Sho DD differ from Sho at various levels, including the housing material (an AL-CU alloy in lieu of Titanium), the material chosen for the ceramic tweeter, the sophystication of the pentaconn connectors, etc, so I’m sure it’d be wrong to expect that Sho DD represent a “Sho replacement” at a much lower price, as it would after all be totally illogical on a commercial level of course.

I happen to have two different versions of Sho DD available: the standard one, regularly in production and purchaseable from the company’s website (here without a cable for the equivalent of less than 100€, or here with a cable, for the equivalent of less than 200€), and a special edition called Sho DD Halloween, externally recogniseable by their purple colored backside resin, currently out of production. One of the two is my own property, the other has been sent to me courtesy of the manufacturer.

The description here below refers to the currently shipping Sho DD version. I’ll add the differential notes regarding Sho DD Halloween in the Comparison section below.

At-a-glance Card

Full Device Card

Test setup and preliminary notes

Sources: Sony NW-A55 mrWalkman / Questyle QP1R, QP2R, M15, CMA-400i / Dragonfly Cobalt – JVC Spiraldot silicon tips – Dunu DUW-02S cable – lossless 16-24/44.1-192 FLAC and DSD64/128/256 tracks.

Signature analysis

Tonality

Sho DD presentation is a sort of V-shape, with vivid yet controlled high-mids. Their tonality is on the warm side of neutral, however much less than the muscular bass might threaten to make it at first hearing.

The timbre… that’s where it gets tricky. On Sho DD timbre depends quite heavily on how trebles come up, which in turn changes even dramatically depending on eartips selection and insertion depth.

More in detail: when “casually” worn, and with narrow bore tips, Sho DD may easily present a dual-timbre scenario with a solid, bodied, muscular bass standing in front of razor cutting, brilliant, finely detailed treble (and highmids, to some extent). Such “inconsistency” might even rather be taken as a “duality”, something in the ballpark of a 2 tweeters + 1 subwoofer nearfield setup, to give an idea of what I’m talking about.

By working on insertion position and eartips (wider bore) it’s however very possible to smoothen the highs a bit, taming their finest and leanest fringes, but most of all adding to their body thereby significantly closing the gap with bass notes. That’s where my recommendation rootens, to choose for JVC Spiraldots.

Even with that Sho DD will be living on a dynamic balance between diverse elements, much different from a seemless or near-seemless merge like you can get on other hybrid setups. Such situation is very thin ice to thread onto: when done right a good orchestration delivers extremely interesting composite results, and comes across nearly unhearable otherwise. Sho DD are an evident example of the former case.

Last but not least: of course tips choice and insertion positioning being totally subjective, it may well be the case that the virtuous scenario I just mentioned takes place in your case just on stock tips, or with totally different ones. You’ll have to try your own mileage.

Sub-Bass

Sho DD have a hefty, solid, physical sub-bass acting like a concrete basement, while staying separated from the rest for most if not at all times.

Mid Bass

Midbass is no doubt one of Sho DD’s strengths. It’s thick, visceral yet very well controlled, quite fast but not sharp and very well textured. Transients are calibrated on a totally commendable speed compromise point, to one of the best “thick-bass tunings” I ever came across.

Mids

Mids are obviously positionally recessed nonetheless they carry good definition. Their note body is also not lean, just “unlushy” in a sense, such as to make vocals, guitars and part of the piano stay more in the back in relation to drums, winds and drumplates which are made to take the lead by Sho DD.

I guess it’s fair to say of Sho DD that they represent an example of a situation where leaving some parts (like mids and vocals) on second-priority does not necessarily mean not curing them at all. Au contraire.

Male Vocals

As they are contributed to both by the VST and DD driver, male vocals are indeed more than pleasing on Sho DD. Certainly positioned in the back, they carry good texture and especially more than decent organicity and credibility.

Female Vocals

Taken in absolute terms female vocals are also relatively un-lushy and somewhat cold, yet can’t call them lean: they indeed carry more than a bit of texture. If I put them in a V shape sig perspective they are actually very good for the category.

Highs

If I had to elect my preferred value on all Intime IEMs I heard (a total of 8 different models till now) their unique highmids and treble rendering is very likely where my choice would land. Which is in the end consistent with the fact that their patented ceramic-based piezo tweeter is the owner’s competence specialty coming from his previous professional history, too.

Be as it may, Sho DD’s highs section is shiny, vivid, energetic and fundamentally always south of excessive.

Also, if after trying other piezo technology drivers you tend to expect a characteristic unwanted timbre to them well, forget it: Intime’s VST does not carry any “electric” sheen or aftertaste.

Technicalities

Soundstage

Sho DD offer a very sizeable horizontal stage, good height and above average depth.

Imaging

Macrodynamics are extremely good, mainly thanks to the solid but unbloating bass not covering the tweeter’s job. Mid’s recession may occasionally put some vocals or guitars a bit too much in the background.

Details

The combined effort of the two drivers grants very good detail retrieval from all segments of the spectrum. The lion’s part is surely taken by treble, especially in their higher part, which deliver

Instrument separation

Sho DD are extremely good at separation and layering, and that’s surprising after the first audition when you notice those lushy midbass and their buttery transients. The crux is that bass stays so well controlled, and the VST2 driver extends all the way down to the mids, the result being just gorgeous with the user being able to follow each voice singularly, even on crowded passages.

Curiously enough, bass comes across physically “above” (in the sense of soundstage’s vertical dimension) mid tones most of the times, unlike what I tend to here more often on other IEMs.

Driveability

Sho DD require “some” amping power due to their somewhat modest sensitivity (100dB/mW). The good news is their impedance is not ultra-low (22 ohm), which increases the population of sources able to deliver the required current at that load point.

Physicals

Build

Much like most of Intime’s other models, Sho DD’s housings are made of two parts: a Duralumin front, complemented by a resin back side. “DD” in the name stands in fact for “Duralumin Design”, and also somehow recalls the presence of a DD (Dynamic Driver) inside.

Fit

Bullet shapes (slim ones like those designed by Final or Akoustyx, or fat ones like Intime’s) are quite easy to fit for me, just a bit wobbly.

I always considered wobblyness as a sort of unavoidable drawback until I came across those Earlock fitters bundled with Akoustyx S6, which taught me that it is possible to stabilse bullet-shaped housings, and do that for good. Sadly, original Earlocks won’t fit Sho-DD due to their too small central bore, so I temporarly adopted “comma-shaped” rubber fitters. The result is better than nothing but not perfect yet, so I’m keeping my search for suitable Earlock-shaped alternatives – stay tuned…

Eartip selection is one of those particularly tricky cases here. Most of the silicones I tried make treble going too hot and somewhat metallic. At long last I concluded that the best 3 silicon options are Acoustune ET07 (that is – guess what – those bundled with the product), Intime’s own iSep01 tips, or JVC SpiralDots.

Nearly identical to ET07 in shape and size, Intime’s own iSep are not ideal for my particular case however due to their softer umbrella structure: that’s supposed to be more comfortable to wear, and bring the advantage of a somewhat tighter bass, but it also proves a bit “too soft” for my particular case, and it tends to collapse under my ear canal tightening, thereby losing the seal – which does not happen with their stiffer siblings, the original ET07.

SpiralDots are an even better bet in terms of treble rendering, but they come with a further note body incresase on the midbass, which some might find excessive, even if it’s not associated with any additional transient loosening / bloating.

A very good alternative to silicones are foamies, which I normally don’t like but in this particular case I got very good sonic results with Comply TSX-400, and with INAIR Air-2, both of which I can then dearly recommend.

Comfort

Very subjective. I personally find them quite comfortable like all bullet shaped housings, even better if complemented with suitable rubber fitters (see above).

Isolation

No concha shielding due to bullet shape, but their “fat” build contributes positively nonetheless.

Cable

Sho DD are offered in 3 alternative packages: just the housings with MMCX connectors and no cable, the housings with MMCX connectors and a silver plated OFC 3.5mm terminated cable (“Intime M drum” cable), and the housings with proprietary Intime Pentaconn connectors and the matching silver plated OFC cable, in a choice of 3.5, 2.5 or 4.4 termination (“Intime P Tsuzumi” cable).

While Intime’s silver plated OFC cable is technically good, Sho DD (like Miyabi) are very sensitive to cable variations and after quite a few swaps and rotations I found Dunu DUW-02S pair best on Sho DD, significantly improving layering, separation and airness.

Specifications (declared)

Key technologies

I already covered Intime’s key internal technologies within my previous articles regarding Intime IEMs, here and here. I’ll quickly go through the differences applying to Sho DD.

The Dynamic Driver has a Titanium coating, different from Miyabi and Sora 2 which carry a Graphene-coated membrane.

The housing’s front part is made of Duralumin, which is an alloy made of Aluminun, Copper and some other stuff. Its advantages are basically similar resistance as stainless steel, with a weight similar to aluminum instead.

The VST tweeter and the HDSS device are instead both 3rd generation version, the same adopted inside Miyabi.

Comparisons

Intime Sho DD Halloween (discontinued)

Externally different just insofar as they carry a purple-colored resin housing backside (vs. regular Sho DD’s clear/transparent one) internally they reportedly differ only for a slighty different internal wiring.

Sonically, Sho DD Halloween come with a bit dampened, “more polite” (“less energetic”) highmids and treble. Sho DD are “crisper” up there. Sho DD Halloween alre also somewhat slammier on the midbass, decay is a bit shorter. I think the mids being a bit more evident compared to Sho DD are a consequence of what precedes.

final E5000 (€ 249)

Given E5000’s strong oddity, this comparison can’t forget to mention powering requirements.

When both are paired to a high(er) system, featuring very strong current delivery on low impedance loads, e.g. CMA-400i, QP1R/QP2R, 9038SG3 etc, then Sho DD deliver more solid note body and slightly less controlled midbass compared to E5000. Mids and vocals are less recessed on E5000, which also makes them sound a bit more organic. Sho DD delivers all the highmids and treble power, air, and energy that E5000 lacks. And finally, E5000 is still a bit (yet not much) better at layering compared to Sho DD.

When instead both are paired to a weaker-current source (e.g Dragonfly Cobalt, Sony A55, etc etc) E5000’s bass overfills the place and the presentations stirs towards darker tones – while Sho DD suffers much less if at all of the situation, coming out simply better on all respects in that situation.

Ikko OH10 (€ 170)

OH10’s bass is way tighter, colder and slammier, therefore less visceral and textured. Sub bass is a bit deeper on OH10, most of all more hearable due to the leaner midbass. Mids are similarly recessed but Sho DD has a fatter note body and therefore a more organic timbre. Treble air is similar, Sho DD is more energetic and presence treble is superior in quantity and quality. On the flip side OH10 is (in comparison) more relaxing in a sense.

Considerations & conclusions

Really well exectured V-shape IEMs are very uncommon, and that’s an already good reason to recommend Sho DD to those looking for one.

Add near-perfectly harmonised heterogenous drivers offering meaty yet controlled bass, and sparkly, vivid, energetic, highmids and trebles free from excesses and sheens. Complete with spectactular technicalities and you’re close to unicity. Masterful, nothing short of it.

Our generic standard disclaimer.

The post Intime Sho DD Review (Two Different Ones) appeared first on Music For The Masses.

I recently spent quite some time reassessing from scratch all of my analog cables, aiming at spotting the most beneficial pairing for each, with particular regards to the IEM cables of my preferred drivers.

This article is the first of a (short) series on such topic. It covers Dunu’s DUW-02S IEM cable.

You can find it from multiple sources including Dunu’s own website of course. A reliable, and even economically convenient outlet is Hifigo, which lists them for $79,00 (and puts them on sale quite often, too).

At-a-glance Card

One-off introduction

These articles of mine about cables will be very short, much shorter than an average piece regarding a pair of IEMs or Headphones.

For this one first piece of the series, however, I reckon a general introduction is due. I will put it in this first article only. Boy scout word.

Let’s go.

I won’t begin to articulate on audio cables (analog and digital, by the way) making a difference or not. They do, period. If you believe the opposite you are welcome to consider me a moron. In such case do yourself a favor and quit this page immediately.

That said, cable effects can be quite varied.

Sometimes, especially in a low end configuration, the difference a cable makes is lost in the big ocean of noise and distortion, or is somehow made irrelevant by the other elements in the audio chain (from the track recording quality, to the transport, all the way to the transducers).

In some other cases, [some of] the virtuous differences cables introduce correspond to weak spots in some other component of the stack, and this results into a negative instead of a positive effect.

Thirdly, and perhaps most importantly when in conjunction with modest budget (let’s say <3000€ overall) chains, the most frequent difference a cable makes is a negative one, simply due to its bad quality – either in terms of conductive components, or even most frequently in construction quality, or both.

With all this in mind a first problem about cables is: where the heck do I get the information on which cable(s) I better avoid, and which I better get ?

Look around you: how many sources can you name whose opinions about audio gear historically lead you towards purchases which, once put on personal use, turned out to accurately match what you thought you would get based on what you had read?

Now, assuming the answer to the previous question is a number greather than 0 : how many of such sources cover the cables topic, even only occasionally ?

Good. Now you know why I had to go through almost naked hands on this, experimenting in first person, of course in small steps.

Very much expectedly I had to kiss quite a few frogs before even understanding how a frog looks like – let alone getting a princess up.

This piece is about the qualities of one particular IEM cable (more articles will follow about other models) so I won’t go into specific details about all the frogs I kissed the cables I bought (and binned).

It might however be quite interesting to recap the passages of the process I went through:

One: every single one of the <75$ IEM cables I tested (in total surely more than 150 different models, if I factor stock cables in) introduced some or a lot of distortion / negative coloration.

Two: Same can sadly be stated for quite a few more expensive ones, too :(.

Three: I identified an extremely short list (less than 5 models) of <75$ IEM cables offering at least “some” positive sonic benefit. Sadly, those come alongside other distortive side effects. Pairing such cables within an audio chain which is somehow not particularly sensitive to their particular negative effects does result in a moderate bottomline benefit. Joy.

And lastly, four: I identified an (for now) even shorter list of >75$ IEM cables offering way more obvious sonic benefits, and hardly any negative ones. Biiiiigger joy.

From all this I drew a couple of quite logical conclusions:

One: cheap cables come with statistically cheap quality. Unsurprising, isn’t it. Surely by searching a lot I might be lucky and find more gold straws in the haystack – but that’s simply not me: in Las Vegas I wouldn’t be a penny machine gambler. I am not going to spend one more euro researching “rarely decent, wonderfully inexpensive cables” – same as I won’t be looking for the next budget priced “giant killer” (??!?) IEM, or DAC, or DAP of course. I can’t be arsed, really, and that’s final.

Two: higher tier cables are a very risky but at least more rewarding gamble. There are uninspiring, and even downright crappy expensive cables, and that’s the damned risky bit. But, there are also very good ones, which do make a big difference when paired to the IEMs I love.

This article is about one of those, until now the least expensive one I found by the way.

Features and description

Physicals and their impacts

DUW-02S is an IEM cable, in the very common length of 1.2m.

Its conductors are high purity silver-plated OCC copper wires, arranged in Type-1 Litz configuration. Conductors are structured in 4 cores, each one protected inside a non-declared polymer sheath, brided together.

The overall result is very lightweight, soft, with great haptics. It’s also very smoothly flexibly, it doesn’t tend to “keep the shape”, and it’s almost impervious to tangling. Simply put: it’s very “pleasing” when in service.

On the IEM end DUW-02S features (fixed) terminations: either MMCX or (protruded) 0.78mm 2pin plug models are available. Either model must be selected apriori, IEM terminations can’t be swapped later.

The 0.78 2pin plug is long enough to perfectly fit Final Audio A-series connectors (known to be particularly recessed). On the flip side, when plugged onto un-recessed 2pin female connectors (e.g. those on Ikko OH10, or many other IEMs) the aesthetic effect is less than ideal, and the total connector length is on the edge of inconvenience, too.

Regarding MMCX connections, all Dunu cables I tried (3 different models, a dozen total different samples, and counting) always proved mechanically slick, convincingly firm and reliable when stuck onto the female MMCX sockets found on so many IEMs, diverse by brand and model.

A special mention deserve Intime MMCX IEMs : DUW-02S plugs into Miyabi, Miyabi-II, Yo, and Sho DD housings “better” than those drivers’ own stock cables (!). This does not happen with Intime IEMs only, indeed, but in Intime’s case it happens all the times.

One last note about the IEM end is about ear guides: I find their shape too “tight”. That’s totally subjective of course, and in facts it happens with many other cable brands/models in my case. YMMV.

On the host side, DUW-02S features Dunu’s proprietary, patented modular plug system named “Q-Lock PLUS”.

Unlike pretty much all of their lower priced competitors I assessed to date, Dunu’s Q-Lock system offers seriously firm, reliable connections, free from any risk for the cable to slip off the back of the end-plug in conjunction with an even modest pulling force.

If something, I very occasionally got the opposite: on the various Dunu cables I assessed some plugs required a little bit higher insertion force when applied to the cable, and/or the Q-Lock ring sliding felt not perfectly fluidly. In no occasion however such relative hardness turned into connection failure or impossibility, so I can’t fairly book any of this as a non-conformity.

DUW-02S comes commercially bundled with a 3.5mm TRS (single ended) Q-Lock plug. It is not possible to opt for a different standard plug when purchasing the cable.

It is indeed possible to buy extra plugs, first of all those with 2.5mm TRRS or 4.4mm TRRRS balanced analog terminations, the special 3.5mm TRRS balanced analog (fantastic option, to fully exploit Ifi’s S-Balanced architecture, e.g. on their GO link dongle), or the Digital special plug, which includes a mini DAC-AMP inside and is in its turn available either with a USB-C or a (genuine Apple certified) Lightning male plug.

Dunu’s Q-Lock modular plugs are a major benefit if I look at my preferred host gear collection. DUW-02S is the least expensive amongst Dunu cables featuring it.

Sonic impact

And finally after all this bla bla here we come to the main course. The sonic benefits brought along by DUW-02S are:

• Tighter and fuller midbass notes. Notes are better rounded, and slammier.
• Higher central mids resolution.
• Improved note and instrument separation, especially in the midrange
• Some improvement on stage depth.
• More vivid high mids.

Such benefits are in some cases just blatant, other times more modest, but they are always there pairing DUW-02S with my preferred drivers, namely

• Final B3 and E5000, vs stock final C106 cable
• Final E4000, vs stock final C112 cable
• Final A3000, A4000 vs stock final 2pin black sheathed cable
• Final A5000 vs stock final 2pin braided cable
• Intime Miyabi, Miyabi MK-II, Sho DD Halloween, Sho DD and Yo Electro, vs both Intime-M Sound and Intime-M Drum cables
• Tanchjim Oxygen vs stock 2pin cable (easy win : Oxy’s stock cable is horrible)
• Ikko OH10 vs Ikko stock 2pin cable

I feel it’s particularly worth to underline how DUW-02S makes final B3 and E5000 “sound better” on all counts in comparison with their original final C106 cables (same bundle on both models), retailing for twice the price of the DUW-02S. Ditto for A5000, in comparison with their newly designed, braided stock cable.

Even most importantly: out of all those I tried, to my experience DUW-02S is the least expensive cable bringing multiple, consistent sonic benefits to all those IEMs, systematically doing better than their relevant stock cables. All other more or even much more affordable cables I tried on those same drivers either don’t improve over stock cables, or they do, but very lightly and partially, and always introducing some (negative) side effect too.

For example: there are cheap cables improving on bass tightening, but overexciting highmids at the same time. Others nicely add on note body across the spectrm, but cut on microdynamics in the process. Etcetera.

Talking about limitations, DUW-02S tend to give high-mids some more beer while keeping a more than decent control on them. However when pairing with signatures already featuring important elevations on 3 – 4KHz they might get too hot. Intime Miyabi is an example of such a borderline situation: DUW-02S is still a good pair for me, probably won’t be for a more high-mids sensitive person. Akoustyx S6 + DUW-02S is instead beyond acceptable.

And lastly, I found one single case which I tend to consider an “absolute lack of synergy”, and that’s final F7200 + DUW-02S. Compared with stock final C071 cable pairing we have improved midbass but too hot high-mids and most central mides moved wwway too much forward. A no-no.

Considerations & conclusions

While IEM cables are not something to start bothering with until reaching a certain stability in one’s audio tastes and equipment fleet, they may indeed bring obvious sonic improvements once properly identified and paired with selected drivers.

The bad news, if you wish, is that inexpensive cables are in the overwhelming majority of the cases a pure waste of money – so much so that I tend to recommend everyone to totally disregard the topic until he/she feels ready to get involved with cables costing 75-100$ at the very least.

In hindsight, I would actually do the same if it weren’t for the (partial) need of swapping fixed-terminated 3.5mm stock cables with balanced terminated ones to enable pairing to some sources. Not that this can be considered vital: a 50$ driver will stay a 50$ driver even if better amped, or driven by a better DAC. Nevertheless, now that I identified some at-least-half-decent budget cables I basically crystallised them as my “safe cheap harbors”, and I use them when I need a “balanced swap” on a driver I’m reviewing or whatever I am not particularly committed to. A future article of this series will be dedicated to them.

The more expensive cables market does instead offer good, and very good options, if mixed and hidden amonst pure lemons. Same to what happens on any other market, after all…

Dunu’s DUW-02S is until now my least expensive find in terms of an IEM cable bringing evident sonic benefits to most of my preferred drivers, very few and occasional sonic caveats, reliable modular host termination technology, very high quality MMCX implementation, and convincing general construction quality.

At $79 plus the cost of extra modular plugs DUW-02S is not something I would recommend buying to pair with a sub-100$ driver. However, the improvement it brings to quite a few mid-tier IEMs (those I explicitly listed above and some more others…) makes for an obivous recommendation when in search of an effective way to improve on an already loved mid tier driver.

Hifigo offered me a modest “reviewer discount” on DUW-02S, as always without expectations strings attached in terms of my subsequent review contents, and I thank them for both things.

Our generic standard disclaimer.

The post DUW-02S Headphone Cable Review – Most Affordable Significant Upgrade appeared first on Music For The Masses.

At-a-glance Card

Important foreword

I feel it’s appropriate to extend an informative preamble here, you’ll understand why as you read on.

As you might (or might not?) know, the people at final do take a quite scientific approach to acoustics, and to their headphones design in consequence. If you didn’t yet, I warmly recommend you to spend a couple of hours (or more) on this article.

Until a few years ago final’s strategy line was to develop “in-ear versions” of their flagship D8000 headphones aiming at delivering something as close as possible to the “allrounder” archetipe. Such was, and still is, their E-series.

Later on, final took a different approach: investigating specific musical genres and their listeners’ preferences and/or requirements as a basis to develop IEMs focused on each particular situation.

Final A- and B- series are the results of such different strategy.

Final shared some more detail regarding their studies and consequent choices.

First and foremost they put attention on the aspect of “distance perception”.

