At-a-glance Card

Full Device Card

Test setup

Sources: Apogee Groove / Questyle QP1R / Sony NW-A55 mrWalkman – Final-E white tips – Stock cable – lossless 16-24/44.1-192 FLAC tracks.

Signature analysis

Technicalities

Physicals

Specifications (declared)

A new driver technology

TIN HIFI claims to have developed a new iteration in carbon-based dynamic driver technology, named “DOC”.

In the recent few years, DLC (Diamond-Like Carbon) dynamic drivers have been popular for their fast responsiveness, achieved by their carbon material. From this foundation, Tin Hifi has engineered the next innovation in dynamic driver technology. The new 10mm DOC driver features an enhanced molecular carbon atom structure and composition that more closely mirrors that of diamond. The new structural design allows the DOC diaphragm to be thinner, while being 60% stronger and more rigid than that of traditional DLC diaphragms. Furthermore, due the closer proximity of the carbon atoms to each other, the DOC driver is 5 times harder than that of typical ceramic diaphragms. 

Moreover, the physical properties of the DOC diamond diaphragm will not change even after many years of use. This feature has a great effect on the heat dissipation of the voice coil. Additional benefits of the DOC includes: 

1. The DOC diamond diaphragm unit can achieve a complete linear frequency response, achieving detailed and excellent broadband and instant response, and strong dynamic contrast.

2. The DOC diamond diaphragm unit can push the split vibration frequency to a higher level, and the T5 can cover an unimaginable bandwidth range to ensure that the ideal frequency response is obtained in the two end frequency bands audible to the human ear.

 3. The frequency linearity that the DOC diaphragm provides allows the mid-frequency to be completely coherent with the bass and the treble, creating a transparency in the texture and sound balance, while minimizing phase offsets. 

In short, the T5 achieves an immensely punchy bass response that is combined with extremely well-extended and detailed ultra-high frequencies. The textural properties of its sound is characterized by a cohesive smoothness, linearity, and transparency across the frequency spectrum. The DOC driver is an innovation that is just as audible as it is industry-leading.

https://www.tinhifi.com/products/tinhifi-t5?fbclid=IwAR0AofV1gqTut_O8bJB8HqhgL5gS0hyk4tEIc6ikg95zHwdXZIT_JIZXeT8

We all obviously are keen on new technologies improving audio rendering and TIN’s research is an interesting step in this direction.

Based in my audition, and reading through the marketing jargon, I could verify points 1. (good dynamic contrast) and 2. (good bilateral extension), while point 3. (choerence and texture transparency) is actually where T5 falls short. I’m keen on thinking this will be taken care of in a further TIN model, again based on such new “DOC” driver.

Conclusions

TIN T5 is in my opinion a faux pas in the otherwise mostly positive T-series. Both models I assessed prior to this one (T4 and T2+) offer better overall sound quality and value, with soundstage amplitude being T5’s sole edge vs its older siblings.

A generous-sized and drawn stage, and a great physical housing design granting superb fitting and comfort are anyhow not enough to compensate for lack of refinement in most segments of the spectrum, and a price tag which puts TIN T5 in direct competition with solidly established battleships (final E4000, anyone?).

Disclaimer

This TIN T5 sample has been kindly made available by TIN HIFI. You can purchase it here.

Our generic standard disclaimer.

Contact us!

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

The post TIN T5 Review – Faux Pas appeared first on Music For The Masses.

Pros — Well built, comfortable shell
– Accessories are good enough to not look for replacements
– Gets loud quite easily (I’ve run out of good things to say at this point)

Cons — Generally awful sound
– Flabby bass with zero definition, texture, and extension
– Completely wrong timbre
– Nasal/honky midrange
– Lower-treble peak can get fatiguing depending on genre
– Low-resolution sound with atrociously poor treble

INTRODUCTION

I will cut to the chase with this one.

KZ ASF is an IEM I cannot recommend under any circumstances. KZ usually gets things somewhat right but this is a turd that you can’t polish, and anyone who tells me otherwise will only get a stern stare filled with disappointment and disbelief.

KZ ASF is one of the new/refreshed models from KZ and apparently it replaces the AS10… or something like that among the dizzying array of IEMs they’ve released over the past three years. It almost feels like eternity, but I digress. The ASF is supposed to have a soothing sound without the trademark peaky KZ treble. In a sense, it has succeeded in that, but the solution was more like lopping the head off than cure the headache.

Extremities, man.

Note: the ratings given will be subjective to the price tier. WooEasy Store was kind enough to send the KZ ASF as a review unit. Disclaimer.

