At-a-glance Card

Full Device Card

Test setup and preliminary notes

Sources: AudioQuest DragonFly Cobalt / Chord Mojo / E1DA 9038D, 9038SG3 / Questyle QP1R, QP2R, M15, CMA-400i / Sony WM-1A – Final Type-E silicon tips – Dunu DUW-02S cable – lossless 16-24/44.1-192 FLAC + DSD 64/128/256 tracks.

Signature analysis

Tonality

EA1000 are tuned following a wiiide V shape, and feature a replaceable “tuning nozzles” system to offer interesting variations of the tonal balance on top. There is a slight metallic sheen coming up on the high trebles, also depending on the source material.

No matter the nozzle choice the timbre stays more or less unchanged: mid-bodied notes across the board with a sole exception for lean-ish low mids, and a commendable overall organicity.

The various nozzles deliver different sonic nuances vis-a-vis their building materials (Gold ones are made of brass), their length, their front mesh and of course the sponge or cloth they may be filled with. Here’s a description of the differences each one brings to the board.

Red nozzle : midbass is somewhat “bloomy”, its notes tend to “expand” a little bit; highmids and treble are instead near-precisely the tonality I prefer. Too bad for that bass, which is not as organic as it should.

Gold nozzle: midbass is evidently more combed, and I like it better, but so is treble too, while highmids are more forward. Guitars and femaie vocals are probably best expressed here, but stage height is cut off, and air and spatiality take a hit.

Black nozzle: midbass is the same as Gold, while high mids and treble are very similar to Red, with possibly a slight tad more energy on one hand, and a bit less depth on the other.

It’s a toss between Black and Red for my particular tastes, and well… I experimented further and found out that in the end I prefer Red with a -1,5dB Q=1 correction on 90Hz to “clean” those doublebass vibrations off. And yes, I’m a “never happy dog” !

Sub-Bass

Sub bass is extended but not elevated. Rumble is present but not imposing itself, which is perfectly good for my library but may be a point of contempt for other musical tastes.

Mid Bass

Mid bass notes are very well rendered by EA1000, with the Red nozzle adding a bit more butter compared to the other two alternatives.

While such makes them a bit more greasy than they should to be called perfectly organic when it comes to render acoustic bass instruments, the effect is indeed not excessive so not only it is welcome in conjunction with many musical genres, but also not necessarily unwelcome even to hardbop or modal lovers.

It’s quite easy to guess – or hope? – that the high quality of EA1000’s mid bass rendering is also directly dependent on that uncommon “Passive Radiator” device inside the box, and anyhow this is what Simgot’s marketing insists on making us believe.

Mids

Mid frequencies are a bit of a mixed bag here. They are recessed in their central part, and somewhat lean in their lower segment.

High mids however go up in power quite rapidly between 1 and 2KHz which is where they give their best. As a consequence, and simplifying maybe a bit too much, EA1000 render guitars and sax tenors better than pianos, for example.

Male Vocals

Vis-a-vis what I just noted about mids in general, male vocals are a territory where EA1000 don’t fare particularly well: especially baritone and bass voices come out perceivably leaner than real, and that’s a common trait no matter the nozzle installed.

Female Vocals

Opposite of the male case, female vocals benefit from a better tonal situation on EA1000 and in facts come across very naturally colored, bodied, detailed and very pleasing at all times.

Highs

Treble is one of the areas where EA1000 do best, and at the same time one where the 3 different nozzles apply more significant variations.

As I anticipated above, to my tastes Red nozzles nail it, period: “Red” trebles are energetic yet still not excessively so, bodied, very detailed, and they “breath” a lot of air in terms of spatiality. Their sole real downside is that perceivable metallic aftertaste coming up once too often – it’s not too strong, nor too fastidious, but it’s undoubtedly there to make the final result just a bit less than fully positive (what a pity).

Golden nozzles furtherly strengthen highmids and low trebles, while also taking some of that magic air quantity off. Black nozzles are very, very similar to Red up there, juts a tad less airy (but less so compared to Gold).

Technicalities

Soundstage

Width and height are very extented, much beyond what you normally get on similar priced IEMs. Depth is “only” barely above average, always referred to the same category.

Imaging

Macrodynamics are very well executed on EA1000, with always precise instrument positioning on stage.

Details

EA1000 offer very good detail retrieval in the high mids and low treble.

Retrieval is good on midbass too, where the concessions made to drama and musicality just rarely steal something off note contouring. As my few readers know I’m noticing this as I’m biased towards acoustic music.

Instrument separation

Separation, layering and microdynamics are all no doubt EA1000’s excellence points. It’s indeed very uncommon to find better around, not only at this price point, but much higher too.

Driveability

EA1000 are easy to drive in terms of sound pressure output thanks to a good sensitivity (109 dB/mW) paired with a not too low impedance (16 Ohm). Their sound quality scales with amping quality however – I suspect this may have to do with that passive radiator device.

Physicals

Build

EA1000 offer a very convincing feeling of solidity and reliability. Their full metal housings are obviously impervious to reasonable physical damages (and possibly to some unreasonable ones, too).

Faceplates are covered by what are declared as “crystal” (!) glasses. I couldn’t assess whether it’s actually crystal, all I can say is it does not appear to be easily scratched, and when in contact with a metal tip it does not tend to sound “plastic”.

For the benefit of those who pay particular attention to aesthetics it should be noted that the housings’ chrome finish and of the “crystal” faceplates are very well taken care of, and that will help them feel alive in their compulsion to continually wipe every surface clean of fingerprints.

Fit

EA1000’s housings fit me near-perfectly in terms of size & shape. Nozzles are not too short, and they are mounted on a sort of protruded portion of the shell. Eartips of the right size easily get a grasp – even more than a seal – onto my canals’ internal surfaces, with this contributing to a firm seating once properly worn – all this in spite of the earpieces not being precisely “featherweights”.

Comfort

As mentioned above EA1000 sit well in my outer ears and prove perfectly comfortable to wear, even for prolonged periods of time.

Isolation

Given the housings’ shapes and calibrated dimensions, EA1000 shells form an important isolation barrier. The multiple vents, and most of all the wide opening corresponding to the passive radiator do of course take steps in the opposite direction but I would say that the overall result is more than satisfactory anyhow.

Cable

EA1000 are sold with a replaceable non-modular-terminated 3.5mm cable. Its aesthetics and haptics are more than ok but I could not conduct my usual comparison tests round-robining amongst my various sources as most of them got balanced outputs. I can’t consequently offer an opinion on the stock cable’s sound performance. For my tests I paired a Dunu DUW-02S cable.

On a more commercial note, given the recent (2-3 years) market evolutions, the fact that an otherwise “premium” package like EA1000’s does not offer a balanced termination cable option – be it in form of available choice at order time or of modular termination system – is to be reported as a negative remark in the general evaluation.

Specifications (declared)

Comparisons

Tanchjim Oxygen (€ 190)

Oxygen feature a bit softer attack, yielding into less punchy bass and overall silkier, more relaxing timbre. Oxygen’s tonality is overall more organic, exquisitely neutral – which may of course be a love-hate thing in some cases. Their midrange is not recessed resulting in much better vocal and guitars rendition. Oxygen’s trebles are less energetic, airy and sparkly.

Stage on Oxygen is a bit narrower, perceivably less high, but much deeper. Lastly, Oxygen are much more demanding in terms of source power.

Intime Miyabi Mk-II (€170 + import costs)

You can find my Miyabi review here. Miyabi Mk-II differ from Miyabi insofar as their mids are less upfront, and their timbre is dryer and clearer, and that’s why I’m taking them as a more appropriate comparison to EA1000 here.

Midbass elevation is similar between Miyabi Mk-II and EA1000, but EA1000 have a cleaner timbre, better punch and sound more resolving there. In a nutshell, bass is technically better on EA1000, very possibly due to their Passive Radiator thing.

Miyabi Mk-II’s mids are way more bodied, and obviously more organic. Trebles are overall better on Miyabi Mk-II, less upfront but more refined. Opposite to bass, while good on EA1000 treble is, that is better on Miyabi, likely consequece of the fantastic deeds of Watanabe-sama’s VST driver,

Miyabi Mk-II cast a slightly narrower stage, same height, but way better depth. They require a bit more power than EA1000 but the difference is not big on this.

Ikko OH1S (€ 150)

The two offer very similar timbre, and similar general tonality. Bass is less forward and less punchy on OH1S (almost ruler-flat, indeed), which also contributes to their mids be felt as less recessed, more “meaningful”, and I’m talking about both low and middle mids.

Trebles are more energetic on EA1000, which is an advantage at times, but a disadvantage when this pairs negatively with some tracks or musical genres. Separation is similar on the two models, layering is a bit better on EA1000 due to better microdynamics. Stage is narrower on OH1S, but deeper.

Final A5000 (€ 299)

A5000’s presentation is more markedly V-shaped compared to EA1000’s. Both offer a dry timbre with little concession to warmth, with A5000 being by a whiff the coldest of the two.

Bass are a tie game, both models offering very significant quality in the region. Mids are also similar, in this case meaning both models choose to let them in second-layer position, accepting sub-organic leanness. Trebles are better on EA1000, with A5000 too often scanting into excess and sibilance, and delivering less air.

Technicalities – all of them – are in favour of A5000, sometimes vastly too. Stage is wider and deeper on A5000, just a bit less high. Layering and separation is macroscopically better on A5000. Ditto for detail retrieval, which is “sensational” on A5000.

Considerations & conclusions

Simgot hit a strike with EA1000, there’s very little doubt about this. Their nice timbre and even more their greatly calibrated tonality are of absolute value. Technicalities are also extremely good, with a particular mention deserved by layering and microdynamics. Their less shiny aspects are in the end very few in comparison.

As you may or may not know I’m quite selective, and that’s why I’m pleased to state that EA1000 fall amongst the very IEMs I find recommendable around the €200 mark. For that, I’m double thankful to Simgot for the review opportunity I’ve been offered.

Our generic standard disclaimer.

The post Simgot EA1000 Review – Hitting A Strike appeared first on Music For The Masses.

The Colorfly CDA-M2 is a powerful dongle with excellent imaging and an organic sound that drives current-hungry low-impedance iems well as well as 300 ohm headphones at the cost of a “healthy” battery draw from the source.

The $159 Colorfly CDA-M2 was provided unsolicited for my review by SHENZHENAUDIO, and I thank them for that. You can purchase it from SHENZHENAUDIO.COM.

Introduction

Ever since audio pioneer Gordon Rankin produced a dongle (“a DAC/amp without battery sourced by the host device”) with a current drain small enough to work with a mobile phone, a plethora of companies has released countless models following this concept. We may remember “Dongle Madness” and other sensationalist (but rather unorderly) ranking lists. /

These dongles can be put into two end member categories: such with power, and such with low battery drain (AudioQuest DragonFly series). The powerful ones drive low-impedance earphones/headphones well but drain your phone’s battery fast (e.g. ifi Audio Go bar). The battery conserving ones may not be used for earphone/headphone with impedances below 24 ohm (bass would be mushy as it needs the most power).

The art is to produce a dongle with the best compromise between the two. A successful example is the $250 Questyle M15. The ColorFly CDA-M2 (another “Fly”) balances this fine line relatively well with lots of power and an acceptable battery drain.

Colorfly is not as new a company as one might think, they are subsidiary of Colorful, the graphic card manufacturer. The founder of Luxury & Precision (Mr Wan) was the former engineer for Colorfly. He designed the very first digital Chi-Fi audio player that is able to decode 24 bit files. He also designed the circuitry of the CDA-M2, which follows the highly acclaimed M1 model.

Specifications Colorfly CDA-M2

Physical Things and Functionality

In the box are the CDA-M2, a ribbon USB-C cable, and the manual. The CNC machined chassis is made of zinc alloy with a glass covered OLED screen (with 10 brightness levels). The device works plug-and-play with Apple, Android, and Windows devices (from version 10; a Windows driver for earlier version can be downloaded from the company site). A lightning cable for iPhone is not included.

The body may be relatively small but I find it slightly heavy at 27 g. Also, I’d like to see a soft case to protect it from crashing with the phone or computer it is attached to.

The device is hardware controlled by its three buttons. You will have to set the output on your host device to near 100% (I usually do 80%). You can adjust volume, gain, L and R balance, you have the choice between 5 digital filters (make essentially no difference), and you can switch on an overvoltage suppression (useful when accidentally disconnecting the device).

You can select screen brightness, rotate the display, and select the time it switches itself off. You also have the option to toggle a voltage overflow protection on/off, check the current voltage, and run the CDA-M2 in gaming mode (with presumably lower latency).

As to the technology under the hood, you find a lot of information in the specs above. The core is a dual Cirrus Logic CS43198 DAC chip that tells you absolutely nothing about the sound quality – in contrary to the internet’s echo chamber. All it indicatesis that a dual DAC may have a better channel separation and cross talk than a single one. But, rest assured, the chips are well implemented so that resulting sound quality is actually very good. Details below.

Amplification and Power Management

The CDA-M2 provides enough current to drive the notorious thirsty final E5000 earphones – not many dongles can do that. It also handles 300 ohm headphones such as my Sennheiser HD 600 well. Providing a relatively high current comes at a price: it drains your source faster than, let’s say, the even more powerful Questyle M15.

The CDA-M2 is accepted even by older iPhones, despite Apple’s limitation to a current draw of 100 mA. The Colorfly engineers must have found a way to circumvent this barrier.

This may not play a role with a computer source or a modern phone, but will be a challenge for an older model with a smaller battery. The champions in terms of power management are still the AudioQuest DragonFlys, which, as a downside, don’t drive current-hungry, that is low-impedance earphones well (<24 ohm).

If you want to read up on these particularities around “Ohm’s Law”, I can offer this article as a guide.

Sound

After having tested umpteen dongles, the CDA-M2 blew me somewhat out of my socks. Sound quality is incredible (considering its $159 price tag). It can be characterized as neutral, possibly with the corners rounded a bit by the slightest temperature, but very agreeable (“musical”) and not analytical like the ifi Audio Go Bar, for example. Very appealing to my ears.

Imaging is absolutely outstanding, beating even my beloved Questyle QP1R ($950 in 2015). I started testing with the easy-to-drive final Sonorous III closed-back headphones and the very difficult-to-drive final E5000 earphones. The CDA-M2 mastered both with ease: luscious, crisp, transparent yet rich. Wonderful dynamics. Biiiiiiig staging. Everything so homogenous and organic.

I am increasingly wondering why we need desktop stacks, at least for transducers that do not need excessive current.

In comparison, the $250 Questyle M15 is slightly more powerful [better for 300 ohm headphones] and has less current draw. While is also handles the notorious final E5000, it drains your phone slower than the CDA-M2. In terms of sound, the CDA-2 may sound a bit crisper and forward, and the M15 a bit thicker and laid back. But these differences are small – both devices are excellent. The most important differences are in power and price.

Concluding Remarks

Not only did the Colorfly CDA-M2 surprise me, it also completely convinced me: tons of features, super sound. What a great dongle that raises the bar in the $150 region.

Until next time…keep on listening!

Contact us!

Disclaimer

Our generic standard disclaimer.

The post Colorfly CDA-M2 Review – With Flying Colors appeared first on Music For The Masses.

Introduction

Vision Ears are a boutique company out of Cologne, Germany that offer a plethora of interesting premium earphones. Audioreviews.org authors had the chance of analyzing their products in the past and the Vision Ears Elysium made it onto our Wall of Excellence. The EXT is one of Vision Ears’ many premium models.

As always with premium products, they are short-term loaners that don’t come in retail packaging. I therefore focus on the sonic performance

Specifications Vision Ears EXT

Tonality and Technicalities

Please note that I had the EXT (and PHöNIX) only for 7 days as part of a Head-Fi tour. I feel that was too short for a definitive evaluation of these iems. Hence take my comments with caution – and look at other opinions, too.

The EXT is sonically built on the Elysium, the best iem I have ever heard. The Elysium has a midrange of godly quality and its BA bass was the only criticism. In general, Vision Ears do midrange particularly well.

I recently reviewed the Vision Ears PHöNIX, characterized by its mellow and soothing presentation. The EXT is quite different in that is features a sharper and leaner sound, particularly in the midrange, and a thumpier, punchier, but also tighter bass at the better extended low end. And it is requires a more powerful source than the PHöNIX.

I’d describe the EXT’s signature as close to neutral with a tad of warmth, and an extra serving of bass.

Yes, there is bass, and lots of it. Quite a rumble down there (“es brummt da unten”). Lots of oomph with a realistic decay, but it could still be more composed and tighter. It is not thick but thump. Mid bass is pounding mercilessly against my eardrums. Some love it, others can’t handle it.

The bass smudges into the lower mids, causes some congestion, and masks them to some extent, sadly. To me, the bass is like too much ketchup on the burger, which overwhelms and drowns the taste. A very intense low end.

The midrange is the star of the show. Vocals in the lower midrange are organic, a bit recessed but show good note definition, medium note weight and subtle rounding but also a healthy edge. They are overall more towards the lean side, but in a good way. Very well done, going towards perfection…weren’t they affected by the bass.

Midrange resolution and clarity are very good when little of no bass is present in the music. Even the highest piano notes are lively, well resolving and 100% natural. Just bad that the midrange is competing against the bass – and frequently losing.

Lower treble is rather humble. I find the presentation of cymbals somewhat metallic, tizzy, and dry. Decay could be slower. From memory, the Elysium was close to perfect in the upper registers but the EXT cannot deliver that.

Imaging is good: 3D space is nicely re-created. Layering is also good: the musicians are placed well on stage. Soundstage is not very wide owing to the that rumble in the (low-end) jungle. Dynamics is good.

Concluding Remarks

The VE EXT didn’t blow me out of my sandals like the Elysium that belong to my all time favourites.

Until next time…keep on listening!

The post Vision Ears EXT Review – The Short Answer appeared first on Music For The Masses.

The $130 ddHiFi Janus3 is a Moondrop-tuned single-dynamic-driver earphone with an agreeable Harman sound and an original, small shell design that provides maximum comfort and fit. Adding the compact cable and the good isolation, it is a great companion for travel. Fits in your shirt pocket between flights.

The Janus3 was provided by ddHiFi for my review – and I thank them for that. You can get it from the ddHiFi Official Store.

Introduction

ddHiFi are a company that specializes in accessories such as adapters, cables, and storage cases. But they have also produced a line of earphones called “Janus”, after a Roman god that is often depicted by a double-faced head.

Reason for this name was the unique double connectivity of the two previous models, Janus1 (released in 2020) AND Janus2 (from 2021): both had sockets for 0.78 mm two pin and MMCX plugs. The E2023 Janus3 is therefore the third iteration of this model line.

The dual connector had the advantage that one could connect essentially any earphone cable found in their drawer….which was actually not necessary as each model featured a fancy and rather pricey cable you could also purchase separately. While the Janus1 lacked sub-bass, the Janus2 had an over energetic upper midrange. Both models also came with luxury cases…these accessories drove their price up to $200.

