The TRN BAX PRO were provided my review by the manufacturer. I thank them for that and also apologize for the long delay of the publication of this article owing to some lengthy orofacial problems. You can get them from TRN Audio.

Introduction

TRN, or more precisely, Dongguan Zuodu Acoustics Technology Co., Ltd. are a ChiFi player of the first hour, from a time when a budget Chifi model reached easily 40,000 views on Head-Fi in a few weeks. Examples are the TRN V80 and V90.

TRN, like many other relatively inexperienced ChiFi companies (compared to, let’s say, the more established Sennheiser or Audio Technica), overestimated their abilities and prematurely released earphones in the premium segment that may have had the ingredients but the final meal was subpar. For example, the TRN BA8 was a screamer and unable to deliver musical enjoyment to the aided ear. And the original BAX was apparently not much better (I was told).

Time cures wounds and companies mature. TRN reassembled and tried again in order to close the reputation gap to, let’s say, Dunu or Moondrop.

Specifications TRN BAX PRO

Physical Things and Usability

The BAX PRO features quality ingredients and an interesting architecture: 1 DD + 2 BA + 2 EST: a Beryllium diaphragm for the bass, 1 Knowles 29689 BA for the mid frequencies, and another Knowles BA 33518 as well as two Sonion electrostatic drivers for crisp treble. It also comes with a modular cable with 3.5 mm single ended and 2.5 mm & 4.4 mm balanced plugs.

In the box are the earpieces, 2 sets of eartips with three tuning switches, the modular cable with three plugs, a strange plaque, a small tool for moving the switches, the usual TRN metal storage box and the paperwork.

The CnC machined, sturdy earpieces are rather large and have a bit of an unusual nozzle angle. Some people complained about not getting them deep enough into their ear canals, I have had no issues. But I don’t get the world’s greatest isolation with them either.

The eight-strand single crystal copper cable is rather pliable and, appeal wise, average. The eartips (2 silicone sets and 1 foam set)) are also nothing to write home about. In summary, the BAX PRO’s haptic is ok.

The BAX PRO are easy to drive.

Tonality and Technicalities

It is very difficult to give you an accurate account of the sound considering the options you have with switch positions and (stock) eartips. The BAX PRO are also sensitive to insertion depth so that different reviewers may report different results. Let me start with the black stock eartips and all switches in the “off” position [“Equalization mode”].

If you expect another TRN shoutfest, you may be surprised to hear that this is not the case. The BAX PRO offer a slightly warm however transparent sound with vocals in the foreground and zero shoutiness. I was quite delighted when I tried them out the first time and left them in my ears for a couple of hours going through a selection of jazz, rock, and classical.

What sticks out to me is the lower midrange: both female and male vocals are sparkly, very well sculptured in three dimensions, and rather intimate with a very good body. Bass is digging deep but is a bit subdued, thick, and could be a tad crisper while having enough kick…a bit similar to the Sennheiser HD 600 headphones…but you can tweak this with the switches, insertion depth and eartips. The midrange has good transparency and resolution without a hint of shoutiness. Very realistic.

TRN spent lots of attention on the treble – which are very well carved out with excellent resolution. My treble testing passed, for example, Anne Sophie Mutter’s rendering of the very high violin notes of her pieces from Star Wars. Cymbals are very clean…though rather subtle.

The technical merit of the BAX PRO is also very good. Stage may be average in two dimensions, but the spatial reprodcution and imaging are excellent. You really can spot the singer on stage. Dynamics is also good.

Timbre is also rather natural. I much preferred it over the glassy BA sound of the Blessing 2, allegedly the first $1000 soundalikes at $300. I listened to a lot of Beethoven piano music and orchestral pieces with great pleasure.

The piano touch was quite realistic and revealed a good driver speed. Timbre and dynamics paired result in orchestral sounding natural and developing a healthy richness and volume. Surprising how good the BAX PRO work with acoustic instruments of any quantity.

I confirmed my positive listening impressions when connecting the BAX PRO to the EarMen stack after listening to the Sennheiser HD 600. They did hold up to my big surprise.

Let’s have a look at the switch settings.

Equalization

The standard mode which sounds best to my ears. I use this mode as comparison to the other switch settings.

Electronic Mode

Enhances the upper midrange and introduces shoutiness. Not for me.

Transparency Mode

Bass imbalance 2-3 dB. Reduces bass and adds upper midrange. Introduces even more shoutiness than Electronic mode. Transparency is good enough without this mode.

Atmospheric Enhancement

Is the same as Electronic Mode in my measurements…I did two independent measurement runs to confirm.

High-Frequency Mode

Adds to upper midrange and to treble. Only for the hardest of us who get up with cheap Bourbon whiskey in the morning. Too bright for the rest of us.

Low Frequency Mode

Essentially the same as Equalization, with the upper midrange minimally tuned down. Good.

Compared to the LETSHUOER EJ07M

The EJ07M have been one of my daily drivers for the last couple of years. They also sport electrostatic tweeters and are, at $649, ca. 50% more expensive than the BAX PRO. They feature smaller earpieces with a different nozzle angle, which probably provide a better fit for many. Their imaging is flatter than that of the BAX PRO (in the Equalization setting), they are generally a tad brighter sounding and more coherent overall.

The BAX PRO have the upper midrange dialled down (in the Equalization setting), which makes the vocals thicker but also duller and less dynamic. In terms of treble resolution, both are pretty even, with he BAX PRO possibly a tad ahead. I’d like the EJ07M’s form factor with the BAX PRO’s sound.

Overall, the price difference appears arbitrary.

