounds a bit thinner but also clearer with substantially more air and headroom. The Black rolls off gradually through the middle-treble and it has little information in the highest-registers. What it achieves with just a single driver is extraordinary, yet with regards to top-end extension and headroom, the AF1120 handily outperforms it. This is reinforced by the presentation where the AF1120 is more spacious and separated, where the warmer, fuller and darker black is highly coherent and more organised but within a smaller space.
Oriveti OH500 ($499): The OH500 is a W-shaped IEM, clearly less linear than the AF1120 MK2 but also more engaging and with greater range. Its dynamic woofer permits immediately greater bass extension that is reinforced by modest emphasis that grants it greater fullness. The OH500 has a touch more mid-bass as well, but falls off significantly faster through the upper-bass, providing a cleaner bass tone. The Oriveti is without warmth where the AF1120 MK2 is slightly warmer despite not being as full. In terms of control, the Oriveti has longer decay, where the AF1120 is more defined and controlled. Into the midrange, the OH500 has a more clearly recessed lower-midrange and has a more aggressive centre-midrange emphasis that brings its vocals to the fore to match its bass. The AF1120 meanwhile, is more linear, sounding fuller and more natural but also with less clarity and vocal focus. The OH500’s vocal timbre isn’t as accurate, however, it does provide more immediacy and it has slightly better separation. The AF1120 can sound a bit congested by direct comparison. However, once acclimatized, it is the more accurate performer and more consistent in presentation between tracks on behalf of its greater linearity and more even bass/midrange transition.
Interestingly, both earphones employ similar upper-midrange emphasis to derive clarity followed by a drop in the lower-treble to retain smoothness and avoid over-articulation. They are also very similar troughs in terms of range and intensity and both earphones implement middle-treble bumps to redeem crispness, clarity and detail presence in addition to aiding headroom. The OH500 is the crisper earphone, it is more engaging with its W-shaped tuning. Meanwhile, the AF1120 is smoother and a bit darker, it sounds slightly more organised and composed where the OH500 is crisper but also thinner and slightly more brittle. The OH500 provides a little more sparkle and extension, however, both are well-resolving earphones with strong detail retrieval in the foreground and background. The OH500 has the larger soundstage as a result, both have very clean backgrounds, the AF1120 images better and is more coherent due to its tuning where the OH500 has better tri-frequency separation.
Campfire Audio Andromeda ($1099): Not the most fair comparison in terms of price, however, the Andro is undoubtedly a reference standard in the high-end IEM world. It too, is more W-shaped and engaging, however, it also commands convincing body and warmth, an appealing combo. The AF1120 is flatter, it is less dynamic but also more coherent and what is there is more focussed where the Andromeda has more scale and fine nuance to its sound. The Andro has superior sub-bass extension, it also has more sub-bass quantity delivering more solid slam and rumble. Its mid-bass is very similar, providing a slightly fuller, punchier low-end with more body overall. Both earphones have similar upper-bass tuning too, and both are lightly warm in their low-end presentations. The Andro has faster decay and greater control, however, as the AF1120 is a little cleaner, it delivers slightly more definition through the mid-bass. As the Andro extends further, it ends up sounding a more dynamic. Meanwhile, the AF1120 is smoother and less aggressive in its presentation while upholding almost as much detail retrieval. Through the midrange, the Andromeda sees and earlier centre midrange rise that brings its vocals to the fore, after which, it sustains emphasis until a modest lower-treble peak. The AF1120 rather builds gradually through the centre midrange to a more emphasized upper-midrange and significantly less emphasized lower-treble.
The result is a clearer but also slightly warmer vocal on the Andromeda in addition to greater vocal extension. Meanwhile, the AF1120’s vocals are more in line with its bass, the Andromeda pushing vocals slightly behind instruments. The AF1120 trades definition for greater note resolution, sounding a touch more coherent and filled-in compared to the Andromeda. Treble is sharper and clearer on the Andromeda, a by-product of its more present lower-treble and upper-treble. The Andro is crisper and more aggressively detailed, especially noticeable with its more concise percussion and bitier strings. Meanwhile, the AF1120 sounds considerably smoother and darker in this region. It lacks the sparkle, energy and headroom of the Andromeda, servicing the midrange with its smooth foreground treble tuning as opposed to focussing on the shine of its treble in isolation. The Andro is more detailed and has more background and micro-detail, it also extends further and has a larger stage. Meanwhile, the AF1120 has more coherent imaging and sounds cleaner which enables the listener to focus on smaller details more easily.