Moondrop helped out with the tuning of the Janus3, which is way more mainstream than that of their predecessors. Also slimming down the accessories helped reducing the price by $70. Interestingly, ddHiFi abandoned the 2-pin connector in the Janus3: you can only connect MMCX cables to this model. Strictly speaking, the Janus ist not a Janus anymore, as one half of its head is missing. But I’m waffling…

Specifications ddHiFi E2023 Janus3

Physical Things and Usability

Although slimmed down, accessory wise compared to its more expensive earlier iterations, you still find quite a few goodies in the box: most of all the gorgeous modular MMCX cable, that comes very close in appearance to the $60 ddHiFi M120 A model.

The wire is OCC (“Ohno Continuous Casting”), manufactured according to a Japanese process that results in essentially oxygen-free copper, which minimizes corrosion. The cable is thin, light, has the right stiffness, and essentially no microphonics. You can choose between a 3.5 mm and a 4.4 mm connector, both are included. There is no memory wire. All this is very handy.

Also in the box are a set of silicone eartips (S/M/L), the largest of which actually work for me. The storage case is not too small and very sturdy, also of good quality.

Finally, the earpieces, not double-faced as in the previous iterations, feature MMCX connectors. They are part metal, part resin, and you can look inside to admire the interior. These earpiece have otherwise not changed in shape: they remain small, light, they seal well, and can be worn over-ear or under-ear.

The Janus3 are easily driven with a phone.

Considering that many earpieces are marketed by their faceplates, which resulted in some monster cherries in our ears, ddHiFi’s pragmatic earpiece design may be one of the Janus’ biggest asset. Together with the light cable, you have a stereo that fits in the smallest pockets and isolates well in the loudest environments.

Tonality and Technicalities

The Janus3 features a classic agreeable, middle-of-the-road sound with a natural timbre and average technicalities without major flaws. In terms of richness, they are more on the lean side but without any stridence, which adds some articulation to the overall sound.

Although the shells are small, the drivers are reasonably large (10 mm, compare to Sennheiser IE900’s/IE 600’s 7 mm), and hence produce some decent heft at the low end. Sub-bass extension is excellent, an annoying midbass hump is missing, and the lower end can develop a good punch and impact…it all depends on insertion depth: deeper means thicker. A satisfying low end that is well layered, well composed, never too thick, and it does not smear into the lower mids either.

Female and male voices are therefore “free standing” and a bit on the lean however nuanced side. Lean does not mean thin, it means articulate and well carved out in this context. Upper midrange is not overenergetic. All this makes for a good midrange transparency: lots of space between notes and musicians.

Treble is subdued in its lower part but quite lively in the upper. This avoids shoutiness but adds (perceived) detail, sparkle, and liveliness to the upper registers such as cymbals. The treble is decently well resolving and articulate.

Soundstage is reasonably expansive and tall, with ok depth, imaging is pretty good. While layering, separation, and spatial cues are also decent (the stage is really well organized in 3D), detail resolution is average. Not bad, but not outstanding either. Timbre, as expected for a dynamic-driver earphone, is very good.

Concluding Remarks

The Janus3 is the sonically much improved version of the 2020/21 Janus1 and 2, with slimmed-down accessories, a better price, and a more cohesive, well-rounded sound. Its biggest assets are its original, imaginative small design with maximum comfort and fit, and its attractive modular cable.

While it does not add anything spectacularly new sonically for the experienced hobbyist, it may have its appeal to the novice and intermediate experienced…and/or to listeners who prefer to carry their stereo in a shirt pocket. Considering their good seal, the Janus3 are well suited for airplane, bus, or train travel. And that’s what I will use them for.

Until next time…keep on listening!

The post ddHiFi E2023 Janus3 Review – Beheaded God appeared first on Music For The Masses.

A5000 like all of the A line is readily distributed in Europe, and can be bought from multiple sources including Amazon for € 299,00 retail.

Introduction to final A series

I’ll take the story from a bit far back in the past this time: I’ll start from D8000.

final’s D8000 project was (and is) founded on reaching absolute top sonic results stemming from world-class leading-edge R&D and technology.

More simply put, this more or less equates to engaging into the following bet: if we design components which are world’s best, really meaning 360° best materials, employing 360° best methods, etc, then we’ll get the absolute “best possible” head/earphones.

Is that the case with D8000? Well in a sense, arguably yes indeed, at least in terms of high-range market reception.

Let’s move forward.

As you may or may not know, the first model within final E family of earphones was E3000 (presented in the same year: 2017), and it was created with the exact purpose of obtaining a sound perception as similar to D8000’s “universality” as possible.

Of course, E3000 as a product being aimed at the budget market, no one ever thought to start from employing top end materials or parts on them, rather – in a sense, an equally and perhaps even more challenging effort indeed – by “just” applying extremely sophisticated psychoacoustic research to otherwise much more “ordinary cost” components.

It’s totally obvious that E3000 do not sound like D8000 in the end, but it’s certainly as much obvious that their general presentation, and even some parts of their technicalities, are incredibly close to their intended archetype, again the more so when considering the ridiculous price tag they were positioned on the market at.

In the couple of years following those 2017 months final pitted a total of 5 other models onto the market to complete their E family lineup – some carrying a pretense of higher sophistication and style, some oppositely aiming at an even tinier-budgeted market segment, however all based on two common fundaments : employing the same single 6-mm dynamic driver, and offering an arguably general-purpose tuning, beyond modest flavour touch-ups ranging from bright-neutral (E1000, E500), to balanced-neutral (E2000), to warm-balanced (E3000, E4000, E5000).

Then – and we are in the end getting close to our today’s case – a different train of thought was applied.

Making headphones sounding “as good as possible” starting from “as advanced as possible technology” may be a nice engineeristic exercise but runs the risk of ending up producing a remarkable piece of equipment which is nevertheless distant from the particular, real-world preferences of many users.

Alternatively said: what if world technology’s best can only get some – or many? – users “close” to what they really need, but not right on the spot? Simple as hell, they will just be not fully satisfied – in spite of all the rutilant technological words accompanying the product they were sold as “best”.

So : instead of moving from technology traits towards application, final started flipping the point of view, focusing on specific auditioning targets to begin with (!), and got engaged on understanding their particular challenges, ending out backtracking into (re)designing technology, and developing products purposefully tuned to best pursue such newly scouted needs.

As I reported in the introduction of my B3 review, when conceiving their B-series final reflected on the relations between spatial projection and dynamic range.

Taking into consideration small bands, acting on physically unextended stages, a lot of overlapping sounds and voices usually happen. In such situation there’s a relatively lesser need to render “spatial amplitude”, in exchange for much higher demand for sonic separation capabilities. B3 are absolute champions on that purpose.

On another drawing table – and we are finally starting to refer to the A series now – they started investigating better on the dyscrasy between today’s most common auditioning situations, naturally at the base of nowadays’ user expectations, and the very different ones which where common when much or even most of that music was actually produced.

Within such project, they moved from observing that perceptions such as “sound transparency” are not modellable in terms of sound amplitude modulation (you know? those “frequency response graphs” you see everywhere… they do not represent the entire IEM/HP sound behaviour!), yet they are crucial to a user satisfaction depending on the musical genre, and/or the aforementioned chasm between a piece’s original mastering and its today’s reproduction conditions. And that’s just an example.

In their effort to model user expectations, soon they realised that a mixture of physical measures and subjective evaluations was involved, and to manage it all they even developed an appropriate internal-use scoring methodology called Perceptual Transparency Measurement (PTM) – no real technical details sadly available on that, bar a succinct marketing-level description.

As already hinted before, different types of musical situations require, or at least preferentially would call for, different renderings to best be perceived by the auditioner.

For classical and other acoustic music the sense of a wider stage space, and perceiving the various instruments well enucleated from one another on it, is of course much more important vs rock or pop.

Furthermore: while (for example) for classical music priority #1 is no doubt making sure that the auditioner perceives the correct relative distances amongst the various instruments (violins and other strings in the front, wind in the middle, percussion back there), having a particularly wide dynamic range (i,e. a particularly wide breadth of in-between sound nuances separating the faintest and loudest note played by each instrument) is not a vital requirement here.

Oppositely rock and pop bands play much more tightly grouped together, and their music is supposed to be much more blended in the first place, which is why sound field size and imaging are much less prioritary in their case, while resolution and layering become key, and dynamic range amplitude with them.

All such differences were known since the beginning to music professionals, and that’s why different types of music were most often recorded / produced with such priorities in mind to begin with.

So how to approach such situation?

There are of course two different ways: develop relatively more specialised headphone/earphone models, each aimed at optimising a defined subset of musical situations, or, work on R&D to try and come up with something that will cover a broader, ideally almost universal applicative span.

While the former method would naturally result in products loved by relatively restricted groups of specific enthusiasts, the latter is supposed to deliver products that would be recognised as excellent by a very diverse users population.

Cutting this very long story very, very short: final’s marketing narration tells us they re-thought their (intended) universal-purpose IEM line on the basis of more up to date technical-demoscopic research, in parallel of course to their ever-accruing technological advancements and skills.

Fair enough. Enter the A series then !

Starting from the first model and flagship – A8000 – and through its other 3 ones named A4000, A3000 and A5000 (mentioned in the order of their release dates) A series is focused on delivering the most extended possible mix of clarity and spaciousness together, while not compromising on dynamic range.

In final’s own words (referred to A4000): “realize [its] quality not by its ability to create sound capable of attracting a small number of wild fans through its strong individuality, but rather sound aimed at greater universality”.

A bold target, indeed. I mean… try asking Diderot and D’Alembert…

No wonder that once self-encased in such an epic task they deemed it appropriate to specially develop a brand-new dynamic driver from the ground up. Or indeed, even two different ones.

The first one is the so-named “Truly Pure Beryllium Diaphragm” driver created on purpose for their A8000, released some four years ago. One of the very few real things on the market when it comes to Beryllium foil adoption. By the way: you did laugh at cheap chifi brands’ sudden hype, emerged just weeks after final and very few other higher standing companies presented their new Beryllium-tech drivers, stating they could deliver “True Beryllium” diaphragms for a fraction of the price, didn’t you?

Past social marketing fun apart, at the technological level the resort to Beryllium came from the search for an extremely lightweight material, to obtain superfast sound propagation speeds. In other words: they designed the fastest-moving dynamic driver they could think of, meant as a crucial component to get to the intended sonic target.

They also developed a second version of such driver, the so-called “f-Core DU” driver. No Beryllium in there, “just” a call for a speed as close to that of the Truly Pure Beryllium Driver, for a much lower manufacturing cost – both in terms of sheer material cost and of the equipment and skills required to treat it – which is a quite as tough industrial challenge, indeed.

I won’t bother you with the various marketing wordage final uses about the f-Core DU, you can find some here if you like. Long story short: it’s fast, very fast, and it costs less so it can be fit into “budget” finished products – as low as € 130 retail, instead of 2K€-tagged ones as the TPBD.

All good, even epic, indeed. But did it all work ?

Well if you want my opinion – and I presume you do at least a bit, otherwise why wasting your time reading all this? – yes to an extent, but not quite as they intended to.

Be warned: in frankness, I must say I am not a supporter of the project in line of principle. Universality and optimisation are irreconcilable enemies for me, and my life is made of distilled choices in most if not really all of its aspects, so I will always be a supporter for “specialised” vs “genericist” – and this applies to “items” (audio gear, vacuum cleaners, cars) as well as to “services” (restaurants, jobs…), or relations (friends, partners). This alone might and probably should be seen as an apriori bias leading me to downvote final A instances vs their declared intentions.

That being duly noted, first and foremost I must say I was not impressed by A8000, considering its price of 2000 €.

While I never owned an A8000 sample, I took some extended audition time on them during the latest Munich High End show, and there I built some solid “impressions” – not the same as a long term experience, for sure, however I feel what I heard is enough to form a clean opinion about their key aspects at the very least.

That beryllium-based fantastic driver is, indeed, as fast as a planar, and maybe even more – and that’s precisely why I reckon it fails on delivering a truly organic timbre – as I can’t fail decoding its supersnappy transients as a taint of artificiality touching pretty much everything in their presentation.

That is indeed a monumental pity, as it undermines all the effectively marvelous other deeds no doubt accomplished by A8000 in terms of clarity, spatial drawing, tonal coherence, range extension and more. However, an artificial timbre is a too serious turn off for me.

As for A3000, A4000 and A5000, instead, I happen to have purchased a sample of each right upon their release dates – so I have a much more extended opinion on each of them. You already [should] know my take regarding A3000, as I covered them here.

This article is of course about A5000, and before you wonder I will not write a full blown piece about A4000, and I hope I will succeed conveying why within the Comparisons section, here below,

Well I guess I can consider this introduction over now…

At-a-glance Card

Full Device Card

Test setup and preliminary notes

Sources: AudioQuest DragonFly Cobalt / Chord Mojo / E1DA 9038D, 9038SG3 / Questyle QP1R, QP2R, M15, CMA-400i / Sony WM-1A – INAIRS foam or JVC SpiralDot silicon tips – Stock cable – lossless 16-24/44.1-192 FLAC + DSD 64/128/256 tracks.

Signature analysis

Tonality

A5000 are tuned following a rather classical V shape, if a bit wide, so with elevated bass and sub-bass, energetic treble and (moderately, in this case) recessed mids.

The timbre is clear and a whiff lean-ish but not too much really, and the result stays reasonably close to organicity. The overall impact is a bit off neutral colour, shifted towards the cold side, and medium-bodied notes, a bit more such towards the bass, and less towards the high-mids and higher on.

Sub-Bass

Sub-bass is fully extended, and more elevated then midbass. It is not overly elevated though, so it stays there as a good, hearable rumble floor when of course the music calls for it.

Mid Bass

Mid bass on A5000 is good, fast, with quite pulpy and well contoured notes. Decay is tight, attack perhaps a bit on the relaxed side. From my library I get good bass readability, yet when pushing a bit up on the amping kickdrum may at times tend to get fuzzy. Even in such occasions however mid bass in never bleeding on the mids.

Mids

Mids are recessed yet well delivered nonetheless. They do partake to the overall note leanness, probably ultimately connaturate to the very f-Core DU driver, and such feat may resolve into a first impression of relative coldness and unwanted thinness.

Letting music flow, however, one appreciates such texturing, and the level of detail which are present in this segment, too, with that soon re-ranking A5000’s mids onto their honest value in the overall mix. It stays anyhow true that central piano octaves, and some guitars, will sound dry, somewhat unlushy.

No doubt, a sole driver is in general on vantage position to grant seamless tonal passage from mids to highmids, and this is the case on A5000 too, even in presence of a steep-ish ramp in the output, up to an important pinna gain at around 4Khz.

Good news include that there’s very little if any glare.

Male Vocals

A5000 treat baritones an basses with good authority and power, and tenors too but those start to partake to the mids’ general dryness – this, in spite of their relatively recessed level in the presentation.

Female Vocals

Female vocale are sparkly, energetic and clear. I would much prefer them having some more “butter” on them, yet their actual tonality is in the end consistent with the rest of A5000 signature, which is clearly not mid-centric by design, quite the opposite as we already noted.

Sadly, they are quite often affected by sibilance which paired with their dry-ish timbre brings them south of truly organic, and most importantly lets them come across quite raw a bit too often.

Highs

A5000 trebles are a mixed bag, and that’s a real pity. On one end there’s very good energy, sparkle, and clarity, without excessive thinness, and no zings. On the down side however they do lack airiness, and often expose a modest yet fastidious sibilance – and more in general their elevation and modulation is anyhow such to produce fatigue on mid-length listening sessions, which is a serious turn off to me.

Sadly, JVC SpiralDot tips – usually quite effective in taming harsh trebles and sibilance – don’t help in this particular case.

Technicalities

Soundstage

In compliance with an intended feature for the entire A family, A5000 offer soundstage drawing capabilities that are extremely significant in absolute terms, with this I mean they widely transcend the levels of other drivers, probably most other drivers, in their price category.

A5000 in particular draw very ample width, and even more remarkable height, paired with no less than significant depth.

Imaging

Microdynamics are an absolute forte on A5000 – it is always very easy to pinpoint instruments on the stage, and their positioning is offered in a very natural way.

Details

Detail retrieval is extremely good, perhaps even sensational on A5000 on the low mids and mid bass. It is also above average, but just that, in the trebles, due to their previously mentioned tendency to get a bit hot.

Instrument separation

Layering and separation are very good on A5000, at the absolute top and beyond of their direct price competitors. This, paired with the aforementioned drawn stage amplitude, depending on the particular track master delivers a comprehensive no less then theatrical spatial experience, with voices not only well identified and enucleated, but also seemingly positioned at sensible distances from one other.

Microdynamics are a bit above average but no more then that, hampered in general by the driver’s tightness. Within such general view, they are better on mid bass and low mids, and more limited the more we go up in the frequencies.

Driveability

Properly driving A5000 is not overly hard, but their 100dB/mW sensitivity at 18 ohm does call for sources with at least some current delivery muscle on low impedance loads. Read: I would not recommend direct smartphone pairing, or other particularly known-weak mobile source usage.

Physicals

Build

The ABS resin material appears fully resistant to “normal” solicitations. The Shibo finish is a love/hate thing (I am in the former group).

Recessed and notched cable connectors are good on the tech side, but a bit inconvenient for the user as only few(er) third party manufacturers easily make compatible 2pin terminations available.

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 all works as intended.

The nozzle is relatively short – same situation for the whole A series of course as the shell size&shape is identical on all models – that calls for a shallow fit, which is consistent with the housings’ shape and size: pushing them further in would defeat their triple-support-point design, and most of all would (and will – I tried!) soon become uncomfortable.

Be as it may, this situation makes tip choice apriori limited. In my case luckily the working trick “just” stays in choosing a bigger size for my left ear: that gets me a firm grip and seal with the tip sitting “just in” the canal. Oh and by the way: stock final E black tips are good for the purpose.

Comfort

A5000’s particular housings size, their 3-point-fit design, and their external finish all contribute to a good comfort once the right “personal” position is found.

Oppositely, if you want, or feel obliged by your particular outer ear conformation, to opt for a deeper fit very high chances are that A5000 housings will not be as comfy for you after a moderate, and in the worst cases even short period of time.

Isolation

Passive isolation is quite nice once A5000 are properly fitted “as per design”, but not more than that as the housings won’t even “fill the concha up”, which would of course block more of the leak.

Cable

A5000 stock cable is a new model for final. Instead of the Junkosha silver plated copper, 2-thread PVC-sheated cable bundled with A8000, E5000 and B3, a new silver plated copper 8-thread braided cable is offered.

final did not disclose much additional information, nor spare / alternative termination versions are available yet on their website.

Sadly, similarly to all other final packages, no modular termination plugs are available on A5000 either, so pairing to a balanced source requires swapping it anyhow.

Talking about cable rolling: better stay on silver plated. Dunu DUW-02S is a good rec for A5000.

Specifications (declared)

Comparisons

final A3000 – € 109,99 Amazon.it

There’s an almost 3x price difference between A3000 and A5000, and such piece of data is totally misleading. In terms of general quality, strong points and – more simply – listening pleasure, the two are on par at the very least, and depending on personal tastes (such as in my case) A3000 indeed come ahead in the comparison. Which means that, while A5000 are already worth every cent of their cost, A3000 represent a total no brainer for whoever is akin to their presentation flavour.