Concluding Remarks

The TRN BAX PRO come as a very pleasant surprise to me. They sound enjoyable to my ears with all musical genres I threw at them. The money is essentially in the excellent holographic staging and imaging. But I am also confused: the switches are not very useful as most of the settings only add shrillness nobody needs. Sometimes, less is more!

My other criticism is the very generic accessories (cable, eartips). And some may have problems with the fit owing to the unusual nozzle angle. Sometimes, more is better!

In the end, I recommend trying them out if possible. I may have to send them on a western Canadian tour to gather some feedback from Biodegraded and Co. We may have a diamond in the rough that is overlooked owing to lack of concerted promotion and organized hype.

TRN are finally on their way to join the likes of Moondrop and Dunu in the mid tier segment (if they leave useless gimmicks such as switches off). They now have to substantiate this with other models. Durwood is currently taking on their Dragon Azure, and I am anxious to see what he will come up with.

Until next time…keep on listening!

The post TRN BAX Pro Review – Electroexstatic appeared first on Music For The Masses.

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.

We already have had a complete review piece about DragonFly Cobalt for almost three years now at audioreviews.org, and based on shared appreciation within our team we decided to stick it onto our Wall of Excellence. As AudioQuest sent me a sample too, I am now sharing my own take on the device.

Very interestingly, AudioQuest recently repositioned Cobalt’s price to € 199,95 in EU (down from € 299,95) – and I can anticipate this is a KO move vs much of its direct competition. Cobalt is widely distributed, and can be purchased from multiple channels including Amazon and many other online platforms.

At-a-glance Card

Features and description

Externals

DragonFly Cobalt is the size of an old-school “USB pen drive”, with is encasing painted of a nice blue – or well, cobalt – color.

There are no controls, wheels or buttons whatsoever on the structure. Only after plugging it into a host PC (or Mac, or mobile device) one realises that the stylised dragonfly logo on the top side is indeed backlit by a colored LED, which color changes depending on the input stream digital sample rate:

Internals

The DragonFly product range is based on technology developed by a mr Gordon Rankin, a gentleman busy with seriously innovative digital and analog audio technology and products for the past almost 4 decades.

Gordon’s own company Wavelength Audio Ltd still holds the rights to the registered trademarks and of course the intellectual property at the very heart of AudioQuest’s DragonFl(ies), including DragonFly Cobalt of course.

Just for the sake of historical curiosity – and give Caesar his own, of course – StreamLength® is the given name of Gordon’s original setup which for the first time allowed for a plug-in device to take control of USB communication timing, which was normally exclusively managed by the host (the PC) until then. Such flip of perspective is the crux to the nowadays ubiquitous “Asynchronous USB mode”, the very base to start from and achieve adequate control over jitter when it comes to digital audio communications.

Once put the plug-in device in a control position over communications timing, the other step Gordon took was that of giving the device itself a high precision clock generator, which in DragonFly Cobalt case happens by taking it out of the very ESS ES9038Q2M chip at its core. Such setup was originally named “monoClock® technology” by Gordon.

Another fundamental architectural choice taken inside DragonFly Cobalt is to adopt separate chips for digital reconstruction (DAC) and amplification – as opposed to most of the direct competition relying on “all-in-one” chips doing both things on the same piece of silicon and – which is most significant to our discussion – without offering integrators and users any significant flexibility to change, fine tune, let alone customise the overall system behaviour. That’s why DragonFly Cobalt’s voicing, dynamic range and SNR won’t be apriori similar to that of other dongle devices relying on ES9038-line chips’ internal amping features.

Exploiting another feature on ES9038Q2M, DragonFly Cobalt comes with a custom designed minimum-phase slow roll-off FIR filter.

While I have no complaints about such choice, considering the hardware offers support for it I would welcome the chance to apply different filters, via good ol’ firmware flashing or even better via some sort of mobile app. Maybe there’s a chance this would come in the future?

USB communications are carried out via the good deeds of a Microchip’s PIC32MX274 IC, featuring extremely low power needs, also vis-a-vis its programming for support only USB-1on DragonFly Cobalt.

All such choices – the DAC chip, the AMP chip, and the USB processor chip – contribute to DragonFly Cobalt being amongst the lowest-power-demanding dongles on the market when it comes to host supply needs, which is why it is one of the very few to offer full compatibility with iPhone/iPad hosts, notoriously unable to deliver other than very low power off of their Lightning sockets.

Mind you though: free meals not being a part of real life, nor any divinity existing taking care of creating energy from nothing no matter how hard you pray, low input power draw means a few things that you do need to keep in mind to set the correct expectations about DragonFly Cobalt’s performance.

One: the USB-1 protocol drains much less power at the cost of a limited maximum transfer speed, which in terms of digital audio values turns into a 24 bit / 96 KHz digital resolution cap. And… PCM only! No DSD support.

Two: the ESS 9601 amp will prove limited in terms of maximum output power, with particular regards to current . So while it will reliably deliver a nice 2.1 V max swing on high impedance loads, DragonFly Cobalt will not (as it can not) adequately power low(er) sensitivity drivers, especially if featuring low impedances too.

So in practical terms you should not rely on DragonFly Cobalt to properly driver the likes of final E5000, or final B1, or final A3000, let alone pretty much any planar driver. 

And, no surprise should arise when Cobalt will seem to “struggle” (e.g. in terms of loss of treble control) with “mid-hard” loads. All that will be due to the device’s internal power circuitry “running out of current” in some situations, having it apriori been set up not to request more than a certain, very limited power from the host device to begin with.

