The KBEAR Rosefinch is your classic $20 V-shaped single dynamic driver iem but without the traditional flaws such as shoutiness.

The $16.99 KBEAR Rosefinch was kindly provided by KBEAR and I thank them for that. You can get it from the KBEAR Official Store.

Introduction

My history with KBEAR goes back almost to their origins – to the “golden times” of this blog, when iem releases were not as frequent as sand on a beach. I even participated in tuning a KBEAR iem (with KopiOkaya, our eartips man), the infamous KBEAR Diamond. It was the grandfather of all “collabs” and got us both censored on Head-Fi…they wanted to extort money from us, their fair share of our profits. The problem was: we did not receive any compensation.

I later fell temporarily out of favour by not pleasing tuner and manufacturer with my account of the KBEAR Believe, that sported a unique Be diaphragm.

Specifications KBEAR Rosefinch

Physical Things

In the box are the earpieces, a cable, a set of eartips, and the paperwork. KBEAR appears to release variations of the same design over and over again. The metal faceplates are quite nice for this budget price but they are essentially a repetition of the KBEAR Lark. The resin shell are also standard.

The cable and the eartips are as basic as it gets.

Tonality and Technicalities

The Rosefinch sounds like a 2018 V-shaped single-dynamic driver in its price category could or should have sounded: slightly warm and without shoutiness or any other unpleasant peaks. It has a surprisingly good midrange imaging and resolution, a reasonably focused bass, and subdued lower treble with some tizzyness in the uppermost registers.

Sub-bass extension is quite good and bass lines are reasonably well defined. We have had this many times before in this class. The low end is a bit on the strong side – but not as prominent as the graph implies – which may sometimes congest the lower midrange a bit and narrow the stage. But it is by no means hard on my sensitive eardrums.

Vocals are surprisingly well rendered – but don’t expect magic – though they could be a bit more robust. Midrange clarity is best in bass-poor passages. There is no shoutiness, rather the opposite, which has a slightly muffling effect occasionally.

Cymbals are also a bit behind and they get some splash from the upper harmonics. Overall, the treble is quite tame. Timbre is what you are used to from this kind of driver in resin shells – ok, but nothing out of the ordinary. Staging, separation, and layering also take over where the other $20 iems have left off. They are alright, but not exciting.

One thing to note is that the Rosefinch has a low sensitivity and benefits from amping, which is odd for a $17 iem, but not unheard of (see all these VE earbuds).

Concluding Remarks

The KBEAR Rosefinch is another feelgood iem for the budget aficionado and newbie, but it does not offer anything new for the experienced hobbyist. KBEAR did a reasonable job learning from their previous mistakes. There is nothing wrong with this iem – and listeners on a limited budget may be quite pleased even. The price is certainly right.

Until next time…keep on listening!

The post KBEAR Rosefinch Review – Average Guy? appeared first on Music For The Masses.

Since all digital cables are sonically identical (aren’t they?), AudioQuest products protect our health whereas cheapos may lead to premature death. Here‘s why we cannot afford the latter…

Introduction

It is well known that all digital cables sound the same as they only transport zeros and ones. You don’t believe me? You do?

Where I got my information from? I had simply followed the advice of the audioquestsciencereview.com blog. It is the one where the Emir of SINDBAD measures cables and DACs etc.

He always comes to the same conclusions: all cables (digital and analog), DACs, and amps sound the same, as long as they measure the same. And his followers agree.

The pragmatic budget audiophile therefore buys a cheap DAC and gets their cables from the dollar store, saves a lot of money…and laughs at these rich old bearded men who hang out at audio shows. You know, those graveyard blondes who can’t let go of Dire Straits, Pink Floyd, and Toto.

And that’s where my problem started: the dollar store. Spending so little on quality cables left me plenty of funds for junk food: cookies, chips, chocolate, pop, etc.