Insofar as part of the same A family, the two models share identical housings (A5000 just carrying a different external finish) and drivers, and their packages bundles are identical too. A5000 come with a supposed higher quality cable – which however did not impress me too much in terms of sonic quality, not to speak about the fact that, both carrying a classical non-modular single ended termination, I had to swap both for the sake of properly exploiting my various sources.

A3000 present a U, or even W if you wish, shaped presentation in lieu of the (wide) V on the A5000. In terms of modulation, there are two extremely important, and crucial differences between the two tunings.

One: high mids are tamed and very slowly growing from 2 all the way to 6KHz on A3000, while “more harmanilly” ramping quite sharply from 2 to 3Khz on A5000, and almost plateauing thereafter.

Two: mid bass and mids are all the way uniformly more forward on A3000, this already per se resulting in a perceivable warmer tonality and a bit fuller timbre across the board, but it all results in a very evidently different overall timbre and tonality balance as the two aspects of course work together.

A3000 have an overall tonality which is much more pleasing to my ears, and while it may be said to be a bit less energetic and dynamic especially on guitars and trumpets, I would never trade added muscle in those areas for the wonderfully delicate balance A3000 offer on acoustic music, therein included tracks with vocals, and female vocals in particular.

Both sets can be said to have a non-lushy timbre, with A5000 on a furtherly drier position. A5000 have an evident if modest bit better extension towards the bass, with their sub-bass rumble being more nicely present in many occasions. Sadly, both are unable to completely avoid sibilance, but A3000 fall into this pit less then 50% of the times compared to A5000. Even with that said, however, in presence of similar 6KHz peaks A3000’s more relaxed high mids tuning makes them much, much less fatiguing, and pleasant to enjoy even for quite long sessions.

Technicalities such as soundstage casting and microdynamics are on par at stunning levels on the two models. Microdynamics are an evident tad better on A3000 thanks to their slightly more relaxed transients across the board. Similarly, detail retrieval is better on A3000 both on the bass, and moreover on the high mids and trebles, vis-a-vis them being much less invasively “hot” compare to A5000’s.

A3000 carry a (decisive) even lower sensitivity, which makes totally impossible to disregard selecting an adequate power source when it comes to pairing choices. Forget smartphones, and all low powered sources / dongles too. To give an idea, a Sony NW-A55 is barely enough to cope with A3000, with no headroom to spare to compensate for low volume recorded tracks.

final A4000 – € 129,99 Amazon.de

A4000 are the third individual in the “different twins born group” A3000-A4000-A5000. With this said, let me cut very short here on everything else which is similar or even identical between A4000 and A5000: shells, package, fit and comfort, cable (identical to A3000’s, different to A5000’s but not “practically so” in the end, see above), and last but not least f-Core DU driver.

Presentations are also quite similar between A4000 and A5000, however they diverge by that small much that makes for a decisive difference – especially for my tastes. Similarities are in the general tuning, which is a V, a sharper one at that on A4000, and on timbre, which is equally fast / clear on both models. Soundstage and imaging are equivalently top notch too. A5000 have farther lower extension, resulting in a more strongly evident sub-bass.

Most important, and crucially, A4000 offer even more energetic high mids than A5000, which is where their tonality breaks in my opinion, and anyhow for my tastes. Fast transient, so much (too much!) energy on guitars, trumpets and high piano chords, and that 6KHz peak which won’t forgive sibilating more frequently than not make A4000 a definitely unbalanced-bright, at times even splashy high tones cannon, too often sounding artificial – which is a true pity as their low mids and bass lines are viceversa beyond commendable.

Microdynamics are equivalently no more than average both on A4000 and A5000, with A4000 being nothing to write home about in terms of high mid and treble detail retrieval, too often drowning under the waves of excessive clarity and brightness.

Long story short: I would exclusively recommend A4000 to die-hard treble-heads.

Tanchjim Oxygen – € 269,00 AliExpress

I called A3000 and A4000 in as the first two comparisons due to them being part of the same product family of course, however no doubt the most significant notes will be those referring to Oxygen, being for me the rock-solid, as of yet undisputed natural-tonality sub-300€ reference.

Both A5000 and Oxygen carry a single Dynamic Driver, and while both can be classified as bright-neutral tonalities, their immediate skin-effect is obviously different due to the much clearer timbre brought up by A5000 compared to Oxygen, which – while still in the category of relatively fast drivers – offers definitely more relaxed transients, both as for attack and decay.

Oxygen sound therefor “mellower”, tonally softer, less clear, and most of all they convey a more closed-in group sensation – there is a way less air between one instrument and the other. En revenche, acoustic instruments and human voices sound obviously more organic on Oxygen.

Oxygen and A5000 are equally extended down to the bass, but A5000’s tighter transients deliver punchier, more energetic feeling to midbass, which of course may be more or less welcome depending on the track/genre.

Oxygen are more aggressive when it comes to high mids modulation, but less when it comes to low trebles. Their thicker note weight, however, make the entire high line less aggressive, if a bit less impactful, compared to A5000.

There is *no* sibilance on Oxygen.

Stage projection is evidently better on A5000, and by a significant margin. The opposite can be said about microdynamics, where the palm clearly goes to Oxygen.

Oxygen’s lesser cleanness and air presence do not compromise on layering and separation: Oxygen and A5000 are equally good at resolving overlapping instruments and voices.

Oxygen may be less easy to comfortably fit – shallow insertion being sadly a forced option here.

Like most if not all Tanchjim / Moondrop models, Oxygen require opposite-than-normal 2pin cable polarity so there’s that, too, to keep in mind when (as I strongly recommend) upgrading to a better cable, binning Oxygen’s disappointing stock one.

Yanyin Canon II – $ 341,00 + import duties, Linsoul

These recently-released 1 DD + 4 BA hybrids are surfing their hype waves right these weeks, and I happened to have a chance to assess a pair.

Both Canon II and A5000 offer full bilateral range extension, which is of course a more significant achievement on A5000 given they carry a single driver instead of five. En passant, it’s however fair to underline how Canon II offer commendable timbre coherence amongst their drivers, with some hearable débacle exclusively circumscribed to the passage between low and high mids.

Canon II’s dynamic driver offers very nicely calibrated sub-bass – possibly even better than A5000’s – and fuller bodied, slower decaying mid-bass notes, which sound punchier, but less cleanly separated, compared to A5000’s, resulting therefore in a stronger, but less readable and a bit more “stuffy” bass presentation. This, when Canon II’s tuning switches are both kept on their OFF positions – as flipping either, let alone both, up will make bass even thicker and less natural.

Canon II’s treble is vivid, and their BAs carry nothing short of a delicious timbre. Treble note weight is surely better on Canon II – and a sort of absolute weakness on A5000. Compared to A5000, however, detail retrieval is less on Canon II, and airiness is nothing to write home about even in absolute terms.

Imaging on Canon II is above decent, primarily hampered by the too bold bass actually, which would be not too big a drawback in absolute terms, if not in direct comparison to A5000 where it is practically perfect instead.

Canon II are also good at separation and layering, again with the sole exception of the 80-250 Hz region falling too often hostage of their exuberant mid bass personality. A5000’s are near perfect across the board though. Microdynamics are not superlative on A5000, but even more ordinary on Canon II for one reason or another.

Canon II’s fit is not too easy (not arduous either however) mainly due to quite bulky housings, and thick nozzles. Their stock tips are right away binnable, JVC SpiralDots offering good results on them, for the record.

Intime Miyabi – € 150,00 + reforwarding costs and import duties from Japan

Miyabi feature a hybrid setup made of a dynamic driver paired with a industry-unique, patented ceramic tweeter and other specialties, vs A5000’s proprietary f-Core DU single dynamic driver. In spite of such hybrid setup of theirs, Miyabi sport a totally commendable timbral coherence, nowhere shorter than A5000’s.

Miyabi and A5000 offer substantially equivalent bilateral range extension, with A5000 coming across stronger in the bass and sub-bass – Miyabi being nevertheless significantly slammy and textured there – and Miyabi more energetic, bodied and engaging in the treble. The two are also arguably on par on their exceptional space projection, separation and layering capabilities. Microdynamics are better on Miyabi.

Miyabi’s presentation is fundamentally neutral with a slightly bright accent, while A5000 is markedly V-shaped in comparison, although a mild-V if taken in absolute terms. Either can be said to carry a quite personal timbre, however diversion from more common options is more pronounced on Miyabi.

As a consequence, some may viscerally love Miyabi’s voicing while others might not fully enjoy their “brassy” aftertaste, and that sort of “popular crudeness” of theirs may be decoded as “commoner class” by those who will tend to better appreciate that silky, “rich middle class” style taint offered by A5000.

Miyabi’s vocals are a big notch more organic compared to A5000, very obviously so when it comes to female voices.

Miyabi’s fat bullet shape will probably result statistically easier to fit, and more easily comfortable vs A5000’s shallow fit. Neither get positive votes for their stock cables, which in both cases is bound for a quick upgrade. Unlike A5000, Miyabi benefit or indeed even require third party tips for best results.

Last but not least Miyabi are significantly less expensive, but much more difficult to source outside of Japan due to the very limited distribution network set up by their manufacturer, a very small crafting company.

Penon Fan 2 – $ 165,00 (down from $279,00 …why?) + import duties direct from Penon

Fan 2 are based on 2 dynamic and 2 BA drivers, vs final’s single proprietary f-Core DU driver on A5000, and sport a U-shaped presentation, with a nice organic timbre and a slightly warm-colored tonality, vs A5000’s more accented V tonality, definitely leaner note body and (in comparison) dryer/colder color.

I find Fan 2 striking a better, as in more realistic, note body compromise compared to A5000, which again I find a tad too lean in comparison. Fan 2 exhibit some timbral incoherence, which is extremely subtle if ever perceivable on A5000 instead. Both models offer very good bilateral range extension, I’d say on par the one with the other.

A5000 offer a much better defined, textured, detailed and slammy bass, which instead comes across too frequently a bit woolly from Fan 2. Flipping the situation, I would choose Fan 2 for what attains to organic mids rendering.

While both are very good about imaging and instrument separation, A5000 come clearly ahead in terms of layering capability. Soundstage casting is also hands down on A5000 favor.

Fan 2 are very picky when it comes to eartips selection, and possibly even more so in terms of source pairing – they require a very low impedance amp not to scant into fr skewage due to their extremely low internal impedance. Fan 2 and their stock cable pair better with one another vs A5000 and their one.

Considerations & conclusions

As I tried to outline above, I have mixed feelings about final’s A series, starting from not agreeing with the fundamental project purpose of delivering wide-range drivers, intentionally targeting equal satisfaction to very diverse user categories, continuing with not having been dazzled on my road to Damascus by auditioning the A8000s, on one end, while greatly appreciating the deeds of the f-Core DU driver as implemented into A-series budget models – such positive feeling standing beyond the tuning differences characterising those 3 models – on the other.

More than 2 years after my original piece about A3000 I do reaffirm that to my senses the overall best of the three budget priced A series models are indeed A3000. They deliver an incredibly subtle balance amongst note body, clarity, macro and microdynamics on top of a full-neutral presentation over a stunning all-direction-extended stage.

A5000 are anyhow second in line. Athletic like an Olympic fencer, they strike strong when needed while at the same time chiseling their movements in a precise and artistic way. Too bad for those modest, but perceivable, exaggerations in the treble area, as they could otherwise join their siblings on our Excellence showcase.

Lastly, I find A4000 much less special then their sisters, and of what they might potentially be. While they do positively hit on the user with the same grand stage, and imaging clarity, as their fellow A’s, they do pass the excess limit on their trebles, making an overly bright tonality, as such delivering a non-realistic overall musical experience.

The post final A5000 Review – One Cent To Excellence appeared first on Music For The Masses.

I have 3 units to test within my quite articulated home setup, and verify if / which sonic improvements are determined by the presence of one, or more, JitterBug FMJ units in line with and/or in parallel to my various DAC connections.

JitterBug FMJ retails in EU for € 69,00 and can be purchased from multiple sources, including Amazon. The manufacturer’s official information page is here.

At-a-glance Card

Introduction

I know it very well: there’s a thick population of “non-believers” who apriori refuse the whole concept of USB filtering.

Sole thing I can say about and to them is: fair enough ! If you are one of that lot I recommend you stop here, don’t go forward reading this article as I guarantee you won’t like it so why bother.

Some others are instead very confused about the topic.

Not about AudioQuest’s JitterBug FMJ per se, actually, or not yet about it, insofar as they “stop much before”, not having clear which “noise” are we talking about that a device like JitterBug FMJ (and others, in the same category) is supposed to do something with.

To all of them I dedicated the introduction to a past article of mine reviewing IFI’s Nano iUSB 3.0 filtered power supply, which I spun off into a separate post some time ago precisely to conveniently back-link to it from within other review articles (like this one), without dumbly “re-pasting” the whole thing again and again.

Long story (too) short: there’s of course no way nor need to “improve” on digital data quality. There’s however point, and need, to avoid that data depletes during transport, and/or that transport media (cables) “trojan-ride” spurious signals, together with legit data, which may, and will, perturbate the DAC’s activity.

General description and features

JitterBug FMJ looks like, and has the size of, a common USB-key drive. It’s in facts a sort of “passthrough” thingie: on one end is a USB-A male plug, on the opposite end a USB-A female connector.

The chassis is metallic, studied to protect the inside from nearfield RF interference. The female USB port is protected by a removable “cap” make of rubber mixed with carbon – that, too, aiming at tackling RF interference. Both such features (metal chassis and backport cap) are indeed inherent to this new “FMJ” version and were not present in the original JitterBug. FMJ standing in facts for “Full Metal Jacket”.

Finally, the ciruitry on the PCB inside the case is aiming at removing in-line RF interference, such as that generated (or transmitted) by pretty much any digital device e.g. a computer, a TV, an audio player, etc.

You can see JitterBug FMJ as a filter reducing / eliminating any signal coming out of a USB port which is distant from the working frequencies required by the digital data which are solely supposed to be managed by that port.

As a consequence the DAC will receive “just what it’s supposed to get”, with no, or at least much less “other spurious stuff”.

Of course electrical impurities might not be there in the first place in some case, or, they may be filtered/rejected by some circuitry built into the DAC device itself, and in these cases adding a Jitterbug FMJ may be simply… useless.

Another case where a JitterBug FMJ may be only partially or not-at-all beneficial, is of course when spurious signals and interference are picked up downstream of its location.

So in general JitterBug FMJ (and all other similar equipment) is not – as it cannot be – a guaranteed hit, nor a guaranteed complete solution.

As in all or at least most things audio, a try is needed to know if and how much it benefits each particular setup.

How to use it (in the manufacturer’s intention)

Quite simply, Jitterbug FMJ is intended to be plugged into a USB port on a music player host (a pc, a mac or a linux box). Then, the USB cable leading to an external DAC or DAC/AMP will be plugged onto JitterBug FMJ’s female connector.

There’s no driver to install, no options to set. Just plug it in and leave it there.

The removable rubber cap covering JitterBug FMJ’s female port is supposed to be put back in place when no USB cable is connected. That’s because the carbon mixed into the rubber material helps acting as an anti-RF shield.

Always according to AudioQuest there’s also another way to use JitterBug FMJ: install 2 of them in parallel on the same host machine, plugging them onto two different USB ports (partaking to the same internal USB hub).

Onto one of the two JitterBug FMJ the USB cable going to the DAC is supposed to be plugged. The other JitterBug FMJ will just stay passively there, with the back rubber cap installed, and may (or may not) add a further level of intereference removal from the USB line.

OK, but does JitterBug FMJ actually work ?

Simply put: yes, and well, too.

First things first, I tried Jitterbug FMJ at its main intended usage scenario: plugged in-line between a host and a USB DAC or DAC-AMP.

I tried this on all 4 different hosts I normally use (also) for audio application, which are

• an aging MacBook Pro 2012 reourposed into acting exclusively as a Roon server
• a Lenovo Y520 laptop with Windows 10 which is my main general purpose work platform, including Roon Remoting, and gaming
• a BananaPi M2+ box with Debian Linux acting exclusively as a Roon Bridge, and
• a RaspberryPi 4 with Dietpi Linux (a well packaged Debian distro) also exclusively acting as a Roon bridge.

DACs (DAC/AMPs) connected to those include my Questyle CMA400i, the Earmen ST-AMP unit I’m reviewing, and the main “dongles” I own, which include Apogee Groove, E1DA’s PowerDAC 2.1, 9038D and 9038SG3, Questyle M15 and AudioQuest’s own DragonFly Cobalt. Oh, and a Chord Mojo, too, every now and then.

“Dongles” (i.e. host-powered) devices are by definition those exposed at the highest risk of “inheriting” host perturbance carried over via digital interconnects, that’s why I expect JitterBug FMJ’s effect to be most evident on them.

I also expect JitterBug FMJ to be more beneficial on devices plugged onto my Y520 laptop, and less so when the host is one of the raspberries (you should know the rationales of such expectation if you know this stuff at the technological level, or if you read my article referenced above).

Long story short: JitterBug FMJ does work, i.e. it did deliver a sound improvement, in all my different install positions.

The effect on final sound has been more evident, at times totally obvious, in some cases, and more subtle in others.

I can hear improvement on two main areas: better, more rounded up, fuller notes and darker background. Both these improvements together also result in a better sense of macrodynamics (imaging), which, depending on musical genre, also improves on rhythm perception.

Expectedly, out of all my gear the device for which the improvement is most subtle (yet still audible) is Questyle CMA-400i, no matter the host it is connected to.

Again very expectedly, the cases where Jitterbug FMJ’s improvement is obvious are those involving dongles (all of them – yes, including AudioQuest’s own Dragonfly Cobalt), connected to all my hosts, and maximally when connected to my Y520 “gaming” laptop.

Of course I also tried the other manufacturer-suggested use case, which is that of adding a second JitterBug FMJ in parallel to a first one, connected to a free USB port on the same host transport as the one onto which a USB DAC is connected.

This time my experience is not positive. Not negative either, actually, but I could not perceive any “further” improvement over the one obtained by the first unit – the one just plugged in-line between the host and the DAC. This happens on any one of my hosts, be them the small ARM SBC’s or the “noisy” gaming laptop.

Comparisons

iFi iSilencer+ (€ 59)

iSilencer is marketed as a device pursuing totally similar aims as JitterBug FMJ, so we can see it as iFi’s direct alternative to it. I had the opportunity to test a (few of) iSilencer unit(s), and I must say that, unlike Jitterbug FMJ, they did not hit the spot in my case.

Sadly, in my environment iSilencer wasn’t merely transparent (read: useless) but actually made sound worse: it fundamentally makes tones brighter, depressing mids and bass, reducing stage depth and making imaging worse.

iFi iPurifier 3 (€ 129/149)

iPurifier 3 is another device falling in the general “digital signal filters” category, but instead of removing carry-over electrical noise it focuses on signal timing – which is something on which JitterBug FMJ is only “consequently” involved.