Input

Like all pure “dongles”, DragonFly Cobalt only accepts USB input.

Very “classically” the device carries a USB-A male plug, so in itself it’s ready to plug onto any common PC or Mac USB port.

A USB-A to USB-C short cable adapter is supplied too, to facilitate connectivity with more recent smartphones. More on the adapter under Package, here below.

Output

DragonFly Cobalt’s sole output is its analog 3.5mm connector, of course accepting any 3.5mm single-ended terminated load.

Those who (also) own balanced-ended sources will most likely have a few or many of their drivers equipped with balanced terminated cables, and will need a balanced-to-single-ended adapter to plug them onto the Cobalt.

Host power requirements

DragonFly Cobalt requires very low power from the host (i.e., the PC, the phone or the dap it is connected to and therefor powered from). I’m talking about just 60mA when idle (i.e. when connected but “doing nothing”), and between 150 and 200mA when playing out on good volume on a mid-impedance driver.

This is of course very good news, but grounds for some caveats too.

Starting on the good side: DragonFly Cobalt will not suck your phone battery dry in no time like so many direct competitors and (!) it will perfectly work with iPhones and iPads, known picky fellas when it comes to the powering requirements of the devices you plug onto them. It will also not more than vaguely warm during operation.

On the flip side there are two important notes to make – which I indeed already mentioned above under “Internals”.

One: DragonFly Cobalt exclusively supports the USB 1 protocol speeds (USB 2 would require more power), which translates into a maximum supported input resolution 24 bit, 96Khz PCM (and no DSD).

Two: DragonFly Cobalt’s maximum output power will be, of course, limited, too: expect it to be good for powering high impedance (300 ohm) dynamic drivers (e.g. Sennheiser HD-series cans) and mid-impedance (20-30 ohm) not particularly demanding IEMs – which are, combined, probably >95% of the drivers out there anyway.

Volume and gain control

DragonFly Cobalt offers no physical control options so there’s no way to set the gain, and the sole way to manage its volume is via the host’s digital volume control.

On such latter front a point, as you may or may not know, the Android operating system divides the USB device volume range in only 40 steps (or even 25 for the latest Android releases…). When operating a device like DragonFly Cobalt this results in the last ticks of the volume control range converting into way too big SPL variations.

So if you are planning on using DragonFly Cobalt on a Android-based host just keep in mind that the way to “fix” this is using a better featured music player app e.g. UAPP or others – which is what you would normally do anyway for a number of other reasons one above all bypassing standard Android audio drivers – re-defining the number of steps Volume control is divided into (up to 250, on UAPP).

Other features

MQA Rendering

I won’t spend a word on what MQA itself is, of course. Google around if you wish and you’ll be overflooded with info.

What matters here is: DragonFly Cobalt is a “MQA Renderer”, so it can fully unfold MQA tracks on its own hardware, which is an upgrade vs the default represented by having the music player host do the unfolding, and only limited to the first 2 folds.

Firmware

For their DragonFly product line AudioQuest offers free software for users to autonomously carry on firmware upgrade operations when needed.

For DragonFly Cobalt no updated firmware version was (yet) ever released, however.

DragonTail

DragonFly Cobalt ships together with two complementary accessories: a leather sleeve, and a USB-A to USB-C short adapter cable – which, as always in AudioQuest’s standards, got its own given name: “DragonTail Extender”.

The DragonTail appear as nothing else than a digital plug format adapter, much needed of course to facilitate connecting the Cobalt to mobile devices like smartphones, or dap/transports. The version bundled with Cobalt is called DragonTail-C as it features a USB-C male plug at its end. AudioQuest also carries a DragonTail-Micro alternative.

What’s probably most interesting about DragonTail is its quality. I won’t take a digital audio cabling detour here, but I think it’s worth to share a very simple experience I had with Cobalt. When I first put it to work I connected Cobalt to my PC, where there’s only a USB-C port available, so I used a “nameless” USB-A to USB-C adapter cable I had laying around on my desk. No surprises: it just worked as I was expecting it to, and Cobalt sounded “right” off the bat.

One day for whatever reason I needed a USB-A to USB-C adapter for another application. Where do I have one? Meh… who knows. While watching around I noticed the one hooked to the Cobalt so I just took that one off, leaving the Cobalt disconnected for a while.

A few days later I wanted to use the Cobalt again, and did not want to “undo” the other cabling involving the other adapter. Time to think harder and try to devine where could I have another one – and that’s when I remembered there must have been one left inside the Cobalt box. Took it. Plugged it. It worked (of course). But… Cobalt seemed to be sounding different.

Mmmh – I thought – that’s very likely my wrong memory. So I carried on, for a day or two. Then, I decided to check it. Undid the other cable chain, recuped the “nameless” adapter cable, and organised a quick A/B test. And yes, there is a difference. When using DragonTail to connect it to my PC the Cobalt delivers fuller notes, and a darker background.

As I mentioned en-passant within my article regarding AudioQuest’s JitterBug, a passive cable cannot possibly “improve” a digital signal. However, it can deplete it. So what is actually happening on my case is that DragonTail revealed that the other cable was introducing noise…

DragonFly Cobalt sound

DragonFly Cobalt sounds detailed, dynamic and most of all clean, yet significantly musical.

In terms of cleanness in particular it trades (hard!) blows with the E1DA’s 9038SG3 and 9038D, arguably the “cleanest” – in the sense of most distortion-free – dongle-class devices one can find.

Which leads me right to articulate about the true crucial point of Cobalt’s sound: its stunningly spot-on compromise between resolving power, transparency and musicality.