When listening to some musical genres – namely orchestral classical or big band jazz – more than others spatiality is key. Thinking to the “real thing” (the orchestra in the theatre) you expect, and therefore you want , to “feel” their music “in a big room”, and perceive the different distance the various instruments or instrument grups are placed at from your seat, and from each other.

Oppositely, when one listens to hard rock, pop, or even small-group jazz (think to a trio in a smokey canteen) widespread 3D spacing is not important as indeed it does not correspond to “the real thing”. In such situation you indeed expect a group of voices playing physically close to one another, and what you want is not hearing them artificially scattered here or there, rather you want them to be rendered “sonically well separated” from one another.

When at a live venue of a small group you do in facts always discern the guitar from the bass and the voice even if they are all standing on a stage less than 10 square meters – such discernment capability is instead too often “lost in translation” while we listen to corresponding audio tracks.

Another key element that final focused on is what techies call the sound’s “dynamic range”.

Vulgarly translated, think to dynamic range as the number of distinguishable shades of a certain physical quantity. A box with 12 colored pencils from dark red to black is an example of a much tighter dynamic range compared to a big box of 144 Caran d’Ache, still going from dark red to same black.

Ported onto audio terms, a wider dynamic range sound is what you want to appreciate all the most minute variations Maria Callas was able to issue while warbling, or Uto Ughi can deliver from a Guarnieri del Gesù.

Oddly enough, in some cases a wider dynamic range is less desireable. Using only 12 colored pencils, in facts, it is much easier to tell a red from an orange, even if they are drawn one adjacent to the other, for the simple reason that there is apriori only “one” red and “one” orange in your palette, not a dozen different intermediate nuances of each.

When you have “a lot of space” in between two color (or sounds) spots, one blue the other red, you can have each reproduced with more subtle nuances. Oppositely if the two spots are closer to one another, or even overlapping each other, your first priority is to avoid they mix into a violet!

Thinking in these terms, orchestral music, or anyhow music composed of many “voices”, be them acoustic or electronic, coming from multiple, spread-out physical positions will better require higher space reconstruction and dynamic range capabilities.

Oppositely, music generated by very few instruments/voices/sources playing shoulder-to-shoulder will rather want all voices to be “more or less in the same spot”, and that’s when the highest available proweness in rendering them clearly distinct from one another becomes crucial.

The B series has been developed exactly thinking to such last mentioned applicative scenario: small groups acting on physically small stages, with overlapping sounds and voices – calling for relatively lesser need for “spatial amplitude” in exchange for much higher sonic separation capabilities.

This graph taken from final’s web site is at this point quite readable.

The term “Clarity” in this case is used in the sense of “being able to tell different sounds apart from one another”.

For completeness: the opposite scenario is the typical big orchestral setup, involving many voices positioned on a quite (or very!) sizeable physical stage. In such case priority #1 is rendering the amplitude of the original, real scene. Technically, translates into micro-managing sound timing, and rendering distant sounds as clean and articulated as close ones. That is final A-series ballpark, instead.

At the end of this lengthy preamble, I hope I made its very reason obvious: don’t blame your Fiat Panda turtle speed and deafening noise if your purpose is covering 50.000 KM/year on motorways, nor criticise your BMW 530 if costs your a pretty penny of gas in the messy downtown traffic.

Full Device Card

Test setup

Sony NW-A55 mrWalkman / Questyle QP1R / Questyle M15 / E1DA 9038SG3 / Questyle CMA-400i – Stock Final E tips – Dunu DUW-02S silver plated cable – lossless 16-24/44.1-192 FLAC and DSD 64/128/256 tracks.

Signature analysis

Tonality

B3 are just a bit on the bright side of neutral, with a presentation I would call roughly W-shaped. The timbre is very interesting: notes are clear and bodied, detailed and meaty – not simply “analogue”, rather “organically lifelike”. Veeery different from what’s commonly called “BA timbre”.

Sub-Bass

Sub-bass reflects the inherent limitations of BA drivers: its extreme end is in facts modestly rolled off. Not a big deal for my tastes: standup bass rumble is there anyhow. I can make it a bit more evident with some light EQing, which B3 bear with a certain tranquillity.

Mid Bass

Mid bass is very good but before that it’s… surprising. The BA driver reserverd to B3’s mid and low frequencies yields solid body and relaxed-calibrated transients, delivering still fast and punchy yet – very uncommonly for a BA – textured, flowery and meaty notes. For my personal taste B3’s midbass is at times even a tad too “imperative” – first time I hear such situation on a BA driver. Again, this can be easily corrected by some light EQing.

Mids

Mids are just spectactular: moderately forward, bodied, textured, articulated. Acoustic piano, guitar and tenor sax benefit most from this tuning.

Male Vocals

Baritones on B3 sound natural if just a whiff too much bodied to come across as “totally” realistic. Tenors are better in this sense: less “flowery” then baritones while still very much organic.

Female Vocals

Opposite to the male case, female voices are very good and cured, yet a purist might say they could use a bit more butter. And that’s true, in a sense, but in such case the rest of the tones “around” the soprano would have to be adapted too, to avoid losing coherence.

Highs

One of the two BA drivers is exclusively dedicated to this segment, with the quite obvious target of delivering an engaging and detailed experience while staying rigorously south of excesses. And boy did they succeed! A very good compromise has been reached here between note body and fine granularity, livelyness and unoffensiveness.

Technicalities

Soundstage

Unsurprisingly considering their apriori design choices, B3’s soundstage is not more than average for it price class. It is however, if modestly, extended in all directions including some depth. Caveat: stage size also depends on fit – deeper push-in = narrower scene, as always.

Imaging

All instruments are well cut-out from the ensemble – for how closed-in may it be – and realistically cast on the scene with good body, to a very organic result.

Details

Detail retrieval is very good on B3, however you shouldn’t expect a “detail monster” effect, whereby details are thrown at you as “the first thing you hear”. It’s indeed the other way around here: on the frontline you hear main-bodied notes, while back layers bring you the details that complement the sound richness.

That’s very likely the consequence of the precise tuning choices operated in particular on the trebles, where as I mentioned above an evident succeeded effort has been applied to delivered the highest possible energy while never scanting into excess and fatigue.

Instrument separation

Layering and instrument separation is arguably where B3 deliver their best. Capitalising on their timbre clarity, on the accuracy of their tonal calibration, and – why not – on particular driving hardware features, they deliver a really uncommon separation quality. If their design purpose was to render small, closed-in groups with the maximum single-voice definition, they no doubt hit the bullseye here.

Driveability

It’s not so easy to drive the B3 due to quite modest sensitivity (102dB/mw). Nothing as hard as a nasty planar however – a modestly amplified source is basically enough.

Physicals

Build

Housings are produced by Metal Injection Moulding, a process involving mixing steel powder with another element to form a resin which is then moulded at high temperature into the desired shape. The result is solid and sturdy, and aesthetically very pleasing at least for my tastes.

Fit

A 3-contact-point fit between the housing and the outer ear has been designed by final aiming at the best compromise between wearing firmness and light stress accumulation over time.

The design idea is quite brilliant to be honest, the rationale being: you need (just) 3 grip points to obtain stability. One is the eartip umbrella, inside the canal. Another one is the housing’s short front side vs the tragus.

And the third can be any one of the possible 4 contact spots between the housing’s shaped back side and the concha – depending on one’s ear particular shape that of course will happen on one or another position. I would say that for my experience it works as intended.

What I just find sub-ideal is the nozzle length which is a tad too short and makes tip selection pickier than it should. In my case the working trick luckily “just” stays in choosing a bigger size for my left ear: that gets me a firm grip and seal even if the tip stops “just in” the canal, relieving the need to push the housings too much into my left concha.

Comfort

B3’s particular housings size, their 3-point-fit design, and their external finish all contribute to a good comfort once I found my right “personal” position.

Isolation

Passive isolation is quite nice once B3 are properly fitted, but not more than that as the housings are not designed to “fill up” the concha, which would of course block more of the leak.

Cable

Stock cable is Final C106, a Junkosha silver plated copper with fixed 3.5 termination – it’s the same cable bundled as stock on A8000 and E5000. I recently focused how sonically limited such cable is – it’s at best on par with some quite cheap chifi alternatives, with the bad difference of it retailing for like 200$ when purchased alone.

In addition to that no modular termination plugs are available, so pairing B3 to a balanced source requires swapping it anyhow. To this day in 2023, and for packages like B3 starting to cost around 500$ list, I think final could do better.

After some cable rolling for my experience better stay on silver plated – pure copper “combs” B3’s trebles a bit too much – so I find Dunu DUW-02S an adequate quality option for B3. Compared to stock layering and note contouring get obviously better, and bass is better defined, less flowery.

Specifications (declared)

Comparisons

I’ll list a few comparisons down here, trying to be (for once) quite succint while hopefully informative enough

final B1 (€699 EU list)

Insofar as another member of the B-series, B1 follows the same apriori musical pairing indications as B3. Featuring a Dynamic driver in the mid & low frequencis in lieu of B3’s BA driver, B1’s timbre is full and lush, tonality is obviously warm and V-shaped, their bass is viscerally deep and authoritative (even too much), mids are more recessed, and trebles are relaxed. If B3 pleases those like me longing for organic, unadultered acoustic renditions, B1 obviously caters to people liking bass-colored, energetic playbacks. B1 is also very tricky to drive, requiring much more current than most portable sources are able to deliver, and when underbiased they sound dark and quite ugly (E5000, anyone?).

final F7200 (€ 469 EU list)

To me F7200 are [even more] specialised drivers, particularly dedicated to vocal performances like songwriters singers etc. Pretty much the single best driver I ever heard on that application. B3 offer more bodied, natural and more extended bass, and a bit better trebles.

Intime Miyabi (JPY 21000 + import costs)

Miyabi offer a more “classical-all-rounder” presentation with stronger bass personality, and those unique piezo-trebles-without-piezo-timbre. A close call on layering and separation with the edge probably in Miyabi’s favour, if not by much. Mids are better on B3, which also deliver “silkier” notes all over the spectrum, but cost twice as much.

final A5000 (€ 299 EU list)

As I tried to outline in the foreword up above, A-series stems from a polar-opposite design intention (rendering big bands instead of small groups) – no wonder then how B3 and A5000 sound different like day and night. A5000 draws a much wider space, and cast instruments all over it with a lot of clean air in-between one another. Notes are dryer on A5000 all accross the spectrum, its timbre is leaner, detail retrieval is “more upfront”. High mids and trebles may be “hot” for some on A5000, which do react very positively to EQ however. TL;DR: A5000 and B3 are fundamentally “complementary”.

iBasso IT04 (€ 499,00)

IT04, too, feature particular proweness on layering / separation, and prefer casting a more intimate scene with band elements imaged as more closed-in to one another. A very good job was done on IT04 bringing the 3 BA driver’s tonality close to their DD one, which however deprives IT04 of that little % of “treble life” which is there on B3 instead. IT04 has an open-V shape, warm-ish presentation in lieu of B3’s more W-shaped, bright-neutral one.

Oriveti OH500 (€ 499,00)

OH500 offer a U-shaped, warmer presentation compared to B3. Both ends (bass and treble) are more evident on OH500. Layering, separation and detail retrieval are better on B3, more so in the low end. OH500 are (even) pickier to drive then B3.

Dunu EST112 (€ 489,00)

EST112 has slower and fuzzier (bur more visceral) bass, not as full vocals and a bit more tamed trebles (which are in my books EST112 Achille’s heel tbh) compare to B3. Stage casting is a bit wider on EST112, layering is better on B3.

Considerations & conclusions

B3’s main cyphre is realism. When applied to the music they were designed for they gift their owner a stunning sense of physical presence on the scene. Instruments and players are cast near you such that you can almost reach out and touch them.

Even more importantly, B3 deliver a note discernment capability over the music being played which gets surprisingly close to that of your own ears when you are sitting in the front lines of a live venue. All of this paired with a deliciously organic timbre on a bright-neutral tonality.

As my eighteen readers know I am not a collector. Life is too short, and I have too little free time to spend any of that on second-best options, when I am lucky enough to have more than one availalble. B3 are part of my (very) short best-option list.

Our generic standard disclaimer.

P.S. – for the record: as any truly affectionated user knows spelling, “final Co., Ltd.” lowercase (“final”) is not a typo 

The post Final B3 Review – Realism For Real appeared first on Music For The Masses.

It is customary for us in these cases to write a rather succint piece to avoid too much replication of the previous article’s contents but I’m going for an exception here. These little ones do in facts make me feel compelled to share my extended opinions with my few readers. I know, it’ll be boring. Few readers, however, means little damage. So let’s just get down to it.

Just for the record: Akoustyx S6 are currently on deeeep discount sale (like: 50% off) on Drop.

The manufacturer’s official page is instead here.

At-a-glance Card

Full Device Card

Test setup

Apogee Groove / Sony NW-A55 mrWalkman / Questyle QP1R / Questyle M15 / Questyle CMA-400i – Final E tips – Stock cable – lossless 16-24/44.1-192 FLAC and DSD 64/128/256 tracks.

Signature analysis

Tonality

S6’s timbre is natural, sculpted, muscular and well bodied, and stays so all across the spectrum. There’s above decent microdynamics, and no sign of “artificial” aftertastes. This, alone, would be worth closing my article with a glowing rec.

S6’s tonality indeed deserves some articulated comments. The manufacturer underlines S6 are intended for “studio reference acoustics”. Talking through with them they reported they tuned them closely following the Harman IE2017 target (see below) – and I must say it does show, big time. The presentation I hear from the low mids all the way up is definitely that. Sub-bass elevation is only more modest on S6 compared to the theoretical target.

Simply put IE2017 is not my personal preference, period, and this for two main reasons.

One: the circa 11+dB value gap between the 1Khz and 3Khz points results in highmids being slapped hard into my face when I raise volume beyond a very moderate level, and

Two: the depressed lowmids values convert in a very dry, too dry tonality – I do prefer bright neutral to warm balanced, but IE2017 is below neutral, it’s almost aseptycal.

This has to do with the target itself. Then, depending on the particular driver technology and/or implementation accuracy or lack thereof on this or that driver the “actual” result will be for me moderately bad, very bad, or downight unbearable.

Now, the good news is that planar drivers in general bear tonality corrections by means of equalisation with a certain ease. And, S6’s driver is very flexyble (pretty much in Audeze iSine or RHA CL2 league), so first thing I did of course was bringing tonality more in my preferred ballpark, and a bit off the effing IE2017 “thing”.

Here’s the scoop:

My experience with S6 refers to the first 2 corrections (3K and 4K) imperatively applied. I will outline differences when the optional ones are applied too.

Sub-Bass

S6’s sub-bass is fully extended and quite present. Typical snappy planar transients apply without distortions here so there’s little more to squeeze off the onion so to say. That said those who prefer an even more visceral rumble can experiment with a Low Shelf correction from 50-ish Hz, +3dB (or more) and a very wide badwidth (0.3 or so).

Mid Bass

S6 midbass is seriously good. Oh well, of course it’s good if you like technical acoustic bass as I do. Distorted overbloated bass lovers should never buy S6, period.

Transients are well managed here and while they stay in fast, precision-rendering territory as you expect from a planar, they are not overly snappy and do deliver some body and microdynamics.

Applying the aforementioned warmth correction (Peak 200Hz +2dB wide bandwidth) does exactly what it says: midbass (and not only) will heat up a good 20%, coming across as a bit more bodied and flowery.

Mids

Mids are spectacularly sculpted yet organic and detailed. Guitars and tenor sax benefit most of the situation delivering good nuances and microdynamics while staying precise and seprated (see Separation below).

Highmids is where the IE2017 – and S6 which follow that very closely – loses my personal approval and that’s why in my books S6 strictly require the EQ-based retuning I mentioned above.

Once that’s done however the magic happens in all its splendor: high mids are energetic, detailed, sparkly and controlled (!!), even when you pump the volume up significantly, which is indeed a way to open the presentation up and let S6 give its musical best

Male Vocals

Tenor vocal lovers will be those finding the Wamth correction (see above) most desireable. Without that there’s too much dryness to call delivery really organic.

Female Vocals

Female voices are natural and organic, although not flutey. Good texture available and good microdynamics for a planar.

Highs

On a corrected S6 trebles are integral part of the nice show. Well extended, quite airy, snappy without excesses, not zingy, not tizzy. Love them. Apply the “Extra Air” EQ correction to add further airiness. Don’t be scared nor shy: experiment. Try +3dB, +4dB, +8dB if you want. Only stop where you like the sound best : S6’s driver shall anyhow follow you like a doggie.

Technicalities

Soundstage

S6 cast a nice sized stage both accross and in depth – a bit more or a bit less depending on fit depth (the deeper the fit, the smaller the room).

Not the absolute widest projection I heard but very good anyway.

Imaging

Macrodynamics are beyond good. Intruments and voices are well scattered on the scene and there is nice air inbetween

Details

This is a point of excellence. S6’s detail retrieval smoothness is easily top rank for my experience on sub-500€ drivers. While I can name other “detail monsters” around, they all will “cost” some or a lot of fatigue and, before that, distraction from the music flow. S6 deliver fine and subtle details without slamming them onto your face nor covering you with “metallic noise dust” as other much leess refined drivers do.

Detail is also good from bass, although to a lesser extent: down there I guess planar-snappy transients do represent an apriori limitation to low frequency microdynamics. Something can be obtained with some light EQing but that’s it. Not “bad” however, just not so outstanding as to point it out as key plus. If you want special bass articulation and nuances get a high end DD.

Instrument separation

S6 execute separation very well. Crowded passages stay perfectly readable at all times, thanks to very controlled transient behaviour, and that glowing compromise mentioned above between snappyness and microdynamics.

Layering is top class: you can follow second or third voices with ease at all times and that’s not trivial to get – at any price, let alone with this small budget.

Driveability

In the “planar drivers” world S6 are probably the easiest to bias I found. You can even drive them from a phone, although you won’t have much headroom to compensate for low recorded materials (e.g. some vinyl digitisations, DSD conversions etc).

That said, their presentation opens up to more details and microdynamics when submitted to somewhat higher power. Once I apply my EQ corrections and the highmids excess goes for good, S6 offer a wonderfully smooth SPL progression. Indeed I find that even “dangerous” insofar as they cease any shouting, and you don’t get any “too high volume warning” so to say when pumping them up. Be careful… we all have only one hearing system you know that, once screwed you can’t fix it…

Like any bright/bright-neutral drivers S6 pair best with relatively warm sources, or at least with non-analythical ones. A special mention for Groove: the pairing with S6 is beyond spectacular.

Finally, a last important point of attention regards the equalisation requirements: your source need to be capable of at least “some” EQing.

Physicals

Build

The cylindrical part of the housings is in titanium alloy. The supersmooth outside finish is a titanium-oxyde based treatment. The backside is realised of a special polymer, in angled shapen, to properòy house the MMCX connector. Very stylish at least in my tastes, and covered by some patent too.

A red/blue colored ring helps easy identification of the right/left piece. Depending on fitting that ring might end up covered by the Earlock structure (see Fit below), however.

Lat but not least S6 housings are extremely lightweight: once selected the right size/type tips, and worn on with Earlocks etc they virtually “disappear” from your perception. Superb.

Fit

Stock silicon tips are not bad for the job. It’s not so easy to rotate others in as S6 nozzles are quite slim. In the end I settled for Final E (black) as they tend to tame trebles and bring mids forward a bit, which of course helps on re-estabilishing my preferred balance in this particular case.

Technically speaking a good alternative would be Spiraldots too, but their stem diameter is too wide so who wants to adopt them onto the S6 must be ready to apply a tight rubber ring onto the nozzles first, then the tips. Couldn’t be fussed personally, as I found Type-E’s more than good enough.

As you may reacall I am not in general a foamies lover but S6 is one of the few exceptions: here the typical foamies effect (“combing” thinnest treble notes and making bass a whiff “matte”) resolves in a very pleasant timbre nuance alternative.

Once again stock tips are of very good quality – very soft and quickly reactive material, classic cylindrical style – so you can easily go with those to begin with. My effing left canal is always creating problems though so in my particular case S stock tips is too small and M is too thick :-/ My best option is Comply TS200. YMMV needless to say.

Last but certainly not least in importance: the Earlocks. Those are totally brilliant. Think to the IEM version of those “comma shaped” rubber thingies you fit onto earbuds to help the stay put in your concha – and add twice the design accuracy.

These EarLock® silicon “rings” realise several contact points on the outer ear to (literally) lock the housings in place and fit the same way every time. The item comes from a company focusing on hearing protection aids for people involved in very loud noise situations (including law enforcement, army etc) aiming at guaranteeing that the noise attenuator/plug/intercom – whatever stays in-ear – won’t ever budge let alone pull out even in case of sudden hard movements, pullbacks, rush etc etc. And boy do they work!

Simply put: the Earlocks (provided in 3 sizes S-M-L) fit perfectly and “disappear” in/onto the outer ear, I don’t even perceive them as being there once worn, and S6 housings get a 100% firm stability in place, whatever I do however I move etc. This not only means that they won’t entirely slip off, but also and probably even most importantly that they won’t budge even as a consequence of mandibular movements while talking or eating which – in my case it does happen – may produce loss of seal and/or need to reposition.

Long story short: now that I tried them I want something similar for all my IEMs !

Comfort

Subjective differences apart, bullet shapes are normally considered “comfortable”. Amongst their downsides there’s typically stability which is totally fixed by the Earlocks in this case (read above). S6 are not particularly “long” in the bullet shaped category however they do support mid-deep fit, as a free choice user option.

As always: the deeper the fit the softer the trebles, the more relevant the bass, and the narrower the stage. Pick your poison

Isolation

Using foam tips and Earlocks to guarantee stable fit, S6 reach a whopping 34dB passive ambient noise reduction (NRR 28dB). That’s a lot! We are in professional NR aides territory indeed – these values are indicated for people working on tractors for example, or in some noisy industrial plants. Fantastic. Just be careful walking outside : you won’t hear traffic (!)

Cable

S6 stock cable is an unassuming-looking yet very sophysticated 16 core Oxygen Free Copper conductor. According to the manufacturer it is accuratly impedance-paired with the drivers. Be as it may, it sonically pairs spectacularly well with S6. I tried rotating some others – OFC is definitely the right choice, SP-OFC adds on edgyness which is not required here, Grafene does not pair well either.

As it often happens on low budget packages the cable has a fixed 3.5 termination only (the company is working on a multi-plug alternative to bundle on future versions but that’s on the drawing board yet).

Considering how well the cable pairs with S6 I recommend swapping only to those who are in dire need as all their sources sound best exclusively from their balanced otuputs. In such case a very inexpensive, decent option is the good ol’ ultracheap NiceHCK 16 core High Purity Copper (aka “Ugly Cable”). Alternatively a Linsoul HC08 will do well. Or, wait for Akoustyx to deliver their own

I guess something more is also worth saying about the cable.

One: the Kevlar sheath may easily be a love/hate thing. The material itself is beyond wonderful, super resistant etc. On the down side it’s badly microphonic (which is probably why the manufcturer strictly recommends over-ear cable install – RTFM…) and it’s quite springy at first. For the latter issue the good news is that the sheath gets obviously softer and malleable after a quite short time.