I will soon release a piece about iPurifier3 but long story short: (in my setup) it does work. I’ve in particular been using it in-between one of my ARM-based Roon bridges and the Questyle CMA-400i desktop DAC-AMP, and it carried an audible improvement in terms of better treble notes definition, and perceivable better room size definition.

What’s even more interesting is that iPurifier 3 synergises positively with JitterBug FMJ: if I plug JitterBug FMJ on the ARM’s USB port, and iPurifier 3 on CMA-400i’s USB input port, I get both improvements at the same time. Very nice!

Conclusions

To me, JitterBug FMJ works – and very well so. It makes now standard part of my home setup, and I see no downsides to its adoption as an in-line USB channel filter, also considering its quite modest price tag.

A great thank you goes to AudioQuest for providing me with 2 more units (in addition to the one I earlier had already personally purchased) to allow me for extensive testing in multiple configurations.

Thanks a bunch to coblogger Kazi for the nice title image, too.

The post AudioQuest JitterBug FMJ Review – It’s Not About Dancing… appeared first on Music For The Masses.

Gear of the Year: audioreviews.org is soon completing its 5th year. We are still six dedicated and competent authors located all over the western hemisphere, catering to a mature, discerning readership. Our list of earphone reviews is approaching 450 and our Wall of Excellence (WoE) is better decorated than the Christmas tree at NYC’s Rockefeller Center. Since any product on our WoE is backed by more than one opinion, it should give you confidence in your buying decisions.

However, our WoE is not a bunch of “best of” lists as we have not tested all competitors in each category. Such claims would be presumptuous.

We did, sadly, lose our single sponsor HifiGo (and some more suppliers) over our reviews of their gear. But hey, our critical, realistic approach sets us apart from 98% of the blogosphere (we think). We rather deal with companies that have confidence in their products.

Whatever gear passes our test must be somewhat good. We still don’t do Google ads, affiliate links, and we don’t allow trackers…we are no salespeople, we honour your reading pleasure and your privacy. We are simply audio aficionados.

Thank you for your patronage in 2023! Enjoy this read and we wish you a happy and successful 2024!

Hey, feel free to let us know your personal favourites of 2023 in the comments section below.

We thank our 2023 Partners

And here we go…that’s what we enjoyed in 2023…published by author in the order of submission…and purely subjective.

Loomis Johnson…Chicago, USA

Wiim Mini AirPlay 2 Wifi Streamer—the onboard DAC is just fair, and the app is quirky (if very ambitious), but through its digital out this is a genuinely excellent streamer  for less than a hundo.

BGVP DM9 IEM—energetic and massive sounding, these are head and shoulders above any other IEM I’ve heard this year. Richly priced at $600 and worth every penny.

Sony WH-1000XM5 Wireless Headphones—Bose has marginally better ANC and Sennheiser a longer battery and better UI, but overall the XM5 would be my pick if (god forbid) I could own only one TWS.

Oladance Wearable Stereo Open Ear Headphones —eons better than any bone-conduction model out there, these come close to good in-ear TWS models for sound quality, with a rich warm sound and a big 3D stage. Hall of Fame material.

SMSL D0400  DAC/Headphone Amp—a tad more detailed (if not necessarily better-sounding) than the godlike SU-9, the inclusion of balanced out and an excellent onboard headphone amp makes this my pick among SMSL’s myriad offerings.

Truthear Shio DAC/Dongle—well featured, balanced dongle won’t make your counterfeit Beats sound like Carnegie Hall, but it sounds just slightly more transparent than its ubiquitous price peers.

JBL Boombox 3 Portable Bluetooth Speaker— rather than spending ten grand to mod the sound system on his 100k pontoon boat, a very wealthy friend of mine dropped $349 on one of these. He couldn’t be happier. Link two together and you’ll be in hip-hop heaven.

Eagle Rare 10-Year Bourbon—if this was an IEM, we’d deem it “musical, balanced and fully coherent.” People are asking stupid prices for this in the secondary market, but if you can find it anywhere near its $40 SRP, buy it.

Dreamcloud Premier Rest Hybrid Mattress—the downside of buying a really good mattress is that it’ll sap your ambition faster than a meth habit. If, however, like me your ambition is to lay around and watch professional basketball, this is a necessary acquisition.

Jürgen Kraus…Calgary, CANADA

Short and sweet, as I am mainly still using my 2022 gear. And the best gear is the gear one uses after all. 2023 added a few excellent products to my daily listening. Oladance TWS Pro wearables were most impressive…and useful…a home theatre on your ears you don’t even feel. I can listen to these all day.

In terms of earphones, the Sennheiser IE 900 impressed me most because of their natural, cohesive presentation, their incredible treble quality, and their wonderful dosage across the frequency spectrum. I preferred them much more over the IE 600, which offer the same Harman type tuning we have experienced so often before. Both were sadly loaners. I also love the well-balanced Sennheiser IE 200, which are tuning wise closer to the IE 900 than to the IE 600.

Also very natural sounding are the Akoustyx S6, but they do need some modding to tame the upper midrange. As to budget TWS, I do have a pair of Moondrop Space Travel by my bedside, for talk radio and classical music. They have a very composed and nuanced presentation…and they fit me well.

Also by my bedside is the EarMan CH-Amp/Tradutto combination for driving my HD 600 and final Sonorous III. I equipped the HD 600 with a Hart Audio 4.4 mm balanced cable. Also great is the SMSL DO200 MKII DAC, which I use on my desk.

As a movable desktop stack (between sofa and kitchen table) serves the very good sounding Moondrop DiscDream CD player. A great idea to reconsider this technology — looking forward to another premium Walkman.

An honorouble mention goes to the very versatile TempoTec Serenade X Digital Desktop Player, and TempoTec as a company, as they don’t get lost in countless models of the same…no they offer one model of each product, and each is well thought out. A big step up for them in the last two years.

As a guilty pleasure, I indulged myself with USB cables for audio usage from AudioQuest (Forest), IKEA, and Monoprice. I love USB cables. And this combination of brands doesn’t leave room for the usual shitstorm by naysayers.

And hey, Loomis, we just acquired an Endy mattress. Made in Canada, of course.

Alberto Pittaluga…Bologna, ITALY

Given I’m not one of those world-famous tiktokers I guess it’s preliminary worth remembering that I have a sharp inclination to carefully avoid wasting time on even assessing “stuff” which doesn’t apriori seem to qualify for a serious upgrade to whatever I already own – an attitude of mine that applies across the board of course, not certainly to audio gear only. Such information is I presume key to better understand the following list.

Proceeding by categories, and starting with cans, towards the end of the year I got a pair of Sennheiser HD800. These were quite a lot anticipated to upgrade my pleasure on my particular library vs the HD600 – and that’s of course what happened. As a side bonus I had yet another chance to touch how important fresh pads and a decent cable are for sound optimisation, let alone how tough still is finding an overall more exquisite timbre then the one coming off my Groove.

Shrinking size down to IEMs, my trip to Munich earlier this year got me very curious about Sennheiser’s relatively recent IEM introductions, and that’s where the curiosity to assess IE900 and (from a different source) IE600 came up from.

The latter impressed me almost as much as the former, however when it comes to stunning V-shaped IEM encounters happened this year nothing beats – and I reckon will hardly beat tomorrow – Intime Sho DD.

The other major IEM acquisition of the year is represented by final B3, and their ability to capture the auditioner and port him onto the jazz stage. Honorable mention goes to Akoustykx S6 (and their “magic” Earlocks).

In terms of source gear, I completed my collection of DAPs by acquiring a Sony WM-1A, of course instantly flashing MrWalkman WM1Z signature onto it. For a number of reasons its sonic features are at the same time in line and complementary to those of my other standards: Questyle QP1R and QP2R.

Sometimes it does bring an audible improvement, other times it doesn’t – it depends on the apriori situation of the system you plug it onto. I’m talking about AudioQuest’s Jitterbug. My (quite articulated) home setup is clearly in the benefitted category, and that’s why 3 of these are now stable part of it.

Source gear honorable mention goes to a tiny-budgeted device, Ifi GO Link. That, and IEMs with a balanced cable and a 3.5mm TRRS adapter, right away became my blind buy rec to those individuals which every now and then, attracted by the gear they often see me fiddling with, ask me to indicate “something nice and inexpensive to get started with”.

Looking in retrospect what I just recapped (and I genuinely did it “live”, now, for the mere sake of putting these notes together) none of my 2023 preferred tech comes from chifi-land. The white-bearded badly-aging old continent nerd in me shily shruddered in realising it

Durwood…Chicago, USA

Kefine Klanar

Redefines what a planar can do, the Timeless 7Hz was great but it also had that overblown upper air treble that made it standout. The Klanar on the other hand dials everything down delivering similar quality bass and while not as treble exciting is better balanced, target curve crowd pleasing retaining the technical precision and quick transient delivery of the planar driver.

Moondrop Blessing Dusk 2 

Fits snugly staying in place, great technical details, with enough bass to keep me interested.

BGVP DM9

While I do not own many top tier earphones, I have listened to plenty at shows and know that they best anything I have in the $300 realm. The bass hump is well controlled and balanced nicely in the midbass/sub-bass transition region. The elevated treble plateau keeps them energized and engaging delivering maximum resolution and clarity.

SMSL DO400 DAC/AMP

Extreme value premium desktop DAC melding a powerful headphone amp. I miss the quick control of a potentiometer volume knob of a split dac/amp solution, but it is worth the feature rich resolving DAC and potent headphone amp drive.

Truthear SHIO DAC

Just as powerful as any of the dongles out there it sounds the most blended qualities of a dongle dac without leaning too warm, bassy, thin or sharp. Not head and shoulders above the LG G8, but can turn any USB-C phone into an excellent DAP for an average price.

Oladance OWS Sport

A new category of open-ear sports headphones that offers other uses while avoiding disadvantages of in-ear pressure, ear canal phobias, and isolation, earbud compromises, and over ears isolation and sweatiness. Balanced sound quality that trades low-end bass for open awareness without the lackluster bone conduction competition. Review coming soon, they know what they are doing.

TWS????

Still looking for a TWS all-rounder. I want them to fit tight without loosening slowly, excellent tonality and have good ANC. A blend of the Sony WF-1000XM3 ANC with the sound of the Moondrop Alice combined with the fitment of the KZ ZXS Pro.

When browsing the local classifieds this year I scored some very excellent sounding vintage ADS L570/2 and lesser known local midwest unicorn relic well tuned, amazing imaging cherry veneer Amrita Elan (I think) that my buddy is still scorning me over not “allowing” him to buy them instead- no worries we are still friends. He would love to get his hands on the 3 way model with isobaric woofers anyway.

Kazi Mahbub Mutakabbir…Munich, GERMANY

This year passed by in the blink of an eye, but fortunately I managed to listen to hundreds of devices in this rather short span. My personal collection also went through some radical changes, so without further ado…

Firstly, I finally upgraded my reference gear, both portable and desktop. On the portable side, it’s now Lotoo PAW Gold Touch paired with the venerable Cayin C9. The desktop, meanwhile, is the recently-retired Questyle CMA Twelve Master. Having tried numerous TOTL setups so far, these two fit my needs the most. I may add a tube amp down the line, but that’s for the future.

On the IEM side of things, my daily drivers include Sennheiser IE 900 and the (discontinued) Softears Turii. The IE 900 are perhaps the most advanced in terms of driver tech, and the Turii have such a unique, spacious sound that it belies the single dynamic setup. They have received the most “ear time” this year, and will likely continue to do so in the coming year.

On the TWS side of things, I am impressed by the Beats Studio Buds Plus. For once, a Beats product is actually decent enough to be a daily driver. Apart from the middling noise cancellation, there is little I’d change about them given the price tag.

Finally, I have streamlined my headphones collection and ended up purchasing a modded Sennheiser HD 800. These hold up tremendously well against the planar magnetic behemoths even now, and the staging and imaging are unparalleled in the sub-$2000 space. I was also pleasantly surprised by Sennheiser HD 660S2, though the price tag is a bit higher than I’d prefer.

This year, I finally managed to audition the Sennheiser HE-1 for almost an hour. It was a surreal experience and I can definitely see (or hear) why these are so mythical. That being said, the Warwick Acoustics Aperio are no slouch either and trade blows with the supreme Sennheisers.

But the one pair of headphones that I can call my “personal endgame” are none other than Warwick Bravura. They get dangerously close to the summit-fi behemoths and fortunately, come pre-built as a system so you can save on the cost of an energizer or accompanying pre-amps to further flavor the sound.

Notable mentions: Campfire Audio Supermoon (perhaps the best sounding planar IEMs), Softears Twilight (fantastic single DD), Effect Audio Code 23 (the best copper cable I have ever tried, despite the challenging ergonomics), iFi Go Blu (fantastic little dongle), Cayin RU7 (replaced Questyle M15 for my portable use).

Biodegraded…Vancouver, CANADA

Environmentally friendly, as his name implies, he stuck to his 2021 gear…again. Gives us carbon credits.

Gear of the Year 2022

The post Gear Of The Year 2023 – Our Personal Favourites appeared first on Music For The Masses.

I can anticipate I had a very big pleasure in the encounter, and I hope I’ll be able to properly convey my take on the many pluses and few minuses of this set, together with some comparison hints with their lower cost (but not lower quality) sisters IE600 and more.

IE900 currently sell in Europe for € 1499.00 including VAT. Main official product page, with direct purchase possibility here.

At-a-glance Card

Full Device Card

Test setup and preliminary notes

Sources: Questyle QP1R, QP2R, M15, CMA-400i / Lotoo Paw Gold Touch + Cayin C9 / Sony WM-1A / E1DA 9038D, 9038SG3 – INAIRS AIR1 foam and/or JVC SpiralDot silicon tips – Stock cable – lossless 16-24/44.1-192 FLAC + DSD 64/128/256 tracks.

Signature analysis

Tonality

IE900’s general tonality is bright-neutral. The timbre is slightly lean, especially in the mids, and you can tell from the very first audition that this is a product aimed at rendering trebles in the most organic, detailed, engaging at the same time non-distorting way as possible, while in the process never leaving bass less attended to. And – boy! – if they succeeded at this!

From a more tech-involved angle standpoint, what I also very interesting to note is that they chose not to closely follow, let alone chase, any most en vague target curves out there… More on this, maybe, much later on.

Sub-Bass

One of Sennheiser’s 7mm dynamic driver’s qualities – perhaps not the most important one, but the most readily apparent to me for sure – is its extension capabilities, something very hardly heard before on IEMs, at least from my modest hobbyist’s ears.

As a direct consequence of that bass reaches as deeeep as you can possibly hear. You can safely bet the limiting factor in this case is more your hearing than anything else.

In terms of volume some elevation is present, but a modest one at that. IE900 definitely are not made to satisfy so-called bassheads, not even “educated” ones. Even for the tastes of die hard acoustic jazz lovers like me, there are times when I concede to the pulsion to adding a +3dB low shelf at 50 Hz, but that’s really occasional: in most situations IE900 sub bass is just perfect for my (quite specialised – mind you!) library.

I’ll reach even further, actually, and I would say that although not so high in elevation it’s presence is anyhow so consistent and predictable that the net effect is similar to adding a subwoofer to your nearfield setup, keeping it at a modest sound pressure level, just for “background support”, so to say.

Mid Bass

IE900’s mid bass is fast, even sculpted, yet fully textured and very expressive, emotional. This is one of the sets that renders Andrew Cyrille’s kick drum with the highest level of realism I ever auditioned.

This weren’t enough IE900, and very particularly its bass line, scale incredibly well with amping power and quality.

While in general IE900’s sensitivity is not low, so as to make them driveable to already outstanding results by relatively modest powered mobile sources, you will be totally astonished by the difference – emerging particularly in the bass section – when driving them from high quality, much higher specced amp sources.

One inter alia: Cayin C9, which I happen to have access to. Mid bass and low bass notes come up in body, viscerality and slam in a totally surprising way. It all sounds (pun intended) as if you’re sitting in a mixing studios listening to on those high end monitors hanging in there. Really, really, REALLY significant. Oh and by the way: even in such “exalted” situation, mid bass never, ever takes over on the low mids…!

Mids

Mids feel slightly recessed, if nothing else because the other parts around them (bass, and most of all high mids and trebles) come across with even bolder personality, so to say.

On the other hand their general timbre is very good if a bit lean especially in the high part, yet feels spot-on in most if not really all cases for my library.

The passage from middle to high mids easily reminds me what happens on Final’s A3000 – another, much lower tier, single-DD set featuring a remarkable (within its price class) quality single dynamic driver. And, another virtuous example of totally surprising results based on a not so common, off-choir even, tuning curve.

The passage is very smooth, of course consequence of the one driver employed, and also of the sensible taming applied to the 2-4Khz region which, thanks to driver elasticity (and, in IE900’s case, of who knows what other aspects liaised to the triple resonance chamber milled into their housings – more on this below), does not translate into overly tamed feedback in that region, oppositely it delivers a very lively, detailed while unoffensive experience.

As I mentioned before, if one remark the high mids segment calls for is some relative leanness to the notes. I feel some “butter” missing on central piano octaves, and on female vocals, to match my personal perfection. I’m not of course expecting to find the same focus on that region here that you can get from specialised sets like Final F7200 to just name one, yet as I said just a tad more of lipids would have rendered the dish even more flavoury.

Male Vocals

IE900 render baritones and bass humans with organicity and authority, and tenors, too, with just a bit of relative leanness commencing to appear on their higher registers.

Female Vocals

Female vocals are well presented, textured, clean and quite engaging. As mentioned above, they do lack a bit of body to their central notes to be astonishing.

Highs

These, together with some of the technicalities, are evidently the stars of the show on IE900.

The result is so outstanding that you can bet this must be the consequence of something really special the developers had to put in to get there: energy, expression, body, details and air, all together, while never scanting into sibilance, shoutyness let alone zinging.

A wonderful litmus paper test for this is Lee Morgan’s trumpet phrasings from 1 up to to 2 minutes into Art Blakey’s & The Messenger’s monumental 1958 Moanin’ take, from the homonymous album. Morgan instrument’s sound is full bodied yet perfectly textured, but most of all powerful yet not piercing, and far from splashy or shouty.

Such result does vary a bit in accuracy depending on eartips selection (more on this below).

Incidentally, I could only hear one other set doing better to date, but it did so only on this very particular aspect and failed in others in comparison to IE900, bass being first: a German-made multidriver unit. Oh and that’s priced 3X over our today’s reference .

Technicalities

Soundstage

IE900 stage projection is probably the widest I ever heard in an IEM, and while I think about that I would also put all closed-back overears I heard in, for good measure. There’s significant height and good depth, too !

This is another situation where IE900’s huge treble extension shows its good deeds: as many know of course we can hear sounds up to 16Khz (well… when young! ) but frequencies above such mark are not useless at all, as they contribute carrying information about the time it takes for sound to come back (or not come back) from the “walls around the room” – thereby helping on “drawing the stage”.

This is of course only evident when the source digital material does contain such higher frequency information, and the DAC is indeed capable of reconstructing it – which is luckily the case for much of my library, and a few of my sources .

Imaging

Macrodynamics are extremely precise, positioning cues are spot on at all times, along all 3 axes.