I can name other more musical (“gracefully colored”) dongles. I can name more transparent ones, too. Very often, if not invariably, auditioning one of either group makes you soon want one from the other. Cobalt is not that. When listening to Cobalt’s clean notes you can’t fail noticing how expressive they also are, and, while going with Cobalt’s musical flow you’ll never feel you are really missing tiny beats, or soft nuances.

Cobalt’s output is masterfully “balanced”, not in the meaning we most commonly give to the word, regarding properly reciprocally calibrating lows mids and highs, rather is the sense of delivering as much of both – transparency and musicality, clean timbre and personal tonality – one can realistically hope to have at the same time.

Considerations & conclusions

DragonFly Cobalt is an absolutely remarkable piece of gear offering high quality reconstruction, reference-level amping transparency and delicious tonality, all near-magically mixed together at a unique mixture spot.

With its minuscule input power demands Cobalt is possibly the easiest in its class to pair with any mobile transport, iPhones and their (in)famous interfacing standards and power-out limitations. And, its single-ended output fully supports all those stock wires you may have a drawer full of, without leaving a balanced alternative to be desired.

Some may consider its modest maximum output power a limitation, and technically right so. However, in practical terms they translate into letting out possibly less than 5% of the IEMs on our Wall of Excellence.

DragonFly Cobalt was stuck onto our Wall of Excellence long ago, when its price was € 299,95. Now it’s been repositioned to € 199,95. Enough said, I guess.

The Editor: I have been using the Cobalt daily for the last three years...despite a drawer full of dongles: sounds great, has low power consumption, is small and light, and easy to use. The (monetary) value is mainly in its DAC part.

Our generic standard disclaimer.

The post AudioQuest DragonFly Cobalt Review (2) – Knowledge Is Power 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.

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.

The $60 ddHiFi M120A is a well-made, haptically, and optically very appealing earphone cable with a great jewelry effect that is sadly only available as single-ended with a 3.5 mm plug.

The M120A cable was supplied by ddHiFi for my review…and I thank them for that. You can get it from the DD Official Store.

Arrgh, I was talked again into analyzing an earphone cable that came piggyback with the ddHiFi Janus3 earphone. I don’t like doing this as such reviews give a reviewer a bad name. Why? Because every single cable reviewed “sounds better”, frequently “instantaneously better” than any stock cable or competitor it is compared to.

There is no doubt that analog cables contribute to sonic differences, although they may “measure the same”. No surprise here either as there is no physical correlation between impedance and capacitance on one hand, and soundstage, note definition etc. on the other.

Another problem with testing cables is the reviewers’ expectation bias, fueled by the lack of memory between re-cabling the test earphones. My memory is certainly insufficient and A/B-ing on the push of a button is not possible. There was only one analyst, the revered B9Scrambler, who never included sonic characterizations or comparisons in his reviews.

Even if such were real, they would only apply to that particular test setup and would not be universally valid.

ddHifi are a Chinese company that specialize on audio accessories (with a few exceptions such as the Janus earphone line). Their products are imaginative, practical and of high quality. If you want to get a cross section of their gear, check our reviews of their products. The M120A analyzed here is an earphone cable that comes optionally with MMCX or 2-pin connectors, and a 3.5 mm plug (no balanced version available).

The specs need some explanation:

• CTIA standard refers to the plug with the microphone connector on the sleeve end, which works with all modern smartphones.
• Litz refers to the internal cable structure; it is a special type of multistrand cable designed to reduce skin and proximity effect losses in conducturs below 1 MHz.
• AWG is the short for American Wire Gauge and relates to the wire diameter.
• OCC characterizes the wire material and stands for “Ohno Continuous Casting”. It refers to a method of copper refining developed and patented by Professor Ohno of the Chiba Institute of Technology in Japan. The process results in essentially oxygen free pure copper, which has ultra-low impedance that results in rapid signal transmission. And the lack of impurities makes the material corrosion resistant.

The cable is built extremely well with sturdy metal connectors on both ends. It feels rigid and minimizes noise transmission. The jacket is of rather hard polycarbonate and is dirt and water repellent. What I find most appealing is the fact that this cable lacks memory wires…it can be worn over and under ear. Strange that nobody else has had this great idea before. The cable is thin, almost spindly, and light, which contributes to its comfort.

I chose the 0.78 mm two-pin connectors over the MMXX. The two-pin connectors have a universal fit, which includes recessed sockets in earpieces.

When it came to testing this cable, it was initially catching dust. I could not be, pardon, arsed, to tell you how good or bad it sounded. But one fine evening, I ripped the CEMA RX series cable off my LETSHUOER EJ07M iems, and plugged the M120A in. First: it really upgrades these >$600 in terms of haptic and appearance. Second, the M120A is haptically a pleasure. And third, I liked listening to it.

Using the iPhone SE (1st gen.) with the AudioQuest DragonFly Cobalt, my latest “Deutsche Grammophon” classical music acquisitions sounded full and balanced. Whether this is better than the CEMA cable is completely irrelevant for you, everybody has to test a cable with their own equipment. All I can say is that I really like using this cable, and that I am positively surprised.