Unfortunately, my increasing knowledge of budget audiophilia was positively correlated with my blood-sugar levels, which resulted in insulin resistance. I also got fatter. Yep, I was moving steadily towards type 2 diabetes.

While my physical shape kept pace with that of the aging members of Dire Straits, Pink Floyd, and Toto, my doctor gave me the choice between Ozempic injections [what’s Ozempic?] and AudioQuest cables as a last resort. I chose the latter – and lost 14 kg in a few months.

My blood values are now normal and I can wear pants again that had been catching dust in the basement for years. No more danger of type 2 diabetes. No more risk of heart attacks and stroke.

How I did that? I purchased an AudioQuest USB-A to Lightning cable, model “Cinnamon”. Not that cinnamon would be rich in antioxidants, antibacterial properties, or reduce the effects of bad cholesterol (all of which is true)…no, it was simply pricey for a dollar-store customer like me.

AudioQuest, in contrast to audioquestsciencereview.com, promotes the idea that not all (digital and analog) cables sound identical. The company offers a wide variety of product covering the whole market spectrum.

Does the AudioQuest Cinnamon Lightning to USB-A cable make a Difference?

I purchased the 0.75 m AudioQuest Cinnamon USB-A to Lightning cable for personal use (and not for review purposes) from the company and thank them for their discount. You find it in the spice aisle of your local supermarket and on the AudioQuest website.

My first test related to clean power. After charging my iPhone through the AudioQuest Cinnamon cable, Apple’s music player sounded better. Brass instruments and violins emitted rounder notes…and there was lot more transparency.

This was not measurable, but had to do with the cable’s insulation, which absorbed energy. This absorption re-aligned the dilithium crystals in uniform order.

As a side effect, the display of the battery charger appeared brighter and sharper.

Non-Health Aspects: Sound

You may have noticed that the writeup so far has been an April Fools’ Day joke. Getting serious, I plugged my iPhone with the AudioQuest Cinnamon Lightning cable in the Marantz SA8005 SACD player (see title photo) that was connected to a Luxman L-410 amp (via AudioQuest Sydney RCA interconnects) and Heybrook HB1 speakers.

In comparison to my Amazon Basics Lightning cable, the Cinnamon contributes a tad more richness, warmth, and more rounded notes. The question is whether one cares.

Subjectivity vs. Subjectivity

The difference between these digital cables will have different impact on different people with different attitudes. The measurement-guided enthusiast will not bother, the tight-fisted aficionado will not care either, but the more fine spirited soul (with deeper pockets) will.

To me, such nuances add up and will make a substantial cumulative difference over time. I treasure the fact that the sound will be improved with this cable every time I listen to the music.

An example of cumulative benefits: I like the AudioQuest DragonFly Red and Cobalt dongle DACs – and have used them for a couple of years now. I hear a huge difference between the two, the Cobalt is just richer and rounder playing whereas the punchier Red has some shrillness in the upper mids (which can be tamed to some extent with the JitterBug). Therefore, the Cobalt gets way more eartime than the Red.

Measurement-guided analysts Archimago and a friend could not hear a difference between these two dongle DACS that justified their $100 price difference. Sound-guided analyst Steve Guttenberg begged to differ.

In the end all of us are right: each person decides what is good for themselves because it is their ears – and their wallets.

A problem arises when one group mobs those who disagree, backed by “objectivity” claims of measurements. This is invalid as any measurement setup is subjective and no correlation between quantitative measurements (“observation”) and qualitative sound (“interpretation”) has been established. The self-proclaimed objectivity is in reality just “internal consistency”, which is of limited usefulness.

In order to get around this logical fallacy, one has to subscribe to a belief system. Herd mentality is added to boost each other’s confidence resulting in a carnival of bullying know-it-alls.

It is actually grotesque that anybody refuses to use their ears for evaluating sound.