Details

Detail retrieval from the high mids and especially from the treble is nothing short than superb, twice as much if again we remember we are in presence of a single DD set.

I like to believe this is one consequence of those Sennheiser’s claimed designs efforts focused on sound modelling obtained via those cavities inside the housings (more on this below).

Let me add that, as an old western-economy industry bear myself, I also like to think that in addition to the positivity on the obtained result this way of proceeding is also much less prone to be “easily replied” by of some of those chifi usual suspects – building practical reproduction hurdles into one’s physical product arguably representing an even more effective method, supplemental to “mere” legal patenting, to better protect one’s industrial invention efforts in our globalised world lacking cohesive governance.

Instrument separation

Layering and instrument separation is another field where IE900 surely excel, once again especially so when considering we are talking about a single driver set.

Even on busiest (acoustic) tracks you never get a sense of congestion or mixture between voicings coming from the same spot on the stage, and the sense of depth is always granted. At times, it seems as if IE900 are able to render virtually infinite layers, such is their capability in keeping overlapping but heterogenous sounds apart from one another.

I could only hear one other IEM set till now able – on equal source gear and tracks, of course – to present me with a superior readability on low volume and/or background sounds, and that’s Softears Turii – which other technicalities, and the tonality before them, are however quite different from IE900’s so I wouldn’t easily cast a better/worse score between the two, frankly.

Driveability

As en passant I previously mentioned, IE900 are quite easy to drive exploiting the power of so many at least decent mobile sources on the mainstream market, most dongles included. Their 123dB/V (corresponding to approx 105dB/mW) at 18 ohm are not a huge requirement in facts, and that’s surely a big plus in terms of crowd accessibility.

On the other hand, IE900’s note body will dramatically improve when the source happens to have the guts to push up on current delivery, this with particular regards to mid bass and mid tones.

While listening to IE900 directly paired to a Lotoo Paw Gold Touch DAP is already a lushy treat – for many reasons, first and foremost LPGT’s quite special proweness on subtle microdynamics reconstruction – you should wait until you’ll hear what you get having LPGT’s output pass through a further amplification stage, e.g. a Cayin C9 mobile set: then you’ll be in for a strong experience … .

Such situation can, and should, be reported both as a pro and as a (relative) limitation of the set.

Physicals

Build

I suspect not to be the only one whose first eye-impression when shown a pair of IE900 has been something like: “inconspicuous”.

Actually handling them such impression – well, at least my impression – changed radically: IE900’s housing are in facts CNC-milled off a solid piece of aluminium, which incidentally is a wonderful material I happen to know the positive properties of due to my professional involvement with it, on a completely different market.

Long story short, IE900’s housings are at the same time extremely solid and sturdy, and very lightweight.

I also do approve the choice for those thin engraving lines on the outside, which – if anything on the aesthetical level – result in a pleasant, if a bit mitteleuropean-industry-flavoured, “unglossy” finish style, and avoid overexposure to fingerprinting.

On the solidity and shock resistance there’s no question: a solid piece of aluminium gives more than the required warranties for this use case. I’m ready to bet that trampling over these ones (with their cable removed) with a car would leave them a bit dirty, but in shape.

Apart from all this, what is surely most interesting is what cannot be appreciated from the outside, and that is the internal shaping given to the housings – always by CNC-milling them – and the specially developed ultrawide range-capable 7mm dynamic driver.

The DD is responsible for offering coverage for an exceptionally wide range of frequencies for a single driver: from 5 to 48KHz.

That being not enough, taken alone, to deliver the wanted sonic result, tonality shaping is carried out by way of tree small resonator chambers, i.e. appropriate “carvings” milled into the very piece of solid AL making the housings, in-between the driver and the nozzle. Furthermore, some specialty shaping and internal surfaces finishing is put in there, to take care of smoothening excessive treble energy – and I must say with excellent results, based on my audition (see above).

Fit

Kudos to Sennheiser also for the just incredibly effective ergonomics they conceived for the shape of their IE series, which includes IE900 of course.

Even if for some reason you wouldn’t tell when seeing that somehow uncommon form for the first time, it takes seconds after wearing (any of) them the first time to vibrantly love them, and the one(s) who designed them.

On the flip – read negative – side two things are worth noting.

One: in some cases – me included – the main housing body may be a (decisive) tad too lean to match those magical proportions which fill your outer ear just enough to gain perfectly stable positioning while never feel like a swollen bean is nagging at you from out there.

It’s of course then evident that you can’t possibly design a one-size solid structure that’s so precisely fitting into everybody’s body, no matter human diversity. And in doubt, of course you’ll have to do it smaller vs bigger ! So this ain’t defect of course, yet it’s definitely an issue to manage, when it arises.

Two: again, in my case, the supply of stock tips (both silicon and foam) for one reason or the other falls short of being adequate.

Stock silicon tips have a very soft umbrella, 100% studied to get the best intended sound out of the IE900. Too bad that on the “mechanical” front it happens that, housings being too lean to stay put in my concha’s, I instinctually tend to regain firmness by pushing them deeper in. When that happens silicon tips’ umbrellas fold on themselves, totally losing the seal.

Sadly, the problem about stock tips falling short of properly fitting my canals (left one in particular) affects foamies too! Again, I suspect that’s liaised with me needing to get a higher stability by pushing shells deeper in, thereby reaching a wider segment of my ear canal, which those foamies can’t adequately fill up, not even the supplied L size.

I shared this issue with Sennheiser, and the answer has been enlightening for the sake of clarifying the origins of this situation.

First and foremost, in Sennheiser’s design intention IE900 tips should ideally “feel as if they disappear” in the ear canal, precisely the opposite of the sensation you get from bullet style IEMs, and/or triple-flanged eartips. Hence, the thinner umbrella the better, of course.

Flipping the coin, however, superlight tips intended for such precise aim will not be the best choice if for whatever reason a user prefers, or needs, to achieve a deeper fit.

I do confirm all : if – disregarding stability for a moment – I wear IE900 in a shallower position, indeed their stock silicon tips do keep the seal, and they deliver a very pleasant “feathery” sensation, or even virtually no sensation at all – as per intention.

And by the way, were it possible and handy for me, I would actually prefer such shallow fit, not being myself a die-hard fan of deep insertion – even when I use bullet-shape IEMs (which nevertheless – Sennheiser friends will forgive me – I don’t find so devilish counter-ergonomic as they reckon).

Be as it may, this finally reveals what the entire real problem is in my case: housings’ stability.

Again, in Sennheiser’s design intention, in cases like mine where the person’s ear structure is a bit too big and can’t grab the housings firm by itself, that’s where those easy-shape earhook sheaths installed on the cable (more on them below, under “Cable”) should do the trick, mechanically retrofitting the set so to say, and delivering the required stability.

So that is precisely where the game fails in my case (and not my one only).

No, to me those shapeable earhooks are super-comfortable, but not resilient enough to compensate for the housings’ eventual wobbling. That’s why I can’t personally “afford” a shallow fit, and rest comes with it.

Curtain fall ? Nevah !

First possible workaround: browsing the internet I found some sort of third party “gel outfits” – of course made some place in China. I call them “gloves”: imagine little-finger sized equivalents to a silicon smartphone back-cover. Or, similar to those winged rings you fit onto TWS drivers to help them stay firm in place. Something like this, but there are others around too.

I tried a friend’s ones and indeed those perfectly fit IE900’s housings, granting them that small body size increment that results into fitting my ear in a perfectly stable and comfortable way. And then, yes!, I can afford shallower fit and the whole stock tips game works as per design in my case too.

Alternative workaround: use third party tips .

Well as you can imagine I would have gone through the long tips exploration session anyhow, but in this case it was let’s say double motivated.

This article is getting already lengthy and I don’t believe that adding further smalltalk to it would make it better so my eighteen readers will I hope understand if I won’t indulge in the full report here about how I found each of the probably 15 different tip models I tried.

Suffice it to say that in the end I’m torn between two options, featuring some differences : INAIRS AIR1 foams, and JVC SpiralDot silicons.

INAIRS offer a firmer fit sensation, and their M size actually well fills my external ear canal up, thereby effectively contributing to hold those slim housings firm(er) in place for me. They also grant me better passive isolation, and a sort of delicate “softening” to some note edges (which, in itself, is not always a welcome addition).

SpiralDots feature stiffer silicon umbrellas compared to stock tips but won’t go as far as mechanically compensating housings movements, so their adoption does require either a deeper fit, or those “gel gloves” I mentioned before. The good news is that they are sturdy enough not to lose the seal when pushed deeper. Their wide bore positively contributes to IE900’s already good bass, and they yield a more crystalline timbre compared to foams.

Runnerup silicon options worth mentioning are Radius Deepmount – even better than Spiraldot on bass definition and speed, but tend to turn trebles a bit too hot – and Final E (strictly CLEAR version – black and other-coloured ones making low bass a bit “hazy”) – which deliver more body in the mids but lose some detail and precision in the treble and bass.

Last but absolutely not least, Sennheiser and their mother company being deeply involved with medical grade hearing aids and technologies, a custom eartips production service is made available – sadly only to German residents for now though .

It’s called Custom Comfort Tips. The rationale seems very simple in its complexity: by realising an elongated silicon tip, custom shaped following your own ear canal shape and size on one end, and perfectly slapping onto the IEM’s nozzles and neighbouring shell part on the other, you get extremely close to eliminate that personal fit variation that makes each one’s sound experience with that particular driver too much “potentially different” from its intended goal.

The program is also very well streamlined in terms of enduser fruition. It’s all centrally managed by Sennheiser, you don’t have to “look for” anything your own: place the order centrally, geoloc the supporting audiologist shop nearest to your location from a link on Sennheiser’s site, take an appointment and have your canals measured there (their service is part of the price paid to Sennheiser), wait for a few days and receive your tips at home.

The very same tips can be swapped onto IE900, IE600 and IE200. The tips’ fee is currently included with the price of an IE900 package, and a discount is offered to IE600 owners.

Those friends (lucky bastards individuals) who, residing in Germany, already could get their custom tips confirm they are indeed absolute game changers. The rest of us need to come to terms with a impatient wait .

Comfort

IE900’s shape is designed for very easy and natural fit and this immediately traduces into supreme comfort even for very protracted period of time.

In case the housing turns out to be a bit too “slim” for one’s ears (like in my case) there’s a chance the consequent instability may be somewhat fastidious. Longer story above about the origins of this. Consequences: compensating instability by reaching down for a deeper fit may turn out to be a bit uncomfy in medium/long sessions; adopting “gel gloves” of appropriate thickness may be the best way to go.

Isolation

When perfectly fitting, IE900 offer good levels of passive isolation – even more if equipped with foam tips.

In “fat concha” situations like my case, the same result is quite easily obtained by outfitting the housings with with “gel gloves” or such (see above).

Cable

It’s certainly pleasing – if after all in line with expectations vis-a-vis the package price, one may say – to find 3 different cables inside the box, each with a different hard-wired termination: single ended 3.5mm, and balanced 2.5 and 4.4mm, covering I would say 99.9% of possible needs.

Also, the freely mouldable TPU sheath applied towards to cables housing’s end allows you to shape them into the most precisely matching and comfortable earhooks you can get, exactly following your ear root line.

It’s the first time I encounter this offering, and it’s a very welcome feat – even if, as reported under “Fit” here above, it does not get as far as solving the problem of housings being too lean for my particular outer ears.

On another important note: Sennheiser’s IE-line MMCX connectors are not “everyday MMCX” fixings in reality. So be prepared: hardly any of your (my!) existing MMCX cables will fit, or safely fit .

Sennheiser’s MMCX implementation (in some documents tagged as “MMCX Fidelity+”) is indeed proprietary. Looking closely, the male connector coming off the tip of the cable has an additional “lip” compared to ordinary MMCX plugs. Such lip, plus a deeper, and more deeply recessed female connector, are responsible for significantly improving on connection firmness.

All good so far, the less good news however being the following two.

One I already mentioned: 99% chances are that you won’t be able to pair your IE900 with any loved individual off your thick existing herd of however good – and expensive! – MMCX cables.

The other is safely identifying the genuinely licensed (!) third parties, which would therefore be in condition to supply reliably compatible cables. Fact: between a few friends of mine and myself we experienced a few 3rd party cables sold as IE900-compatible, most of which turned into wobbly, unreliable connections. Tread lightly when shopping for cables here!!

Specifications (declared)

Comparisons

Sennheiser IE600 (€ 799,00 – currently on sale for € 549,00)

Even if very similar aesthetically, and equally based on a single dynamic driver, IE600 and IE900 are quite different at the technological level from one another.

Sennheiser confirmed to me that the dynamic driver inside IE600 is a different variation (although part of the same main project) from that adopted for IE900. The same applies for the driver inside IE200, by the way.

In addition to that, housings’ builds and their internals are also quite different.

Unlike IE900’s earpieces – CNC-milled from a solid piece of aluminium and featured with 3 specially designed resonance chambers inside – IE600’s housings are 3D-printed from a special zirconium alloy by Heraeus Amloy Tech, and featured with two sets of 2 internal chambers. Such structure internal to IE600 (D2CA: Dual 2-Chamber Absorbers) focuses on treating overlapping notes coming for different instruments at the same time, helping on dramatically improving they separation, and layering.

With all this said, the sound experience offered by IE600 is for some respects similar, for others quite different from that granted by IE900.

Similarities stay in rendering clarity, and in outstanding layering and separation proweness.

The main difference is in the tonality : unlike IE900, IE600 are quite evidently V-shaped, although maybe a “wide V” at that. A more mainstream indulging tuning choice if you wish, vs IE900’s off the choir one.

Bass is equivalently speedy on IE600 and IE900, but on IE600 it is much more evident, elevated, and I refer to mid bass and even more to sub bass here. In spite of such higher elevation, bass is still perfectly readable at all times, very well textured, and stays consistently separated from low and central mids – as it definitely should – in IE600 no less than in IE900.

Another part where the two sets diverge is in the high mids, and – I would say al least in part consequently – in their treble.

IE600’s 2-4K frequencies are way more forward and pulpy, with this bringing guitars and female vocals the “butter” which is a bit left behind on IE900. However an important taming is imposed on 6KHz on IE600, I assume to avoid that their composite output would scant into shouty and/or fatiguing. As a consequence, treble detail retrieval and overall “airiness” is quite obviously less on IE600 vs IE900.

Quitting all this tech talk : choose IE600 for prog rock, hard rock, electronic music and general purpose, while – money not being a hurdle – go blind-eyed with IE900 for acoustic jazz and most of all classical music.

Such separated applicative indications, paired with ultimately equivalent proweness in doing, each one, what they are designed to do, calls for refraining from positioning IE600 and IE900 one on a higher step vs the other, and I rather recommend them as different tools to reach different pleasures, so indeed complementary to each other.

Campfire Andromeda 2020 (discontinued, was € 1099,00)

I feel this is a quite interesting comparison not only due to the reputation Campfire Audio as a manufacturer, and the various iterations of their Andromeda set deservedly conquered over time, but especially vis-a-vis the under many respects opposite design philosophies behind Andromeda and IE900.

As everybody may remember, Andromeda are a full-BA multidriver sets, vs IE900 single-DD choice.

As a further testimony to the successful results obtained by Sennheiser on their sole dynamic driver, I would readily note that if one of the two sets may be found to deliver a tad less bilateral extension that is… Andromeda. Differences on this are small, however.

Other aspects which are very similar between Andromeda and IE900 include treble detailing, and the tuning choice to keep their 2-4KHz regions tamed down to help deliver a smooth, unshouty yet energetic overall highmid+treble section, which is indeed the case on both sets, and probable the key reasons why treble is equally delicious – beyond within some differences – in either situation.

Other similarities, or real equivalences are about stage size and three-dimensionality, with Andromeda being probably a tad deeper but less high and wide, and about layering and separation.

Tonalities are instead quite different: Andromeda is obviously warmer, consequence of some more power impressed onto 2-400Hz and some taken off from 1-2Khz. IE900 offer more airiness up above, not much resulting in terms of better clarity but rather in terms of a more realistic spatial sensation.

The most obvious differences however stay on bass note body and microdynamics: Sennheiser’s model attains to a higher level altogether, especially on the latter part – IE900 microdynamics are a very thick step above Andromeda.

As for driveability Andromeda require much less power to shine at its full potential, but conversely they require so little of that, and at such a low impedance, that many if not most sources will make them hiss, and that will of course be audible through quiet musical passages.

Beware of counterfeiting !

It is sadly worth noting that the market is literally flooded with fake / counterfeited IE900, and IE600, and many other Sennheiser sets – and not since yesterday.

Sadly the criminals involved with this are quite skilled on delivering aesthetically near-identical products (from the boxing down to the actual items), thus posing a serious threat to the casual user when it comes to choosing and giving trust to their vendors, especially considering the important price tags we are talking about.

I happen to have access to a fake IE900 sample, which I could therefore compare with the guaranteed-genuine one coming directly from Sennheiser’s headquarters.

Sound quality wise I must say I expected a much bigger difference between the two sets. What surprised me the most was in particular the fake unit’s remarkable bilateral extension, roughly in the same ballpark as the genuine one – and that’s saying something. In terms of bass definition, note body and microdynamics, however, genuine IE900 are just straight better.

Visual counterfaiting is really staggering for how realistic it is, and how much attention and careful observation was required to discover the clues indicating the two units did not come from the same ultimate source. I took a few pictures, and shared them with Sennheiser personnel to have confirmation of my findings, and here is my report, with the hope that it might be useful to someone to avoid being frauded.

First and foremost, there was no way to spot any difference whatsoever about the printed carton box sleeve, not on the box’s internal structure and elements, the paddings etc. All apparently identical.

By closely assessing product details however some differences started to come up.

1) Cables’ earhook sheaths are not freely reshapeable on the fake unit I checked – they stay much firmer on their pristine curvature for how much you try to model them. Genuine Sennheiser sheaths are pliable almost like plasteline, and they stay in your wanted shape quite reliably while you wear them.

2) Cables’ chin sliders feature a Sennheiser logo sticker. The genuine one carries an S-logo hologram, the counterfeit one is a very obvious flattened, non-holographic, clumsy imitation. Genuine cable is sitting on top in the following picture.

3) Genuine cable’s main sheath features a smooth, uniform, solid external finish. This fake unit’s sheath carries some sort of twisted wires appearance. You can appreciate this difference, too, from the picture above – where, again, the counterfeit cable is the coiled one, below the genuine one.

4) Assessing nozzle ends, genuine IE900 should look “pitch black”, while this counterfeit sample reveals silver colour inside through a wider mesh structure, as shown by this picture.

5) The pinned plastic plate carrying stock tips should show glossy S M L size letters, not matte ones. Furthermore, genuine foam tips have quite flat tops, not bulging ones. Based on this information, try yourself to spot the genuine set in the following picture .

It’s of course worth noting that I could assess just one fake unit, so there is no certainty, let alone guarantee, that the above hints do apply to other cases.

Sennheiser recommends to buy new units exclusively from fully trusted, official Sennheiser distributors – and that’s a no brainer.

For second hand units – while of course remembering that channels like ebay or similar need to be taken with two grains of salt (always better than one) – a good idea is to have the seller send a picture showing the unit serial number in advance, and get in contact with Sennheiser Consumer Hearing support services: they will check if the number is reported as legit.