If you want to test this or any other cable for your yourself, please consider these points:

1. Cables can make a sonic difference, mainly with multi-driver earphones
2. This difference possibly relates to impedance, wire material, and wire structure
3. Impedance differences may in some cases be large enough to result in different sound volumes and can also alter the earphone’s frequency response; such changes in the frequency response can be calculated
4. Cables may not make any difference with some earphones
5. Listeners often mistake volume increase due to lower impedance for sonic improvement
6. The sonic differences between cables are largely independent of price
7. If sonic differences between cables exist, they are not universally valid but only relate to that particular earphone and the cables used in that particular comparison
8. Eartips are the cheaper alternative to achieve a different sound
9. Expensive upgrade cables may sound worse with your favourite earphone than stock cable
10. One may be better off spending the upgrade cable’s price on better earphones

And what does the mic sound like? Here my test recording:

In summary, the M120A works for me. It sits at the upper end of what I cheapskate have spent on an earphone cable in the past. I am just sad that a balanced version does not exist.

Until next time…keep on listening!

Contact us!

Gallery ddHiFi M120A

Disclaimer

Our generic standard disclaimer.

The post ddHiFi M120A Earphone Cable With Mic Review – Sexy Hexy 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.

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.

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

The Beyerdynamic Soul Byrd is a discontinued budget dynamic-driver earphone with a mainstream V-shaped tuning and middling technicalities that excels by its form factor – and lives up when amped. A great example of how an underdog can get a lot of attention. You can still get its successor, the Blue Byrd ANC (2nd gen.).

Beyerdynamic are a company out of Heidelberg, Germany. They were founded in 1920 in Berlin by Eugen Beyer, producing mainly headphones and microphones. Together with Sennheiser, they currently hold the German flag in these categories high up.

The Beyerdynamic DT 48 were the world’s first dynamic headphones, introduced in 1937 and produced in various evolutions until 2013. The DT 100, introduced in the 1960s, are still the industry’s standard headphones for studio monitoring. You can see it on the heads of BBC radio DJs since then.

Today, Beyerdynamic are known for their DT 770 and DT 990 headphones. On the earphone side, Beyerdynamic produced only a handful models, the $1000 Xelento being their most famous. In the budget category, the company offered the Byron and Soul Byrd.

I purchased the Soul Byrd in 2020 on sale (I paid $58.53 CAD; regular $110 CAD). It was a purchase “for the team” after somebody had recommended them in our Facebook group.

The Soul Byrd are haptically nothing special. The cable is not detachable, they don’t have fancy faceplates or anything, the material is cheapish plastic. Alone the carrying case is great as it is flat like a pancake with a nice orang lining. Very handy.

In terms of technical capabilities, the Soul Byrd plays at the bottom of its category: detail retrieval is meh, it lacks punch, is hard to drive at 18 ohm impedance and 103 dB sensitivity, and micro detail is not there at all. It could have more life. So why bother?

Sonically, the Soul Byrd has excellent timbre, so typical for German headphones, and a middle-of-the road V-shape. And adding a reasonably potent source as little powerful as the AudioQuest DragonFly Cobalt or Red unleashes its spirit…at least to some extent.

So why is this risky dinky little iem one of my most used over more than three years? It is the comfort and fit: I use it in bed. The little earpieces with the proprietary earplugs are our genius for this purpose. I can lie on the side with these, the earpieces don’t stick out but sit flush in the ear. This also works under bike helmets but I would not recommend it for safety reasons.

Back to my bed: I listen to live talk radio but also to music files…and for long periods of time. The Soul Byrd are so comfy both physically and sonically.

You have to give it to the Germans since Bach and Beethoven that they know what sounds natural. The Soul Byrd may not be the last word in sophistication, but they are highly pragmatic. On top of all this, the Soul Byrd feature a three-button control with microphone for phone calls. A set of proprietary tips in 5 sizes is included.

You won’t find anything like the Soul Byrd…which have now been replaced by the Blue Byrd ANC (2nd generation).

Until next time…keep on listening!

Contact us!

The post Beyerdynamic Soul Byrd Review – Sleeping Beauty 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.

The CCA Duo is a dual dynamic-driver $40 iem characterized by excellent sub-bass extension, subdued mid bass but middling technicalities, and a good wearing comfort.

The CCA Duo were provided unsolicited by the company for my review. And I thank them for that. You can get them here.

Introduction

CCA is a sub-brand of Knowledge Zenith (“KZ”). The latter have been known to western customers since 2014, and have generated an incredible number of models since (I stopped counting at 50…which was a while ago). My co-bloggers have analyzed a few CCAs, the Duo is my first encounter with the brand.

Since KZ and their affiliate brands have been in the headlines all “storm in a teapot” lately for allegedly offering $1000 for a review, I was not one of the lucky ones, and have done this review for free – as all my previous ones, too. And because I don’t like having money, we also do not do affiliate links or even sell earphones – we remain entirely independent. The company claims that their low price stems from not handing out commissions to influencers. Here you go!

The CCA Duo is yet another dynamic driver in the budget realm with a dual magnetic cavity technology claiming to be superior over single DDs in terms of detail resolution. In the company’s own words the CCA Duo offers “unstoppable performance advantages” whereas I am unstoppable in analyzing the iem’s performance.

Specifications CCA Duo

Physical Things and Usability

In the box are the earpieces, a cable, 3 pairs of silicone eartips (S/M/L), one set of foam eartips, and the userguide.

Tonality and Technicalities

You’d expect a dual dynamic driver to be bass heavy, but the CCA Duo is more on the brightish side. Call it bright-neutral or bright-slightly warm. And that’s although the pinna gain between 1 and 2 kHz has been tamed to 10 dB (earlier KZs offered 13 dB). Add the very moderate mid bass and the only slightly elevated sub bass, hear the whole mix in context, and you arrive at this perception.