Verdict –
Audiofly’s design basks in the re-emergence of vinyl records, vintage speakers and appreciation of traditional acoustic design. Much like the original AF1120, the MK2 strike me as a well-balanced earphone, a sound perhaps from a bygone era, with superb tone and midrange timbre. Audiofly’s premium offering also now lies within a newer and more sophisticated market; and where other companies have implemented technological innovations to achieve great end to end extension and resolving power from small driver counts, the AF1120’s unaltered internals begin to show their age. Contrarily, its signature remains a highlight and a very natural tuning that modern earphones have, in trend, tended to steer away from. So though lacking sheer resolving power and headroom, the AF1120 rewards those valuing accuracy, balance and a natural tone with perfect ergonomics and a newly upgradeable cable on top. In so doing, it serves as a reminder that refined tuning is timeless in the face of innovation, though that statement does come with the biggest disclaimer yet.
The AF1120 MK2 can be purchased from Audiofly for $850 AUD. I am not affiliated with Audiofly and receive no earnings from purchases through this link.
This review was taken from my website Everyday Listening. If you enjoyed my review, please visit my site for more articles just like it!
Perfect ergonomics with tiny, low-profile housings, Universal MMCX, Excellent balance, Outstanding midrange timbre and resolution
Cons –
Smooth treble can lack detail presence, Modest end to end extension
Verdict –
The AF1120 rewards those valuing accuracy, balance and a natural tone with perfect ergonomics and a newly upgradeable cable on top
Introduction –
Forged in the passionate flames of local music lovers, Australian audio company Audiofly seeks to provide sounds that suit both professionals and enthusiasts at flexible price points. In accordance, their product line-up is split between convenient consumer models and high-end monitors only found in specialist stores. The AF1120 is their magnum opus monitor, featuring a whopping 6 balanced armature drivers per side coordinated via 3-way electronic + acoustic crossover with Butterworth filter that keep the sound as flat as possible. Fans of the site might have read my review of their 1st generation flagship that blew me away with its linear, almost perfectly balanced sound and superb ergonomics. However, there were caveats, most notably its thin, tangle-prone cable with keyed MMCX that prevented the use of third party replacements. Audiofly has since updated their entire line-up with new models and 2nd generation refreshes of their hit classics. The 2nd Generation AF1120 features the same gorgeous sound and design now with universal MMCX connectors. You can read more about the AF1120 MK2 and treat yourself to a set here.
Disclaimer –
I would like to thank Audio Fly very much for their quick communication and for providing me with the AF1120 MK2 for the purpose of review. All words are my own and there is no monetary incentive for a positive review. Despite receiving the earphones free of cost, I will attempt to be as objective as possible in my evaluation.
Accessories –
The new AF1120 has a beefed-up accessory set that showcases its professional application. From a pelican style hard-case with non-scratch velvet interior to the 1/4″ adapter and assortment of silicone, foam and tri-flange ear tips, the AF1120 includes anything an audiophile could want. The addition of genuine Comply foams that offer greater noise isolation is a great addition for frequent travellers too in addition to a gold-plated aeroplane adapter.
Design –
Similar to the 1st generation model, and the rest of Audiofly’s universal monitors on that note, the AF1120 MK2 has perfect ergonomics for my medium-sized ears. The housings are transparent acrylic, showcasing the technology inside, and they are exceptionally compact especially when considering the driver count. Furthermore, the housings are very slim, forming a low-profile fit that is flat enough to sleep on, and wind-noise is also mitigated as a result.
The housings are fully-sealed with thin, well-angled nozzles that contribute towards a deep fit and a strong seal, providing excellent passive noise isolation. The earphones fit T100 size tips and my preferred Westone Star tips provided excellent comfort alongside a desirable sound. With foams, noise isolation is further increased, silencing commute and suiting air travel, though I personally found them to attenuate the highs too much for my ears. The light, compact housings also stay put during active use and disappear in the ear, forming no hotspots extended listening sessions.
A hallmark feature of the MK2 is the new universal MMCX connectors. The stock cable is thin with a twisted braid above the y-split and Cordura fabric sheath below leading to a rubberized right angle plug. It’s smooth, sturdy and supple, however, the tight braid does result in slightly higher microphonic noise that is only somewhat mitigated by an over-ear fit. The pre-moulded ear guides are soft and comfortable, and the ability to swap in a 3rd party replacement cable is surely appealing; especially for those wanting to use Bluetooth cables or modules in addition to audiophiles looking to upgrade and professionals who may want to replace the cable more frequently due to wear and tear.