But the world is not black and white. On the other hand, cable companies such as Kimber and AudioQuest also come up with unsubstantiated correlations between physics and sound….the physics may be correct but may not influence the sound at all. Paradoxically, their cables may sound as good as claimed, but for the wrong reasons.

This fallacy is principally not any different from the previously mentioned one and I wonder whether these claims are just defence mechanisms against the “measurement crowd”.

At least, the “quality crowd” keeps to themselves and does not feel the need to impose themselves on others…except perhaps bore us with endless discussions of cable break-ins and the “critical period between hours 150 and 200 on the way to the recommended 500 hours” (yes, I read that).

From my own experience: I once helped tune the KBEAR Diamond earphone. After we got the frequency response (used as a guiding tool to record differences) to our liking, I received the final pre-production prototype. And it sounded offensively bad to my ears. But all the company had done was exchange the cable.

Luckily, the original cable was also in the package – which fixed the sound for my ears. The difference between the two cables? The offensive one had an OCC wire, the preferred one was made of oxygen-free copper.

Both were $15 cables, therefore cost was not an issue. The Diamond yielded the same frequency response graph with either cable.

In summary, the sound of music cannot be characterized by (quantitative) measurements of sine waves. That’s apples and oranges. On top of that, quantity and quality are not correlated in a linear manner. We have to use our ears…and it may take trial and error…which can be pricey.

Concluding Remarks

We at www.audioreviews.org are all keen on trying things out. We principally don’t believe any claims before we have tested and verified them, which includes the use of our ears without prejudice. Our blog offers many examples of dismissing unjustified hype generated by companies and influencers.

We also consult measurements but refrain from overinterpreting them. We use every available line of evidence to arrive at a coherent, meaningful interpretation. And we are open to learning.

We are also aware that quality audio is not black and white, and that there is snake oil out there…but our approach minimizes our risk falling for that. In the end, the controversy does not matter as the quantity crowd stays away from the (pricier) quality, and the quality crowd frowns upon dollar-store Hifi. They simply don’t mix – and only one of them barks up the tree of the other, sadly.

I personally enjoy the Cinnamon and my weight loss (the 14 kg and the pre-diabetes are real). And I can use this cable with generations of iPhones over years to come [unless Apple changes over to USB-C], which makes it a worthwhile acquisition in the long run.

Now let’s get some chips from the dollar store to celebrate the day. Potato chips that is, not DAC chips.

Please check your blood pressure regularly!

Until next time…keep on listening!

The post How An AudioQuest USB Cable Saved My Life appeared first on Music For The Masses.

Durwood nailed the essence of these as midrange centric, with “small bookshelf” bass which serves only not to detract from the higher frequencies. They are certainly lovely to look at, and do well with the technicalities, in the sense of having quick transients, good imaging and coherence and a very detailed, highly resolving treble.

However, I don’t like them nearly as much as Durwood—the barely-there low end makes these sound clinical and incomplete, like studio monitors in need of a sub, and the high end can get hot and metallic-sounding at louder volumes.  

In the same price bracket, single DD offerings from Ikko or Moondrop provide a much fuller, more rockin’ take, albeit at the expense of some high-level nuance, while the hybrid Shozy Rouge matches or surpasses the Idun’s high end reproduction without sacrificing the bottom octaves.

Which is not to say that these will not appeal to the bass-averse trebleheads among us, but to my ears the lack of thump and somewhat artificial tonality keep me from recommending.

Borrowed from Durwood.  HifiGo provided this review piece free of charge You can purchase it here.

SPECIFICATIONS Kinera Golden (Idun 2.0)

PACKAGE CONTENTS

• One pair of Kinera Idun Golden ( Idun 2.0 ) in-ear monitors.
• One 0.78 2 pin 8 cores OFC + OFC with silver plated cable.
• Modular Adapter 4.4mm & 3.5mm
• K-07 Balanced Eartips ( Red, Green, Yellow Colour ) : Sound balanced and stereo
• K-285-02 Vocal Eartips ( Skin Colour ) : Release high frequencies, pleasant vocals
• Two pairs of Foam tips.
• PU Case with inner velvet protection.
• 3.5mm to 6.35mm adapter.
• User Manual

GRAPHS (from Durwood)

• Left vs Right
• Small bore vs Wide Bore eartip
• Impedance Plot

Contact us!