To quicken such “break-in” period you can frictionate harshly the cable in between your hands after coughly “coiling” it – don’t worry it won’t break – do it a few times and it will already get much better.

Two: the MMCX connectors offer a very firm “click-in-fit”. This may sound like a detail but for my experience it is not (!). Without going too far, this is one of the very few points of structural weakness I underlined on my Miyabi analisis (here). The down side on low quality MMCX options is of course micro-discharges resulting in subtle craclking noise while listening or worse.

Don’t take me wrong here, I’m not saying S6’s stock cable is the one and only good cable out there – I’m just saying don’t discard it quickly replacing it with “just any other one”, as – unlike what too often happens with cables bundled with budget-tier drivers – Akourstyx put a good one in here…

Specifications (declared)

Comparisons

7Hz Timeless ($ 199 Drop deal)

Simply put, S6 are miles better. Timeless have bloated, untextured midbass, a generally artificial timbre, scarce microdynamics (aka invasive “planar timbre”), very modest layering and separation. They also don’t seem to react particularly well to EQing, although some correction do make them a bit better. They do cast a wider stage compared to S6, there’s that. And they are more expensive.

TINHIFI P1 ($ 169)

P1 offer a smooth, nicely balanced and inoffensive tonality. Possibly a bit “too inoffensive” – one of their limitations for my tastes being that I find them a bit boring. S6 are obviously sparklier, much more engaging energetic and “brilliant” – they do require EQ correction ootb however, which is not an “absolute requirement” for P1 instead. Other major differences are the timbre – P1 being desperately “planar” vs S6’s much better microdynamics – and the driveability – P1 is much harder to bias.

Ikko OH1s ($ 74 promo on Amazon.com)

Recently price-repositioned by Ikko (I’d like to think: also after our suggestion), OH1S are based on different driver tech (1 DD + 1BA) but offer a general presentation and tonality similar to S6.

OH1S don’t require EQ corrections to deliver good bass, mids, vocals and some technicalities – all coming close to S6, which still has the edge on pretty much all counts, even if sometimes by not much. OH1S fall more evidently short of S6 in terms of imaging, and most of all energy. They are also very much tip dependent, and may not be so easy to fit.

final A3000 (€ 129,99 on Amazon.it)

By far my sub-300€ clear-timbre, bright-neutral tonality reference. A3000 are built on a custom-developed DD essentially sounding like a planar, and specially tuned prioritising equal clarity on sounds both closer and farther away from the listener position – which is particularly beneficial to acoustic music from large orchestras or groups.

As a direct consequence A3000 win big on sounstage drawing vs S6 – and pretty much any other sub 1K$ driver I heard tbh, solely bar their siblings A4000, which I find however less pleasant for my tastes on other counts (won’t digress here).

Tonal homogeneity, phenomenally nailed compromise on details vs musicality on trebles, layering proweness and well calibrated snappy transients are on par between the two. S6 offer higher note weight and whith that a more energetic, muscular, lively musicality while A3000 are obviously silkier. S6 sound if you wish… american, while A3000 so japanesely discrete-yet-deeply-sophisticated.

A3000 do not “require” EQ out of the box, their few shortcomings however can’t easily be fixed by EQing. Opposite situation on S6, which need to be put hands onto, but can be EQ-pushed/pulled/stirred in so many different sonic flavours, such argubaly being their most solid upper edge.

Considerations & conclusions

Building low priced, low quality products is not too complicated. Building equally low priced products carrying some more quality as to trigger a user’s attention on “price/performance compromise” grounds is already a bit less easy. Building, again, equally low priced products featuring however the same quality of a market-top product and just scaled-down features… this is a challenge. Taking and winning it requires serious, original industrial competence.

Some 2-3 years ago I auditioned my first planar IEM and I was kinda puzzled. Then I heard another. Then another. And I gave up. Most of all, they were drowning me into “planar timbre”, i.e. [almost] complete lack of microdynamics. A total turnoff for me. Simply put, I could see no reason why one would prefer one of those to a much more expressive and/or refined fast-transient DD or (quite rare, on low budgets) good BA.

Then in spite of my disappointment for the category last year a friend convinced me to audition a pair of RHA CL2, and that’s where I finally “got” planars: different beasts, indeed. And not at all “inexpressive” as the previous ones I tried.

Too bad that a) those CL2 babies cost a pretty penny, and what’s worse b) they are not in production anymore. “Alright too bad” – I said to myself. At least now I know “what” I look for “can” exist in a planar IEM, and that I was right on disregarding lower rank / quality alternatives.

Finally, in came Akoustyx.

Simply put, their S6 are truly hightech planar drivers built into a scaled-down, very modestly priced, stellar value package.

I sharply disagree on the apriori choice which as been made in favor of the IE2017 target. In my very modest personal opinion I don’t find it neither studio-neutral/reference, nor pleasantly musical. I was even more disappointed about stock CL2 tuning, however !

The outstanding things with S6 are their spot on native timbre, and their great elasticity vs EQ corrections.

No they do not deliver “precisely the same” technical proweness I heard on RHA CL2. They come seriously close however, with that indeed representing a credible, significant, differently flavored alternative to DD or BA technology budget drivers – that is, at a fraction of CL2’s price.

If you ask me, S6 are indeed worth their full 250$ MSRP, and then some. At their current deal price on Drop ($129) they are on “steal” category.

Our generic standard disclaimer.

The post Akoustyx S6 Review (2) – …This ! appeared first on Music For The Masses.

As there already is a comprehensive article about M15 on our blog, I will entirely skip a general description of the device features as it would be needless repetition. I will also be succint on most sound impressions.

I’m going to focus on some detail which are not covered in the previous piece, and/or on aspects for which I have a different opinion.

M15 costs € 249 + freight on the manufacturer’s website.

At-a-glance Card

Miscellaneous good stuff and caveats

Good High Gain option

Unlike what happens on so many other devices I heard, M15’s High Gain option is not chastising in terms of dynamic range compression. The effect is indeed very modest, which makes HG a totally viable option whenever one feels like adding some more early juice delivery to one or another driver.

Bad Single Ended output

It is so obviously duller and noisier compared to the Balanced option to be totally unworthy of such an otherwise outstanding product. To give a vague idea, it’s roughly on quality level of M15’s cheaper (120€) sibling, the M12 – which quality, at that price level, is trounced by the like of E1DA 9038D.

This means that one cannot elect the M15 as its “only” dongle if he/she has one or more drivers with single ended connections to support. Too bad.

Spectacular sound, if not totally uncolored

M15’s sound is first of all grand (spatially), and immediately after that it’s clear and detailed. Instrument separation and layering are just spectacular – which paired with its space drawing capabilities make for a really uncommonly good imaging and “sense of immersion” into the outcoming sound.

M15 is not uncolored in terms of tonality. There is some added accent on midbass notes – which is if you wish part of the “usual” compromise “musicality vs purity”. The situation comes out obvious when comparing M15 with E1DA 9038SG3: the two offer equal bilaterally extended sound ranges, with the latter’s bass staying faster, “more technical”, therefore also “less expressive” in a sense.

9038SG3 is however a step under M15 in terms of spatial reconstruction, with particular regards to depth. Layering is also a bit less refined – and that’s mainly why M15 comes across overall “more musically pleasing” compared to 9038SG3.

Powerwise 9038SG3 is better vs very low impedances: in the E5000-acidtest 9038SG3 beats M15 in terms of bass control and overall clarity. It’s fair to observe that 9038SG3 remains the best option around, and by far so, when the available budget is like half M15’s asking price.

In its being “exquisitely musical if unpure” M15 can’t but recall Groove in a sense. In Apogee’s dongle case sound colouring is even more marked, and comes with furtherly higher capability in terms of stage drawing – depth and height most of all. The two devices are not effectively comparable though – mainly due to Groove’s internal architecture making it the odd ball it is – read my piece for the full reasons why.

Annoying RFI sensitivity

When paired to a smartphone connected to the 4G cell network M15 easily picks up RFI (Radio Frequency Interference) when within approx 10cm from the phone. The “solution” is using a non-ultrashort USB-C cable for the connection, but a problem still remains when you walk around with your phone + the M15 in a coat’s pocket…

By comparison, E1DA 9038D behaves very similarly, E1DA 9038SG3 is instead virtually immune to such RFI.

Oddly lacking Direct-DSD support on non-mobile OS

While M15’s USB interfacing is fully supported by Android, not the same happens when the device is plugged onto a Windows or Linux host.

For Windows, Questyle does not make an ASIO driver available (yet?). M15 can therefore be used only on “WASAPI Exclusive” mode. Which means there’s not way to have access to direct DSD transfers (Wasapi only supports PCM).

For Linux the situation is even wierder (if not unique). M15 is apparently not fully supported by standard ALSA (Advanced Linux Sound Architecture) and the end result is that Roon Bridge on a Linux server does not offer Direct DSD support onto M15 when locally connected to it. Not the first time it happens to me – 9038D and 9038SG3 suffer of the same issue.

Considerations & conclusions

It’s very simple: Questyle M15 is “the” DAC/AMP dongle to have if one has 250-300€ to spend, and has balanced connectivity options for all its drivers.

It’s got superb sound clarity and body, very good spatial reconstruction capabilities, very good power management and strong power output.

In terms of overall sound experience M15 easily beats all standalone budget and mid-tier DAPs I happened to audition or own, the ones starting to represent an evident upgrade to it being nothing short of Questyle’s own QP1R, or Lotoo’s Paw 6000 and Gold Touch, or Cayin’s N8. Seen from this angle M15 carries a very reasonable price tag.

The sole serious caveat to mention for me about M15 is its Balanced output option being the sole one delivering good quality. Whoever wants or needs a Single-ended source wouldn’t be as satisfied with M15 (and its price).

M15 is rightfully stuck on our WoE, and determines the passage of Earmen Sparrow and L&P W2 to the relevant Past Excellences section therein.

As I mentioned at the very beginning I bought the M15 unit I am talking about in this article on my own budget after the package with the complimentary review unit which had been sent by Questyle got stolen at my door in my absence. So of course this still “counts” as a manufacturer-supplied unit in a sense, for which I am sincerely thankful to Questyle.

An M15 can be purchased from various Questyle distributors in selected countries, or from Questyle’s own web shop.

Our generic standard disclaimer.

The post Questyle M15 Review (2) – Best In Slot appeared first on Music For The Masses.

Amongst the best drivers in my collection there’s surely Final’s F7200 – their F-series flagship model. Originally released in 2016, I’m not sure if it’s completely discontinued by the manufacturer yet. Its MSRP used to be ¥ 50730,00 (which is today’s € 360,00 give or take). This piece will try to convey why these babies have little chance to be phased off my arsenal.

At-a-glance Card

Full Device Card

Test setup

Sources: Sony NW-A55 mrWalkman / Questyle QP1R / Questyle M15 / E1DA 9038SG3 and 9038D – Spinfit CP-100+ tips – Stock Junkosha high purity OFC silver plated cable – lossless 16-24/44.1-192 FLAC tracks.

Signature analysis

Tonality

F7200 timbre is clean, clear and organic, natural, with a sort of “lifelike” taste. That, alone, is arguably worth the entire pricetag. Tonality is eminently neutral, with a centric accent.

Sub-Bass

Bass is fully extended, but the very last portion is rolled off. With deep(er) insertion sub-bass gets more evident but, although never in show star position. The rumble generated by drums and acoustic + electrical bass come out as foundation, but only as such

Mid Bass

Midbass is eminently organic, and adorably technical. The oomph is purposefully kept to the minimum necessary to deliver solid and unfailing bass presence, while staying sure kickdrum never haloes off.

Mids

F7200 mids are no doubt the star of the show, along with the delicious organic timbre. Highmids are evidently tamed down, and when tips are not selected properly they almost disappear from the presentation; viceversa they play a very calibrated, positive role when tips and insertion are optimised. There seems to be no way on earth to get highmids to glare, or deliver sibilance. Wind and brass instruments are rendered very, very well.

Male Vocals

Male vocals are in near-perfect territory, at least for my taste. They are wonderfully organic, clean, textured and baritones are never artificially cavernous.

Female Vocals

Female vocals being for their large part in highmids territory resent of F7200 fit sentitivity: choose the wrong tips and/or insertion, and ladies, and particularly sopranoes, will sound lean, lifeless, undetailed. Get the fit equation solved and you’ll hear great female vocals, again (like males) extremely organic and natural. They might do with a 5% more of “butter”, but I’m probably nitpicking.

Highs

Although trebles can surely be called “quite transparent and airy”, the Brilliance section is definitely kept at bay here. So trebles are “just airy”, not “superbly airy”. Cymbals and (high) strings are ok, although they do lack their “thinnest sparks” so to say.

Technicalities

Soundstage

F7200 soundstage is significantly sized, especially in the sense of height and width, depth is just a bit shorter. Changes depending on insertion level (the deeper the fit, the more intimate the stage).

Imaging

Imaging is greatly executed: intruments are coherently and credibly cast onto the available space, and there is significant quantity of clean air in between them.

Details

Microdetail digging is better in the bass than in the highmids and trebles, where it’s “good” (as it needs to be considering the product price) but not more. I reckon F7200 discount the tuners’ choice to stay conservative in the High Mids and Brilliance here.

Instrument separation

Separation / layering is probably the single F7200 aspect which is mostly impacted by physical positioning and eartip choice. Once that’s optimised, voices and front/back instruments are always intelligible from one another, seriously busy passages included. Microdynamics are also very good when the right tips are selected, while they get dramatically cut off when choosing the wrong ones.

Driveability

In spite of the nominally not particularly low, F7200 are actually quite power hungry for one, and very sensible to amping quality for another. Don’t dream to pair them with a phone or a lowend dap as this would only result in a much lesser pleasant output than what they actually can deliver

Physicals

Build

F7200 housings are full metal “bullet” shaped, and carry a wonderful mirror finish. Aesthetically they are even more beautiful than E5000 and I guess that’s quite something to state. Their shape is evidently designed to invite the user to insert them deep in the ear canal: their diameter is just 5.5mm and they weigh like 2g.

Fit

F7200 are amongst the most fit-problematic IEMs I ever came accross.

As previously mentioned, they are designed to facilitate a (relatively) deep insertion into the ear canal. Bringing the nozzles closer to the eardrum offers solid bass, superb clarity and even smoother trebles – on the flip side soundstage gets a bit more intimate.

Reading it seems “easy enough”, and even easier looking at the above picture, but finding the exact sweetspot in each one’s ear does take some trial and patience.

And such patience is nothing compared to the how much you need to overcome eartips selection hassle…

Final Audio is known to pay maniac attention to perfectly fitting accessories, but I must say that on F7200 they dramatically failed: the bundled Type-E eartips are simply… unfit for F7200 – for the simple reason that their stem’s diameter is too large to properly “grip” onto the nozzles.

While Type-E stems are not “oversized” enough to skip off when pulling the drivers out of your ears (at least that…), they are indeed a tad too large to effectively counter the insertion force the user applies when pushing the housings into the canal, this very often, read always, resulting in the actual nozzles coming exposed out of the eartips’ bore, which of course ends up distorting/decalibrating the entire presentation.

A pair of transparent “plastic barrels” (they call them “Safe Fit Rings”) are supplied with F7200, which are supposed to avoid exactly that: put them onto the housings before fitting the tips, and they will “stop cap” the tips from sliding too much down the housing’s body if need be.

Brilliant. Too bad that such Safe Fit Rings are too short to effectively prevent the mishap when applied to… the very Type-E tips!! So on with a loooong tip rolling session then.

End result: Comply TSX-500 foams work OK, and Spinfit CP-100+ also work marvelously well.

Comfort

F7200 are bullet shaped IEMs and this thing alone is not felt comfortable by some people. I’m in the opposite group – I find bullet shapes greatly comfortable – although of course the shape itself prevents side-sleeping on them, for example. Once the fit equation gets solved (see above), I personally find F7200 near-perfectly comfortable.

Isolation

Deeper insertion helps a ton improving on isolation, which is in other cases a partial Achille’s heel of all bullet shaped drivers. Both Spinfit CP-100+ and Comply TSX-500 deliver very good isolation, with the latter being a tad better as it normally is the case with foams.

Cable

Being F7200 the flagship model in the F line, it’s quite normal to expect final to bundle it with a high-end cable and in facts that’s the case. The Junkosha-manufactured high-purity OFC silver plated cable has the same features as the one bundled with E5000, B3, B1 and A8000 and it’s by all means a quality cable both in terms of build and sonic pairing.

I would love it even more if it were a further bit more flexible. And twice more if it came with modular terminations – especially in light of the bottomline product cost.

One oddity to note about F7200 is that MMCX connectors on the housings are positioned on their bullet barrels’ back surfaces, instead of on their sides like it happens e.g. on E4000 or E5000. Which means that the cable needs to have angle-shaped male MMCX connectors to properly pair with F7200. Like this:

Of course Final Audio does sell spare cables – maybe one wants a balanced-terminated one? – fitted with those very uncommon connectors. Let’s just say I won’t spoiler their prices for you…

How about rolling a pre-owned different MMCX cable onto F7200 instead?

Well… I found these 90° M-F MMCX passthrough plugs by CEMA to work for the job. A tad expensive for what they are, but still a good value especially if one wants to fit a pre-owned expensive cable.

Specifications (declared)

Comparisons

Final Heaven VI (was $499, now discountinued)

Both Heaven VI and F7200 offer a natural timbre and neutral-ish presentation, with F7200 being comparative clearer, Heaven VI comparatively warmer. Heaven VI have perceivably more solid note weight in the midbass, and smoother trebles up above. Both offer limited rumble, and for both shelfing sub-bass up with an EQ does not help significantly. Heaven VI mids – delicious in absolute terms – are less forward and a bit dryer compared to F7200’s. Vocals are very organic on Heaven VI, stunningly realistic on F7200. Overall, Heaven VI are probably more similar to all-rounders than F7200.

Heaven VI have a non-replaceable single-ended cable. They are easier to drive compared to F7200, and are much less capricious then F7200 when it comes to eartips, stock Final A-series tips being perfect for my tastes.

Penon Sphere ($159)

Sphere are unjustly unfamous 1-BA IEMs shining both on the technological (driver quality and extension) and tuning standpoints, an even more so if we consider their relatively modest asking price. Very similar to F7200 in terms of technicalities, Sphere’s presentation is quite different instead: they are tuned to come across warm-balanced instead of clear-neutral, and they concentrate on delivering stunning bass, mids and highmids alongside with much more combed, smoothed trebles compared to F7200’s, which are airier and sparklier up above, and less bodied down low.

Form factor is also completely different: Sphere’s housings are in the universal shape ballpark, no deep insertion needed/possible. Correct driveability is also much harder on Sphere’s side, featuring ultralow impedance.

Final B3 (€ 499 MSRP)

B3 are based on a 2-BA architecture in lieu of the 1-BA inside F7200, and feature universal-shaped instead of bullet-shaped housings. The dual driver setup grants B3 the full spectral extention that’s partially missing on F7200: sub-bass is more present, midbass is sensibly (even) fuller and highmids and low trebles are more articulated, offering a superior grade of microdynamics and finer detail extraction capability compared to F7200.

Vocals, and I would say guitars too are still better on F7200 though, where a sort of magic perfection spot is hit. B3’s mids are a bit more forward compared to F7200. Neither model knows what “sibilance” is about. F7200 might in some cases be perceived as hotter in the trebles. Layering and separation are very similar, with a small edge in favour of B3 possibly thanks again to the dual driver setup.

B3 are tougher to drive compared to F7200, but much less demanding in terms of fitting and tips selection (stock E-type are OK).

Conclusions

F7200 are incredibly good at two things. One is obvious like the sun in the sky: vocals. Couldn’t find an equivalently realistic rendering of human singing voices yet. Such proficiency of course invites the user to apply F7200 to acoustic and vocal music, like songwriters, opera etc.

Then there’s the other F7200 outstanding aspect: separation and layering. These babies are outstanding at telling the grains from the bran, the vocals from the instruments, and not only on “unplugged”, acoustic scenarios, but on hard rock, grunge, punk too.

Season these ingredients with excellent comfort and the dish easily becomes a signature one in your cuisine

The F7200 sample I’m talking about is my own property.

Our generic standard disclaimer.

The post Final F7200 Review – Telling Voices Apart appeared first on Music For The Masses.

Al momento della pubblicazione di questo articolo le Miyabi sono in vendita sul sito del produttore, in Giappone, per 21.450,00 Yen, cioè circa 150 €. Ne servono altri 30 circa per farsi inoltrare il pacchetto da un servizio come Tenso, o simili.

“Intime Acoustic” è un marchio per nulla noto in Occidente, essendo di proprietà di un’azienda molto piccola, e che limita il proprio orizzonte commerciale al Giappone, dove ha sede. Nel mio articolo precedente ho dedicato qualche riga all’azienda, e alla sua tecnologia (sviluppata e in parte anche brevettata dal titolare). Riporto qui sotto molte di quelle informazioni, con gli aggiornamenti del caso.

Intime Acoustic, alias Ozeid Co., alias O2aid.com…

Intime Acoustic è un marchio di proprietà di Ozeid Co., Ltd., un’azienda relativamente giovane (fondata nel 2016) con sede a Takasaki City in Giappone. La sua attività principale non è la produzione, in realtà, ma la consulenza.

Il titolare, e direttore tecnico è il sig. Yoshiyuki Watanabe, forte di 35 e più anni di esperienza a proposito di macchine, sistemi e applicazioni che utilizzano materiali piezoelettrici.

Cosa si ottiene ribaltando di 180° il nome “ozeid” (e ancor meglio il nome “o2aid”) ?… 

Qualche anno fa Watanabe-san decise di applicare la sua competenza alla produzione di auricolari, con l’obbiettivo di compiacere utenti giovani – come i suoi figli – a cui trasferire “il bel suono del Giappone“.

Tecnologie principali

Analogamente ad altri modelli della gamma Intime, le Miyabi sono basate su sistema a doppio trasduttore: uno a membrana dinamica da 10mm dedicato alle basse e medie frequenze, più un tweeter alquanto speciale, in ceramica, responsabile della resa delle alte frequenze e dell’ultima ottava.

Sono disponibili un bel po’ di dettagli tecnici interessanti a proposito della tecnologia all’interno delle Miyabi, cerco di sintetizzarli.

1 – “Vertical Super Tweeter”

Il VST è realizzato da una qualche specie laminato ceramico, una scelta molto diversa rispetto all’ossido di titanio più comunemente utilizzato allo scopo.

In sintesi le lamine ceramiche offrono maggior possibilità di controllo delle vibrazioni.

I “super tweeters” convenzionali sono chiamati così perché riproducono suoni fuori della gamma udibile. Intime ne ha realizzato una variante che, grazie al diverso materiale e alle loro calibrazioni, ha un comportamento diverso e riproduce sfumature udibili, contribuendo così efficacemente alla resa della parte più alta dello spettro.