Sound –
Tonality –
I visited the AF1120 a few years ago where it stunned me with its excellent balance and tone. Sonically, I have been informed that nothing has changed, and to me, that’s a positive as I didn’t see many issues with the original – if it ain’t broke, don’t fix it. So, the same can be said here with the MK2, which offers great balance from bottom to top and trades the sparkle and range of most flagships for a presentation that is rather exceptionally clean and composed. There are notable bumps lying in the upper-midrange and middle-treble to redeem clarity and some headroom. However, this is counterbalanced by a smooth lower-treble and light mid to upper-bass warmth that results in a coherent and natural sound overall.
Bass –
It’s clear upon comparison to other modern IEMs in this class that sub-bass extension is not a prime strength of the AF1120 MK2. Though it does possess some slam and rumble, sub-bass rolls of smoothly where others provide a bit more thump. This is redeemed by a punchy, lightly emphasized mid-bass that injects additional bass note body and size, resulting in a pleasantly full low-end presentation. Emphasis continues into the upper-bass which may spark more contention as this does make the AF1120 sound just a touch tubby. Nonetheless, it is not congested, bloated or overdone in any manifestation, this is a tastefully warm low-end with good depth and great coherence.
Part of the AF1120’s appeal surely stems from its bass qualities. Though contemporary offerings from Custom Art, to name an example, offer curated decay properties, the AF1120 employs old-fashioned carburettor tuning to achieve its presentation. It is clearly a quick, agile and BA-timbre low-end with surgical driver control on top, and these qualities ensure its warmth never becomes a deficit. Detail retrieval is excellent as a result, and there isn’t an iota of flab or bloom with surprisingly good separation on top. The AF1120 has excellent pace and definition, though not perfectly transparent, it has natural quantity and its organic tone is a pleasure to the ear.
Mids –
Easily a prime strength of this earphone is its vocal presentation that is accurate, natural and resolving. As a result of bass emphasis, especially its upper-bass, the midrange is a touch full-bodied. In turn, a small dip in the lower-midrange can be observed followed by a gradual climb to a natural 3KHz emphasis. As a result, the AF1120 MK2 isn’t overly warm as the additional body derived from its low-end is effectively counterbalanced by its lifted clarity. The result is well-resolved midrange notes and vocals that lie in perfect balance with its bass. Though not perfectly linear, vocal timbre is excellent on the vast majority of tracks.
As there is some emphasis here, the earphones are a touch more track dependent than earphones with less bass warmth. However, Audiofly’s colourations are very well-measured and listeners are rewarded with a sound that retains impressive vocal clarity and extension while maintaining lush body and a slightly warm tone. Furthermore, as the lower-treble is smooth, sibilance is non-existent and the AF1120’s vocals are smooth yet without a hint of veil. What we observe here is a masterful balance between body, tone and clarity with strong technical qualities.
Highs –
The AF1120’s high-end is quite a curiosity, with a sizeable dip in the lower-treble at 5KHz that takes some edge off percussion and strings, a rise to a small middle-treble peak and subsequent fall-off. As the 6KHz region is also a touch attenuated, the foreground of the earphone is smooth, flattering the midrange, but perhaps lacking some attack and aggression for some listeners and genres such as rock. Meanwhile, that small middle-treble bump adds a touch of clarity, so strings are still crisp and cymbal hits have ample attack with just slightly faster shimmer and decay. This contributes to a very clean foreground but can make high-hats sound slightly truncated. Notes also aren’t brittle or thin, a trait that lower-treble emphasized earphones can suffer from. Furthermore, as the emphasis is just above the lower-treble, the background remains dark, further contributing towards immaculate cleanliness.
This enables the listener to focus on foreground details despite their smoothness. Compared to the pricier EE Phantom that bears a similar treble presentation, the same micro-detail retrieval and resolving power in the upper registers cannot be observed. The earphones still possess solid headroom and extension though they do trade sparkle and some resolution for cleanliness. Still, they are resolving of fine details in the foreground and their background, though dark, does possess ample information to provide contrast and distinction between layers, providing the multi-faceted high-end IEM presentation that one would expect for the price.