DISCLAIMER

Get it from HifiGo Store

Our generic standard disclaimer.

About my measurements.

The post Kinera Idun Golden (Idun 2.0) Review 2 – Snarky (But Brief) Second Opinion appeared first on Music For The Masses.

Much like its predecessor, the $160 KBEAR Believe (as well as the cheaper KBEAR Diamond and KBEAR KB04), the mid-focused, $170 KBEAR Aurora scores high on the technicalities—low end is well-sculpted and meaty, coherence between  frequencies is seamless and layering and imaging are impressive, even if the soundstage is fairly narrow.

However like its brethren the KBEAR Aurora’s tonality is just a little bit off—for lack of a better description, everything sounds “recorded” and slightly unnatural. Acoustic guitars, in particular, lack shimmer and crispness and sound more like electric, while drums show something of a cardboard box effect and miss some snap, depth and resonance.

High end is smooth and tasteful but, as others have opined, rolls off too early and misses some of the high-level microdetail you’d expect at this price point. By no means a bad IEM—these would have considerable appeal to fans of vocal-oriented material or to the treble averse—but I prefer KBEAR’s cheaper offerings.

KBEAR Aurora Specifications

• Driver configuration: 10mm Nano Titanium Plated Diaphragm
• Frequency response: 20 Hz – 20kHz
• Impedance: 18 Ω
• Sensitivity: 105 dB/mW
• Cable: 2 Pin (0.78mm), OFC Silver plated cable
• Tested at $169 USD

Disclaimer

Borrowed from Durwood. These were sent to him gratis via Keephifi.

Get the KBEAR Aurora from Keephifi.

Our generic standard disclaimer.

Contact us!

Headphone Reviews

The post KBEAR Aurora Review (3) – More Comments From The Peanut Gallery appeared first on Music For The Masses.

Instead of first impressions, we offer completely flavour-neutral optical treatments before following up with our exhaustive reviews of the products’ performances.

Current Photography

1. BQEYZ Autumn vs. BEQYZ Summer (Jürgen Kraus)
2. Hidizs MM2 (Jürgen Kraus)
3. IKKO OH2 vs. IKKO OH1S (Jürgen Kraus)

Vintage Photography (prior to March 2022)