Sulle Miyabi sono installati tweeters “VST2 di terza generazione”. Secondo l’ing. Watanabe le migliorie in questa evoluzione del progetto consistono nell’adozione di doppia ceramica, che minimizza il comportamento isteretico a parità di sensibilità alla pressione sonora.

I tweeter VST di terza generazione offrono mogliori sfumature sulle note del pianoforte, e migliore nitidezza sui salti tonale di un sassofono. Possedendo io un modello basato su una precedente versione di VST (Sora 2) posso in effetti confermare l’esistenza delle migliorie.

2 – Rivestimento in grafene

Sulla membrana dinamica del trasduttore principale è applicato un rivestimento in grafene che – sempre secondo Watanabe – è tra i motivi che portano i suoi trasduttori dinamici a riprodurre le frequenze medie e medioalte con ottimo controllo e buona definizione.

3 – Struttura esterna in ottone

A differenza di quanto avviene per la linea Sora, la carrozzeria delle IEM Miyabi è realizzata in ottone. Secondo Watanabe l’ottone contribuisce ad ammorbidire il suono e ad approfondire la resa dei bassi e il sustain delle note. Non so certificare che la relazione causa-effetto sia quella, ma il risultato c’è, ed è buono.

4 – HDSS

Un’altra tecnologia originale (e brevettata, in realtà) adottata all’interno delle Miyabi, come anche all’interno di altri modelli Intime come Ti3, Sora, Sora2, è denominata “HDSS” come “High Definition Sound Standard”.

Il suo scopo è eliminare i suoni riflessi all’interno della struttura degli auricolari, producendo un suono più pulito.

All’interno della struttura dell’auricolare, normalmente alcune onde sonore vengono riflesse dalle pareti e rimbalzano sul diaframma del trasduttore, producendo dissonanza rispetto al risultato voluto. Grazie alla tecnologia HDSS la propagazione del suono all’interno della struttura viene tenuta sotto controllo, e si evita che questo “investa” il diaframma del trasduttore in modo incontrollato, il quale quindi si troverà a vibrare “solo” in conseguenza del segnale elettrico che riceve – esattamente come dovrebbe – senza “ulteriori” fonti spurie di energia.

L’accorgimento – secondo Intime – aumenta il realismo del suono e riduce l’affaticamento sull’impianto uditivo dell’utilizzatore. Ha tuttavia un contro: tende a “ripulire” un po’ troppo le vibrazioni del trasduttore dinamico, eliminando troppa parte delle alte frequenze.

E’ qui che viene in soccorso l’accurata calibrazione tra il tweeter ceramico VST2 e la parte di medie e medio-alte frequenze riprodotte dal trasduttore dinamico arricchito col grafene. Il risultato è un basso con profilo compatto e nitido, una gamma medio-alta armoniosa e una ampia riproduzione spaziale – tutte cose effettivamente presenti sulle Miyabi !

A colpo d’occhio

Scheda completa

Ambienti di prova

Fonti: Sony NW-A55 mrWalkman / Questyle QP1R / Tempotec V1 + E1DA 9038D – Terminali silicone Spinfit CP-145 – cavo Dunu DUW-02S – tracce audio 16-24/44.1-192 FLAC.

Analisi della caratteristica sonora

Tonalità

La caratteristica tonale delle Miyabi è una V morbida, con modeste accentuazioni sui bassi medi e sui medi alti, medie frequenze non incassate, il tutto ben reciprocamente calibrato tanto da offrire una presentazione complessivamente molto piacevole.

Più importante ancora, le Miyabi offrono un timbro in-cre-di-bil-men-te “bio” (“naturale”), tanto che possono a volte sembrare eccessivamente intransigenti, quasi “grezze”. Gli strumenti acustici vengono trasmessi con un suono percepito come originario, “nudo”, nature – offrendo la sensazione davvero realistica di “presenza sulla scena”, di ricezione del suono prima di qualsiasi elaborazione di pulizia e pettinatura delle imperfezioni.

Per chi come me ascolta per il 99% del suo tempo jazz acustico le Miyabi offrono un’esperienza originale che produce assuefazione e le rende rapidamente un elemento preziosissimo del proprio ambiente audio.

Sub-Basso

Il sub-basso delle Miyabi è moderatamente esteso, veloce, ed un pochino meno evidente rispetto al basso medio. Più che adeguato alla resa del contrabbasso acustico.

Basso medio

Il basso medio delle Miyabi è veloce e potente, eppure articulato e dotato di trama. E’ evidentemente accentuato rispetto alla neutralità, il che offre un ottimo corpo p.es. al contrabbasso riuscendo però a restare quasi sempre rispettoso dell’autonomia della gamma media .

Solo occasionalmente e/o in alcuni generi musicali può capitare di trovare le gamme medie, le voci umane e le chitarre un po’ soggiogate al basso medio.

Medi

Le medie frequenze trasmesse dalle Miyabi sono naturali, realistiche, ben modulate e offrono una ottima tramatura – tutto ciò senza essere eccessivamente avanti nella presentazione generale. Pianoforte, violoncello e chitarra sono tutti resi in modo eccezionalmente naturale.

Le frequenze medio-alte sono energiche e luminose, pur restando sempre non affaticanti – quanto meno per i miei gusti, YMMV (conosciamo la questione: i medio-alti sono una di quelle aree sonore dove la sensibilità personale gioca un ruolo importante nel gradimento).

Voci maschili

Le voci maschili, con particolare riguardo ai tenori, sono rese molto bene, realisticamente naturali e dotate di buona trama. Le voci baritonali e basse possono occasionalmente entrare in conflitto con i toni bassi medi in passaggi musicali particolarmente affollati, specialmente quando sono coinvolti strumenti non acustici.

Voci femminili

Le voci femminili sono rese dalle Miyabi ancor meglio di quelle maschili: naturali, corpose, a volte quasi flautate. Non scadono mai nel sibilante, sembrano proprio tra i migliori risultati dell’ottima calibrazione dei medio alti eseguita sui trasduttori.

Alti

Senza dubblio gli alti sono tra gli aspetti per i quali le Miyabi offrono il meglio. Ho ascoltato più di qualche altro auricolare con tweeter piezo, e nessuno è all’altezza di quanto l’ottimo ing Watanabe è in grado di spremere dalle sue creazioni.

C’è un leggeriiiiiissimo “timbro piezo” che spunta molto raramente qua e là, ma nella quasi totalità del tempo d’ascolto i VST Intime regalano alti energici, dinamici, scoppiettanti, alquanto ariosi, ben dettagliati e soprattutto godevolissimi.

Mi piace credere che parte del timbro “ottone naturale” delle Miyabi sia legato al fatto che la struttura della camera acustica sia in effetti… in ottone.

Tecnicità

Palcoscenico

La proiezione scenica delle Miyabi è ottima. Lo spazio è molto ampio orizzontalmente, eccezionalmente esteso verticalmente, ed offre una buona profondità.

Immagine sonora

Anche grazie all’eccezionale capacità di separazione strumentale, l’immagine sonora proiettata dalle Miyabi è pulita, precisa e molto realistica.

Dettagli

Le Miyabi trasmettono una miriade di dettagli sonori da tutti i segmenti dello spettro. La risoluzione sui bassi, seppure molto buona in termini assoluti per auricolari di questa classe di prezzo, quasi impallidisce poi rispetto al risultato offerto sulle medie frequenze, le voci, e gli alti.

Separazione strumentale

Unitamente alle alte frequenze, la separazione strumentale è l’altra area di eccellenza assoluta per le Miyabi, che in questo offrono risultati che possono essere ritrovati solo su alcuni (!) prodotti di classe e prezzo (!!) molto, molto superiori.

Tutti gli strumenti sono spettacolarmente enucleati gli uni dagli altri, e stratificati in modo che all’ascoltatore arrivi una sensazione molto realistica di presenza sulla scena, o immediamente di fronte ad essa. E’ quasi possibile “vedere” i vari suonatori, la loro performance, e i loro errori (!).

Per trovare un livello di pulizia nella separazione strumentale associata a ottima corposità delle note superiore a quanto ascolto sulle Miyabi devo, per mia esperienza, “scomodare” auricolari come le Dunu Zen – a circa 4 volte il costo di un paio di Miyabi.

Pilotabilità

Le Miyabi hanno una sensibilità alquanto modesta (100dB/mW) richiedono quindi un’amplificazione non banalissima. Nulla di eccessivo, ma è meglio evitare di fare affidamento sulle capacità interne di un normale smartphone.

Una buona notizia è che la loro impedenza non è ultra-bassa. C’è quindi quasi l’imbarazzo della scelta di fonti, dac/amp o dongle capaci di produrre la potenza d’uscita necessaria a fare cantare correttamente le Miyabi.

Aspetti fisici

Struttura

La carrozzeria e la camera acustica delle Miyabi sono in ottone, con il dichiarato intento di offrire un timbro acustico tiepido, naturale, simile appunto ad un ottone.

La parte posteriore è in resina color tartaruga, stampata con una tecnica giapponese chiamata Takumi. Il risultato è una colorazione casualmente variegata che rende ogni paio unico naturalmente. L’accoppiata tra il retro in resina e la camera acustica frontale in ottone ha uno stile estetico alquanto piacevole. Miyabi in giapponese vuole in effetti dire qualcosa di simile a “elegante”.

Indossabilità

Le IEM a forma di proiettile (grasso, in questo caso) sono molto comode per me.

I terminali in silicone forniti a corredo sono di buona qualità ma li trovo un pochino troppo morbidi, e se a questo aggiungo che gli auricolari non sono leggerissimi, mi succede che usando quelli l’auricolare sinistro tende a perdere aderenza dal canale uditivo (il mio sinistro è un po’ più ampio del destro).

Dopo la “solita” lunga e noiosa rotazione tra le 3 dozzine di terminali di vario tipo che ho a disposizione alla fine mi sono deciso per gli Spinfit CP-145.

Comfort

Molto soggettivo. Personalmente le trovo molto confortevoli, come mi capita per molti se non tutti gli auricolari a forma di proiettile.

Isolamento

La forma a proiettile non offre schermatura della conca naturalmente, anche se il calibro decisamente “grasso” un pochino aiuta.

Cavo

Nonostante lo sforzo che anche in questo l’ing Watanabe ha sicuramente profuso, il cavo fornito a corredo non mi ha impressionato per qualità. Dopo varie prove ho scelto un Dunu DUW-02S che effettivamente migliora sensibilmente le Miyabi in termini di apertura sonora, separazione e stratificazione.

Credo sia altresì importante notare come non tutti i cavi di terza parte che ho provato sulle mie Miyabi offrissero un “click” ugualmente convincente al momento della connessione alle prese MMCX, e in un paio di casi la connessione stessa si è dimostrata persino instabile (al contrario di quanto avviene quando gli stessi cavi sono connessi a un qualsiasi altro paio di IEM tra quelle che possiedo). Un punto di attenzione per l’ing. Watanabe.

In ultimo: ho notizia che da una certa data in avanti Ozeid ha iniziato ad offrire il proprio cavo top di gamma (“M Kanade”) a corredo delle Miyabi. Mi riservo di provarne uno per verificare una molto migliore sinergia rispetto all’ M Sound che ho ricevuto insieme alle mie Miyabi, di produzione precedente.

Specifiche (dichiarate dal costruttore)

Confronti

Tanchjim Oxygen (250 $)

Le Miyabi sono complessivamente più calde, con un evidente accento sui bassi medi. Le Oxygen sono più bilanciate-neutre, e se un accento mostrano sta piuttosto sui medi alti. Il timbro ottonale delle Miyabi è totalmente assente dalle Oxygen, che sono fondamentalmente trasparenti.

Separazione strumentale e microdinamica sono a favore delle Miyabi praticamente sempre, tranne in casi di passaggi particolarmente fitti di varie voci sui bassi medi – situazione nella quale né Miyabi né Oxygen, per diversi motivi, esprimono il meglio. La resa degli alti è più naturale sulle Miyabi, con particolare riguardo agli strumenti metallici – sulle Oxygen invece si presentano più puliti anche se un pochino meno dettagliati.

Ikko OH1S (159 $)

La prima cosa che si nota confrontando le OH1S con le Miyabi è l’evidente minor corpo nelle note delle prime. Le OH1S suonano più magre e quindi meno espressive, per contro meno colorate, a fronte delle Miyabi più energiche, muscolari e “teatrali”.

Il trasduttore dinamico delle OH1S è più veloce ma non ha maggiore risoluzione di quello sulle Miyabi. Perciò il basso delle OH1S è meno gonfio ma si presenta anche meno naturale e meno strutturato. Soprattutto: la separazione strumentale è totalmente a favore delle Miyabi. Le OH1S hanno medi alti più invasivi, che a volte possono presentarsi troppo squillanti, a fronte di quelli più energici, ma più controllati, delle Miyabi.

Ikko OH10 (199 $)

Sulle OH10 il sub basso è più elevato, ma il basso medio lo è meno rispetto alle Miyabi. Soprattutto, il basso delle OH10 è più veloce e asciutto e quindi suona più pulito da un lato, ma meno espressivo e strutturato dall’altro. Inoltre, anche nonostante questa maggior pulizia delle OH10, la separazione strumentale delle Miyabi su tutto lo spettro – inclusi i bassi – resta superiore.

Sulle OH10 le note hanno corpo più magro, e il timbro ottonale è assente. Gli strumenti a fiato e i piatti suonano meno vividi che sulle Miyabi. I medi sulle OH10 sono molto più indietro, e le voci umane non sono nemmeno confrontabili a quelle delle Miyabi (intenzionalmente, aggiungerei).

Dunu Zen (700$)

Il basso delle Zen è più veloce di quello delle Miyabi, e più controllato, ed offre migliore microdinamica. La separazione strumentale, seppure ottima sulle Miyabi, è ancor migliore sulle Zen, su tutto lo spettro. Le Zen hanno una tonalità tiepida, ma il loro timbro è naturale. Le Miyabi sono più calde, non solo a causa del basso medio più corposo ma soprattutto al maggior corpo delle note medie e medio alte, e al timbro ottonale.

I medi alti sono più puliti sulle Zen ma anche meno energici ed espressivi. Le Miyabi sono inoltre più ariose in alto. Le Zen offrono miglior dettaglio su tutto lo spettro, sebbene la differenza in questo rispetto alle Miyabi non corrisponda alla differenza tra i loro prezzi.

Considerazioni e conclusioni

Non conosco molte IEM che costino meno di 5-600$ e in grado di offrire un simile mix di tecnicità altamente raffinate e timbro naturale, vivo ed ergetico. Ed ancor meno ne conosco se cerco tra quelle che costano meno di 200$, come le Miyabi.

Per me questo è materiale eccellente. Ho avviato il processo di raccolta delle opinioni dei coblogger al fine dell’inserimento delle Miyabi sul Wall of Excellence.

Il campione Miyabi di cui parlo in questo articolo è un acquisto personale. Non sono incorsi contatti con il sig Watanabe.

La versione originale di questo, come per tutti gli altri miei articoli, è in lingua inglese.

Our generic standard disclaimer.

The post Recensione Di Intime Miyabi – Speciale Unicità appeared first on Music For The Masses.

9038SG3 is E1DA’s latest iteration of the 9038S model, which over time went through 3 generations – this being G3 in facts. The 9038S project, like PowerDAC, have always been designed around a balance-ended-only option. In conjunction with this third iteration of the 9038S project, howeverer, following quite a substantial flow of user requests E1DA decided to develop a single-ended (only) version, which is precisely what 9038D is.

9038SG3 can be purchased from E1DA’s AE shop, or directly from E1DA via paypal, for approx $105. 9038D has a regular price identical to 9038SG3 but it is currently not available: E1DA suspended production due to the excessive increase in chip costs – they rate that the higher price at which they would be forced to sell it would be unfair.

At-a-glance Card

A word on the manufacturer, and a few on this article

E1DA is a microscopical company. Indeed, a small family run business. The founder and key engineer in there is a Russia born guy now living in China called Ivan Khlyupin. He is an audio enthusiast, and an electrical engineer. Ivan is in charge of all hardware invention / designing, and his elder son takes care of relevant software development. The rest is chinese-cost and sadly chinese-quality contract manufacturing, which is why Ivan (literally) technically assesses and calibrates each sample one by one while or after assembly. Purest artisan’s pride DNA – which is probably why being Italian I feel a sort of natural empathy for the guy.

Their first project was the PowerDAC and it stemmed from a personal need: a low cost, powerful enough dac-amp to drive a pair of badass planar headphones. There wasn’t one on the market affordable and good enough at the same time, so Ivan DIY’d one. And then made it into a 50$ small-scale-industrialised marketable produt.

I’ve been following them for a while now and I own all their current “dongle” models (9038D, 9038SG3 and PowerDAC 2.1) which I of course purchased as a regular nameless customer.

As you will read here, and on a subsequent piece of mine dedicated to PowerDAC, E1DA’s products can easily be recognised as pure audio engineering competence concentrated into tiny, affordable little boxes. In a world overflooded by cheap and even not so cheap “meh-level” stuff, they feel relaxing like sea breeze.

Given their “vertical” technical nature, if there’s one thing E1DA lacks is vulgar-level communication. They do all they can to be super easily reachable via their Discord channel, and they are very responsive. Yet their documents, and their typical answers, are all very technical, with little to no concession to readability let alone accessibility for least competent laymen.

As a consequence high chances are their products get known, let alone “understood” and appreciated, only by already semi-skilled users at the very least. Take myself for one – I got onto them by pure chance and it took me quite some time to dig into some of the aspects of their stuff, and until now I even feel I only got part of that done.

So these are the main reasons why instead of a 4 – 5 pages small article this time I wrote an essay probably 10X longer. And I might even decide to update it in the future

Note: E1DA is to be pronounced “E one DAH”, following the sounds of the words “Ivan” and “Da” (“Yes” in Russian)

Features and description

Externals

The two devices are contained inside the same housing, a sandblasted anodized CNC-machined aluminium case, with marketing graphics (logo) and other data laser-marked in white on the black background.

Size is 48 x 22 x 9mm, weight is approx. 10-12g for either model. Simply put, either device is very small and lightweight which of course greatly facilitates it being used as a dac-amp external upgrade to any mobile device (phone, tablet, dap) which is capable of digital audio output through its USB port.

The housings’ sole apertures are the phone out on one of its small ends, and a USB-C port on the opposite end. Next to the USB-C port there’s also a tiny hole. No other elements, no buttons, no display.

Both 9038D and 9038SG3 are sold in a minimalistic small carton box, containing only the device itself (well protected). No cables / adapters are bundled. USB-C, Lightning and/or Y-USB-C cables can however be separately ordered from E1DA if needed. And they are needed. See more below in particular about appropriate Lightning cables.

Internals

9038SG3 and 9038D have very similar internal structures.

Both carry the same Comtrue USB bridge, featuring hw volume (actionable in .5dB increments) and furtherly tweaked with custom software.

Both devices’ heart is a ESS 9038Q2M DAC chip (spec sheet here) featuring current mode amplification, outstanding built-in jitter removal, and a host of user-configurable parameters including Master Clock frequency selection, FIR filter selection and customisable THD compensation coefficients (much more on this later).

Both devices have an amplification stage after the DAC but the two opamps are different on the two models. The internal power filtering also is somewhat different.

9038SG3 features an Analog Devices AD8397 (spec sheet here) opamp offering balanced end only output connectivity.

9038SG3’s internal power rail filtering structure is based on resistors and capacitors. Three different versions of 9038SG3 have been released over time. The earliest version adopted Yageo brand resistors + 2000µF capacitors. Such was a quite early version and according to E1DA shipped until a good 2 years ago.

Since then, 9038SG3 have been and still are equipped with Susumu brand (higher quality) resistors + either 2000µF or 3000µF capacitors. The higher the capacitance, the more efficient the power filtering.

9038SG3 SKU# did not change as internal equipment evolved over time. To tell which version a given unit is look at the product name engraved in white on 9038SG3’ housing: an underlined “3” (like this: “#9038SG3”) indicates a Susumu-equipped model. Looking at a Susumu 9038SG3’s housing, two or three white squares are engraved on the back side (opposed to the E1DA logo one): two squares mean 2000µF capacitance, three squares mean 3000µF.

For curiosity: the “squares” refer to the physical capacitors adopted inside. Two squares = 2 capacitors, three squares = 3 capacitors. By opening the enclosure (don’t! as you would have to reglue it later) they can easily be recognised as three lined-up orange “thingies” soldered on there.

9038D carries instead a TI OPA1622 opamp (spec sheet here) offering single ended only connectivity.

9038D also carries Susumu brand resistors, complemented with 4000µF total capacitance.

Input

Both 9038SG3 and 9038D only offer a single digital input, via a USB-C port (fully USB-2 protocol compatible).

Both carrying the same internal USB bridge and DAC chips, both support the very same digital input specs which are:

• PCM up to 32bit / 384Khz (requires ASIO drivers on Windows, otherwise limited to 24bit / 192KHz)
• DSD up to 256 (again requires ASIO drivers on Windows, otherwise no direct DSD support available)

No drivers needed for full features availability on all other major supported OS. I know of very few other “dongles” supporting DSD256 on Android.

Next to the USB-C connector, on both 9038D and 9038SG3 there’s a tiny LED. Its lighting behaviour has the following meanings (identical on both models):

Power draw

When connected to a USB host 9038D will absorb approx. 435mW (87mA) even when not playing back. Consumption while playing will be even higher of course, from approx. 500 to 585 mW (100-117mA) when receiving a PCM stream (from 44.1 to 192Khz resolution respectively), and from approx. 500 to 670mW (100-134mA) when receiving a DSD-64 to DSD-256 direct stream.

These figures are low, and even incredibly low when we consider the output this little kid is able to provide (see subsequent chapter).

Both models have an automatic Standby function, which can be enable/disabled by the user and is enabled by default out of the box. Thanks to such feature both 9038SG3 and 9038D will go into “Low Power Consumption” mode if they don’t receive any data from the host for 60 seconds – so when they are “on but doing nothing” so to say – and they will automatically wake back up when a new stream will start flowing again. Power absorption in such condition is circa 50% of the minimum required on quiesced playback status, so around 205-210mW.

I’ll provide more details much down below on how to enable/disable the Standby & Mute functions, and some caveats.

Considering the huge power especially 9038SG3 is able to deliver on mid, low and extralow (see below) the above figures are impressively low. Just a bit more than 600mW (only 120mA!) when decoding DSD256 and at high volume seems like a joke.

9038SG3 and 9038D are by far fully USB2 compliant, so no problem with any Android phone and if the phone has a relatively modern battery (3-4000mAh or more) 9038D / 9038SG3 will not meaningfully jeopardise battery duration.

They can be used on quite a few iPhone models too but choosing the Lightning cable that make it happen may be tricky. See much down below a dedicated chapter to this issue.

I thought about inserting a digression at this point regarding power demand on so-called “dongles” (like 9038SG3 and 9038D) and some considerations stemming from there, but my notes soon developed into something deserving a separate take. So please be patient, I’ll be issuing a standalone article on this ReallySoonNow.