Sources used: Sony A55

Price (while reviewed): $60

PHYSICAL THINGS AND USABILITY

IN THE BOX…

The tips are decent (it’s a new variant, not the Starlines), the cable is decent, and as always KZ doesn’t find you worthy enough to throw in a carrying case or, *shudders*, pouch! But hey, we’re not getting this for silly ornaments, so we can look past that I guess.
3/5

APPEARANCE, HAPTIC, AND BUILD QUALITY

Yet-Another-Resin-Shell (YARS) makes an appearance again. The backplate of the KZ ASF is of aluminum (it seems) with some nice adornments on top. The nozzle is metal but be aware that it’s thinner (past the lip) than previous KZ offerings so some third-party tips may not fit snugly (Spinfit CP-100 for one).

The 2-pin ports are raised which sucks. Other than that, the KZ ASF shell quality and finish is adequate for the price-range. One thing that sticks out is the lack of any channel marking, even though KZ found the space for printing random text on the housing instead of something that’s more practical but hey… logic is at premium sometimes.
4/5

ERGONOMICS, COMFORT, ISOLATION, AND FIT

Despite the bulbous shape and larger-than-average housing the KZ ASF is fairly comfortable to wear. There is no driver flex as it’s an all-BA design and isolation is above-average. However, I can imagine someone with small ear-canals to have some potential fit issues but this likely won’t be widespread.
4/5

TECH INSIDE

The KZ ASF is a 5-balanced armature design with the newly released “S” models of the previous Bellsing/Knowles-clone BA drivers they were using. These drivers are apparently a new design and has improved things by a margin as per the claims. The bass driver (22955s) is apparently a vented design, though I didn’t see any bass-vent in the shell itself so I am doubtful about the proper implementation of the driver here. There is one mid-range driver (29689s), two upper-mid/lower-treble driver (31736s), and lastly one upper-treble driver (30095s). The drivers are arranged within a 3D-printed driver housing though there is no physical cross-over via tubing. KZ claims they put a lot of R&D effort behind this but the end results are hardly inspiring as we shall see.

The general sound signature of the KZ ASF is dark, with extremely rolled-off treble. The mids are overly scooped and upper-mids are too de-emphasized so there’s a severe lack of pinna gain. A dark v-shaped tuning is very hard to pull-off and KZ ASF fails spectacularly to pull off the trick.

The following impressions were made with the stock tips and cable.

Lows: Muddy, bloated, messy, flabby – pick your word. The low-end lacks sub-bass rumble and the extension is only a hum that has no definition or texture to it. The mid-bass boost also masks the subtle bass note shifts and there’s an utter lack of bass kick/slam. The bass is beyond disappointing, really, and I suspect that failure to vent a vented BA has resulted in this mess.

It’s just horrible. One listen and you’d know things are gonna go downhill.
1.5/5

Mids: The KZ ASF has a very strange midrange tuning. The lower-mids are scooped below 1KHz, but then there is a very sharp rise which peaks at 2KHz. This peak, however, isn’t enough here as there is a distinct lack of clarity. Female vocals are muffled, male vocals are nasal and honky. Nothing sounds right, midrange instruments are congested, their outlines blurred.

Resolved details in the mid frequencies are worse than some $10 IEMs nowadays. It’s incredible really how wrong things have gone here. If you thought the bass was poor, this whack mid-range tuning makes that look competent in comparison.
1/5

Treble: There is no treble extension at all. None. Nada. Zilch. Zip.

Cymbal strikes and hi-hats are barely registered. They are not just after-thoughts, they’re almost like aberrations that wasn’t even meant to be there but somehow spilled through the cracks. Even the most hardcore of metal tracks sound mushy, gushy, soggy as the sock after you accidentally step into a puddle.

There is a strange lower-treble peak around 5KHz that adds some presence but on some tracks this strange peak can induce fatigue and of course it’s just a straight downslope from there on. The treble doesn’t do much wrong because it doesn’t even exist, a bit like the second eye of cyclops.
0.5/5

Soundstage: Soundstage feels wide due to the de-emphasized upper-mids but there’s zero stage depth and height.
2/5

Imaging: Things are mostly placed left and right but there’s no sense of finer imaging. At this point, I have lost my hope anyway.
2/5

Bang-for-Buck: The KZ ASF will find itself short of the competition at $15.

It costs $60. Unless you want to use it as a modern art-piece (it’s not), a paper-weight (heavier things available for no cost), or something you gift to your enemies to piss them off – I can’t see the value in here.
0/5

Source and Amping: It gets very loud out of even regular phones and cheap dongles. Is that a good thing? Well, let’s assume for once it is.

SELECT COMPARISONS

vs BLON BL-03 ($25): The BLON BL-03 is much better than the KZ ASF in every single aspect apart from accessories and comfort.

vs BLON BL-05S ($35): The BLON BL-05S is much better than the KZ ASF in every single aspect apart from accessories and comfort.

vs Final E3000 ($50): The Final E3000 is much better than the KZ ASF in every single aspect.

vs Final E1000 ($30): The Final E1000 is much better than the KZ ASF in every single aspect.