The Duo’s main distinguishing feature is its subdued mid bass. Rolling tips, I got the beefiest low end with the SpinFit CP145. Paradoxically, the Duo’s sub-bass extension is excellent (with TempoTec V6 only), it is one of the deepest reaching iems I have ever tested. This low end combination could be tighter as sub-bass is naturally fuzzier than mid bass it dominates. And it could have more kick and definition. Bass lines are generally somewhat rubbery and sloppy.

But the low end brings out vocals: they are rather natural and intimate, with decent richness. Note definition and resolution are middling in the midrange, but there is decent clarity. I’d like to hear better sculptured vocals.

The rolloff in the uppermost midrange and lower treble keeps the presentation away from shoutiness. The warm fuzzy bass and the more neutral midrange result in a lack of cohesion, accentuation, and fluidity to my ears. I find the recently analyzed $25 Moondrop Space Travel TWS much better in this department.

There is lots of upper treble energy. Cymbals are surprisingly present, crisp, and nuanced, but can also be tizzy. The upper treble energy adds quite a bit of liveliness and sparkle to the sound image.

Stage is wide with average depth (owing to the lack of mid bass). Spatial cues is quite good, imaging is not bad either. Separation is also good, layering is a bit on the shallow side. Attack and overall dynamics are also pretty decent.

In comparison, the highly hyped Truthear Zero x Crinacle: RED is on the bassier side with a more subdued, less forward midrange. It has more depth and cohesion than the Duo but also less sparkle. Two different types catering to different preferences.

Concluding Remarks

The CCA Duo is a dual-dynamic driver earphone with a decent sound that has no obvious flaws, but it also does not stick out of the large body of competitors. It biggest advantage, in my opinion, is its small and light earpieces that make for a comfortable wear. The manufacturer’s claim that the CCA Duo offers unstoppable performance advantages turn out to be a marketing gimmick.

Until next time…keep on listening!

The post CCA Duo Review (1) – Brighter Now appeared first on Music For The Masses.

The $89 LETSHUOER DZ4 is a safely tuned triple-dynamic driver earphone with bass-enhancing passive radiator that offers a relaxed listening experience but paradoxically falls short on midbass impact, dynamics, and sparkle.

Introduction

LETSHUOER are a very ambitious established in 2016 by a group of experienced “geeks” around a former Panasonic engineer. They have been very transparent to us since one of their reps lives in Vancouver, Canada. In fact, our own Biodegraded has met him personally to exchange gear.

I once wrote a rather non-descript review of the non-descript $625 EJ07M iem. The EJ07M was simply not wowing me. But, it always did well in comparison with the competitors…and is one of my go-tos to this day.

The DZ4 shares many features with the EJ07, but the question is whether it performs similarly well.

Specifications LETSHUOER DZ4

The LETSHUOER DZ4 was provided by the company for my review – and I thank them for that. You can get them from LETSHUOER.

Physical Things and Usability

In the box are the earpieces, 2 sets of silicone eartips, cable with 0.78 mm connectors and 3.5 mm plug, metal storage box and paperwork. The 3-D printed earpieces of CNC-milled anodized aluminum share the shape with their big EJ07M brother, which is one of my standard go-to iems. They fit my ears well and are very comfortable.

The wider white “balanced” eartips work best for me (same as with the EJ07M), but the don’t isolate well. The big difference between the black and white tips is their form factor. The black “vocal” ones simply don’t fit my ear canals well.

The DZ4 feature a few technical gimmicks such as a 6 mm passive radiator aiming to increase bass response. “Passive” refers to that this part is purely mechanical and not connected to a current. It is essentially a woofer and very similar to a bass reflex design.

The robust cable is of high quality build.

Tonality and Technicalities

The LETSHUOER DZ4 offers another Harman Target style tuning with a slightly attenuated lower midrange and a recessed lower treble relative to the 2019 original. It comes across as lacking bass response. Safe but somewhat unexciting.

Yep, midbass kick and impact are somewhat missing which benefits the midrange transparency. I always have the feeling to insert the earpieces deeper into my ear canals to get more punch. Unsuccessfully.

The bass shelf is reduced compared to many peers, it lacks bite and heft, although it digs deep. A rather polite attack for my liking. While the bass quantity is missing, the quality is not the best either: it lacks tightness and definition and dribbles along in the background

Emphasis is on the sub-bass lowest octaves, which makes the vocals stick out. Although they are not the most forward and robust either, they are “free standing” in that it they are not overrun by the bass. Voices are reasonably well presented and quite natural. They are relaxed with rounded corners and could be a bit edgier and better defined, and they can sound hollow. Midrange continues the low end’s polite tradition. Upper midrange is well behaved, there is no shoutiness.

Low end and midrange collectively produce a goo that could be much better defined.

Treble kind of follows suit. It is tame and lacks energy and air…but it is safe. Cymbals are somewhat hidden.

Soundstage is of reasonable width, depth is missing, imaging is not great, neither are separation and layering. Dynamics are lacking. Timbre is as organic as you expect from a single dynamic driver and probably its biggest tonal asset. The DZ4’s technicalities are dead middling.

In comparison, the Whizzer HE 10 is way more dynamic because of its punchy bass which is overly dominant. The Truthear x Crinacle Zero: RED has much better note definition and an interesting take on the low end, and the Moondrop Aria still trumps all of the above based on its superior note definition and resolution.

Concluding Remarks

The LETSHUOER DZ4 is undoubtedly a technically very interesting and sophisticated earphone design. Sonically, it is yet another average single-dynamic driver iem in the sub-$100 category. Harman-tuned minus some bass and treble with middling technicalities. Safe and sound. It is somewhere between heaven and earth and cannot throw the Moondrop Aria off our Wall of Excellence.