Output

As mentioned above, 9038SG3 and 9038D carry a different amplifier module, which is the most significant difference between the two models.

9038D has one 3.5mm single-ended output port, which supports connection to earphone/headphones of any impedance and technology, and also connection to the single-ended input of an Amplifier device.

9038SG3 has one 2.5mm balanced-ended output port, which exclusively supports connection to earphone/headphones of any impedance provided they have a balanced-ended termination. Connecting Amplifier devices to 9038SG3 is not supported, not even via such Amplifiers’ balanced ended input ports – failure to comply to such exclusion will most surely physically damage the device.

9038SG3 features very significant output power:

• >600mW@10,3Ω
• >550mW@16Ω
• >340mW@32Ω
• And 3.3Vrms @0dB vs high impedance loads

9038D output power is also quite interesting albeit definitely lower:

• 120mW@16Ω
• 180mW@32Ω
• 200mW@40Ω
• And 2.75Vrms @0dB vs high impedance loads 

Both offer extremely low output impedance, around 0,1Ω.

All figures come from E1DA, and correspond to measurements conducted at room temperature, and at 1% THD+N

Sound and performance

I’m going to report about 9038SG3 first, then I will more easily cover 9038D in terms of differences from that.

In its stock calibration situation, so Out Of The Box as they say, 9038SG3 is easily one of the cleanest, most detailed and fast (short transients) dongle I ever auditioned. Indeed, from the sound structure standpoint it rivals much higher class devices.

Notes are exceptionally well separated and clean, while on the flip side they come accross somewhat lean, and this contributes to a general feeling of “scarce musicality” and “excess in detail” if that even makes sense of course.

Leveraging on its internal harmonics compensation generator via the Tweak9038 app, 9038SG3’s “presentation” can be altered to be made a bit “more musical”, “warmer”, even “tubey”. Sure, it takes some will on experimenting of course but possibilities are there. The effect however is not that of flipping the whole presentation into a dark/warm one. See much more on this below.

9038SG3 also has nice spatial rendering – “soundstage” as we call it is definitely OK. Not the level at which a Groove renders depth and height on highres (>96KHz) streams, but that’s related to Groove’s FR being uncommonly flat much beyond 20KHz more than anything else (see here for the full story). Barred that, 9038SG3 has nothing to envy to any other dongle I auditioned, at any price, on this respect.

9038SG3’s lack of sound coloration is obvious, but that’s possibly the second most outstanding feature I noticed right away – the first being the very high amount of power (current) this little box is able to deliver onto low impedance, low sensitivity drivers.

Give or take 9038SG3 delivers 550-600mW into 14 and even 10Ω loads: a sort of mini nuclear plant, perfectly capable to “move” deep insensitive drivers e.g. Final E5000 (14Ω 93dB), RHA CL2 (15Ω 89dB), Hifiman HE400S (22Ω 98dB) and pretty much any low impedance planar IEM you can think of, and with some plenty of room to spare.

As load impedance goes up 9038SG3 stays an uncommonly powerful thingie but starts to show its ropes of course (hey it’s an effing dongle…). For example SRH1840 (65Ω 96dB) are still kinda no problem, but Hifiman HE560 (45Ω 90dB) are no-no.

Lastly, 9038SG3 max voltage swing on high impedance drivers (3.3V) makes it more than decently fit to drive the likes of Sennheiser HD600 (300Ω 102dB/V = 96,7dB/mW) – on which the “tube emulation” is worth a spin, maybe even two… – see below how.

Once all the above is clear, describing 9038D is relatively simple: it’s virtually identical in tonality, timbre, cleanness and technicalities, but delivers way less current on the low loads end, and also more modest voltage swing vs high impedances.

On the former part I guess I can call this yet another example of how a “balanced” scheme is not a requirement to the purpose of outstanding quality on sound output. This consideration apart, 9038D like 9038SG3 sounds magnificently well, and it can be tweaked and changed exactly like its sibling so it’s up to each one to leave it “more analythical” as in its OOB tuning, or a bit “more musical”.

The latter part reflects into a quite different applicative span for 9038D compared to 9038SG3.

While 9038D can still properly drive the likes of Tanchjim Oxygen (32Ω 110dB/Vrms=95,5dB/mW) or Final A3000 (18Ω 98dB) or the recently hyped 7Hz Timeless (14.8Ω 104dB), other drivers like Final E5000, SRH1840 or other more seriously harder to drive planars are at various degrees not ideal, or not viable altogether pairs.

Similarly although less seriously on the higher impedance end: 2.75V are OK to make HD600 sing, but there won’t be much room to compensate in case of low-level recorded tracks and/or level-punishing EQ schemes.

Very succintly put: 9038SG3 delivers incredibly clean sound and very good technicalities and so much power that it can act as a one-stop-source for all IEMs on the market bar none, and most Headphones too, bar high demand planars only. 9038D offers the same sound qualities, can drive “most” IEMs and a few Headphones from of a single ended connection so without requiring cable swapping.

Before I forget: 9038D is virtually immune from hissing when paired to oversensitive loads (Campfire Andromeda, Penon Volt…). 9038SG3 does hiss a bit on the same drivers.

And lastly: as quickly mentioned above and explained in better detail down below, 9038D can be used as a pure DAC connected to a downstream amplifier. Given its outstanding sound profile and its ease of integration on pretty much any host OS, such application might be something to seriously look into, in spite of its external “superpocketable dongle” format.

Comparisons

Hidizs S9 Pro ($119,00)

An educational case insofar as we are talking about almost identical-priced devices, and based on the very same DAC chip (ESS 9038Q2M).

First of all, both 9038D and 9038SG3 sound simply obviously better than S9 Pro. Their presentation is much more linear, clean and detailed compared to S9 Pro’s balanced output. S9 Pro’s high mids very easily tend to “overdo”, and the treble end lacks some air in comparison. S9 Pro also lacks any form of tweakability. S9 Pro’s single ended output is almost unaudible to me quality wise.

On the power delivery standpoint, 9038D’s output is marginally more powerful than S9 Pro’s balanced ended out, and more than twice its single ended one. 9038SG3 is roughly 50% more powerful than S9 Pro at 32Ω, and even most importantly S9 Pro runs into a serious current shortage from right around 16Ω on down, while 9038SG3 still provides something like 600mW vs 10Ω loads. In practice: 9038SG3 easily drives E5000 and planar IEMs, S9 Pro can’t even start trying doing that, or doing that at a comparable level.

Simply and perhaps a bit unforgivingly put: S9 Pro is a toy compared to 9038SG3, and less desireable (although by a smaller margin) even compared to 9038D.

Cayin RU6 ($250)

As you’ll read on my separate take on RU6 (due Soon^tm), in less than a million words RU6 has in its unique timbre its main if not sole reason to be. Its internal R2R technology implementation delivers in facts an audibly different nuance to notes, and that is likely the reason for the ticket price for the curious modest-budgeted audiophile.

The rest is unimpressive at best, often underwhelming. The R2R timbre is audible on NOS mode only – which sadly requires high-res (>= 96KHz) digital tracks to be fed from the outside, as its noise, distortion and FR rolloff on Redbook material is nearly comical – which is even a worse pity if we consider that amongst all that noise one can hear above decent imaging and note body. That’s probably why many say RU6 should exclusively be used on OS mode where reconstruction of 44.1KHz becomes decent-ish, with an at least reasonable sense of space, and much less audible noise. Sadly, the OS circuitry is deltasigma based which defeats most if not all the purpose in this case.

Be as it may, RU6 never comes even close to 9038SG3 / 9038D in terms of clarity, cleanness and detail retrieval.

Power wise the situation is similar to S9 Pro: RU6 is a quite modest-powered device, delivering “just” 213mW@32Ω on BE (similar to 9038D on its single ended, and much less than 9038SG3), slightly more than half on SE, and most importantly dropping quickly below 16Ω so in this case, again: nothing special on E5000, and forget cheecky planar IEMs, etc – unlike what is fully allowed by 9038SG3.

Unlike S9 Pro, RU6’s relatively modest output power at least comes with modest host power requirements – that’s a quite important note. Together with the fact that all the above is attached to a 2X price tag.

IFi GO Bar ($329 / €329)

Also Soon^tm you’ll read my full article on GO Bar. In the meanwhile…

The first big difference with 9038SG3 / 9038D is in the price of course: almost 3 times as much. Better be something serious in there doesn’t it.

Another thing is power. GO Bar is powerful on high and medium impedance loads. It swings a whopping 7.2V into 600Ω (more than twice 9038SG3), and 475mW into 32Ω (40% more than 9038SG3).

Sadly, it hits against a wall of current limitation (circa 120mA) as impedance goes down. As a consequence GO Bar (balanced out) drives Final E5000 (14Ω 93dB) with good athleticism, although with less headroom compared to 9038SG3, but it won’t properly drive the likes of RHA CL2, which are instead perfectly managed by 9038SG3.

Probably due to its performances on higher impedances, or to lesser efficiency, or both, GO Bar, unlike 9038SG3 or 9038D, is a power w**re. It absorbs up to 4W while working, which is 800mA – so it is not USB2 compliant and by far so. Not all Android phones will drive it to its full power then: a laptop is required, or a battery in parallel with a phone. Oppositely, 9038SG3 and 9038D are very modest in terms of power needs vs their output power capabilities, and fully USB2 compliant.

One more thing is features. GO Bar misses the harmonic compensation and masterclock customisation infrastructure available on 9038SG3, and that’s not small stuff, and offers only 4 different FIR filters to choose from instead of 7. On the flip side GO Bar covers the user with features one nicer and/or sexyer than the other, all of which are totally missing on 9038D and 9038SG3: XBass and XSpace analog-domain effects, selectable low/high gain, integrated IEMatch, high quality integrated power filtering, and (for Tidal’s aficionados) MQA full decoding.

So in the end yes, GO Bar does give quite something more than 9038SG3 in return for that higher purchase price and a much higher host power need. I see 9038SG3 as a device delivering similar or better sound quality, and similar to much higher output power onto IEMs compared to GO Bar, in a nofrill package and for a fraction of GO Bar’s price.

Apogee Groove ($220)

As extensively reported on my piece about it, Apogee Groove is an oddball. A badass of an oddball if you wish, but still an uncommon device, with the pros and cons one may after all expect from oddity.

Groove’s output stage is based on proprietary technology and does not support crossover filters or similar circuitry, and all too often it also powers Balanced Architecture drivers (even single-driver models) very quirkily. To cut it short, Groove is mainly if not solely intended for Dynamic Drivers, which is of course an apriori fact to seriously consider when looking instead for a “universal application” DAC/AMP dongle.

That said, Groove swings 5V into 300Ω and 600Ω impedance cans, making it obviously more energetic compared to 9038SG3 and of course 9038D too, and to all other dongles on the market with the sole exception of iFi’s GO Bar.

On the opposite end Groove delivers less current than 9038SG3 which is why it can power Final E5000 (14Ω 93dB) well, but falls dramatically short when applied to RHA CL2, which 9038SG3 eats for breakfast instead. Always from the current delivery on mid/low impedance loads standpoint, Groove is OK-ish on SRH1840 (on the limit, let’s say), while 9038SG3 dances them around more “brilliantly”, and with much more headroom for sure.

Like 9038D, and unlike 9038SG3, Groove can be exploited as a DAC connected to a downstream amplifier.

Groove requires nearly 3 times the current 9038SG3 or 9038D do from their host, which is still USB2 compliant but a huge point to consider nevertheless.

Power profiles aside, Groove and 9038SG3 are very different in terms of sound presentation. Groove is way superior in terms of macro-dynamics (imaging) and even more so in terms of spatial drawing: I hardly can name a single mobile DAC device better than Groove on this.

On the other hand 9038SG3 is obviously less colored and has better subtlety on detail retrieval. Flipping the coin, Groove is gorgeously more “musical” than 9038SG3 and you won’t change the latter anywhere near the former via TCC tweakings.

In less than a million words: where applicable and therefore apriori comparable, Groove is more musical and sexyer, 9038SG3 is more technical, cleaner, sharper. Groove is more powerful on Sennheiser cans, 9038SG3 is way stronger on planar IEMs. I’m so happy I own both, and I would again buy both as these two together cover all possible needs south of a much higher end (and priced) DAP or battery-powered DAC-AMP.

Tweak9038

E1DA developed a companion Android app for their 9038SG3 and 9038D dongles. It’s called Tweak9038.

The purpose of the app is giving the user access to most if not all customisable parameters offered by the ESS 9038Q2M chip, and it indeed succeeds in doing it reliably and quite easily too. The down side is that those parameters are quite technical stuff, and customising them to “make sound better” requires knowing what one’s doing – no worries though, you can’t damage anything if you do it wrong.

There are some limitations to the app, including:

• It only works on Android OS, and they are not planning to port it anywhere else. It anyhow technically might never work on iOS due to Apple limitations.
• It only communicates with 9038SG3 / 9038D via USB.

So the device must be plugged into the Android device where the app is via a USB cable, and only then the dongle configuration can be accessed, seen and changed. The modified configuration can be saved into the dongle’s own non volatile memory, and it will stay there even when the device is plugged onto a totally different device, even if not carrying the Tweak9038 app, and/or if not even Android-based.

Some may consider the app cost (10$) also a limitation. They are wrong. This app is totally brilliant, and adds a lot to 9038SG3 and 9038D’s value and to their uniqueness, as I’ll explain in a bit.  It’s actually very cheap for all it offers and how accurately and reliably it works. If you have some strange problem with “expensive apps” (expensive? 10$? Well, ok…) just mentally add 10$ to the price you pay for the 9038SG3 or 9038D and you won’t fail noticing they will stay two incredibly inexpensive dongles in light of the over-amazing quality they offer.

So quit whyning already, and buy the bloody app to support its developers

As I mentioned above, Tweak9038 exclusively supports 9038D and 9038SG3. It does not support 9038SG2 or earlier. 9038SG3 is anyhow quite significantly better than 9038SG2, and still affordable enough that if I were a 9038SG2 owner I would not think twice about buying a 9038SG3 as an upgrade.

Enough foreword. In summary, Tweak9038 allows to:

• Customise the Minimum, Maximum and Default levels of the device’s hardware volume scale.
• Generate harmonic distortion (yes, you read well), and even do that diversely following playback volume.
• Customise the DAC’s clock frequency, and apply different values automatically based on the track sample rate.
• Select amongst different available reconstruction filters, and again choose different ones automatically depending on the track sample rate
• Enable/disable Standby and Mute options
• Save “sets” of all the above parameters under user-defined names, and recall + apply them to the device whenever liked.
• Lastly, scratch everything off just in case you need to return to the exact configuration and calibration that very device had when leaving the factory.

While some of these features may seem easy, others are quite obscure or at least they were to me. After some extensive use and a lot of curiosity applied, I must say this has been dual fun me: once because these tweaks resulted in amazing sound output, and twice because they gave me the occasion to study their rationales in deeper depth then I ever did in the past – which of course now helps me put other devices in a much more realistic and technically more correct perspective.

Here below I will go through most of the “stuff” I experimented and sometimes learnt. YMMV of course: if for you all this is already bread and butter well, just jump through .

A special mention is deserved by E1DA’s support team, which is easily reachable via their Discord channel, and always available to provide competent and precise input.

Volume scale calibration

Out of the box, 9038SG3 / 9038D hardware volume is set to go from -127.5dB to 0dB, with the default value set to 0dB.

Hardware volume values are to be intended as “attenuation” values. So 0dB means “no attenuation”, that is, “leave the amp output fully undampened”, aka “go ahead, kill my ears!”. Oppositely, -127.5dB means “drop the output volume down by 127.5dB” which is a huge dampening. It equates to “shut the F up!”.

The Default volume value is the value the device will set the volume at whenever it is turned on. Given it’s a battery-less device, it will turn off every time it is disconnected from a host, and on when it is reconnected back. Default volume set to 0dB means: whenever you turn the dongle up set the volume to “full unbridled sound out”. Sounds scary doesn’t it. And yes, it is scary.  

Until now I talked about the dongle’s “internal” (“hardware”) volume values, but we don’t normally “directly see” those values. What we most often see is a volume slider on our music player software, or even on the Operating System of the machine the dongle is connected to. Such slider is usually labelled as going from “zero” (meaning “zero volume”, 0%, or “silent”) to “100” (or “100%”, “full volume”, “full loudness”).

If our music player app’s volume slider is “linked” to 9038’s internal hardware volume (and it usually is – either automatically or by manually switching it on as you can do on most sw player’s settings) then out of the box the music player’s “zero” volume maps into 9038’s  -127.5dB attenuation, and on the opposite end the music player’s “100” volume maps into 0dB attenuation. And the “default volume position” at power-up will be “full volume” position, or, the music player’s latest used volume position (depends on the situation).

Twea9038 app allows for customising all 3 of these default hardware volume settings. But why should you?

Well first of all: the default volume level. It is much, much safer if we set it low, instead of high, let alone “full up” (i.e. “0dB”). This is simply because sooner or later we risk to forget to bring the volume down before hitting “play”, and doing this with the default volume level set too high blasts so loud sound into our ears that we can (seriously!) be permanently harmed.

Secondly: the lower end value. -127.5dB is such a huge attenuation value that unless we plug an extremely oversensitive driver in, starting from “volume full down” will require moving the volume slider a lot before getting some decent sound pressure (“loudness”) out.

First impression in such case might be that 9038S has very weak amplification (“hell… I need to bring it to 80% to get some loudness even on these simple IEMs…!”). But that’s not the case. Moving the volume slider further up the sound pressure will raise very strongly, up to deafening levels.

The real problem is that the “Min” (starting) value is way too low for practical purposes. Setting the minimum hw volume value to a more convenient setting “fixes” this. Which setting is exactly recommendable depends on the impedance and the sensitivity of the actual drivers we “usually” pair 9038 with. For my sets I found that a value of -80dB is OK.

Lastly, let’s consider the upper end value of the scale.

9038SG3, especially, is powerful. Quite seriously powerful I mean, as it can swing 3.3Vrms into a high impedance driver, or – on the flip side – push up to half watt (!) into a 16Ω load.

The downside of all such power is that (again) a wrong move with the music player’s volume control can deafen the user for good, especially if this happens while using IEMs or Headphones which are not “impossible” to drive for 9038SG3, which is like… 95% of the existing ones (and 100% of those in my possession).

Setting the upper end of the hw volume scale to a value lower than 0dB is a safeguard in such sense. Once set at (say) -10dB, this means that when (willingly or by mistake) music player’s volume is slammed to “full up” 9038SG3 won’t release all its possible power onto the drivers, bit quite a bit less.

Similarly to the bottom end value case, the “right” (“most practical”) value to choose for the upper volume end largely depends on which earphones / headphones are part of one’s rotation. If most drivers are very sensitive stuff like Campfire Andromeda, Penon Volt or the like, a pretty low value is recommended! Oppositely, if drivers at hand are hard to drive planars, or insensitive and/or high impedance DD’s, it may be best to leave the value near 0dB, or just below that.

Besides writing values into Tweak9038’s GUI, there’s also another “hidden way” to adjust the Maximum hardware volume boundary by “fiddling” in special ways with the host OS volume slider. This works on multiple different hosts (MacOS, Windows or Linux, and Android – in such last case UAPP is required).

Here’s the scoop:

Bring the host volume slider to 0% (so “all the way down”), and then quickly raise volume + bring it back down to zero% + raise volume again. The “gesture” is like “pulling the volume slider up from zero and quickly slamming it back down, then bouncing back a bit”. The “bounce up” should not exceed 50% of the totale volume slider run space. Do this “bounce” trick 3 times in a row and this will result in a -30dB Max Volume value being instantly set. A sort of quick way to impose a hard “volume limiter”, if you wish.

Bring the host volume slider to 100% (so “all the way up”), and then quickly lower volume + bring it back to 100% + lower  volume again. The gesture is specular to the previous one, it’s like “pulling the volume slider down from 100% and quickly slamming it back up, then bouncing back down a bit”. Same caveat as before: the “bounce down” should be less than 50% of the total volume slider run space. Do this 3 times, and Max Volume value will increase by 3dB. Do this another 3 times and it will increase another 3dB, so 6dB in total. And so on.

I don’t know if you agree but I find this so brilliant…

I have two minor negative points to mention, too.

One: even if a front end music player app directly controls 9038SG3 / 9038D’s hardware volume, it has however no way to know its absolute Min and Max values as they are set inside the dongles by the Tweak9038 app. So for example it did happen to me to spend some sweet time wondering (while swearing) why the heck my 9038SG3 could not make a certain IEM sound really loud even at “full volume” (on the player), only to remember much later that I had set the Max hw volume value to a low level myself.

Two: someone may feel more comfortable if the GUI mentioned volume values in Vrms units in addition to dB units. This would be easy to implement as there is a precise formula linking the two, and someone did already put this in the wishes box to E1DA, so I trust it will eventually happen. Until then, we can calculate them manually as follows : 

Output voltage [Vrms] = FullScale voltage [Vrms] * 10 ^ (Attenuation [dB] / 20)

So for example an attenuation of -10dB results in:

• (For 9038D)       2.75 Vrms * 10^ (-10dB/20) = 0,87 Vrms full scale voltage
• (For 9038SG3)   3.33 Vrms * 10^ (-10dB/20) = 1,04 Vrms full scale voltage

A “distortion generator” – to help reduce distortion

Sounds like a paradox doesn’t it.

As there ain’t such thing as a “perfect” device, of course there is no such thing as a “totally non-distorting” DAC/AMP. Alternatively said, our audio gear’s THD will always be >0.  

Audio equipment engineering and manufacturing of course includes keeping distortion as low as possible, for as low industrial cost as possible of course.

There are structural (I like to call them “static”) causes for harmonic distortion: the quality of the electronics, the cleanness of its implementation, etc. A badly engineered device based on crappy components will produce distortion under any operative conditions; under the very same operative conditions, a better engineered device based on higher quality components will produce lower distortion.

Then, there are those which I call the “dynamic” causes. Operative temperature, for example, is a factor: electronics do change their behaviour with temperature, and that makes a difference in their audio behaviour. EMI/RFI interference even more so. And load: depending on the impedance of the connected headphones the source device will “behave” a bit differently and will generate different distortion patterns – in very general terms, distortion goes up as impedance goes down. Even volume: the same amp will distort less when operated at mid-volume, more when pushed at the top of its capabilities. Etc.

So not only the most skilled manufacturer in the world will be unable to deliver a zero-THD device, but even their best device will have an always somewhat variable THD, as some of that THD depends on how that device is being “actually used”.

Is there a way to cope with such distortion depending on usage conditions? Well… in part, yes.

If we know which parasite harmonics is the device generating under certain usage conditions (e.g., when a given headphone is connected), then we can create some harmonics ourselves which are “equal-but-opposite” compared to the unwanted ones, thus effectively “cancel them out”.

The ESS 9038Q2M chip does have a sort of built-in harmonics (compensation) generator, and indeed that’s what E1DA exploits to first of all calibrate each and every 9038D or 9038SG3 unit prior to shipping.