Considerations & conclusions

I tried to outline the multiple reasons why I believe IE900 are a beyond-outstanding product, particularly suitable for classical, and acoustic music in general, and I feel like adding some considerations at a more general level here.

What is seems from the outside is that Sennheiser did this by going back to the design board, and restart from assessing the wanted target, asking themselves how to reach it – “reinventing the wheel” if need be, and/or using more “usual” parts and competences, purging their minds from “assumed-well-established existing solutions” bias in advance.

Of course I have no real clue about their internal processes and how the real story went, but if it were a plot for a movie about an industrial success story, it might probably go as follows.

IE900’s dynamic driver itself is proprietary, made to deliver a sensibly wider range extension compared to other high quality dynamic drivers on the market. Why? Because multidrivers do struggle with tonal coherence – all of them – and, let’s face it, for good reasons too. On the other hand, existing single drivers are all “short blankets”, so to say.

So point #1 : let’s design a “wiiiiiide blanket” driver. Period. Then we see the rest.

Oh by the way: let’s do it without employing marketing-buzzword-level raw materials.

IE900’s is in the end a plastic membrane driver – such an “obsolete sounding” technology, inn’it? – yet it loops dozens of circles around others made of “newer materials”. Guess why?… .

I must say I feel empathic on these topics as they can’t fail reminding me that within the infinitely more modest scope of the small industrial company I currently serve in as a marketing and sales manager I often listen to my agents recursively pointing at certain innovative-name-sounding products from the competition. Transeat. Back to our plot.

Once you have an eXtra Wide Range transducer, you are still supposed to shape its sound to manage its behaviour, avoid excesses, and bend its tonality to a specific wanted target sound. This is usually done by a mix of shaping IEM shells, adding vents, filters, foams, meshes etc.

As for us: we will primarily “shape the shells” – and good luck to those who will try to precisely copy them.

Inside IEx00 housings there are milled or built (depending on the specific model’s production process) micrometrically formed spaces (“chambers”). They even got as far as studying how wrinkled their internal surfaces need to be to get the right wanted effect on sound waves passing by.

I can only remotely fathom the complexity of such a research, and the level of competences, skills, tools and budgets (!) you need to put on the table to even commence spinning such a project up. Well they did it – and succeeded.

Last but not least: once you have those grand IEMs done, based on a superbly extended driver, and tuned to consistently output the exact wanted timbre and tonality onto… lab measuring equipment (!) how about maximising the chance the same or at least a very similar result is actually appreciated by anybody’s ears – which sadly (for engineers, and luckily for philosophers) are all “guaranteed different” from the most advanced acoustic coupler mockups employed at the lab ?

Yes, you can try closing the gap by filling the commercial package with countless alternative eartips, or…

Our mother company is a leading multinational involved in hearing aids and acoustic implantations. Let’s roll out a custom eartips program!

I presume this very long stream of considerations, and their fictionalized dressings, can be summarised as follows: the old saying “when the game gets tough, the tough get playing” is of course in general an abstraction – it does take for the tough to actually be willing to get playing ! But when they do… .

Sennheiser for decades did deliver undisputed top-class headphone models (do we need to remember that HD600 originally came out in 1997?) yet they flew much lower in the rankings of IEM proposals until recently.

With their IE900 / IE600 / IE200 program they took a wholly-renovated approach to the segment, and results do show.

These 3 models lead their corresponding price brackets, and debating whether they deserve #1, #2 or #3 entry in their specific subclasses is surely very important for Sennheiser’s product marketing, their numbers etc, but for us, the users, it’s now probably just funny, loud coffee bar discussions. IE200, IE600 and IE900 are, all of them, absolute winners, and each one can easily be taken as the sole IEM one may want to own given that budget and/or that musical preference.

IE900 are light years far from being yet-another high quality high priced single DD IEMs. They can and should be narrated as a successful reinvention of the entire IEM experience, instanced onto the specific preferences of classical and other acoustic music lovers.

Sennheiser created a monumental product with IE900, and while its price tag is no doubt demanding, not a cent of it lacks justification in the multifaceted quality it offers.

IE900 is dutifully tagged on our Wall of Excellence.

Our generic standard disclaimer.

The post Sennheiser IE900 Review (1) – Classical Reinvented appeared first on Music For The Masses.

The $112 KZ AS24 is a well executed 12-driver-a-side earphone that impresses by its cohesive, vivid presentation. Yes, finally a KZ that impresses.

The KZ AS24 was sent to me unsolicited by the manufacturer for my analysis. I thank them for that, You can buy them from KZ Official Store.

Introduction

This is a review of the non-tunable version of the KZ AS24 earphone (a version if tuning switches is also available). I was a KZ buyer of (almost) the first hour…and started loading up back in 2017. You could get single-dynamic-driver models for $5-7 CAD packaged in plain blue boxes. At that time, the price of balanced-armature drivers fell dramatically so that KZ started experimenting with this technology as one of the first in the budget segment. The older ChiFi aficionados may remember the famous KZ ZS5 and ZS6, which sold for less than $30 USD.

KZ started releasing different models on an assembly line, and most if not all of these had the same characteristics, not well liked by the western ears: a strong V-shape with buried vocals and an elevated upper midrange, which many of us perceived as shouty. And the number of drivers appeared to increase from model to model.

For me, this driver craze ended with the ASX, which offered 10 BA per side…but very little music. It also made me quit silly YouTube videos and focus on the written word.

While KZ continue flooding the market with increasingly more models, their AS 24 (yes, this one) is finally a good earphone, offered at a decent price…which makes for great value. Good that I can still experience this in my lifetime. There are two versions available, one as is (for a lazy guy like me), and the other with 8 tuning switches, for the tinkerer.

Specifications KZ AS24 (Standard Version)

Physical Things and Usability

The unboxing may be disappointing for some: despite being their flagship, KZ stick to their no-frills presentation of no storage case, a rather “simple” cable, their standard eartips (SM/L plus a pair of foams), and their paperwork.

The large earpieces follow the same recipe as most previous KZ models with their standard translucent resin material. Although each shell hosts 12 drivers it is not bigger than, for example the Moondrop Blessing 2 or the TempoTec IM5. The cable, although not spectacular in appearance, works well in terms of pliability.

Comfort and fit are good for me, and so it isolation. But I have to use SpinFit CP145 eartips, as the stock ones are too small for me.

Tonality and Technicalities

Don’t forget, I have the standard edition without switches, which is somewhat on the bassy side (with the SpinFits), at least when compared to the vocals in the lower midrange. Despite the many drivers, there is no issue with cohesion and the sound does not exhibit the usual BA timbre, but is reasonable natural.

Star is the bass: super deep digging, thumpy, driving, energetic, lively, well composed. If I had switch, I’d dial it back a tad. It conflicts a bit with the more recessed male/female voices of the lower midrange. Midrange resolution, transparency, and clarity are quite good.

Compared to earlier KZ models and also to the frequency response graph, the recession is actually acceptable and not a dealbreaker. It adds to the soundstage and imaging. Vocals are articulate and well placed in 3D space. There is no shoutiness whatsoever as the frequency starts dropping off at 3 kHz.

This leads to a safe, middle-of-the-road treble response. Cymbals and high notes are well resolving but a bit in the background. This combination leads to a soundstage of lower average width with very good depth, and to great spatial cues. The 12 drivers do an excellent job in terms of imaging, separation, and layering. That’s where your money is.

In comparison, the $150 Sennheiser IE 200 with their single dynamic driver have a flatter tuning with a wider stage lacking the AS24’s depth. While the AS24 are technically superior, the IE 200 are more fluid with a wider but shallower stage. Another big difference is the size of the earpieces…after all, 12 drivers need a lot of space.

The Tempotec IM05 with their 5 drivers have similarly bulky shells and feature a similar V-shaped tuning as the AS24, but with a peakier upper midrange. That’s where the AS24 gets the upper hand. Both have an elevated bass compared to neutral.

Concluding Remarks

KZ have finally produced an iem that, in my opinion, can be considered as very good for its class. For your $112, you get an iem that had cost $200 a couple of years ago. The AS24’s dominant features are its deep digging, thumpy bass and its immersive, holographic stage with very good imaging, which contribute to its lively, dynamic sonic reproduction. Its shortcomings are maybe KZ’s continued recessed midrange, which is not a big deal in this case. But they have eliminated shoutiness and glare.

Yep, KZ are finally starting to rock…after so many tens of models. Congrats. If you want to try a KZ earphone, start with their flagship. Think Big!

Until next time…keep on listening!

The post KZ AS24 (Standard Version) Review – Steamy Flagship appeared first on Music For The Masses.

The ddHiFi TC09BC is a well-made 50/100 cm long USB-C to USB-B Hifi Audio USB cable for connecting your computer to a DAC. Haptic and functionality are premium…and whether it sounds better than ??? (as claimed), well you have to read the whole article...

Introduction

I recently published an article on ddHiFi’s Mfi09S cable. It features a Lightning plug on one end, and a USB-C plug on the other, connecting an iOS device with a DAC. In my writeup I went way beyond my target – characterizing that cable – by reflecting on the general physics evolving around the question whether digital cables can make a sonic difference. After all, ddHiFi claim theirs do.

The answer is not that easy – and not as clear cut as you think. A cable is just one piece in the puzzle – and the best cable you can get is…no cable at all. But whilst there are incredible claims by some cable manufacturers, there are also wild couterclaims of “snake oil”. In reality, one cannot generalize, and the truth is somewhere in between.

I have no issues claiming that analog cables make a difference, that this is not expressed by any measurements (except perhaps impedance), and that there is no link between measurements and audible result by means of a physics equation. Such a link does not exist, although some opinionated claim it does because the measurements are “objective”. And at night it is darker than outside?

The discussion is getting even more polarized when it comes to digital cables. Proponents of the “snake oil” dismissal argue that digital cables only transport zeros and ones, hence there is no difference in quality (because it can’t happen), which also is a circular argument. That’s because none of these can tell you what the zeros and ones actually mean…which shifts the snake oil claims into the territory of the crazy company claims, that is urban myths.

If you belong to one side of the discussion, just enjoy that you save money. And if you belong to the other, enjoy the fact that you have something beautiful in your hands. But please, all of you, don’t lecture the rest of us.

Spoiler alert: bit perfect does not mean perfect data transmission, there can be contaminants in these bits. You better read my Mfi09S article. One thing for sure: a cable cannot improve sound as it cannot clean up a data stream. A cable can can only minimize deterioration of the signal. Whether that’s enough to justify its purchased is in the eye of the beholder.

The TC09BC belongs to the same series as the Mfi09S, both are technically identical, just the plugs are different. and the latter comes in shorter versions. This one is used to connect a computer with a DAC for transferring music (it can also be used as a printer cable, but only if you are a star lawyer, heart surgeon, or oligarch).

The cable comes from ddHiFi, a company y that has been on our Wall of Excellence for their combination of ingenuity and quality.

Specifications ddHiFi TC09BC

Physical Things/Technology

The materials used are in the specs above. Power line and data line are made with different wires that are well shielded against each other. The USB-C connector is rather large, therefore easy to grip, and bother connectors are made of metal and very sturdy. Fit is very snug. You find technical details on ddHiFi’s USB-data cables product page. Overall, this cable is haptically and visually very attractive.

Price wise, the TC09BC is placed between AudioQuest’s Forest and Cinnamon models.

Company Claims

ddHifi claims that the TC09BC offers a “noticeable sound quality improvement“. They fail to specify over what the improvement would be, but it appears obvious that it must be any other such cable. I therefore compare the ddHiFi TC09BC with a well-regarded USB cable.

Physical Theory

I have discussed the theoretic benefits in great detail in my ddHiFi Mfi09S article, which you find repeated behind this spoiler. TL;DR: not all digital cables a equal although they may “sound” the same in some cases…well cables don’t have a sound per se…

Listening Test

Please have a good look at the equipment. I used three different DAPs as sources, the Hidizs and TempoTec connected to the DACs by alternating USB cables (1m ddHiFi TC09BC and 3 m Belkin Gold). The Questyle connected via optical was my reference. I played the same music on all three sources.

The Belkin Gold is a discontinued USB cable that used to be Stereophile’s reference before the fancy USB cables were introduced. Audio pioneer Gordon Rankin confirmed that it is a decent cable. Today, it trades 2nd hand for horrendous prices.

The Questyle/optical combo was my test standard (as it sounded best). I used it to A/B with the other two DAPS. With the Belkin, these Hidizs and TempoTec sounded less dynamic and more subdued compared to the Questyle — independent of the DAC used.

The ddHifi TC09B really made quite a difference — and to the better. Using it, the music sounded crisper with better transparency, which resulted in better resolution and accentuation, but it still could not beat the Questyle/optical combo. In comparison, the Belkin contributed to a less clear, less nuanced sound.

This was evident when flipping (A/B-ing) between USB and optical inputs (my testing standard), which saved me comparing the USB cables against each other from memory (which is inaccurate). The quality difference between optical and ddHiF was simply smaller than with the Belkin. This indirect testing worked well.

A cable (digital or analog) cannot improve sound, it can only minimize signal deterioration.

One has to interpret this with caution, as the sound differences may also rely on other factors such as cable length (maybe the Belkin was too long). Testing the lightning version of the ddHiFi cable, the MFi9S, a while ago, I found zero difference between USB cables. This may relate to the garble/noise, that comes out of the iPhone to begin with, since it has all sorts of clocked non-audio components (cellular, Wifi etc.) — whereas the DAPS are dedicated music players. After all, a cable cannot fix a contaminated signal, it can only minimize signal deterioration.

Concluding Remarks

If you think, USB cables make no difference, then either test them, or just get them from the dollar store — and save your money.

My analysis showed that the ddHiFi TC09BC is a good USB cable that does justice to a >$2000 desktop stack (plus source). With my setup, it does sound better than the popular Belkin Gold cable I tested it against — and I therefore still use it in this application. How it fares with other setups and against really pricey cables, I don’t know. But I would not lose much sleep over it either.

Until next time…keep on listening!

Contact us!

Disclaimer

THE MFi09S cable weather supplied by the ddHiFi for my review upon my request – and I thank them for that. I also thank Alberto for his input to this article.

Get them it from the DD Official Store

Our generic standard disclaimer.

About my measurements.

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

Gallery

The post ddHiFi TC09BC USB-C To USB-B Digital Cable Review – Bit Perfect appeared first on Music For The Masses.

The $80 Moondrop Joker headphone was kindly provided by SHENZHENZAUDIO for my review – and I thank them for that. You can get them here.

Introduction

Moondrop, the ever rising Chengdu company have earned their stripes mainly with earphones since 2015, some of which are remarkable. They lately expanded their catalogue into TWS and portable DACs. Their most recently addition were headphones, one in the premium segment, and the other in the mid tier category. Their $200 Moondrop Void received rather unfavourable reviews, mainly because of its poor build and mushy sound.

The current $80 Moondrop Joker appears to be exactly the opposite of the Moondrop Void: an articulate, analytical sounding headphone tuned for monitoring. It is distinctly different from most of their competitor’s warmer tonalities. The Joker has been designed for its technicalities.

Specifications Moondrop Joker

Physical Things and Usability

In the box are the headphones with detachable cable, one 3.5 mm to 6.3 mm adapter, and the usual paperwork. The fabric-coated cable uses standard 3.5 mm connectors on all three ends and can be easily replaced – though there is no need to do so.

The headphone itself appears a bit rickety, as the earpieces tend to bang against the frame, though both are separated by a rubber pad. The design is plastic and rather light. The headband padding is soft but the fabric appears somewhat cheap. The around-ear pads are spacious even for my monster flabbers and offer good comfort. They can just be pulled off and replaced if needed. Clamp pressure is comfortable for my large head. Overall fit and wearing comfort is very good for me.

The Joker can be driven by a phone but benefits from amplification.

Tonality and Technicalities

The Moondrop Joker was designed for monitoring – as a production tool: it therefore has an analytical tilt with an elevated brilliance region, far away from the warmish sounding Sennheiser or Koss-Porta-Pro-type models. It offers excellent note definition and great spatial reconstruction but can sound a bit lean and “cool” with some sources.

The Joker excels in his technicalities: separation, layering, and note definition are very good, staging is three-dimensional. Imaging is also one of the strong points. Note weight (above sub bass) is on the lean side, probably somewhat sacrificed for the technicalities. The degree of richness varies with source with analog players and warm digital DAPs delivering the thickest sound. Note decay is actually quite realistic: the Joker passes the “cello test” and aligns itself well for even monitoring acoustic sets.

In summary, I’d characterize the sonic presentation as AAA: analytical, accurate, and articulate. Don’t forget, the Joker’s purpose is not casual recreational listening.

The prominent bass really benefits from the technicalities: it is impactful and as tight as my wallet with some sources and thicker/rubbery with others. But there is always a good rumble down there, which can ad warmth. The low-end focus is clearly on the sub bass. A solid foundation.

The mids are rather lean, but very nuanced and well sculptured. Midrange has decent clarity. Accuracy rules! With some sources and tracks, there can be a degree of harshness in the upper midrange.

Treble has a good presence and is well resolving. Let’s call it “sweet” as there is no graininess above the upper mids.

As you see, the Joker is a bit of a chameleon in that its signature varies a lot with source, which makes its sonic characterization difficult.

In comparison, the Koss Porta Pro is warmer with a mushier bass but has inferior technicalities, particularly its spatial reconstruction lags far behind. Different purpose, though. The Teufel Massive is a bass bomb in comparison, and the discontinued Sennheiser HD471 is warmer but also lags in terms of note definition. The Moondrop Joker appears to be lonely in its own class – and hard to compare.

Concluding Remarks

The Joker is Moondrop’s third headphone model, and the first below $100. It has been designed as a monitoring tool for DJs and studio engineers placing tonal accuracy and articulation over richness and “musicality”. It is not meant to be someone’ primary playback device. And it performs its job very well. The price is certainly right.

Comparing the Joker to $80 iem models, it probably beats most.

Goal achieved!

Until next time…keep on listening!

Contact us!

Disclaimer

Get the Moondrop Joker from SHENZHENAUDIO.

Our generic standard disclaimer.

About my measurements.

The post Moondrop Joker Review (1) – Remarkable Accuracy appeared first on Music For The Masses.

Cons — Questyle M15 drains the host’s battery when in high gain
– Somewhat narrow staging
– Unforgiving nature might not suit the bright or peaky IEMs
– Slight upper-midrange glare when driven from phones
– No volume or playback controls
– Prone to RF interference

INTRODUCTION

Had I been a YouTube reviewer, I would have littered a ton of “fire” emojis across this review title. The thumbnail would allude to something akin to “shut-up and buy it”, while a somewhat disturbing image of my agape face would round-up the level of bewilderment and bemusement that the M15 has evoked.

Sadly, in the written form, I am but slave to the words.

Questyle M15 is the flagship dongle in the brand’s lineup, and overall, perhaps the best dongle one can buy. Sadly, such sweeping generalizations do not favor anyone, and everything is reliant upon context.