Until next time…keep on listening!

The post LETSHUOER DZ4 Review – Energize Me appeared first on Music For The Masses.

The $70 Whizzer Kylin HE10 is a safely tuned and well-built single-dynamic driver iem with a good punch that impresses most by its excellent built and small form factor.

The Whizzer Kylin HE10 was provided by the company for my review. And I thank them for that. You can get it from the Whizzer Store.

Introduction

I like original earphone designs and small shells for optimal comfort. Whizzer, established in 2015, are regularly delivering on this front. This does not come as a surprise as they engage J.IDEA for design and tuning.

For the HE10, the company has developed a 10.2 mm CNT (carbon nanotube) driver for maximum clarity and minimal distortion. You find more details on the company’s website.

Specifications Whizzer Kylin HE10

The Whizzer Kylin HE10 was provided by the company for my review. You can get it from the Whizzer Store.

Physical Things and Usability

In the box are the two earpieces, cable with 3.5 mm plug, three sets of earpieces [ET100 (“straight”), VC20 (“vocals”), SS20 (“soundstage”)], a cleaning brush, a metal storage container, and the paperwork. Everything works well out of the package.

The metal earpieces are of superb build, of great, seamless fit and comfort for my ears. Isolation depends on eartips, I have the best success with the widebores (SS20). The 5N Silver-plated Oxygen Free Copper cable with 0.78 mm 2-pin connectors and 3.5 mm is equally well made. The accessories are top notch for the $70 class.

The HE10 has a rather low sensitivity and benefits from additional amplification. I calculated a sensitivity of 105 dB/mW @ 1 kHz from the sound pressure level given in the specifications.

Tonality and Technicalities

The Whizzer HE10 comes with three stock tips that yield tonal differences between 2.5 and 5 kHz. Any of these signatures is a variation of the Harman target curve with some added bass, making for pronounced V-shapes. Although the differences in these frequency responses appear to be minor, they are actually not. The VC20 narrow bores produce the spiciest (upper) midrange, the SS20 widebores the richest midrange, and the oddly shaped ET100 are somewhere in between.

I am sensitive to upper midrange glare so that the SS20 served me best and they will be used in my sound characterization.

The HE10’s tonality can be described as a safe V-shape dominated by a thumpy bass that adds warmth to the mix. The low-end dominates the sound and sets the HE10 (marginally) apart from so many similar sounding iems in its class.

Bass reaches very deep down into the lowest frequencies (one of the deepest reach of any of the earphones tested), but the low end lacks definition and finesse. It is fuzzy. Pure quantity over quality. As the focus is at about 50 Hz, the bass shelf is never intrusive and also does not overly affect the lower midrange (it affects the whole frequency spectrum). It is pleasant but not accurate. Basslines are somewhat thick and sloppy.

On the positive side, the low end has lots of robustness and punch.

Vocals, male and female, are classic V-shape, as experienced umpteen times before: a bit recessed, a bit lean, slightly warm, with decent note definition. Safe, but always dragging behind the rumbling sub-bass. With the ET100 and VC20 eartipes, energy is added to the midrange with thins notes out, pushes them forwards, and becomes unnaturally bright for my ears.

Note definition in the midrange could be better, they are somewhat washed out in comparison to, for example, the Moondrop Aria. Vocals are too lean in context with the thick bass for my taste.

Treble is far behind bass held and mids, almost buried, and lacks energy, but is has surprisingly good definition in the uppermost registers.

Overall resolution, layering, and separation are muddled by the fuzzy low end and don’t stand out compared to other iems in this class. Decent imaging is also lacking by the omnipresent sub-bass. Timbre is as natural as expected with the SS20 widebores used. Soundstage is relatively narrow but has good depth.

Dynamic response is good.

Overall, the HE10 joins the recent army of Harman-tuned models. In comparison, our $80 Wall of Excellence contender, the Moondrop Aria offers much better note definition and imaging, but also has more upper midrange glare and is more analytical than the HE10. The Truthear x Crinacle Zero RED may lack technical finesse but plays more internally cohesively and it has this fun sub-bass that sets it apart.

Concluding Remarks

The Whizzer HE10 is a safely tuned, well accessorized single-dynamic driver iem that is sonically average. It excels in its original and small shell design, great cable, and its build quality, but it introduces nothing new to the army of similar earphones, sound wise.

It is a good option for the novice to this hobby but will not thrill the advanced hobbyist.

Until next time…keep on listening!

The post Whizzer Kylin HE10 Review – Punch And Judy appeared first on Music For The Masses.

The $55 Truthear x Crinacle Zero Red (upgrade of the original 2022 Zero) is a good sounding, very well-accessoried dual-dynamic driver but overmarketed/overhyped earphone that is rather an evolution than the revolution claimed by some.

The Truthear x Crinacle Red Zero was provided by SHENZENAUDIO for review by my request – and I thank them for that. You can purchase it exclusively from SHENZHENAUDIO.COM.

Introduction

First was the written word. Then came YouTube. Then YouTube took over as there is more money to be made. YouTubers reach more viewers for bigger product sales and for ad revenue. Next, YouTubers and manufacturers/sellers increasingly entered symbioses, known as collaborations. Prominent YouTubers (“influencers”) lend their names (and some work) to companies to maximize sales to the (joint) fan base through hype generation.

This happens in all categories, not only in audio.

The problem is that this creates conflicts of interest and distorts the market. Better products with less exposure may not get the respect they deserve. On the other hand, the consumer wants that “hot product” quickly in their hands….until he/she moves on the the next big thing…rather fast.