By design 9038SG3 and 9038D aim at a THD of -125dB as a target value. A value of THD = -125dB is considered ideal, -124dB is considered “standard”, and -123dB is the threshold below which that very unit will be sold as b-stock.

Given what we just noted, we wonder: under which effective usage conditions are such THD values verified?

E1DA reports: they calibrate and measure their 9038SG3/9038D devices with a 32Ω load, and at an operative temperature of 25°C. Then they observe the (unwanted) harmonics during playback of a reference signal while going from min to max volume, and they set compensation values into the the ESS 9038Q2M chip harmonics generator to cancel them out.

Such compensation values are finally burnt into the device’s firmware before shipping. No matter how hard we subsequently mess with the harmonics generator for experimenting etc (see below), we can always go back to E1DA’s original “factory values” by tapping on Restore Factory Settings on the Tweak9038 app.

During real life use we will of course plug all sorts of different impedance drivers into our 9038SG3 or 9038D dongles. When their impedance will be significantly different from 32ohm those factory-pre-set compensation values will be less effective to the purpose. What can we do then?

One: experiment “by ear”.

Simply reach out for the Tweak9038 app and modify the values on the “THD panel”. Doing this while playing music, the result is hearable in real time. So anyone can judge by oneself if the change is adding or removing distortion, and by how much.

As distortion often also depends on the volume at which the device is being made to work, the Tweak9038 app allows to define 3 sub-ranges of the entire volume range. Range 1 goes from -127.5dB to Low Threshold (blue-green), Range 2 from Low Threshold to High Threshold (orange), and Range 3 from High Threshold to 0dB.

Threshold values can be freely modified. To set them either drag the bullets atop their vertical bars, or tap their values (the blue-green and orange figures atop the bar) and directly key the new number in.

Once Ranges are defined, tap on each of the 3 “THD Edit” buttons, at the top, and enter harmonic correction value for each of those Ranges.

It is possible to generate even (2^nd) and odd (3^rd) harmonic values. Each value must be entered in dB, and by ticking the Invert flag we flip the harmonic’s phase.

Similarly to how it works for the Thresholds, harmonic values can be input either by dragging un/down the 2 orange bullet atop the animated “graph spikes” at the centre of the screen, or by tapping on the number values within the frame on the upper-right.

Suppose we don’t want to take volume variations too much into account: how do we define a “flat” correction, all equal for the entire volume range?

There’s 2 ways to do that: either input the exact same values into “THD Edit” for all three ranges, or define Threshold values such that… only Range 3 is effectively ever active (i.e.: set both Low and High Threshold to -127.5dB), and input correction values only under Range 3’s THD Edit space.

Two: go the engineeristic way

As I very briefly mentioned above, THD is typically inversely proportional to load impedance. Which means that E1DA’s factory calibration, centered upon a 32Ω load, will deliver ideal results for 32Ω but results will still be much more than decent at higher impedances; viceversa it will “need some help” – so to say – when pairing 9038SG3 or 9038D with sub-16Ω IEMs.

To find out as accurately as possible which new values optimise a 9038SG3 (or 9038D) when paired with a specific earphone / headphone, some equipment, and following a similar procedure, to what E1DA uses and does in-house to pre-calibrate 9038S3G and 9038D will be required.

And guess what: E1DA develops and sells such equipment. It’s called Cosmos, and does exactly that (and much more). Here is the link to the description – I will not go in more detail here, this article is already long enough isn’t it.

A “distortion generator” – to actually add some distortion

We do all we can to get distortion-free DACs. We even calibrate them in respects to our headphones, one by one, to compensate for load-dependent distortion… why the hell would we want to “add” distortion???

As I mentioned above, 9038D and 9038SG3 come with whopping -125dB (or so) THD which is a monumentally good value for such a device and especially price class. 

And in facts they do sound… clean. Holy cow they really do! 

Tell you what: maybe a tad too much ?

E1DA 9038SG3 and 9038D’s harmonics generator can (incredibly in a sense, but really) help also for this case. By fiddling with the THD compensation values we can “add some colour” to sound, making it “more musical” in a sense.

There’s even a way to simulate the voicing of a tube amp – that’s mainly about playing with the 2^nd harmonic. The Tweak9038 app even offers “tube emulation” presets, those are labelled “SE” – there’s one for 9038D one for 9038SG3 – all it takes is loading them, and they can be furtherly tweaked of course.

When on your quest for more colored sound you may also want to remember that

• the lower the MCLK, the lower the DR (more on this below)
• linear filters often tend to make notes less sharp (more on this below, too)

Playing with 9038SG3 / 9038D’s sound tweaking gauges is just amazing This video (by E1DA) shows a live demo of the game.

Setting a custom clock frequency

Tweak9038 allows to set the ESS 9038Q2M chip’s Master Clock frequency at 3 different values: 12.5Mhz, 25MHz or 50MHz.

A higher clock frequency lowers the noise floor, produces better note definition, sharper attack, better space reconstruction, but generates more high order harmonics (higher distortion).

Lower clock frequency is the opposite: less distortion, a bit higher noise floor, softer note contours, more “intimate” stage.

To give an idea, 12Mhz has lower THD vs 25MHz but is 1-1.5dB(A) worse in terms of SNR/DR.

The effect is indeed quite apparent especially if you have a trained audio ear already. If you are not particularly ahead in your critical listening experience, try “extremising” the values: slam all THD compensation to zero, set clock to 50MHz, and chose a minimum phase filter – you should hear all notes definitely more “sculpted”.

By the way, the fact that Tweak9038’s “Tube emulation preset” profiles are only defined at 12Mhz frequency is indeed consistent with the above: music comes across softer (not fuzzier of course, definition is still there), less “carved in stone”. Like tubes do.

Similarly to the other areas of intervention, for MCLK selection too Tweak9038 app allows to pre-set which clock value to use depending on the track’s sampling rate, and save the full association table under a custom named preset file, which one can load and apply at leisure.

For my taste, lower clock speeds are a better compromise on lower sample rates – and higher clock speeds “fit” (my tastes) better on higher sample rates.

Reconstruction filters: why we need them, and why Tweak9038 is cool

Takes as it should be, deeply understanding reconstruction filters would require a treaty on signal processing. If you are technically inclined an elementary starting point might actually be this Wikipedia page.

The ESS 9038Q2M chip adopted inside 9038SG3 and 9038D offer 7 different reconstruction filters (Linear Phase Slow and Fast, Minimum Phase Slow and Fast, Apodizing, Brick Wall and Corrected Minimum Phase) + 1 “ESS-Reserved” filter.

Assuming you read the above, or you know from before and even better than me, Linear Phase Slow and Fast, and Minimum Phase Slow and Fast filters don’t need much presentation I guess.

Brick Wall and Apodizing are variations of a Fast Linear filter. Corrected Minimum Phase is a not-very-slow Min Phase filter. The R (ESS-reserved) is similar to the Apodizing, but with less ripple.

Linear Phase Fast Filter

Linear Phase Slow Filter

Minimum Phase Fast Filter

Minimum Phase Slow Filter

Apodizing Fast Filter

Hybrid Fast Filter

Brick Wall (fast) Filter

9038SG3 and 9038D allow the user to freely select their preferred filter – which happens via the Tweak9038 app of course. Not so many other dongles offer the same possibilities (at any price, by the way).

Veeery widely said, I personally tend to apply Min Phase Slow to >=88.2KHz tracks, and Min Phase Fast to Redbook tracks.

What I find absolutely brilliant, and unique, here is that the Tweak9038 app makes it possible to map which filter is to be used based on the sampling rate of the incoming digital file.

So I can set things up such that (e.g.) on all tracks < 88.2Khz a Min Phase Fast is automatically used, while the DAC automatically switches onto a Min Phase Slow filter when resolution goes above 96Khz. Or whatever other pairing you might instead find best for your ears

Standby and Mute

9038SG3 and 9038D have built-in automatic Standby and Mute functions.

Standby will set the device in Power Saving mode if it does not receive data from the host for 1 minute. This is of course very nice to reduce power consumption when you are not actively listening to music. Power Saving mode reduces consumption by 50%.

Mute will also turn DAC output off while the device is in Power Saving mode.

There is a single drawback in leaving Standby and Mute working their automatic way: when 9038 starts back receiving again data from the host while in Power Saving mode it may induce annoying and sometimes quite loud “pops” on the drivers. The more annoying and lower the higher the drivers’ sensitivity.

Standby and Mute can be turned “off” by accessing Tweak9038 Settings panel, and just tap to remove the flags on the two options.

Settings persistence and “Presets” management

This part may seem a bit confusing at first, at least it was for me. Let me try to make it simple and straight.

The Tweak9038 app makes all of the above illustrated 9038SG3 and 9038D parameters visible to the user, and allows the user to change them.

As soon as you plug either 9038D or 9038SG3 into the Android device running Tweak9038, its currently active parameters are read-in, and shown by the Tweak9038 app.

Whenever any change is made to one of the parameters shown by the Tweak9038 app while the dongle is connected, such new value is instantly saved onto the connected 9038SG3 / 9038D non-volatile internal memory.

Due to such non-volatility, all values will persist even after unplugging the dongle from the Android device running Tweak9038, and after plugging it onto a totally different device, regardless of such device’s OS.

So again: Tweak9038 shows the values which are written “inside the dongle”, and allows the user to “prepare”, “tune” his 9038SG3 / 9038D how he prefers, save the values back into the dongle, and use it, so tuned, wherever he wants, without ever needing the Tweak9038 app once again.

Clear till now? Good.

In addition to the above, Tweak9038 allows for saving “full sets” of such parameters. Such sets are however saved onto the Android device hosting Tweak9038.  You do that by tapping on the Save frame, on the main app screen, and then giving the preset a name.

Again: Presets are not saved onto 9038SG3 / 9038D. They are kept local to the Tweak9038 app.

Existing Presets can be accessed by tapping on the Preset frame, on the main app screen. Once there, Presets will be found under 2 different categories – accessible by tapping on the first 2 buttons atop: User are those previously saved by yourself, and Official are those supplied by E1DA.

After tapping on a User Preset, it’s possible to SET, EXPORT or DELETE it.

By tapping on “SET”, the Preset’s values are written all together and all at once onto the dongle’s non-volatile memory, and saved. Exactly the same as if they were input one by one by hand.

User Presets can be Exported. Which is meaningful as Presets can also be later Imported – for instance in case a friend wants to pass us one of his sets, or to acquire a special Preset developed by E1DA which is not included inside the standard Tweak9038 app distribution set.

Official Presets cannot be Exported (no need to) nor Deleted (so you can’t mess up). Therefore, when tapping on an Official Preset the system just asks for confirmation before applying its values, and that’s it.

One last note: whenever a Preset is saved into Tweak9038’s workspace, all of the configuration values of the currently connected dongle are automatically saved onto the named file, including Min, Current and Max Volume figures. But, when a Preset is recalled from storage, and “SET” (applied) onto the currently connected dongle, the system asks wether Volume parameters need to be also Set, or those need to be left at their current “live” values.

Other stuff

Using 9038D with an external Amp

It is possible to exploit 9038D’s 3.5mm single ended phone out as a preamp out, and connect it to a downstream Amplifier. It’s quite logical to assume that, very likely if not always, 9038D will be connected to a desktop transport of sort for this application – like a Windows or Linux machine.

To get best results it is recommended to use the Tweak9038 app (see above) to:

• Apply appropriate THD compensation values
• Disable Mute and Standby
• Set Max Volume to -3dB (this way Max Vout will be 2 Vrms – this is only required if this is the max allowed input value for our Amp)

It is optionally possible to save a Preset for this, especially in case one plans to dedicate 9038D to this application only occasionally, and needs therefore an easy way to switch back and forth between these settings and others more appropriate for mobile use paired with headphone or IEMs.

All easy.

Sole doubt is: how do I devine the “appropriate THD compensation values” to apply when 9038D’s load is represented by the amp? No worries.

The 9038D has a nice matte-finished black metal housing. I would call the front side the one with the E1DA white logo engraved on, of course. Let’s flip it to the back side. Near the end corresponding to the USB-C plug there are some other minuscule-font-size engravings. On my unit I read:

Calibrated unit:
DR 124.7 / 125.4
TCC  2 / -70

I already mentioned far above that E1DA calibrates each and every unit upon manufacturing. These figures actually regard my own unit (so will in general be different from anybody else’s unit).

DR refers to my unit’s Dynamic Range, and the two figures refer to the left and right channel respectively.and mean:

Dynamic Range : 124.7 dB LEFT / 125.4 RIGHT

THD Compensation Coefficients: 2  /  -70

TCC stands for THD Compensation Coefficients, and that’s what we are looking for now, as those figures are what’s needed on my very unit to minimise distortion on “No Load Condition”.

As I explained above, THD changes based on various dynamic situations, one of which is the impedance of what gets connected to 9038D’s output (the “load”).

So here E1DA is telling me what’s the compensation to apply when I connect my 9038D to… nothing ?!? Well let’s dig better into this technical wordage.

Connecting “nothing” to the output can be said in a more electrical-engineering-friendly way as “connecting to an open circuit”.

When voltage is applied to an “open circuit”, no current will pass through. “Of course… there is not even the effing wire!!”. Well… (again) an electrical engineer would rather say that there is a “wire”… with an infinite resistance (!).  

And finally, amplifiers have very high Input Impedances. Not “infinitely” high, but “very” high nonetheless.

Now let’s connect the dots: those TCC values reported on the back of 9038D’s enclosure are the settings needed to minimise distortion when nothing is connected to 9038D’s output, i.e., when something with infinite resistance is connected there. So, they are a good approximation of the figures needed to minimise distortion when something with a very high – albeit finite – resistance is connected. Like an Amplifier, for example

How do I do that? Of course via the Tweak9038 app. Reach for the THD panel. Set both Low and High Threshold to -127.5dB. This way only Range 3 will ever be “active”. Open Range 3 panel and (in my specific case) set 2^nd harmonic to 2dB, and 3^rd harmonic to 70dB, while also ticking (only) 3^rd harmonics Invert checkbox to reflect the “-” sign.

Should I plan to use 9038D as a “fixed volume” DAC, and only regulate volume on the downstream connected Amp, I would also want to set its Min Volume = Current Volume = Max Volume to -3dB, this way effectively forcing the device to always output 2Vrms flat.

MasterClock and Filter selection panels have nothing to do with the output connection, so I will leave my usual settings map in there.

And finally, I will save the whole thing under a User Preset called e.g. “9038D Dac”.

Heck! This way I overwrote my 9038D’s factory-imposed THD settings, those offering the least distortion when using a 32Ω IEM. And only now I realise I did not save the previous configuration into a User Preset before modifying it  

No worries. Original factory-recorded THD compensation data are hard coded into the firmware. By accessing Settings / Restore Factory Settings on Tweak9038 app I can swing back to those values in no time.

Using 9038SG3 with an external Amp

TL;DR: don’t.

Some Amplifiers offer balanced input, and their owners would prefer exploiting that route, especially when the Amp also offers a full balanced internal structure.

Too bad that, simply put, such connectivity is not supported by 9038SG3. I found E1DA’s tech support explanation to why is this the case so efficient that I can’t find a better way then quoting that directly here:

DAC and Amp need to be grounded to each other to ensure safe operation. The headphone output of the 9038S has four pins: Hot/Cold Left and Hot/Cold Right. There’s no GND pin. Therefore, it is not possible to ground it to your Amp. People have ignored our warnings before, connected their 9038S to external Amps via a 2.5mm to 2x XLR adapter, and have fried their 9038S as a result. The output really is for headphones only. If you want something that you can use both with headphones/IEMs and with external DACs, get a 9038D.

https://discord.com/channels/483873307251310592/608625162115612693/1001215598203768883

Case closed.

If you really don’t want to use the Tweak9038 app

If you are really really really unwilling to pay the 10 bucks for the app, then – even if you shouldn’t deserve it – there’s a B-plan for you: carefully flashing some pre-cooked firmware made available by E1DA themselves.

The firmware flashing package exclusively exists for Windows OS. Additionally, it requires Comtrue ASIO drivers to be pre-installed to operate correctly.

E1DA makes all the required sw packages available as free downloads of course, and they come with a collection of various alternative firmware versions ready to be flashed on either 9038D or 9038SG3.

It’s of course needed to select the files inside the folder called like the device model which is supposed to be updated of course.

Inside each “model” folder there’s a single file named “Tweak […]”. That is the firmware required for the Tweak9038 app to work. So basically, it’s the firmware that comes preinstalled from factory. Once one of the other firmware files gets flashed in, the Tweak9038 app will not be able to work on that device anymore, and to restore its functionality it’s required to re-flash the Tweak[…] firmware first.

The various files contain non-app-tweakable firmware configurations, quite clearly described by their names.

It’s worth nothing that:

• Firmware names containing “noSTBY” disable the automatic Standby feature
• Firmware names containing “SE” simulate a Tube amp sound signature (set 2^nd harmonic to -50dB)

Special notes about iPhones (with a final Android hint)

Don’t be misguided [too much] by the above-mentioned power drains imposed by 9030D or 9038SG3 on the host, going well beyond 100mA which is known as a hard apriori limitation on Apple’s design.

In spite of that, both 9038SG3 and 9038D can be connected to iPhones via a Lightning connector cable but… whether it will work or not depends on the cable and on the iPhone specific model (!). Some models won’t ever work, other models won’t work with some cables (no power to turn 9038SG3 or 9038D up at all), and finally shall work with some other cables.

E1DA maintains an incredibly helpful if rustic worksheet – available here – collecting internal and users’ experiences: which cable works (or not) with which iPhone model. Check both the Yes/No and Voltage tabs to have the full information you want. The sheet also includes leads on where those cables can be purchased.

Once said it is possible, of course it stays legitimate to wonder whether it’s convenient to indeed connect 9038SG3 / 9038D alone to an iPhone, thereby heavily shortening its daily battery durability.

I myself use 9038SG3 (and Groove for that matter) on the go with “transport pack” made of a tiny DAP + a small lightweight powerbank, kept together by some Bluetack and connected to the dongles by means of a special Y-USB cable.

But that’s another story, and applies to quite a few Android phones too. This specific topic will be covered by a separate article of mine which will be published, well, you know already when.

Considerations & conclusions

You really got through all this article reading it all till here? Heck! I owe you a coffee at the very least. You deserved it.

As I hope I suceeded in saying and explaining why, E1DA 9038SG3 is a very good battery-less DAC-AMP, and an even more brilliant product overall. Unbelievably powerful, drives all nastiest IEMs including no matter which planar IEM, and most HPs as nothing – surrenders only against the most demanding planar overears. This, while offering outstanding sound clarity and superb detail retrieval.

9038D is also extremely good, indeed as good as 9038SG3 sound wise with the sole caveat of output power capabilities which are lower than 9038SG3 but still higher than 90% of the other mobile sources around. Can be the right choice for fixed-cable IEMs and anyhow most other IEMs around bar (some) planars only.

The Tweak9038 app further allows to “play” with the device timbre.

For how much ya’ll know I love my two Grooves, if I were to recommend “one” dongle only for true audiophile use at the lowest possible cost I would name 9038SG3 without the shadow of a doubt. Excellent, indeed.

As already mentioned at the beginning, the 9038SG3 and 9038D I am talking about have been personally purchased.

Very much lastly: I’ve had as always loads of fun going through all this with my audiophile friend Simone Fil, also an enthusiast E1DA user, and much deeper than me in technical audio competence – which of course I ruthlessly exploit. Quite some of the above content is the direct descent from our late evening chats and common findings.

Our generic standard disclaimer.

P.S. – last minute news

On their Discord channel Ivan just recently announced he found a good successor for 9038D’s opamp. Same power, even a bit better THD and DR. It’s code-named 9038D6K as it will also have 6000µF power filtering capacitance, up from 4000 on og 9038D.

So it seems 9038D will be available again… Soon^tm.

The post E1DA 9038SG3 and 9038D Review – They Know What They’re Doing appeared first on Music For The Masses.

Logitech Media Server is a piece of software, and it’s well described here: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Logitech_Media_Server

The highlights:

• It gets music files or streams from a plethora of diverse origins (files on local storage, files from private or public cloud storage, streams from other private streaming platforms eg another LMS or from public services eg Spotify, Tidal, Qobuz…), transcodes formats if need be, and streams/sends the songs towards compatible “renderers”, i.e. music players which in their turn feed the actual audio hw (DAC -> AMP -> Transducer)
• It’s available for Windows, Mac and of course Linux, including a few specialised Linux distributions
• It therefore runs on “usual” X386/64 hw, Apple hw, and – what matters most – on a huge array of low cost and especially low power consuming SBCs (Single Board Computers)
• Considering today’s available hw performance level, its system (CPU/RAM etc) requirements for an even fancy home setup are unbelievably low
• It’s free (GNU)

LMS does not “play music”, it just collects music, and manages its stock and access, and distributes them to the actual music players (the “renderes”).

As a “renderer” you can use either a preconfigured hardware device e.g. a Chromecast, a Squeezebox, etc which can be reached via various channels like wired ethernet, wifi ethernet, BT, AirpPlay and protocols like DLNA etc, or you can install a compatible receiver software on a general purpose system e.g. your pc, your Mac, your xbox, etc, or finally you can build a “hardware rendering device” from scracth, which is indeed my case and the good news is that it is way less complicated than it seems.

The physical system acting as LMS server may also have a Renderer inside, to “manage files, and play them out” from the same machine. Even in such case though that machine will keep being able to stream audio to other external Renderers.

While streaming audio to Renders, LMS can also manage keeping them “in sync”, resulting in simultaneous music playout in different rooms, for example.

So summarising:

• LMS is “the server”, the manager of the whole system. It cllects and indexes music files, makes them browsable, and sends (“streams”) them to companion devices called “Renderers”.
• The Renderers are the devices which get digital music data streams from LMS and push them into a locally connected DAC>AMP>Speaker/HP/IEM stack.

How I deployed it

No I won’t write a full book on the infinite ways to deploy an LMS infrastructure. I’ll just describe how my own infrastructure has been organised, for you to take inspiration

My LMS is running on an SBC-class computer.

In my specific case we’re talking about a BananaPi M2+ (recently upgraded from a NanoPi NEO2 , which is now dedicated to other tasks) but it could easily be “any” RaspberryPi, or dozens of similar alternatives.

My Banana-LMS server is wired-connected to my main home network switch.

Another SBC-class server is acting as a general file server for my home needs, that’s where my digital music files are deposited, and my Banana-LMS accesses them via NFS. In a simpler setup, I could plug a USB drive right onto Banana-LMS of course.

Once installed, the LMS server publishes an HTML interface. Which means that from any one of my PCs, or Laptops, or wifi devices (phones, tablets, daps…) I can access it as long as I can browse onto its address.

LMS creates an index of all music files on the storage, much like any “media manager” application does (including those inside DAPs).

Let’s now suspend the LMS description for a sec, and pass on to the Renderers.