CONCLUDING REMARKS

The KZ ASF brings back nostalgia. It’s almost as if I’m listening to a no-name multi-BA IEM from 2014 bought off of Taobao, but only it costs $60 this time around instead of $6 and I’m left regretting my life choices.

Dear KZ, you have the resources, you have the capital, please oh please make use of them on something that is actually great. Not another derivative, or as is the case with the KZ ASF – not another disasterpiece.

Your fans deserve better, and you sure as heck should do a lot better.

MY VERDICT

Overall Rating: 1/5

Our rating scheme explained

Contact us!

DISCLAIMER

WooEasy Store was kind enough to send the KZ ASF as a review unit.

Can be purchased from WooEasy Store.

Our generic standard disclaimer.

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

PHOTOGRAPHY

The post KZ ASF 5-BA Earphone Full Review – Disaster appeared first on Music For The Masses.

The CCA CA16, the company’s 16-driver flagship (nominally $80, though it seems to have been marked down to $60) looks and feels like a cheaper piece, with plastic housings and visible seams. Bulbous, protruding shells are light and reasonably comfortable, though seal and isolation are average at best. I found these fairly inefficient and hard to power from my LG.

The CCA CA16 seem to be going for a laid-back, balanced stage monitor type of sound, but miss by a wide mark. Tonality is on the warm side of neutral, with an overall lack of sizzle and drive; soundstage is wide but shallow; like most KZ products there’s sufficient space between instruments but placement is odd, as if the performers are all several feet behind the front stage. 

Dialed-down, amorphous low end lacks depth, punch and definition; mids are recessed but have good texture and are smooth, but tend to be veiled by the blobby bass, and resolution is substandard. Treble is likewise smooth, but rolls off sharply; details and extension are lacking. Drumheads, in particular, are muted and sound more like cardboard than canvas; sparkle is missing from guitar strings and piano keys. The CCA CA16 is coherent overall, other than a conspicuous dip in the 80-200hz region, but it’s hard to gauge just what all those drivers are doing.

These seem to have been tuned for maximum inoffensiveness, but simply sound off; like Bose speakers, they’re mostly midrange, without visceral highs and lows. Especially coming off the unexpectedly amazin’, $23 TRN-STM, not to mention CCA’s own well-tuned, refined $40 C10, this one seems rushed off the lab bench.

MY VERDICT

Our rating scheme

Contact us!

DISCLAIMER

Borrowed and swiftly returned.

Get the CCA CA16 at Wooeasy Earphones Store.

Our generic standard disclaimer.

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

The post CCA CA16 Review (2) And Second Opinion – More Is Less appeared first on Music For The Masses.

I was surprised at the $69 SRP–on the basis of sonic merit and (plastic) build I would have guessed these were a $20 phone, although <$20 phones like the KZ ZSN or Senfer DT6 are much better tuned, while <$50 models from BQEYZ and TRN leave these in the dust in terms of refinement, timbre and coherence. Thumbs/earlobes down.

Contact us!

You find an INDEX of all our earphone reviews HERE.

DISCLAIMER

These were loaned to me for my probably unwelcome opinion.

Tested at $69. Get them from HifiGo.

Our generic standard disclaimer.

About my measurements.

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

The post HIDIZS MS1 Rainbow Review (2) – Second Opinion appeared first on Music For The Masses.

I really wanted to like these >$20 replicants of the supremely comfortable and stylish (if overpriced and sonically underwhelming Klipsch X10), but even if the magical land of Chifi you sometimes get what you pay for. Tonality is, to put it generously, “warm,” or to put it accurately, hazy—there’s a veil across the entire presentation which makes drumbeats sound like a pillow fight and vocals and guitar distant and unnatural. V-shaped, with wooly, poorly-sculpted bass bleeding profusely into the recessed mids and smooth but blurry lowend. These do present a wide soundstage, though the lowend smearing muddles the imaging considerably.

Compared to ultra-budget stars like the EZ Audio D4 or Tennmak Dulcimer, the BCD sound almost like dollar store buds. I’ve read some qualifiedly favorable reviews of these, and I could see where they would have some appeal to extremely treble-averse folks or sleepers—they’re inoffensive at very low volumes and I do love the form factor—but even at the why-not tariff you’re better off buying a few more beers.

Disclaimer: Loaner from Durwood.

You find an INDEX of all our earphone reviews HERE.

The post BCD X10 Review – Nicht Gut appeared first on Music For The Masses.

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

DISCLAIMER

INTRODUCTION

SPECIFICATIONS

PACKAGING AND ACCESSORIES

PHYSICAL APPEARANCE, HAPTIC, AND BUILD QUALITY

ERGONOMICS, COMFORT, ISOLATION, AND FIT

SOURCE AND EARTIPS

TONALITY

SELECT COMPARISONS

CONCLUDING REMARKS

The post KZ ZS10 Review: Big Trees – Small Forest! appeared first on Music For The Masses.