Soundstage –
It’s clear from analysis of its treble that the AF1120 prioritizes composition, coherence and cleanliness over extension and sparkle. The result is a more intimate soundstage with expansion just beyond the head in all axis. The stage is redeemed by its excellent positioning and imaging, a by-product of the earphone’s superb balance. Chiefly, the stage is well-rounded and vocals have a strong centre image while instruments are clearly located to the sides. Layers are defined on behalf of its darker background though there isn’t huge background/foreground distinction as vocals haven’t received notable push through the centre midrange. Meanwhile, that small middle-treble emphasis translates to crisp and sharp directional cues if not a sparkly and holographic presentation. The sound is well separated despite its warmth due to rapid decay and strong separation between the three core frequency bands. Details are easy to discern and the presentation impresses especially with its coherence, remaining well-resolved throughout.
Driveability –
With a low 11-ohm impedance and 109dB sensitivity, the AF1120 MK2 is very efficient and easily driven to high volumes from portable sources. With a higher driver count and sophisticated crossover, the AF1120 MK2 sounds most faithful through a low-impedance source. The 10-ohm Hiby R6, for instance, resulted in a markedly brighter and more aggressive sound. Its bass rolls off sooner and is more neutral, meanwhile, the midrange is brighter and more upper-midrange dominated. Highs are considerably more forward and aggressive. Those searching for a more typical BA sound heavier on details may want to experiment with impedance adapters while those wanting the most coherent sound will surely benefit from a low-impedance DAP or IEMatch.
Comparisons –
Custom Art Fibae Black ($495): The Fibae Black pursues a similar tuning, however, with a smoother upper-midrange and without the middle-treble bump. The Black has a more sub-bass quantity and possesses slightly more extension than the AF1120, delivering slightly more rumble and slam. It has noticeably more mid-bass, producing a fuller, warmer low-end. This extends to the upper-bass so although bass is elevated, it doesn’t sound humped or especially off-timbre, and a sharper dip into the lower-midrange aids the retention of clean vocals. The AF1120 is cleaner yet and has faster decay. It is slightly more controlled where the Black has slower decay but also sounds more dynamic. Both are well-defined, the Black has a slightly smoother texture while the AF1120 is more separated and defined. The midrange presentation is intriguing on the Black, taking smoothness and cleanliness to new heights. With its full fundamental, modest centre midrange emphasis climbing to a 3K hump and subsequent drop off through the upper-midrange and lower-treble, it is dense, velvety and vocal forward, delivering ample clarity on top. As the lower-midrange is slightly recessed, the tone is only slightly warm and there isn’t a hint of raspiness, thinness or sibilance, vocals are defined and clear yet delightfully lush.
The AF1120 has a more transparent midrange, boasting a more progressive climb through the centre midrange and greater lower-midrange linearity. Its timbre is slightly more accurate and its upper-midrange extension is substantially better. As the Audiofly derives its smoothness and cleanliness from the treble instead, it sounds clearer and more open but also lacks the same sense of lushness and density, pursuing a more accurate timbre and tone. The Black actually has a bit more bite in the lower-treble with a small 6K peak that redeems crispness and detail presence. Meanwhile, the AF1120 has higher emphasis, its treble sounds a bit thinner but also clearer with substantially more air and headroom. The Black rolls off gradually through the middle-treble and it has little information in the highest-registers. What it achieves with just a single driver is extraordinary, yet with regards to top-end extension and headroom, the AF1120 handily outperforms it. This is reinforced by the presentation where the AF1120 is more spacious and separated, where the warmer, fuller and darker black is highly coherent and more organised but within a smaller space.
Oriveti OH500 ($499): The OH500 is a W-shaped IEM, clearly less linear than the AF1120 MK2 but also more engaging and with greater range. Its dynamic woofer permits immediately greater bass extension that is reinforced by modest emphasis that grants it greater fullness. The OH500 has a touch more mid-bass as well, but falls off significantly faster through the upper-bass, providing a cleaner bass tone. The Oriveti is without warmth where the AF1120 MK2 is slightly warmer despite not being as full. In terms of control, the Oriveti has longer decay, where the AF1120 is more defined and controlled. Into the midrange, the OH500 has a more clearly recessed lower-midrange and has a more aggressive centre-midrange emphasis that brings its vocals to the fore to match its bass. The AF1120 meanwhile, is more linear, sounding fuller and more natural but also with less clarity and vocal focus. The OH500’s vocal timbre isn’t as accurate, however, it does provide more immediacy and it has slightly better separation. The AF1120 can sound a bit congested by direct comparison. However, once acclimatized, it is the more accurate performer and more consistent in presentation between tracks on behalf of its greater linearity and more even bass/midrange transition.