Renderers

My first Renderer was is – guess what – a RaspberryPi Zero W.

As you read above, a Renderer is a device which takes the digital music data from the LMS server and sends them to the actual DAC. To do so, some sort of “music player” application is required. My choice on that is PiCorePlayer which I like as it offers two great features at the same time: it’s super-easy to install, and it sounds wonderfully well.

PiCorePlayer on Linux platform is distributed complete with a bare-bones Linux distribution, ready to work and do its job – and its job only – at the best of the hosting hardware ability. The maximally stripped-down, highly-optimised nature of PiCorePlayer’s underlying Linux distro is crucial to its performance as a low noise music player.

It’s good to note that PiCorePlayer also optionally carries LMS built in. That means that in an even simpler situation I could have avoided keeping a standalone Banana-LMS device acting as a server, and I could have elected one or my Renderers to the role of Renderer and Server for itself, and for all others.

Once at least one Renderer (the PiCorePlayer) is installed and running, I can go back onto LMS’s webpage – called from a phone, while sitting on the sofa – and I’ll see a Renderer available in my network. At that point I can browse and choose a song from LMS’s visual index, a Renderer to send it to, and click PLAY.

I have a total of 3 RPi-base Renderers active right now.

Allo

My first Renderer is the aforementioned RaspberryPi ZeroW, and it’s called Allo, at it hosts an Allo MiniBoss I2C DAC card.

Such mini-network-DAC box is subsequently connected to an Allo Volt+ amp box, giving juice to a pair of Roth Audio OLIRA1 bookshelvers. Depending on my seasonal feelings, the Allo renderer and its downstream line is either installed in a sitting corner in my livingroom, or takes some place on my desk and around it as a nearfield setup, for some non-overpretentious-quality audio output.

Groovy

My second PiCorePlayer-based Renderer is a Raspberry model 3B+, which is sitting on my desk, next to my PC.

To this Renderer one of my Groove units is normally plugged in, and it’s the resource I tap onto when I want to enjoy some specific drivers directly paired to the Groove. Hence the name “Groovy”

Indeed, Groovy is also what I typically use as a realiable, reasonably-clean USB host to audition other USB-input DACs or DAC/AMPs that I happen to receive from time to time.

Fun

The third PiCorePlayer Renderer is named “Fun”, and it’s based on a more recent RaspberryPi model 4B.

This is the support device for my “main desktop stack” for headphones at the moment, ending into my Burson Fun headphone amp – hence of course the name given to the PCP device.

Cutting the laptop out

Until some time ago I used to have a 4th Rendering point represented by my Windows Laptop itself. You do that by installing a windows app called SqueezeLite-X, which takes care of talking to the backend LMS server – much like a PiCorePlayer does. I used to, as I said, then more recently I quit using my laptop as a host for musical playing for good.

Long story short: the level of perturbance generated on a multipurpose, multimedia, gaming-level laptop like mine is significant. While a filter like the iFi Nano iUSB 3.0 undoubtedly helps reducing much of that, it’s nevertheless quite evident that cutting the problem at the source instead of fixing it later is a smarter option, when available! So I quit employing a noisy platform like a laptop in the first place, and now excluisively adopt less-noisy-to-begin-with ones for my musical pleasures.

More about LMS

So LMS allows me to browse my local digital music collection, and “play out” my preferred tracks on any of my connected Renderers.

I can reach that and browse through it via a normal web browser, or a nice number of supporting apps – either fully dedicated ones (e.g. OrangeSqueeze or others, available on Google Play) or multi purpose ones (e.g. UAPP, Neutron, HiBy Music, or any other app featuring DLNA-Controller capabilities)

If music tracks are decently tagged LMS also does some nice job in terms of music collection presentation. You can also have it acquire and cache album art, album and artist info, and even lyrics from various online resources.

If you access it via a browser you can choose the GUI “skin” you prefer, or customise your own if you are skilled enough. The UI is not remotely as phantasmagorical as on higher rank systems like Roon, but still quite pleasing nonetheless, with the non-secondary side-benefit of being… free!

And there’s more: a host of additional features can be activated / removed in forms of plugins.  Some examples:

Format conversion. LMS can convert to/from countless digital formats “on the fly”, i.e. while actually sending the file to the Renderer (and the DAC attached to it). So for example it can convert (e.g.) a DSF 128 track into a 24 bit / 176.4KHz PCM FLAC file while sending it to an endpoint which won’t natively be able to decode the DSF itself. Big caveat: this does require quite some muscle! My BananaPi-LMS does not have enough for that, for example. So for all DSD-level tracks I have, I took care of creating their relevant PCM (FLAC) version, and stored it as an alternative version of the same album on my NAS, and let LMS access them too.

Tidal, Spotify, Qobuz integration. Adding account credentials to LMS, it will connect to those services and make them available for browsing from within its GUI, and for reforwarding to the Renderers – just like it happens for any local-resident digital track.

UPnP / DLNA integration. I partially already covered this above. Any DLNA-capable mobile device (phone, tablet, dap, etc) can home interact with LMS. If the device only has DLNA-client support, you can only use it as a sort of Renderer – i.e., you need another device to browse LMS and push music from LMS into the DLNA-client device. If the device has full DLNA-controller support, instead, then it will be able to browse LMS in full authonomy, and call tracks to play onto itself. This – of course – can happen from “inside home”, and from “outside home”, provided you made your LMS accessible from the outside of course, and that your outgoing internet bandwidth is at least decent.

Airplay integration, Webradio integration, etc etc etc

Summary and conclusions

So, summarising: Logitech Media Server can be the heart and the brain of an entire domestic audio infrastructure.

What it ultimately offered me is:

• A centralised visual database of all my local digital audio material
• Some nice integration with extra artist / track information
• Access from within home, and from outside (via VPN).
• An “easy” way to keep digital audio transport off from general purpose computer hardware and OS (higher audio quality)

All this at an extremely low cost profile: LMS and its various Rendering companion sw packages are free of licenses, they can run on ARM-based hardware which is both inexpensive to buy (compared to an X86/X64 class alternative) and to electrically power up.

LMS served me well as my main audio infrastructure until a few months ago, when I switched over to Roon. I’ll write another piece on that… soon(tm).

The post A Logitech Media Server / LMS Infrastructure (Update) appeared first on Music For The Masses.

Here’s my analysis of K’s Earphone “Bell-LBs” model, which I recently personally purchased for € 59,00

At-a-glance Card

Full Device Card

Test setup

Apogee Groove / Sony NW-A55 mrWalkman / Questyle QP1R / Ifi HipDac / Cowon Plenue 2 – full foam and donut foam covers – lossless 16-24/44.1-192 FLAC tracks.

Signature analysis

Technicalities

Physicals

Specifications (declared)

Comparisons

vs Rose Mojito (was $ 259,00 – now discountinued)

Both are designed for with a neutral presentation in mind, but when directly compared Bell-LBs comes out “flatter-neutral” while Mojito sounds a bit more “balanced”.

Mojito delivers more sub-bass and a modest rumble vs just a hint of that on Bell-LBs. Midbass are similar in note body, Mojito offering a bit more elevation. Mids and vocals are equivalently refined and organic, very difficult to tell which is better. On both, male are “just good”, female are “wonderful”.

Neither driver ever scants into sibilance, but Bell-LBs do occasionally concede to shoutyness, which Mojito is totally free of. Stage casting is similar, Bell-LBs being just a bit deeper.

Imaging and separation are surely better on Mojito mainly thanks to the absence of treble shoutiness. Bell-LBs are way easier to drive and pair.

vs Rose Masya (was $ 129,00 – now discountinued)

Masya offer a bright-accented presentation vs a virtually pure-neutral coming out of Bell-LBs. Both buds deliver a just hinted sub-bass, with barely audible rumble. Midbass are similar, with Masya showing a bit more elevation.

Mids are better tuned on Bell_LBs which deliver thicker tone body and higher organicity. Vocals are hands-down better on Bell-LBs, female even more than male. Both drivers present a tendence to (occasional) shoutyness on trebles on some tracks, Masya more than Bell-LBs.

Technicalities are also very similar, with Bell-LBs showing just a bit more stage depth in comparison. Bell-LBs are much easier to drive and pair.

vs K’s Earphone K300 (€58,14 list, € 29,10 street price)

By design K300 indeed offer a different tuning compared to Bell-LBs: warm and V-shaped vs neutral. K300’s sub bass is very audible and delivers nice rumble, on par with quite a few IEMs actually, and unlike Bell-LBs where it is just hinted.

Mid bass is more elevated, bloomier, denser on K300 vs Bell-LBs’ leaner, faster, punchier one. Mids are obviously recessed and also leaner on K300, vs unrecessed bodied and organic on Bell-LBs.

High mids and trebles are similarly elevated on both, but obvsiouly cleaner, sparklier, airier on Bell-LBs, and brushed, warmed and inoffensive on K300.

Soundstage casting is very similar, in both cases absolutely holographic, a further bit more extended on K300. Imaging and separation are evidently much better on Bell-LBs as a direct consequence of much faster transiets all over the spectrum.

K300 is somewhat harder to drive due to its 300 ohm impedance, and less expensive.

vs VE Monk SM (Slim Metal) (€ 22,39)

Monk SM tonality is bright-neutral vs Bell-LBs being almost pure neutral. Both have just hinted sub-bass. Mid-bass is similar on both, a bit more elevated and organic on Bell-LBs.

Mids and especially vocals are monumentally better on Bell-LBs, whereas Monk SM sound deeply artificial, in addition to lean and untextured.

High mids and trebles are also arguably much more organic on Bell-LBs, shouty and fatiguing on Monk SM. Monk SM cast a deeper but narrower stage.

Detail retrieval on Monk SM is not as bad as their high mids and treble lack of refinement might imply, but Bell-LBs keep the lead with good margin. Microdynamics are also evidently better on Bell-LBs.

Both drivers are quite easy to bias power-wise, but Monk SM is way more capricious in terms of pairing (some sources excite their highmids making them sound like a portable transistor radio from the ’70ies).

Considerations & conclusions

K’s Earphone BELL-LBs are a pair a earbuds that acoustic and vocal music lovers may easily fall in love with.

They tick so many boxes at once: neutral tonality, spot-on timbre, comfortable fit, high resolving power, holographic stage casting and good technicalities, all paired with decent driveability and an affordable price.

Sure there is better at higher budget levels, but I couldn’t find anything remotely close in terms of sound quality on an almost purely neutral tonality at such a modest cost.

Our generic standard disclaimer.

The post K’s Earphone Bell-LBs Review – Budget Neutral Reference appeared first on Music For The Masses.

Subsequently followed by other models named Masya and Maria, all of these including the original Mojito are now discountinued to leave the field to the latest iteration called Maria II, which is the sole Rose Technics earbud model currently available.

I’ve had a chance to extensively audition both Mojito (originally priced at $259,00) and Masya, both being privately owned samples, and this article is about my experience with the former, with some comparison notes to add hints about the latter at the end.

At-a-glance Card

Full Device Card

Test setup

Sources: Apogee Groove + Burson FUN + IEMatch / Questyle QP1R – stock full foams – Stock cable – lossless 16-24/44.1-192 FLAC tracks.

Signature analysis

Technicalities

Physicals

Specifications (declared)

Comparisons

vs Rose Masya ($ 129,00 – discontinued)

Masya is the model released by Rose Technics just after Mojito, and can be considered its economical (50% lower priced) version in a sense.

Unlike Mojito, Masya offers a bright-accented presentation to begin with, with a tint of warmth added to the lowmids to counterbalance a bit. Sub bass is almost entirely absent, while it’s very present and generating nice rumble on Mojito. Midbass are similar on Masya and Mojito, with Masya showing a somewhat less note body there.

Mids are more forward on Masya, I would say equivalently detailed and organic as on Mojito, and still free from any sibilance of sort, but Masya’s high mids do have a tendence to get shouty, and trebles are sometimes even slightly splashy on Masya, which does not happen at all on Mojito. Technicalities are also similar: Masya presents just a bit less of stage depth, and its instrument separation capabilities, especially on trebles, are limited on the upside when the driver goes shouty.

vs K’s Earphone BELL-LBS (€ 59,00 street price)

Bell-LBs are the sole example of almost purely neutral tuned earbuds which come at least somewhat close to Mojito’s refinement that I could find (at a fraction of Mojito’s asking price).

Sub-bass rumble is indeed present on Bell-LBs, but at an evidently lesser elevation compared to Mojito. Midbass on Bell-LBs and shares the same speed and punchyness with Mojito, but notes are a bit leaner and less textured (on Bell-LBs). Mids and vocals behave very similarly – ob both drivers females are better than males, which sound leaner and somewhat hollower. Female vocals and highmids some rare time get somewhat close to sibilance on Bell-LBs, which never happens on Mojito.

Trebles are well refined on Bell-LBs, there’s no shoutyness that I can assess much like it happens on Mojito. Treble balance in the general presentation economy is more prominent on Bell-LBs, which sound airier nonetheless. Technicalities are very similar, with the sole notable difference being that Bell-LBs cast a less deep stage.

Considerations & conclusions

Rose Mojito are no doubt, and by far, the most refined sounding earbuds I have ever auditioned. So much so that it’s not even appropriate to “compare” them with the overwhelming majority of the “most popular” earbuds, with which the sole real common part is frankly just the form factor category itself.

Oddly enough, if I had to define and introduce Rose Mojito to someone never having heard them I would say: consider them as a pair of openback headphones… in miniature size. Mojito deliver a spectacularly extended holographic sound field, high-end resolving power and superb instrument separation on a virtually pure-neutral presentation, and a 100% organic acoustic timbre. Listening to acoustic music on Mojito is nothing short of pure pleasure.

I wish I had the opportunity to audition their currently marketed evolution: Rose Maria II. You never know what may happen…

Our generic standard disclaimer.

The post Rose Mojito – Honorable Progenitor appeared first on Music For The Masses.

This model has been released almost 4 years ago if I am not mistaken but it still holds the test of time as a very good mid-tier IEM pair, with some added uniqueness for extra measure.

At-a-glance Card

Full Device Card

Test setup

Sources: Apogee Groove + Burson FUN + IEMatch / Apogee Groove + iBasso T3 / Sony NW-A55 mrWalkman / Questyle QP1R – Acoustune ET07 tips – Stock iBasso CB12s cable – lossless 16-24/44.1-192 FLAC tracks.

Signature analysis

Technicalities

Physicals

Specifications (declared)

Some possibly significant quick comparisons

Tanchjim Oxygen ($ 259) is an obviously unfair comparison insofar as the Tanchjim IEM carries just 1 single DD driver for all frequencies, and is sold at a 50% lower price. That being said, Oxygen’s timbre memory has been pretty much the first to come up in my brain upon my first IT04 audition, and that’s why I jotted down some notes on the differences.

The tonality, first of all, is not the same. Both strive for neutrality but Oxygen ends up with a slight bright accented balanced tonality, IT04 with a warm-ish one. Bass is where the two IEM are extremely similar. From the mids up the situation changes pretty dramatically insofar as IT04 deliver better articulation, better accuracy, and more air while (and that’s the real point) never adding too much BA timbre on top of (or underneath if you wish) it all. IT04 is a 1+3 multidriver showing a tonal coherence pretty much equivalent to that of a good lower-tier single-DD driver, e.g. the Oxygen, while being able to extract as much BA-personality as possible from those 3 units up there.

Oriveti OH500 ($ 499). The comparison this time is between quite homogeneous alternatives: OH500 features 1 DD 4 BA while IT04 1 and 3, both drivers are sold at the very same list price. Both IEMs can be categories as “warm-balanced”, too. And, technical prowess on all the various singular aspects of the products look like just about a tie too, small differences excluded: technicalities are in both cases extremely good, and tuning shows srious competence being applied.

Simply put, their difference can be summarised as OH500 being tuned to deliver more energy, IT04 to deliver more smoothness. OH500 lets bass hit harder (if you want, maybe a little tad too loosely, depending on personal preferences), and highmids come out hotter and stronger, while IT04 pays all possible attention to keep everything as nice as possible, but as homogeneous as possible. Another not-secondary difference is driveability: OH500 is much source-pickier.

Conclusions

I liked IT04 on two different counts.

One is the more direct one: they sound very well They carry a wonderful timbre and deliver a very pleasing, slightly warm, balanced tonality which is perfectly applicable to the acoustic music I like best.

The other is on a more abstract level: IT04 is a multidriver which is kept coherent not by trying at all cost to tune a DD as fast as possible not to sound sloppy compared to its BA companions, rather by tuning the BAs in a way as to stand their position on mutual ground vis-à-vis their companion DD’s naturally thicker body. An uncommon choice, really, and a successful one!

On the flip side I would say I’d have preferred to hear something “more” in terms of vividness and energy, and some extra effort in terms of treble detail retrieval. Perfection is not of this world, I guess.

As mentioned above, this sample was loaned to me by its private owner who paid for its out of his own pocket – this is not a review on a loaner/free unit provided by the manufacturer nor by a distributor.

Our generic standard disclaimer.

The post iBasso IT04 Review – A Different One appeared first on Music For The Masses.

Final Sonorous-II and Sonorous-III are in my opinion the absolute best closed back headphones you can buy for less than 500$ (either costing much less than that actually). You can find them stuck on our Wall of Excellence, and reviewed here.

At-a-glance Card

Why and how

Ear pads – their internal structure, size, thickness, and external fabric – do change headphones sound even more than what eartips do to IEMs. And final Sonorous Earpads are no exceptio.

First and foremost, the distance between the actual sound transducers and the ear modulate low frequency sound pressure, which obviously significantly influences the presentation. Based on this fact, final Sonorous earpads are filled with sponges of different thickness and consistency. Their external material is synthetic leather featuring equal horizontal and vertical flexibility. Finally,

Another important aspect when it comes to closed-back earphones is avoiding sound appearing “muffled” due to lack of backside venting. Final accomodates for this by carving small apertures on the inside and the outside of the pads “donuts”, achieving superb results in terms of sound clarity.

Lastly, final Sonorous Earpads feature a quite ingenious system to facilitate swapping. By direct experience it does work. You may want to take a look at the final’s official quick tutorial video to get an idea.

The range

As I mentioned, final Sonorous Earpads are avaialble in 7 different variations. Here are the lineup specs, directly taken from final’s website.

Model	Surface Material	Sponge	Filter	Stock on	Picture
Type A	synthetic leather	thick, strong standard type sponge	single layer	SONOROUS VI, IV
Type B	synthetic leather	thinner/softer sponge compared to Type A	single layer	SONOROUS VI
Type C	synthetic leather	W-shaped sponge combining Type A and Type B types	3 layer	SONOROUS X, VIII
Type D	synthetic leather	thick, strong sponge	3 layer	SONOROUS III
Type E	synthetic leather	thick, strong sponge	single layer	SONOROUS II
Type F	Polyurethane	expanded foam body with superior breathability and special polyurethane fibers	n/d	D8000
G	Polyurethane + Toray Ultrasuede	expanded foam body with superior breathability and special polyurethane fibers	n/d	D8000 Pro

My direct experience

Final of course issues a number of pairing recommendation for each of such models. You can find the entire story here.

That said, I only directly tested the 4 models which are recommended for my 2 Sonorous headphone models (II and III). Here is a recap of my opinions.

So the aftermath is… I could have saved the money for Type C and B, and just swap stock pads between Sonorous-II and Sonorous-III to reach my preferred configuration on both. But how could I have known it without trying?

Conclusions

final Sonorous Earpads significantly contribute to alter and finetune Sonorous headphones.

They are not inexpensive – retailing from ¥ 5810 / € 44 to ¥ 9300 / € 70 a pair – but their build quality is ace and they are a more than solid recommendation for any Sonorous user.

Disclaimer

All the earpads I tested are my own property, they did not come from the manufacturer or a distributor on review/loan basis.

Our generic standard disclaimer.

The post final Sonorous Earpads Review – Easy Rec appeared first on Music For The Masses.

Now that these babies have been stuck on our Wall of Excellence though… well, it’s time to act.

At-a-glance Card

Full Device Card

Test setup

Sources: Apogee Groove + Burson FUN + IEMatch / Apogee Groove / Sony NW-A55 mrWalkman / Questyle QP1R – Type-D pads on Sonorous-II, Type-E pads on Sonorous-III – Stock OFC cable – lossless 16-24/44.1-192 FLAC tracks.

Signature analysis

Technicalities

Physicals

Specifications (declared)

A glance at the technology

Quite a few by now know final (yes, they write it lowercase) as a group of incredibly proficient audio engineers, and their products, may them encounter the complete appreciation of the single individual or not, based on personal taste, are anyhow always granted to be the fruit of non-trivial investigations, studies and technological achievements. Sonorous headphones make of course no exception.

Ear pads

Ear pads – their internal structure, size, thickness, and external fabric – do change headphones sound even more than what eartips do to IEMs.

First and foremost, the distance between the actual sound transducers and the ear modulate low frequency sound pressure, which obviously significantly influences the presentation. Based on this fact, final Sonorous earpads are filled with sponges of different thickness and consistency. Their external material is synthetic leather featuring equal horizontal and vertical flexibility.

Another important aspect when it comes to closed-back earphones is avoiding sound appearing “muffled” due to lack of backside venting. Final accomodates for this by carving small apertures on the inside and the outside of the pads “donuts”, achieving superb results in terms of sound clarity.

Lastly, final designed a quite ingenious system to facilitate pad swapping. By direct experience it does work. You may want to take a look at this video to get an idea.

BAM

That stands for “Balancing Air Movement”. It’s the marketing name for final’s project focused on obtaining results similar to open-back heaphones even on closed-back ones, especially in terms of clarity, controlled bass delivery and of course soundstage and imaging.

At final, we decided to focus on developing technology for the reproduction of bass tones and three-dimensional space with the full-range reproduction of a theoretically unproblematic single driver unit, rather than taking things in a multiway direction. We went back to the beginning and reviewed the performance of the balanced armature driver, focusing our attention on something we had previously overlooked : airflow inside the housing. We developed BAM (Balancing Air Movement), a mechanism that optimizes airflow inside the housing through the creation of an aperture in the driver unit, which is usually sealed. While achieving bass tones and deep, three-dimensional spatial representation, which proved difficult with single driver full-range reproduction, we achieved a BA type that at the same time made for natural listening the user doesn’t tire of.

https://snext-final.com/en/products/detail/SONOROUSII.html

And boy, that works! Of course I’m not technically competent enough to say wether the trick is that or “just” that, but it’s a fact that Sonorous earphones do deliver an incredibly clear and vast soundstage, and perfectly controlled bass, actually sensibly better than any other closedback headphone I happened to audition equal or below their cost. On the other hand, reading final’s description we get a hint as to why Sonorous HPs are “less isolating” than other models in their same technological category.

Let’s pad-roll a bit… !

Sonorous II and III are good as-is, i.e. with their stock pads. Period. You can skip this chapter, especially if you are on a tight budget.

That said, given my appreciation for the base configuration I wanted to go all the way through on their available options – at least the official ones, those offered by the manufacturer themselves.