So, this review is to contextualize the reasons why the Questyle M15 might be the best dongle ever, or why it may not be the right dongle for certain use-cases. Read on.

Note: the ratings given will be subjective to the price tier. Thanks to Questyle for sending the M15 for evaluation.

Price, while reviewed: $250. Can be bought from Questyle’s Official Website.

PHYSICAL THINGS AND USABILITY

PACKAGING AND ACCESSORIES

The packaging is minimal, while the accessories are basic. You get a type-C to type-C cable by default. For Apple users, the lightning cable is sold as a separate bundle for USD$20 premium. There is also a nice leather case that you can purchase separately.

BUILD QUALITY

Questyle opts for a CNC-milled aluminum chassis with a see-through acrylic window for the M15’s design. It’s a simple yet effective design decision to go for a see-through top, as it makes the M15 stand out without going overboard. Questyle is not new to this, as many of its desktop products offer an acrylic top for those so inclined.

In terms of inputs and outputs, things are decidedly simple. The type-C port allows USB connection while the 3.5mm and 4.4mm jacks offer unbalanced and balanced connections respectively. The balanced output sounds markedly better as an aside, but that is the case for nearly every dongle that offers a balanced output.

There is a button on the side for gain control, and that’s about it. No volume or playback buttons are there which might be an issue for some. There are two LEDs on the PCB that shines through the acrylic, one for gain level and another is the file type indicator.

Overall, a very simple yet elegant design that panders to my inner-geek thanks to that PCB that’s been laid bare.

HANDLING

At 61.8mm X 27.2mm X 12mm dimensions, the M15 is not the most innocuous of dongles in terms of size. However, I find it to be fairly practical on the desk and the low 25g of weight makes carrying it around easy enough. Even after prolonged usage, the M15 does not get hot which is another plus.

QUESTYLE M15 INTERNALS

Questyle has a knack for making pretty PCBs. Even the desktop DAC or amps have exceptionally clean PCB layout, and the M15 is no exception. Thanks to the acrylic window, all of it is in plain view. Apart from the ES9281AC DAC chip and the aforementioned status LEDs, you can also see the two SIP (system-in-package) current mode amp modules. Each module handles one channel.

There is also a TOREX power management unit that keeps the M15 inactive when no music is playing. In terms of specs, you get a really respectable 0.0003% THD and <-130dB SNR. Then you notice the output power specs and things just do not add up. A measly 22mW into 300ohms? Surely that cannot be right?

In terms of the actual “sound pressure” produced, that indeed seems to be misleading. The M15 can drive most dynamic driver headphones and nearly every single IEMs out there. Only issue is that for best performance, you need to use a laptop as the source. The higher current from the USB ports enable greater dynamic swings.

Speaking of dynamic swings, the SE out can have almost 2Vrms voltage swing from the single-ended out, and about 3.8Vrms from the balanced out. You can connect the M15 to a pair of powered monitors in a pinch and use it as a DAC/pre-amp combo. Just make sure to put the volume at max on the DAC side.

All in all, respectable measured performance, except for the amp specifications which do not really add up to real world experience.

TONALITY AND TECHNICALITIES

As always, it’s difficult to simply talk about the “tonality” of a source gear rather than specific pairing notes. That being said, the M15 has certain “characteristics” that shine through no matter which IEMs or headphones you connect on the other end.

The first thing you notice is the resolution, and how easily the M15 delineates between instruments. Rest assured, the amount of perceived details on the M15 eclipses any other dongle under USD$300. Minute details are pushed to the forefront, making it easier to analyze and dissect tracks. If it’s resolution and precision you want, M15 is practically peerless.

Such hyper-realistic rendition comes at the cost of two things: spatial qualities, and a tendency to be ruthless with poorly mastered tracks or bright/shouty gear. The M15 is unforgiving, though the lack of “etchiness” in the treble and upper-mids make it a potent option for borderline bright IEMs and headphones. The staging won’t be engulfing or stretched outwards, like it can be on some of M15’s peers.

Dynamics are good in terms of macrodynamic punch, though microdynamics are not as evident as they are on certain desktop sources (or even Questyle’s higher-tier DAPs).

Finally, the power output is ample for practically any IEMs out there. When connected to a laptop or desktop, the M15 is too powerful for most IEMs, in fact. I routinely found myself lowering the gain and/or lowering the volume on the desktop side. This is still not enough for power hungry monsters like Hifiman’s HE-6, for example, so for the pesky planars, you still need a more substantial setup.

PAIRING NOTES

I’ll try to keep this section short and sweet.

IEMs that paired well with the M15: most of them, but highlights include Sennheiser IE 900/200/300, SoftEars Turii, Final E3000/A5000/E4000, JVC FW1800/FW10000/FDX1, Campfire Holocene/Andromeda 2020/Solaris.

Headphones that paired well with the M15: not the absurdly power hungry planars, including the likes of HE-6 (and Susvara, by extension, though I fail to understand why anyone would try to run Susvaras off of a dongle), Sennheiser HD800S (too bright), and Beyers (same issues as the Senns). The HD650 had a good pairing though it lacked the liquid smoothness you get off of tubes or high output impedance sources.

Hifiman HE-400i and Arya sounded exceptional through the M15, and if you own the Arya Stealth (or even the newer Arya Organic), the M15 will be more than enough to do justice to their resolving prowess.

SELECT COMPARISONS

I have pitted the Questyle M15 against every single “hyped” or well-regarded dongle that has been released so far. None of them are as resolving, period.

Quloos MC01 gets close at the cost of sounding edgy in the treble and artificial throughout. Apogee Groove has better rendition (and sense) of space, but it sounds a bit veiled in the bass and treble comparatively. The Cayin RU6 are too smoothed out, while the Cayin RU7 opt for a more relaxed, engulfing, and timbrally-accurate presentation than going after raw details.

Lastly, the L&P dongles (W2 and W4) do better in terms of microdynamics but fall flat in every other aspect. The output power is lacking compared to the M15, and once again – not as resolving.

CONCLUDING REMARKS

I received the Questyle M15 back in November, 2022. At the time of writing this review (end of July, 2023) the M15 managed to ward off every single competition by the wayside.

It’s a remarkable achievement in the age of rapid-fire chi-fi releases, where even the parent brand makes its 6 months old “flagship” redundant by releasing something new and “improved”. The M15 is here to stay, and shall remain one of the best, if not the best DAC-Amp dongles out there for the foreseeable future.

The only caveat is the nature of the sound itself – it may become “information overload” for those accustomed to relaxed and laid-back tuning. With certain IEMs, the treble region can sound exaggerated and become bothersome in the long run.

These caveats apply to most, if not all products though, and the M15 achieves the one thing it set out to accomplish: the crown for the most “effortlessly resolving” DAC-Amp dongle out there. Questyle captured lightning in a bottle with the M15, and I hope the spark does not go out anytime soon.

MY VERDICT

4.5/5
THE dongle to beat.

Contact us!

DISCLAIMER

Get it from Questyle Shop.

Our generic standard disclaimer.

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

The post Questyle M15 Mobile DAC Review (3) – Dongle Par Excellence appeared first on Music For The Masses.

The $139 TempoTec IM05 is a 4+1 iem with fabulous imaging qualities that may have a tad too much bass for some.

The TempoTec IM05 was kindly supplied by the manufacturer for my review – and I thank them for that. You can purchase it from TempoTec Official Store .

Introduction

TempoTec’s claim to small fame came with their budget dongle DACs that were unbeatable at their price. For example, their $40 Sonata HD Pro came with all accessories to even work with iPhone.

Recently, the company has expanded gear wise and simultaneously moved out of the budget realm. They now feature the excellent V6 dap, the great Serenade X desktop streamer, and the March III M3 desktop DAC/amp. One device per category, all mid-fi, and all surprisingly good.

With the IM05 (IM stands for “Impromptu”, 05 for the number of drivers), TempoTec enters yet another category: earphones. And TL;DR, they do another good job. No rookie mistakes, the IM05 is a mature product. It was actually designed to harmonize with the V6 DAP.

Specifications TempoTec IM05

Physical Things and Usability

In the box are the earpieces with plenty of silicone tips, a fancy cable, a very roomy storage case, and the paperwork. The earpieces are large but light, they are comfortable, fit me well, and they isolate well, too. The cable is gorgoeous both haptically and functionally (“pliable”).

Tonality and Technicalities

The TempoTec IM05 is warmish sounding with a good depth and headroom and a decent timbre (considering it has 4 BAs), but with a “broad” lower mid bass that smears into the lower midrange. It sounds nothing like the graph implies, paradoxically.

Yep, the bass is the polarizing feature, with its strong cat buckle (in the graph) that culminates at the transition mid-bass/sub-bass. This makes for a thick and somewhat punchy midbass, but with a rather subtle impact and intensity that does not torture my eardrums. The Azul Performer 5 does the opposite.

TempoTec offer this kind of bass lift also in their V6 DAP and March III M3 DAC/amp. It appears to be part of their house sound. In fact, the $4000 Fir Audio iems offer a similar bass impact.

Bass lines are generally on the rich side. Extension into the sub-bass is average but, paradoxically, the lowest frequencies are leaner than the mid bass. There is always a subtle but never annoying rumble down there.

The bass smears into the midrange which has the positive effect that it re-inforces male and female voices alike, but it also cuts into the midrange transparency. Strangely enough, vocals are not recessed but rather intimate, despite the mickey mouse ears in the upper midrange’s graph segment.

There is also no shoutiness. I can only explain this by the balance between elevated bass and upper midrange in combination with the recessed treble.

Somebody tuned these iems by ear and not by graph, obviously. And it works. Vocals are very well rendered and nicely layered, they have a 3D effect and are almost holographic. They are neither thick or thin but are nicely intimate and rather articulate.

Treble is subtle overall, the extension is..well..not well extended. The high notes are somewhat swept under the carpet. Older listeners like me won’t probably care that much.

That combination of modest treble and extension and bass lift make for a deep but not too wide (but wide enough) stage. Midrange resolution is excellent as long as there is no strong bass superimposed. Separation and layering are also very good, not to forget the outstanding imaging. When listening to concerts with interaction of musicians and audience, I always feel I am in the building or stadium.

In comparison, the $150 single DD Sennheiser IE 150 are more fluid with a more emphasized midrange, but they have flatter staging and less resolution. The LETSHUOER S12 is less holographic with lesser imaging but somewhat smoother (after micropore tape mod).

The IKKO OH10 on our Wall of Fame plays vocals leaner, sharper, and more recessed, at similar imaging qualities. The Dunu Talos has a wider stage but lacks depth in comparison, and the notes are leaner. The first model in my collection to beat the I M05 is the $650 LETSHUOER EJ07 in that its sonic presentation is somewhat smoother with better rounded notes, but the IM05 is still better imaging.

The discontinued $699 Dunu Zen is better resolving but has an upper midrange glare. I prefer the IM05 over the lesser imaging and resolving Moondrop KATO. In summary, the IM05 are also head and shoulders above most $150-200 ChiFi fare I have tested, at least in terms of imaging.

Concluding Remarks

The TempoTec IM05 is an enjoyable 4+1 iem with an agreeable sonic signature. I have auditioned way more than 500 iems, but never had exactly this listening experience, so it is somewhat mainstream with new features, particularly the bass (though it may be considered being too boosted by some).

Since it is the company’s first iem, many analysts may “laud a good initial effort” while tacitly recommending the reader to wait for the “Pro” version. This is not necessary for the IM05, TempoTec got it right on the first try, as is the case with their V6 dap, Serenade X streamer, and March III M3 DAC/amp.

It was a pleasure testing the IEM05, an outright inspiration following my bundle of 10 Chifi iems that landed on my desk just before Christmas. TempoTec keep surprising.

Until next time…keep on listening!

The post TempoTec IM05 Review – Uniquely Mainstream appeared first on Music For The Masses.

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.

Cons — Needs above-average volume to sound best
– Treble has metallic timbre with hints of splashiness
– Upper-treble rolls off too early
– Over-dampened treble response
– Some bloat in upper-bass, bass decay could be faster

INTRODUCTION TO TOPAZ

BQEYZ is one of the few manufacturers around (along with InTime) who has kept the piezo technology alive in IEMs, especially the budget ones. The likes of Unique Melody, FIR Audio, and Empire Ears also have similar tech inside their IEMs as part of bone-conduction drivers, but BQEYZ uses it for the treble.

Piezo treble definitely sounds unique and it’s more of a personal preference thing. I find it to be super-responsive and having a better sense of “rawness” than typical BA or dynamic driver treble, but then again, piezo drivers are prone to resonances that can be perceived as “splashiness” at times.

BQEYZ Topaz is a cut-down version of the Spring2 in a sense, and the reduced price tag should definitely appeal to those who have been willing to try Piezo on a budget. Do the Topaz scratch that particular itch, or is the novel driver setup inadequate to stand out in today’s hyper-competitive budget segment?

Please read on…

Note: the ratings given will be subjective to the price tier. BQEYZ was kind enough to send me the Topaz for evaluation.

Sources used: Lotoo PAW 6000, Questyle M15.
Price, while reviewed: $76. Can be bought from Linsoul.

PHYSICAL THINGS AND USABILITY

PACKAGING AND ACCESSORIES

You get 6 pairs of eartips (two different types), a round carrying case, the stock cable (can be terminated into balanced during purchase), and a small cleaning tool. I really like the option of customizing termination during purchase and I hope more brands follow this.

As for the accessories themselves, the stock 4-core OCC SPC cable is very good: flexible, supple, and complements the design of the IEMs well. The stock tips, however, might need changing. I opted for Spinfit CP-100+. Your mileage may vary. The rest of it is absolutely fine for the price tag.

BUILD QUALITY

The Topaz have a two-part design: the inner side is 3D-printed translucent resin, while the face-plate is CNC anodized aluminum. There are several vents throughout the shell: one on the inner side, right in front of the driver, a pair of small vents just on top of it, and one on the face-plate that acts as a back-vent. The 2-pin connectors are recessed, which is another plus.

General build is solid, even though it is a step down from the phenomenal build of the BQEYZ Autumn, for example.

COMFORT, ISOLATION, AND FIT

Comfort is top-notch as I felt no driver flex, and the general shape is fairly ergonomic. Isolation is below average due to the multiple vents.

SOURCE AND EARTIPS

BQEYZ Topaz can scale slightly with higher tier sources, but not so much that investing in one becomes a necessity. The stock eartips did not offer the best bass response for me so I went ahead with the Spinfit CP-100+.

DRIVER SETUP

The Topaz sport a dual driver setup with a 13mm LCP dynamic driver that handles the bass and mids, and a 9-layer piezoelectric ceramic driver on top of it that gets “excited” for the treble notes.

TONALITY AND TECHNICALITIES

BQEYZ Topaz have a warm, bass-focused tuning with rolled-off treble. That’s the summary, so let’s delve deeper.

The bass is definitely the star of the show here. It’s got physicality, texture, and the density of snare hits are especially satisfying. There is some bass bleed into upper-bass, however. This results in “thickened” male vocals, denser snare hits and pedals, and somewhat more fleshed out female vocals (whereas they should be thinner in tone).

The mids have no shout or shrillness, though I wish guitar riffs had more definition. Acoustic guitars and keyboards sound somewhat smoothed over, and this sensation of “over-dampening” carries over into the treble.

Now, the piezo treble is one of the key differentiators between the Topaz and the rest of the competition. BQEYZ probably wanted to not offend those who are adverse of Piezo-treble and decided to play it safe. I’d say, a bit too safe at times. The upper-treble extension is non-existent, which kills the extension that piezo drivers are known for. Despite this cautious approach, some splashiness in treble is evident, even though things sound dampened overall.

Soundstage is surprisingly wide and tall, though depth is middling. Imaging is mostly left and right, with ordinal orientations being less evident. However, there is no “gaps” during stereo pans, which is a positive. General resolution is hindered somewhat by the treble roll-off and bass-forwardness, while the dynamic driver can lag behind the piezo at times.

Overall though, these scenarios are rare and in most cases the Topaz sound warm, with a rich, dense bass. Just that the treble could be more… special. A missed opportunity indeed.

SELECT COMPARISONS

vs Dunu Kima

Dunu Kima are similarly warm-tilted in tone, though they have a more pronounced upper-mid presence. As a result, the Kima sounds slightly cleaner with better clarity. The treble is also not as rolled-off on the Kima, so you get better end-to-end extension. However, I prefer the bass on the Topaz more since the sense of physicality is more evident there. Imaging is better on the Kima, while staging is wider on Topaz.

As for the rest, both are built well, but the Kima are full-metal throughout. Accessories are also better on the Kima though the BQEYZ cable is superior IMO. Between these two, I think the Topaz will suit more to those who prefer a warmer, richer presentation, while the Kima is better suited for the “laid-back without losing all the clarity” crowd.

CONCLUDING REMARKS

BQEYZ Topaz are targeted towards a niche: those who want warm, dense sound while looking for something special in the treble, courtesy of that piezo driver. It’s just a small letdown that the driver is so hindered to make the sound inoffensive that it loses most of what makes it special.

I hope BQEYZ can add in some more upper-treble in the subsequent successor to the Topaz, while utilizing a slightly faster bass driver (or reducing the bass by a bit between 300 – 500 Hz. That should take care of all my qualms and turn the Topaz into something special.

For now, the Topaz are good, just that some small improvements can make them even better.

Contact us!

DISCLAIMER

Get it from Amazon

Our generic standard disclaimer.

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

The post BQEYZ Topaz Review – Piezo Promises appeared first on Music For The Masses.

The latest Mac generation features a relatively good audio circuit that makes many budget dongles and headphone amps obsolete.

Introduction

Apple computers, unlike the company’s mobile devices, have traditionally delivered poor audio quality through their 3.5 mm headphone socket. And most Windows machines are not any better.

Plugging an earphone or headphone into my 2012 MacBook Air and listening to iTunes/Apple Music creates a dull and blunt listening experience. This low quality is a contradiction to the capabilities of digital audio, which goes back at least 20 years. Even the 2013 iPhone 5S had stunning audio quality. Similarly, Apple’s “Lightning to 3.5 mm Audio Adapter” delivers excellent sound quality.

In order to make computers sound better, digital audio pioneer Gordon Rankin of Wavelength Audio (and contractor to AudioQuest), invented the dongle DAC back in 2012, the DragonFly Black. A tiny device without its own battery, it drew power from the host. The DragonFly was restricted to use with a computer as it drew more than 100 mA, too much for iPhone to handle.

As of 2016, the next version of the “Black” was within the iPhone’s current draw tolerance. Many companies jumped on the bandwagon flooding the market with such devices. But not all dongles are equal and ALL of them are a compromise. Such that draw little current (and therefore drain your phone company slowly) have limited power, and the powerful ones empty your phone’s battery fast.

When it comes to dongle-DAC use with computers, current drain is largely irrelevant considering that desktop machines don’t have a battery at all, and notebooks have high battery capacities compared to a phone. Power is therefore no problem with computer application, sound quality has foremost priority.

Dongle DACs typically have 1 to 2 V, depending on impedance. Some, such as the Helm Bolt, automatically switch voltage depending on detected headphone impedance.