Whereas each YouTube video has only a short a shelf life till the next one crops up, written reviews last, especially when filed well. The user can go back quickly and have yet another look – and he/she can compare easily between the different write-ups. Written material is for discerned readers who want to get in-depth information. A smaller market segment, but the one with the deepest pockets. That’s who we cater to.

The Truthear x Crinacle Zero Red project has been in the making for quite some time. Corin Ako alias Crinacle had already a sneak peek setup at CanJam NYC 2022, and he also appeared at High End Munich 2023, where he talked to co-blogger Kazi.

It was not clear to the public what Project Red was about until the day of release. Rumours of a $200 iem were circulating. In the end, Project Red is “just” an update of the original Truthear x Crinacle Zero from 2022. Consumers could have the flaws of the original fixed – by buying it for the second time. Not that this is something new…

In order to hide the general disappointment, (somewhat) glowing reviews of the Red appeared on the day of its release. Coincidence? We at audioreviews.org were added to the second tier of reviewers, the ones that can’t do any damage as the main sales have been done when this is published.

To make this clear: the hype everybody is talking about was not generated by the early adopters but entirely by the marketing machine. It is completely artificial and may have made you feel you need to have this…before a serious independent analyst could get their hands on a pair. So you may have been sucked in again, just like a few reviewers who could not detach themselves from the peer pressure.

Specifications Truthear x Crinacle Zero Red

Physical Things and Usability

The Red comes with excellent accessories: a generous set of eartips, extra filters, a really imaginative storage wallet, even a 10 Ω adapter for increasing bass/sub-bass, cable and the paperwork. The earpieces – same shape as the original Zero – are rather large with very thick nozzles that may accept may third-party tips, which is actually not necessary as the stock tips work very well…for me.

Fit, comfort, and isolation are good (isolation is actually exceptionally good). The Red can be driven with a phone but benefits from amplification.

Tonality and Technicalities

The Truthear x Crinacle Zero Red delivers a bottom heavy, warm-neutural tonality with a focus on sub-bass at the expense of midbass and lower midrange whilst being safe towards the upper end of the frequency spectrum.

The low-end is the Red’s most distinct and probably most discussed tonality feature. It delivers a relaxed, silky subwoofer-type listening experience that can be really nice and fluffy on the ear. A subtle, pleasant, thick, dampened rumble with a warm tilt underlying the melodies. This works very well for classical music.

But the very low end is boosted at the expense of the mid bass and lower midrange. This means, in some music, the bass lacks punch, kick, and tightness as the emphasized sub-bass is rather fuzzy and it lacks definition. Adding the 10 Ω adapter shifts the tail end of the graph some dBs up: mid-bass and sub-bass responses are raised…however this makes the shelf too thick and syrupy for my liking. Not so great for powerful music.

Continuing without the adapter, the lower midrange is therefore somewhat lean, vocals are recessed and the sub-bass may paint over it in some instances and muffle the lower mids (“Sennheiser veil”). Both female and male vocals are recessed, lean, but articulate and much more neutral than the low end. Midrange notes are well defined and articulate. This works well when listening at moderate volumes…contributes to the spatial cues.

The upper midrange is being balanced by the sub-bass so that there is no shoutiness. An early rolloff provides a safe treble experience but you have to dig somewhat for cymbals.

Soundstage is wide and tall but not overly deep. Separation, layering, imaging, and resolution are average for this class.

Timbre is expectedly reasonably natural but midrange decay is relatively fast (in contrast to the bass and sub-bass): string instruments can sound a bit scratchy.

In summary, the Red has no real weaknesses considering its price. I quite like using it as a “beater” on the go. The good isolation works in favour of this. It is more of a “fun” iem than an audiophile revelation.

Comparisons

The question is whether the Red is that revelation at the $50 price point as claimed. A comparison with our own $50 favourite, the final E3000 [Crinacle rating: C+] will give answers. It was introduced in 2017 and has been holding strong since. The E3000 has much more prominent mid-bass, lesser upper midrange and more treble. It sounds therefore bassier and punchier than the Red but relies on stronger amplification.

E3000 scales with source and has superior imaging (also compared to some $200 models) and a more organic timbre. The Red works better with a phone or small dap, it has a detachable cable and is much better accessorized. The E3000’s piston-shaped shells are much simpler looking and much smaller and are therefore more comfortable. In summary, the Red does not beat this 6-year old model.

Comparing the Red with the $150 Sennheiser IE 200 at three times the price is unfair but interesting (as the IE 200 are my personal discovery of the last year). For my ears, the IE 200’s vocals are more in the foreground and the low end is subtle where’s its higher treble energy makes for a more vivid performance. The IE 200 have a fluidity and organic timbre that is hardly found in their category.

Concluding Remarks

The Truthear x Crinacle Zero Red, an upgrade of the original 2022 Zero, is certainly a decent iem that is worth its asking price. But, other than that it has been carefully curated/marketed/hyped and is well accessorized, it is by no means as special as the internet’s echo chamber makes it – and it is outright underwhelming considering the expectations created by Crinacle’s marketing machine over a long time. Alone the sub-bass emphasis is unique in this class. Nevertheless, the Red will please most mainstream consumers.

Applying his own audiophile scale, influencer Crinacle has released yet another average iem, one of the kind he used to rip apart with vigour in his previous reviewing career. How times change.

Until next time…keep on listening!

The post TRUTHEAR x Crinacle ZERO: RED Review (1) – Perfect C 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.

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.