Final makes a number of variations available for their Sonorous headphones line, which are all mechanically compatible with every model in the lineup as the housings chassis are identical accross the board. Each model is named with a letter (Type-B, Type-C, etc). Sonorous-II and Sonorous-III come equipped with 2 different earpad variations already, then I ordered 2 more different ones, and I started rolling…

So the aftermath is… I could have saved the money for Type C and B, and just swap stock pads between Sonorous-II and Sonorous-III to reach my preferred configuration on both. But how could I have known it without trying?

Conclusions

Sonorous-II and Sonorous-III are arguably the best closeback headphones on the market in their price class, and in my experience it takes tapping at Shure SRH-1540 to have something significantly competitive to talk about.

While they feature two quite different timbres, tonalities and presentations, neither is a real all-rounder musically wise. I’d recommend Sonorous-II blind-eyed for cool acoustic jazz, and any other clear-timbre musical genres, and Sonorus-III to whomever looks for a warm-neutral, midcentric, incredibly dynamic driver for prog rock, song writers, folk or such.

Finally, they are not “inexpensive” in absolute terms – so they might well not be one’s first take at overear headphones – but rest assured that they are not by any means “cheap”, indeed they are actually worth each single penny in their price for the quality, the comfort and the musical proficiency they deliver to their owner.

Disclaimer

Both samples I’m talking about in this article are my own property, they did not come from the manufacturer or a distributor on review/loan basis.

Our generic standard disclaimer.

The post final Sonorous-II And Sonorous-III Review appeared first on Music For The Masses.

IT07 is iBasso’s flagship featuring 1 DD + 6 BA, costs a pretty penny – $899,00 – and was released some 3 years after IT04 (1 DD+3 BA), which I also will publish a review for in the next days.

I did not get the entire package so I couldn’t properly assess some secondary elements like the black and gold nozzles or the stock tips, but I reckon what I got is more than enough to form a solidly educated opinion on what we are talking about. Here we go.

At-a-glance Card

Full Device Card

Test setup

Sources: Apogee Groove + Burson FUN + IEMatch / Apogee Groove + iBasso T3 / Sony NW-A55 mrWalkman – Sedna Earfit Light Short tips – Stock High Purity Silver Litz cable – lossless 16-24/44.1-192 FLAC tracks.

Signature analysis

Technicalities

Physicals

Specifications (declared)

Some quick comparisons worth mentioning

iBasso IT04 ($499,00)

The key here is not being mislead by model naming: IT07 are not the direct upgrade to IT04, their intendend tuning and presentation being different. IT07 is indeed “technically superior” to IT04 on a few aspects, vis-a-vis an 80% higher price of course, but the tonal profiles are very obviously not the same and make up for two very different musical outputs.

IT04 is a warm-balanced open-V, instead of a dry-neutral W. IT04 has slower, meatier and more flowery bass, vs more elevated, more extended and way faster and punchier bass on IT07. Mids on IT04 are tonally more organic then on IT07, where they are better detailed though. Most of all, IT04’s trebles are combed, relaxed, very carefully finetuned to always come accross perfectly coherent with the DD in charge of the bass part, while oppositely IT07 features livelier, sparklier, way more detailed and airier trebles, indeed presenting a timbral incoherence with their DD for the purists though.

IKKO OH10 ($199,00)

Of course the comparison is totally unfair on the technical proficiency level – and better be, considering a 4.5X price gap! – but I’m mentioning OH10 precisely due to their almost identical tuning compared to IT07.

As a matter of fact, OH10 can easily be called “less expensive IT07” by anyone looking for a powerful, engaging, and most of all unforgivingly dry, ubleeding bass, paired with very lively and well tuned highmids and trebles. Mids are dry and slim on OH10 as on IT07, but they go as far as being “lean” on OH10 in comparison. OH10 are equipped with a single not-TOTL Knowles BA so we can’t reasonably expect the same IT07 proficiency in rendering anything above 1000hz, nor on detail retrieval – it being understood however that, conversely speaking, OH10 does wonders on those registers for the exact same reason! IT07 technicalities are also obviously more refined and downright “better” than OH10, while OH10 comes out a bit better in terms of timbre coherence between their DD and their (sole) BA compared to IT07’s 1+6 scenario.

DUNU ZEN ($699,00)

IT07 extract more highmids and treble thin details; cymbals are crystally adamant when they need to be, unlike on ZEN where they are somewhat “polished”, “matte” in a sense. Midbass are equivalently articulated on either, while perceivably oomphier on IT07, which is not necessarily better depending on taste and track. On ZEN mids are obviously airier, more bodied and totally organic. Piano notes offer the impression of spreading in an infinite space on ZEN. On IT07 mids are defintely slimmer, bringing them to the edge of unrealism, and sort of confined inside a room – a big room at that, but I do perceive the space as “finite”, whereas it is almost not on ZEN. Finally, ZEN offers a totally coherent timbre accross the entire spectrum, unlike IT07 as detailed above. Such very last point is what keeps me personally from granting IT07 360° “Excellent” status, but that’s a millimetric flaw when cast against the full product panorama.

Conclusions

IT07 impressed me a lot. I guess it comes from me liking OH10 tuning so much that my ear and brain really rejoyced in hearing that presentation’s direct evolution and sustantial refinement on the IT07.

IT07 offer a literally spectacular, energetic and at the same time very refined musical experience. While one may count their slight internal timbral mismatch as a coloration, which it is, the practical result is nothing short of lovable, and I’m up to strongly recommending it as a high-end driver ideal for a wide extension of different genres.

As mentioned above the sample I auditioned was loaned to me by a private owner, who paid for it off his own pocket.

Our generic standard disclaimer.

The post iBasso IT07 Review – Lovable Incoherence appeared first on Music For The Masses.

Intrigued by the question I recently conceded myself a go at a couple of other Made-in-Japan models, one of which is what I’m talking about today: Intime Sora 2.

Intime Acoustic, a.k.a. Ozeid Co., a.k.a O2aid.com…

Intime Acoustic is a brand owned by Ozeid Co., Ltd., a quite young (2016-founded) Takasaki City (JPN) based company. Its main business is actually not manufacturing, but consulting.

The owner and key developer mr Yoshiyuki Watanabe has 35+ years of experience on devices and applications that use piezoelectric materials.

Rotate his company name “ozeid” (or even better its web domain name “o2aid”) by 180°. What do you read ?

That said, mr Watanabe also decided to deliver some of his competence in form of earphones, targeting young users – young like his children – aiming to convey (in his own words) “the good sound of Japan“.

Well I’m more the age of mr Watanabe than of his children, but this all is anyhow more and more intriguing, isn’t it ?

Key technologies

The model I got is called “Sora 2”, quite evidently the second generation of the model previously released under the name of “Sora”.

Similarly to other models in Intime lineup, Sora 2 is based on a dual-driver system including a 10mm dynamic driver, and a somewhat special ceramic tweeter taking care of the upper treble / top octave end.

A number of very interesting details are available regarding the technology inside Sora 2, let me summarise what the main claims are.

1 – “Vertical Super Tweeter”

Adopted on Intime’s TOTL Ti3 model – VST is made of some sort of special laminated ceramics, instead of the most commonly adopted titanium oxide.

Fundamentally, laminated ceramics is supposed to offer more controllable vibrations.

Conventional “super tweeters” are so-called as they reproduce sounds outside the audible range, but this Intime’s variation, thanks to the uncommon material selection in addition to their calibrations, has a different behaviour and reproduces overtones, effectively contributing to the highest-end part of the audible spectrum.

2 – Graphene coating

A graphene coating has been applied to the Dynamic Driver unit, which – always according to Intime – improves mid-high range frequencies reproduction power and definition.

3 – Stainless steel housings

Stainless steel has been adopted for the housings. Besides obvious robustness, the choice reportedly offers a significant impact on sound.

In general, the more solid & heavy a material is used, the better is unwanted extra vibrations suppression obtained on the housings, but at the expense of equally unwanted extra weight.

On Intime Sora 2 the adoption of stainless steel, the application of a heat treatment and a careful internal cavity shaping – according to Intime – turned into higher material rigidity, excellent vibration control, better sound transmission speed and – why not – scratch resistance too, all within a limited weight.

Well, weight is not feather-level in my books to be honest. I don’t have a subjective comfort problem with that, YMMV.

4 – HDSS

Another unique (patented, actually) technology adopted inside Sora 2, as much as inside Ti3 too, is called “HDSS” as in High Definition Sound Standard.

Its purpose is to suppress sound reflections inside the housing, resulting in cleaner output.

Some sound waves are commonly uncontrolledly reflected inside the housing, impacting onto the dynamic driver diaphragm, causing dissonance from the intended purpose. With HDSS technology, the sound inside the housings is more controlled and does not invest the diaphragm, allowing the dynamic driver to move only as a consequence to the signal source.

This – according to Intime – increases sound realism and decreases fatigue. It has a down side though: it tends to purge too much of the high frequencies off the dynamic driver vibration.

This is where a careful calibration between the resolution of the ceramic VST mentioned above and the mid-high range tuning of the graphene coated DD becomes vital, resulting in a bass with a solid outline, harmonious mid-high range and wide spatial expression – as in facts Insime Sora 2 does deliver, big time !

At-a-glance Card

Full Device Card

Test setup

Sony NW-A55 / Apogee Groove / Questyle QP1R – final E ML-size tips – Lossless 16/44.1 – 24/96 – 24/192 FLAC tracks.

Signature analysis

Technicalities

Physicals

Specifications (declared)

Comments and conclusions

Intime Sora 2 represent a very good piece of japanese audio engineering and craftmanship.

Although not partaking to the ultra-budget price segment, I find them inexpensive enough to make for a no-brainer recommendation for whoever is in search of a clean, natural-timbred, energetic and musical IEM which I find particularly well paired to jazz and acoustic genres alike.

Very simplistically put, I might position them as a less expensive alternative to final A3000, or as a similar-priced, similar-quality, clearer-presentation complement to final E3000, which is the quite obvious driver-to-beat on that price level for pop, rock, songwriters etc.

Disclaimers

My Intime Sora 2 unit is not a loaner for review purposes, but was indeed a direct purchase. You can find them here.

Our generic standard disclaimer.

This article also appeared on my personal audio blog, here.

Contact us!

You find an INDEX of our most relevant technical articles HERE.

The post Intime Sora 2 – Clean Energetic Musicality appeared first on Music For The Masses.

At-a-glance Card

Full Device Card

Test setup

Sources: Apogee Groove / Questyle QP1R / Sony NW-A55 mrWalkman – Radius DeepMount or Tanchjim T-APB wide bore tips – Nicehck 16core High Purity Copper cable – lossless 16-24/44.1-192 FLAC tracks.

Signature analysis

Technicalities

Physicals

Specifications (declared)

Other notes and conclusions

Those who follow my articles know my musical preferences are quite sided – I’m not at all a generalist, I actually very much prefer listening to cool jazz for most of my time, with some secondary interest into classical, and some prog rock.

That’s why I cast a special eye on drivers tuned to sound particularly well for those genres, which are not at all easy to render, as they require control, calibration and fidelity – not really so easy to find features.

Tanchjim Oxygen get my top appreciation as drivers for cool jazz, bebop, avantgarde and even for vocal jazz – female voices especially, due to their particular proficiency on those.

I can probably name just one other IEM under their price offering a similarly neutral and non excessively bright timbre paired with sound quality refinement which is at least in the league of Tanchjim Oxygen, and that’s final A3000. Other less neutral i.e. more “accented” tuning alternatives I use for the same musical genres are the cheaper (and less refined) Shouer Tape, or the similar-priced and equally sophisticated Ikko OH10. End of my jazz-specialised sub-€300 list, really.

While not the most capricious IEM I ever tried, Tanchjim Oxygen do significantly benefit from an at least decent quality amping source. Apart for that, as for the vast majority of IEMs best to stay away from high-voltage amps e.g. desktop ones, or those multi-W-powered daps, or if you really must use one of those at least plug an iFi iEMatch at in the middle (do it!).

As I mentioned above, Oxygens oddly feature opposite cable polarity compared to what most other 2pin-connector drivers usually adopt. I personally checked both stock cables with a multimeter and they do have that. I also asked Tanchjim tech support for verification and they acknowledged the situation. Remember to take care of that when plugging a third party cable, which due to the low quality of both bundled cables is more than a rec to be honest. Swapping polarity won’t harm your drivers, but will produce some fancy imaging oddities on some tracks.

Disclaimers

The Tanchjim Oxygen pair I am discussing have been personally purchased, not offered as a review loaner. You can find them on mutiple online outlets like here, and here.

This article also appears on my personal audio blog, here.

Our standard disclaimer

Our generic standard disclaimer.

The post Tanchjim Oxygen Review – Just Like A Glove appeared first on Music For The Masses.

At-a-glance Card

Do I need a DAP?

Audio life after owning an Apogee Groove becomes a bit more complicated in a sense. Do I want to go back to lower quality output, even in exchange for better portability, or more collateral features?

The question actually admits more answers than it might seem at first tought, in consideration of what one really wants or needs.

In my specific case I don’t commute on my way to/from work for one. Also, I currently suspended all business travel due the pandemic and it will take quite longtime before I resume that. My job doesn’t allow me to listen to music while working. For all these reasons I’m sharply inclined to get the real best audio quality out of the always-too-short-time I can dedicate to music listening, which most frequently happens in a quite, controlled space such as at home, in the evenings, or at work, during lunchbreak, or few other instances.

So in short: while at home Apogee Groove it is. What else? If something, I might need to add a desktop amp to that but that’s another story. But no need for a DAP at home, really.

How about on the go?

Well… Apogee Groove is a relatively power-demanding battery-less dac-amp, a “fat dongle” I might call it, and as such a still quite compact and lightweight thing. So option #1 for mobile use is… still the Groove! Wherever my laptop can follow me, that’s a very viable option, the main one really.

How about something actually pocketable? Like a DAP, in facts.

I used to own an Hiby R5 but that’s not an option anymore. Don’t take me wrong, I still believe R5 is worth its money as a complete device – mostly due to its huge feature set, connectivity, etc, all at a reasonably moderate price. It’s just me: simply put, I grew past it. Sound quality off the Groove is just so uncomparably better I just can’t listen to something so obviously less clean, resolved, detailed, and musical anymore.

So I sold the R5. The guy who grabbed it from ebay scored a good deal, I tell ya.

And before you ask: no, I still do prefer not to use my phone as an all-in-one device. I use the smartphone as a phone and an internet device and I prefer to keep it as is. Also, I don’t really care about Tidal or other subscription based music streaming service, as most of the music I like is not there anyway, which takes away a very solid reason to a smartphone being directly or indirectly involved in the game. I’m not there, no.

It needs to be a(nother) DAP.

Not the tinyest, I don’t care about ultra-pocketablity – I’m a couch potato, I don’t go jogging or gymming anyway.

Not the widest connected either – see above.

It “just” needs to sound superbly well while playing lossless hires “stuff” from local TF cards. For as little as it seems, this is not easy – if the minimum reference is a Groove. As a matter of facts I auditioned quite a few mainstream brand (Hiby, Shanling, Fiio) models in the sub-€1000 arena. Nothing good for my “new” tastes there.

Then I followed a friend’s rec, and I eyed a recently discontinued model by a chinese manufacturer of higher-end equipment: Questyle. After some watching around I eventually landed a good deal on a pre-loved QP1R unit, a model originally released back in 2015. A very well cared-of sample in spite of its 4 years of age… and here I am.

What the … !

It takes 10 seconds listen to determine that sound-wise QP1R runs circles around all other “chifi” DAPs I ever tried. Double-circles, actually, around my previous R5.

For almost everything else – usability, connectivity, features – instead, the exact opposite is the case. But let’s keep this for later.

Sound reconstruction superiority vs low and mid-tier chifi DAPs is so huge that comparing QP1R to them seems by and large inappropriate, useless and misleading. The difference in terms of clarity, detail, stage, imaging is gigantic. QP1R’s DAC belongs to a totally different quality league, period.

From the DAC performance standpoint, the cheapest DAP device I auditioned which I can honestly call comparable to QP1R is Lotoo Paw 6000. A much cheaper one – Sony NW-A55, upgraded with Mr Walkman’s firmware – is not playing in the same ballpark with QP1R, yet solidly in the one just below. All other “usual suspects” fall instead into the just-forget-about-this category, in comparison.

Taking DAC-AMP devices in considerations, I’d say QP1R comes accross almost as clean and similarly musical compared to Apogee Groove, which still has the lead in terms of spatial drawing though.

QP1R is also detailing approximately at Chord Mojo level. Another similarity vs Mojo is on tonality, which is warm-ish.

QP1R sound is clean, impactful, detailed but most of all unbelievably dynamic. Amongst all its numerous positive sound features micro dynamism is no doubt QP1R’s most stunning and possibly unique point. After auditioning devices 5 times its historical list price I still have to find something “really” superior on that aspect.

“Musicality” is also a very evident feature of QP1R voicing, and that’s an effect that comes out even a tad more evident than from the Groove, and that’s saying something.

QP1R reconstruction filter’s ringing envelope is quite elongated after the pulse. That’s the origin for its mellow timbre.

Someone labelled that “analogue”, which in lack of more precise wordage I feel can give a good hint into what I’m trying to convey. Going back to Mojo, that is by comparison edgier – not sharply and offensive overall, it never is, I’m just saying relative to QP1R or Groove – thus offering a “higher detailing sensation”.

Also, Mojo’s very special ability on closing the sound level gap between front and back sound lines by comparison makes the latter on QP1R come through as less loud and therefore detailed. This is Mojo’s kinda unique specialty though, not the other way around.

In terms of spatiality QP1R is I’d say on par with the Mojo, which is good, miles better than more ordinary devices,  although still quite a pretty step south of Groove’s totally special capacity to render the impalpable sensation of the actual stage size. I’ll have to live with that I’m afraid.

Current Mode Amplification

What I described until now is mainly QP1R’s capabilities as a DAC.

Oh by the way: a very nice feat is also QP1R’s line out option. By just connecting a 3.5mm cable into it the device automatically switches into Line Out mode (1.9V RMS), no need to click/tap any options in the GUI – very handy! Also, the port itself is a multi-mode port: it accepts both copper and optical connections, depending on the adapter which is being used.

Coming to the headphone output option, QP1R only offers single-ended connectivity. Its superior quality nudges me to give justice to those more expert than me who noted “you’ll find balanced output better than single ended only until you’ll start attaining higher-tier devices, where single ended output is implemented competently enough in the first place”.  Balanced topology, in other words, is often adopted on mobile and/or budget-tier devices to partially overcome some structural limitations, so to say, and it becomes way less important once you build the foundation better from day one.

Fact is: QP1R 3.5mm phone out sounds lovely. Clean and transparent in respect to what its internal DAC module is offering, and superbly competent in coping even with the most capricious IEMs on the opposite end.

Of course by sound cleanness I’m not referring to lack of audible background noise, which is kind of obvious and after all quite common, even on lower tier devices. Clean sound decodes into QP1R’s ability to pass the whopping soundstage expansion and spectacular separation and imaging which the DAC module is capable of along to the drivers, unharmed. 

This is certainly due to its well engineered class-A amp module, adopting Questyle’s own proprietary (and patented) technology called Current Mode Amplification. A description can be found here: https://www.questyle.com/en/technology. It’s an interesting read, I do recommend you take it.

These are the official specs:

Output Impedance: 0.15 Ω

Apart for the very low Output Impedance, which is of course a major plus when dealing with IEMs, these output power figures appear nothing less than “ridiculous” (8,8mW on a 32Ω load??) compared to those of many low end daps, and of some phones too.

Nothing could be more misleading. I frequently rotate a total of 7 different IEMs on QP1R and the sole one which hints me to choose Mid gain is – you guessed it – final E5000. All the others are perfectly & fully dynamically driven by Low gain.

As too few people still know, an amp’s cability is not even remotely completely described by its “(milli) Watts” power figure. I won’t write a treaty here. Long story short: headphones (all of them) require current to make their transducers vibrate and produce sound. High impedance drivers require relatively little current, but higher voltages to work best. Low (sub 32 Ohm) impedance drivers – like those inside IEMs – require more current in comparison and they must be applied very low voltages to work best (or at all!). QP1R’s Continuous Current Drive technology is designed to deliver the right “form” of amplification to the various different drivers, with particular regards to low impedance ones.

While I’m at it, High Gain is the least desireable option on QP1R: dynamic range is perceivably contracted there, so it’s good that it turns out not to be vital to exploit it, at least for my selected drivers’ range. Luckily, I encountered no IEM (yes, planars included) really requiring High Gain from QP1R.

Everything else

All of the above said about sound, QP1R is – simply put – the antithesis of modernity and convenience in terms of connectivity, features and ergonomics. On all these counts, it’s actually a fossil if there’s one, let’s say it clearly.

Connectivity:

• No Wifi: so forget OTA upgrades, DLNA access to servers, Tidal, Qobuz etc
• Outdated BT, and exclusively dedicated to TWS driver connectivity
• USB DAC-IN available: QP1R can be connected to a USB host and be used as an external DAC-AMP
• No digital output (not even USB DAC-OUT) available
• No analog input available
• 3.5mm single ended phone output
• 3.5mm multi-mode (Coax/Toslink) line out

Storage

• Internal memory. Capacity depends on model release. My unit has 32GB available. USB connection to a PC is required to read/write files on that partition, at an incredibly sluggish, turtle-level speed, too.
• Dual TF card. Officially supporting 128GB cards, I could successfully use 512GB cards though. Database reconstruction after card swap is quite fast, at least that.

UI / UX and sw features

• Calling it primitive is making a big and honeestly undeserved compliment.
• No touch screen
• An infuriatingly badly engineered scrollwheel (where’s my iPod1?)
• A totally buggy visual battery charge indicator (even on latest firmware)
• Very limited Graphical EQ capabilities, and not well working either
• No Parametric EQ nor any other sound shaping features

Battery

• Dramatically undersized
• No more than 8 hours autonomy (with a brand-new battery…)
• A short sleep timeout setting is recommended, as the Class-A amp will equally consume juice while playing or not…

Conclusions

QP1R sounds unbelievably good. I extended the most sincere thanks to the friend who recommended it to me. He anticipated I would find it good, indeed I found it much more than good.

QP1R sound is nothing short than gorgeous. It’s clean, detailed, extended, musical. It also features a quite unique “analogue” timbre. In terms of amping it supports all low or moderate impedance loads I tried on it with the sole exception of my Shure SRH1540 – which are a bad client per se honestly.

Stunning sound quality apart, as I mentioned above pretty much all the rest … requires a lot of patience! QP1R is a sort of dinosaur, pretty much that.

I was looking for a no-compromise, higher-end-sounding DAP at a still reasonably affordable price, and that’s what I got. QP1R delivers that, only that, and I’m totally fine with it.

Disclaimer

Bought it myself.

Our generic standard disclaimer.

You find an INDEX of our most relevant technical articles HERE.

The post Questyle QP1R Review – Welcome In! appeared first on Music For The Masses.