Apple introduced a new integrated audio circuit in their latest models:

• MacBook Air introduced in 2022
• MacBook Pro introduced in 2021 or later
• Mac mini introduced in 2023
• Mac Studio introduced in 2022

These models contain an audio circuit that is power wise very similar to dongles such as the Helm Bolt, ifi Audio GO Link, DragonFly Red and Cobalt. Below 150 ohm headphone impedance, the circuit provides a voltage of 1.25 V RMS, above 150 ohm and up to 1000 ohm, the headphone jack delivers 3 V RMS. You find Apple’s respective support article here.

Apple’s integrated DAC supports sample rates up to 96 kHz (just like the AudioQuest DragonFly Cobalt).

I calculated the resulting power and current drain as displayed in the following table:

What we have learnt so far is that Apple’s new audio circuit is as powerful as a standard dongle DAC of the kind that also works with a phone. Yes, there are more powerful dongles on the market such as the Apogee Groove, Questyle M15, or ifi Audio Go bar, which will work better with insensitive headphones.

The 2022 MacBook Air with the M2 processor has its headphone jack on the right-hand side.

Amplification and Sound Quality

Playing in-ears with 32 ohm impedance is a piece of cake, even the 70 ohm Sennheiser HD 25 headphones (on the title photo) get lots of volume. Just like many “standard dongle DACs”, the 300 ohm Sennheiser HD 600 brings the Mac audio to its limits. Yes, it principally works, but it lacks pizazz.

The current-hungry Final E5000 iems are a special case in that they do not run well with most current-conserving dongle DACs and daps, for example the ifi Go link, Helm Bolt or TempoTec V6. They play loud enough but lack bass control, an indication that hey don’t receive enough current.

My testing confirms the tech data comparison with comparable dongles.

And here comes the surprise: the sound quality of Apple’s new audio quality is…astonishingly good for what it is: crisp, transparent, clear. Very surprising. It sounds very similar (in terms of quality) to the ifi Go link or Helm Bolt.

Concluding Remarks

Apple’s new adaptive audio circuit finally sounds quite decent. Poor audio circuits in computers were the reason for the invention of the dongle DAC. The idea was to keep it small, down to the size of a thumb drive.

Some basic $50-100 dongle DACs have now become obsolete for modern Macs, which makes these devices even more compact. Where Apple are exaggerating is with the compatibility with high-impedance headphones. It principally works, but you are better off with a dedicated, powerful, headphone DAC/amp such as the ifi GO bar or the Questyle M15 on the go.

Testing this is easy: if you have a new Mac, try it out. If you don’t have one, don’t bother as you won’t buy one for this purpose anyway.

Until next time…keep on listening!

Contact us!

Disclaimer

Our generic standard disclaimer.

The post Using Headphones With Your New Mac [Without An External DAC/Amp] – A Review appeared first on Music For The Masses.

Be as it may, I did assess a Penon driver (the Sphere) some time ago and I found it so wonderful it got stuck to our Wall of Excellence as the best single BA money can buy below $250, and that probably still is the case.

So it’s with quite some curiosity that I borrowed this pair of privately owned Fan 2 for a few days. They can be purchased on Penon’s site, here, for $279 plus freight and EU duties if applicable of course.

At-a-glance Card

Full Device Card

Test setup and preliminary notes

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

Signature analysis

Tonality

Fan 2 have a mid-bodied note weight, showing some modest timbre incoherence between bass and treble segments (latter beind of course tighter and dryer). The tonality is however very natural across the board, with a modest, inoffensive tint of warmth, in a somewhat U-shaped, pleasant presentation

Sub-Bass

Rumble is very nicely calibrated, not too impositive nor too shy.

Mid Bass

Fan 2 deliver a very good mid bass line as notes are bodied, quite textured and almost punchy. It’s a good compromise between overly punchy / arid on one extreme and bleeding / boomy on the opposite. Timbre is a whiff wooly here, which is at the base of the abovementioned modest horizontal incoherence.

Mids

Mids are not forward but their timbre is natural and not lean, notes are decently bodied. Highmids are well present, quite energetic and well rounded, never offensive and almost glare free.

Male Vocals

Male singers come across well textured and organic on Fan 2, although not particularly outstanding vs the rest and a bit too lean to sound really organic. They may occasionally be influenced by (without outright succumbing to, though) the midbass warmth.

Female Vocals

Fan 2 offer a good rendering of female vocals, not particularly outstanding but not offensive let alone sibilant, while – like males – still a bit too lean to sound truly organic. Not a bad job for a non-vocal-specific driver though.

Highs

Treble is another part where Fan 2 strike a very good balance. They are vivid, open, almost airy, almost sparkly, without ever getting into excess leanness let alone scanting into metallic or artificial sheen. Sole negative notes are the already mentioned (modest) timbre incoherence vs the midbass and some very occasional splashyness.

Technicalities

Soundstage

Stage projection will depend quite a bit on fit optimization (see below). In best situation it’s not very wide, decently high and remarkably deep.

Imaging

Macrodynamics are no doubt amongst Fan 2 fortes: instruments are very pleasantly and distinctly positioned on the stage, and there’s air, clean space between them.

Details

Fan 2’s detail retrieval is simply “good”, thanks to the good work of the BA up there, free from excesses, and the good control imposed on the 2 dynamic drivers in the bass.

Instrument separation

Separation between main voices is very good thanks to very good imaging. Layering is also good, however it sometimes falls short, especially from the mids down, which is connected to the previously mentioned sligtly “wooly” timbre I found.

Driveability

Fan 2’s dynamic drivers are very sensitive to source impedance: a very low impedance host is recommended to avoid getting an evident bump in the mid bass. Apart for that, their quite high sensitivity help making it easy to get them amped mode than decently also by budget sources typically incapable of goo current flows below 16 ohm.

Physicals

Build

Housings are made of medical-grade resin and they seem quite solid but their most apparent feature is aesthetical beauty which is indeed a welcome if sadly uncommon case. The shape is clearly intended to offer as much hergonomicity to as many users as possible. Nozzles are uncommonly long, which is a love/hate thing I guess.

Fit

Fan 2 enter the class of very fit-sensitive drivers: move in-out, or even change their insertion angle and you’ll get quite obvious tonality and technicalities differences. In my case (see below) their particular shape & size is a further hurdle to find the ideal positioning + comfort + sound quality compromise.

After some long rolling I found TRN T EAR tips contribute to shorten midbass transients that little bit that makes them more neatly punchy without losing texture on one end, while – thanks to their short stems – helping on compensating long nozzles.

Comfort

I’m not particularly fond of Fan 2’s particular shape & size: in spite of the long nozzle the housings stay somewhat too “outside” my concha transferring me an unpleasant sensation of instability.

Isolation

Passive isolation is going to be quite good for all those who are lucky enough to have Fan 2 housings “seal” into their conchas.

Cable

I couldn’t assess Penon stock cable. Dunu DUW-02S pairs wonderfully though.

Specifications (declared)

Considerations & conclusions

Fan 2 are good, and I mean seriously good. They really have all it takes, and they do put it to good use to deliver a very pleasant musical experience. They are energetic however not violent, detailed however not aseptic, and feature a spot-on note body compromise, all of which make a superb allrounder of them. They also draw a sizeable scene, and cast wonderful imaging.

The fact that in spite of all that precedes I did not fall in love should honestly be considered totally incidental. My preference case is quite sided (see description above) and Fan 2’s somewhat too “soft” (slightly “wooly” I called it) note timbre is probably a much more a turn off for me than for many others.

I also do value layering quite highly, and that’s an aspect where Fan 2 don’t excel (without however being “bad”, mind you…). So for me Fan 2 is just “nearly there”, but as I said YMMV (for the better).

At their $279 price Fan 2 is no doubt to be taken in high consideration. It’s definitely relieving to find a piece of “chifi” manufacturing which is seriously worth its price. Good job Penon.

Our generic standard disclaimer.

The post Penon Fan 2 Review – Nearly There appeared first on Music For The Masses.

These MS5 have been heavily anticipated and are supported by a very energetic marketing campaign (nice job there, it must be said). Priced at $499 List, they are currently on promo at $399 + freight, and you can buy them here.

(As always our links are not sponsored: we don’t get any commission on sales – we “literally” don’t “care” if anyone buys anything as a consequence to any of our articles).

At-a-glance Card

Full Device Card

Test setup and preliminary notes

Sources: Questyle QP1R & QP2R / Sony NW-A55 mrWalkman / Questyle M15 / Questyle CMA-400i – JVC Spiraldot tips – Stock cable – lossless 16-24/44.1-192 FLAC and DSD64/128 tracks.

Signature analysis

Tonality

MS5 come with a modular screw-in nozzle system intended to offer easy access to tuning alternatives.

Default nozzles are colored “Gold” and are supposed to offer the most balanced presentation – whatever that means in the manufacturer’s mind.

Red nozzles are supposed to offer a bassier alternative, and they do, but just indirectly: they mainly tame trebles between 3KHz and 5KHz, and quite substantially so, while leaving the bass line pretty much unaltered in elevation, just a bit tamed in terms of transients.

Lastly, Silver nozzles are supposed to offer a brighter, more treble-accented presentation, which they indeed do – even too much so.

Which one to choose?

Let’s start from noting that on Gold nozzles MS5 offer a “reasonably” coherent presentation. The Dynamic Driver in charge of the bass is well harmonized with the BA also in charge of the same segment, and that’s very good. Not the very same however happens when we consider the 2 BAs in charge of the trebles. The end result is decent in terms of timbre homogeneity but not much more than that: MS5’s timbre is on average lean-ish, a bit better bodied towards the bass, and oppositely quite anemic towards the treble. The general tonality is bright although not excessively so (treble exaggerations are a separate discussion, see below).

So much for Gold nozzles. As trebles are MS5’s most prominent Achille’s heel (again, see below), Silver nozzles furtherly enhancing treble are a quite obvious no-no. I guess that will stand for die-hard treble heads too, however personal tastes are sacred of course, so…

Red nozzles sound (pun intended) like a viable alternative to Gold ones: they change the general timbre making it “woolier”, and make tonality much less bright, mure like “bright-neutral” indeed, but the presentation gets definitely duller.

Long story short, MS5’s nozzles remind me a “pick your poison” scenario: Gold nozzles for a bright tonality on overly thin timbre. Red nozzles for a less thin, less bright but also less engaging experience. Silver nozzles… just bin them. In the end I “preferred” the Gold poison option, which is then what all the following notes refer to unless, where explicitly otherwise indicated.

Sub-Bass

Rumble is very present and not excessive, thanks to the good deeds of the Dynamic Driver

Mid Bass

The midbass is arguably the best part of the product. Here a very good job has been made in making the BA and the DD drivers work together coherently, resulting in mid bass notes which are at the same time snappy, punchy, textured and bodied. No overshadowing of the mids ever takes place, and a correct balance is also kept vis-a-vis the sub bass rumble.

On Red nozzles the entire timbre gets a perceivable bit less sharp, more “wooly” so to say, which files off some of the bass thumpness. Not wonderful but not a tragedy either.

Mids

Mid frequencies are uninspiring, mainly due to a definitely lean timbre making them lack body and credibility. They are clean, and that’s a plus of course, but highmids tend to be often too prominent, and sibilant in many occasions.

On Red nozzles the tonality situation gets sensibly better, whereby mids come across a bit (not much) more bodied and natural, and highmids cease being sibilant and excessive in most occasions, however clarity gets a severe hit.

Male Vocals

Male voices partially benefit from the good deeds of the low-range BA (and possibly of the DD too?) so in terms of tone they come across as reasonably organic more often then not. Microdynamics are however basic if even present, and texturing is meh.

Red nozzles make them a bit better, if a tad softer.

Female Vocals

MS5 is not the driver you want for female voices, that’s clear as the sun in the sky. Too lean, even ethereal, very often sibilant, and totally inorganic. Red nozzles make them less tragic, almost viable.

Highs

Trebles are a mixed bag of very diverse stuff. On one end there’s some good energy, a lot of detail, and a lot of speed. On the flip side there’s way too thin body, and a sharp and frequent tendence to get unresolving and even messy, screwing layering and in the worst cases imaging too.

On Red nozzles the situation gets miles better, thanks to a quite dramatic taming of the frequencies between 3 and 5 KHz. Imaging comes out much more organic and credible, and that’s another plus. The downside however is that the positive energy is almost entirely gone, and Red-tamed trebles make the entire MS5 presentation much more “ordinary”, almost “dull” – a true pity.

Technicalities

Soundstage

Soundstage projection is not more than average for this price class, mainly focusing on horizontal and vertical axes, and hardly any depth.

Imaging

Macrodynamics (imaging) are not bad in general on MS5, and they would be even very good if it weren’t for the mids and most of all the trebles too often paddling in the wrong direction. Red nozzles make the situation better on this chapter.

Details

Detail retrieval is, together with bass, where MS5 show their best. Both bass and highmids+trebles do deliver tons of good details

Instrument separation

MS5’s proweness on detail retrival on one end turns into outstanding resolving power. The down side – very common on not particularly sophysticated BA-sets, and MS5 is not an exception – is a quite dramatic lack of microdynamics, mainly on the high registers. So MS5 offer very good instrument separation but at the high cost of too cut-out notes which is particulary detrimental on acoustic music of course.

Driveability

Thanks to their 104dB sensitivity MS5 are not difficult to drive, but beware their superlow impedance in case your source has an output impedance of 1 ohm or more – that might result in some unwanted midbass pushup

Physicals

Build

Housings are realised as a one-piece aluminum container, which appears at time solid and very elegant. Very stylish is the faceplate (its appreciation of course depends, even more then the rest, on personal tastes).

Fit

MS5 housings are quite bulky and they don’t sit properly into my concha: in spite of their quite long nozzles their shape and size are such that they keep protruding quite a bit towards the outside, which makes their firmness somewhat wonky.

MS5 also are quite tip sensitive, and (not uncommonly) none of the 3 different types of bundled tips are ideal for my tastes. After the usual long rolling session I decided that best match are JVC SpiralDots as they tend to tame the treble excesses while also offering a bit more tightness to the bass.

Comfort

Their shape and size make MS5 fit only “partial” as described above, which generates some light discomfort over medium wearing time for me

Isolation

Passive isolation is light, in my case mainly due to the housings not “filling” my concha appropriately

Cable

The stock cable is – like the housings – no doubt very nice to look at. Not the same I can say however in terms of practical use. Its creative 2-pin plugs can be annoying (they are in my case). The cable structure is very thick and wont be liked by those preferring smoothly flexible chords. Last but not least, I see no excuse at this date for offering a 499$ MSRP set (even if 25% discounted upon launch) bundled with a non-modular termination cable.

Specifications (declared)

Comparisons

Penon FAN2 ($280)

FAN2 offer an almost neutral presentation with a punchy bass emerging off of it without however warming it all up too much. The timbre is quite bodied although south of lushy – however miles more solid than MS5’s. Most of all, FAN2’s timbre is coerent across the entire spectrum, while MS5 is far from that target.

FAN2 bass is very good, punchy and somewhat rumbly, yet MS5 is better on both counts. Mids and moreover trebles are totally obviously better on FAN2 in terms of timbre, tonality, texture and organicity.

Detail retrieval is superior on MS5, microdynamics and layering are obviously much better on FAN2, which also leads in terms of imaging sharpness and realism. Neither is a monster at stage projection however FAN2 has much better distribution especially in the sense of depth.

Fearless S8F ($489)

S8F are a mid-tier full-BA set. Their main, probably single serious downside (a total turnoff for many, however – me included) is the unforgiving BA timbre and consequent scarcity on microdynamics, which is mostly common to MS5 however.

S8F tonality is well balanced, marginally even better than S8F. In spite of its above-mentioned “imperatively BA” nature, S8F timbre is anyhow less lean and most of all much more coherent compared to MS5’s. MS5 offer a better structured bass line. Vocals are better on S8F, females in particular. Detail retrieval is about on par on highmids and trebles with S8F sounding a bit better thanks the somewhat better control in the presence and brilliance sections. Soundstage is no biggie in both cases, S8F being less wide but a bit deeper.

Tanchjim Darling ($419)

Darling are based on 1 DD + 2 Sonion BA, in lieu of the 4 Sonions adopted inside MS5. Very simply put, Darling deliver correctly on pretty much everything MS5 fail on.

Darling’s tonality is bright-neutral, with a much more coherent and bodied, acoustic timbre compared to MS5. Darling bass and sub bass are extremely good, fast, punchy yet rumbly and textured – nothing worse than MS5. On Darling highmids and brilliance trebles are wonderfully cablibrated and deliver clarity, detail, sparkles and air while always avoiding fatigue – the polar opposite of what happens on MS5. Female vocals are very good and therefore much better on Darling, male vocals are just marginally better though.

Separation is probably on par on the two sets, but Darling win big on microdynamics and soundstage, and less big, but still have an edge, on imaging.

Final A5000 ($279)

A5000 represent a possibly even more significant comparison then even Darling are, as they deliver on many counts even better results than MS5 within a very similar bright-neutral base target tuning, all of that by employing just 1 (one) driver, and at a sensibly lower price.

A5000 first of all offer an almost impeccable timbre coherency accross all the spectrum. Their bass is similarly punchy, with even better texture but a bit less rumble compared to MS5. Low mids are somewhat recessed on A5000 and a bit lean too, however their timbre and note body is way more organic and natural-sounding that MS5’s.

Highmids and treble are superbly calibrated on A5000. Certainly detail retrieval is less articulated on A5000, but in exchange microdynamics are all there where they are supposed to be – within a fast driver category, surely – instead of MIA as on the MS5.

From the tonality standpoint a valid criticism on A5000 is that highmids are too enhanced compared to mids. What’s interesting here is that moderately pushing central mids (1 – 2KHz) up with a wide eq filter closes the gap on that transition, delivering a more balanced result free from excesses (shouts, splashes or zings). Not the same happens on MS5 when you try (via the Red nozzles or via EQ) to similarly rebalance: the result is a more fluid tonal transition, yes, but still accompanied by lack of refinement both on the highmids & trebles, and on the lowmids & midbass (read more above).

Instrument separation sounds more detailed on MS5, but much more enjoyable on A5000 thanks to the less arid timbre, and better microdynamics.

Considerations & conclusions

As I tried to outline, I found MS5 a more than acceptable product, presented in a quite elegant and rich way too. Bass, detail retrieval and instrument separation are surely commendable, so is the adoption of replaceable nozzles to offer pre-defined “tuning variations” to the more curious users.

The timbre, however, is off, both in nature and coherence. Note body is too lean, trebles can obviously use more work upon, so do soundstage projection and microdynamics.

In conclusion MS5 are not disdainable at all, however they don’t seem yet to have what it takes to stand out of their existing competition, sometimes even costing significantly less.

Based on the very plesant communication I’m having with them I can testify Hidizs sounds strongly committed on their IEM program, for which they of course aim at the same market recognition they deservedly conquered on the budget DAP segment. I’m very sure they will come up with better and better proposals on the IEM market too in the near future. Let’s stay tuned

Our generic standard disclaimer.

The post Hidizs MS5 Review (2) – It’s A Long Way To The Top appeared first on Music For The Masses.