Interestingly, both earphones employ similar upper-midrange emphasis to derive clarity followed by a drop in the lower-treble to retain smoothness and avoid over-articulation. They are also very similar troughs in terms of range and intensity and both earphones implement middle-treble bumps to redeem crispness, clarity and detail presence in addition to aiding headroom. The OH500 is the crisper earphone, it is more engaging with its W-shaped tuning. Meanwhile, the AF1120 is smoother and a bit darker, it sounds slightly more organised and composed where the OH500 is crisper but also thinner and slightly more brittle. The OH500 provides a little more sparkle and extension, however, both are well-resolving earphones with strong detail retrieval in the foreground and background. The OH500 has the larger soundstage as a result, both have very clean backgrounds, the AF1120 images better and is more coherent due to its tuning where the OH500 has better tri-frequency separation.
Campfire Audio Andromeda ($1099): Not the most fair comparison in terms of price, however, the Andro is undoubtedly a reference standard in the high-end IEM world. It too, is more W-shaped and engaging, however, it also commands convincing body and warmth, an appealing combo. The AF1120 is flatter, it is less dynamic but also more coherent and what is there is more focussed where the Andromeda has more scale and fine nuance to its sound. The Andro has superior sub-bass extension, it also has more sub-bass quantity delivering more solid slam and rumble. Its mid-bass is very similar, providing a slightly fuller, punchier low-end with more body overall. Both earphones have similar upper-bass tuning too, and both are lightly warm in their low-end presentations. The Andro has faster decay and greater control, however, as the AF1120 is a little cleaner, it delivers slightly more definition through the mid-bass. As the Andro extends further, it ends up sounding a more dynamic. Meanwhile, the AF1120 is smoother and less aggressive in its presentation while upholding almost as much detail retrieval. Through the midrange, the Andromeda sees and earlier centre midrange rise that brings its vocals to the fore, after which, it sustains emphasis until a modest lower-treble peak. The AF1120 rather builds gradually through the centre midrange to a more emphasized upper-midrange and significantly less emphasized lower-treble.
The result is a clearer but also slightly warmer vocal on the Andromeda in addition to greater vocal extension. Meanwhile, the AF1120’s vocals are more in line with its bass, the Andromeda pushing vocals slightly behind instruments. The AF1120 trades definition for greater note resolution, sounding a touch more coherent and filled-in compared to the Andromeda. Treble is sharper and clearer on the Andromeda, a by-product of its more present lower-treble and upper-treble. The Andro is crisper and more aggressively detailed, especially noticeable with its more concise percussion and bitier strings. Meanwhile, the AF1120 sounds considerably smoother and darker in this region. It lacks the sparkle, energy and headroom of the Andromeda, servicing the midrange with its smooth foreground treble tuning as opposed to focussing on the shine of its treble in isolation. The Andro is more detailed and has more background and micro-detail, it also extends further and has a larger stage. Meanwhile, the AF1120 has more coherent imaging and sounds cleaner which enables the listener to focus on smaller details more easily.
Verdict –
Audiofly’s design basks in the re-emergence of vinyl records, vintage speakers and appreciation of traditional acoustic design. Much like the original AF1120, the MK2 strike me as a well-balanced earphone, a sound perhaps from a bygone era, with superb tone and midrange timbre. Audiofly’s premium offering also now lies within a newer and more sophisticated market; and where other companies have implemented technological innovations to achieve great end to end extension and resolving power from small driver counts, the AF1120’s unaltered internals begin to show their age. Contrarily, its signature remains a highlight and a very natural tuning that modern earphones have, in trend, tended to steer away from. So though lacking sheer resolving power and headroom, the AF1120 rewards those valuing accuracy, balance and a natural tone with perfect ergonomics and a newly upgradeable cable on top. In so doing, it serves as a reminder that refined tuning is timeless in the face of innovation, though that statement does come with the biggest disclaimer yet.
The AF1120 MK2 can be purchased from Audiofly for $850 AUD. I am not affiliated with Audiofly and receive no earnings from purchases through this link.
This review was taken from my website Everyday Listening. If you enjoyed my review, please visit my site for more articles just like it!