1. AME Custom Argent Hybrid Electrostatic (Jürgen Kraus)
2. Anew X-One (Jürgen Kraus)
3. Blon BL-05 Beta (Jürgen Kraus)
4. Blon BL-05 Beta (Jürgen Kraus)
5. Blon BL-05 MKI & MKII (Jürgen Kraus)
6. BQEYZ Spring 1 (Jürgen Kraus)
7. BQEYZ Spring 2 (Durwood)
8. CCA CA16 (Durwood)
9. Drop + JVC HA-FXD1 (Jürgen Kraus)
10. Fidue A65/A66 (Jürgen Kraus)
11. FiiO FD1 (Jürgen Kraus)
12. FiiO FHs1 (Jürgen Kraus)
13. Hill Audio Altair • RA (Jürgen Kraus)
14. iBasso IT01 V2 (Jürgen Kraus)
15. Hilidac Atom Pro (Jürgen Kraus)
16. Ikko OH1 (Jürgen Kraus)
17. KBEAR Believe (Jürgen Kraus)
18. KBEAR Diamond (Jürgen Kraus)
19. KBEAR hi7 (Jürgen Kraus)
20. KBEAR KB04 (Jürgen Kraus)
21. KBEAR Lark (Jürgen Kraus)
22. Kinboofi MK4 (Jürgen Kraus)
23. KZ ASX (Jürgen Kraus)
24. KZ ZSN Pro (Slater)
25. Moondrop Crescent (Jürgen Kraus)
26. Moondrop Illumination (Jürgen Kraus)
27. Moondrop Kanas Pro Edition (Jürgen Kraus)
28. Moondrop SSP (Jürgen Kraus)
29. Moondrop SSR (Jürgen Kraus)
30. Moondrop Starfield (Jürgen Kraus)
31. NiceHCK Blocc 5N Litz UPOCC OCC Copper Earphone Cable
32. NiceHCK Litz 4N Pure Silver Earphone Cable (Jürgen Kraus)
33. NiceHCK NX7 (Jürgen Kraus)
34. NiceHCK NX7 Pro (Jürgen Kraus)
35. Queen of Audio Pink Lady (Jürgen Kraus)
36. Revonext QT5 (Slater)
37. SeeAudio Yume (Jürgen Kraus)
38. Senfer DT6 (Slater)
39. Sennheiser IE 300
40. Sennheiser IE 500 PRO
41. Shozy Form 1.1 and Shozy Form 1.4
42. Shozy Form 1.4 (Jürgen Kraus)
43. Shozy Rouge (Jürgen Kraus)
44. Simgot EM2 (Jürgen Kraus)
45. Simgot EN700 Pro (Slater)
46. Smabat ST-10 (Jürgen Kraus)
47. Tin Hifi T2 Plus (Jürgen Kraus)
48. Tin-Hifi T4 (Jürgen Kraus)
49. TRN-STM (Jürgen Kraus)
50. TRN V90 (Jürgen Kraus
51. TRN-VX (Jürgen Kraus)
52. Whizzer Kylin HE01 (Jürgen Kraus)

The post Photography appeared first on Music For The Masses.

• Small and light, good build.
• 3 modes for more versatility – music, gaming and movie modes.
• Innovative detachable magnetic cable system.
• Plug and playable, compatible with desktops/laptops, apple and android phones (there is an option to get Lightning versus USB C connectors).
• Very low output impedance, suitable for low impedance IEMs. No hiss.
• Neutralish, with a slight bass boost to add some fun.
• Volume controller.

Cons

• Gets slightly warm.
• Volume may jump when switching between modes – best to mute device/lower volume first.

Executive Summary

The IKKO Zerda ITM01 is a swiss army knife of the budget dongle DAC/AMP arena. It has a music, gaming and movie mode, making it quite versatile. It also has volume controls and boasts a very innovative magnetic cable system. There is good power on tap, yet this set can still drive low impedance type IEMs because of its low output impedance.

Specifications

• DAC uses ESS’s high-performance ESS9298 chip
• PCM supports up to 16Bit/384kHz
• DSD supports up to DoP128
• Adopts ikko’s custom anti-interference magnet thread connection method
• SNR: 118dB@32Ω (A-weight)
• Frequency response range: 20Hz-40kHz (-0.5dB)
• Output impedance: <0.8Ω
• Adaptation impedance: adaptive 16ohm – 600ohm
• Output level: 2V @ 32Ω (125mW @ 32Ω)
• Distortion: < 0.001%
• Decoding ability: Simulation (multiple sound optimizations)
• Size: 58x22x11mm
• Output: 3.5 mm
• Tested at $59 USD

Accessories

• 1x Ikko ITM01 Dongle
• 1x USB A cable
• 1x Type C or lightning cable (you can choose either option at order).

The USB A cable is very long, so no worries of a too short cable limiting your usage. In fact I found it too long and dangly, and had to tie up the cable when using it with my laptop. This cable is cloth braided and there is an included faux leather strap to tie the USB A cable.

A second cable is included, this is either a Lightning or USB Type C connector, depending on which one you choose at ordering. Well that depends if you are of the Apple or Android persuasion, but this cable is very much shorter.

These 2 included cables feature a very nifty and innovative magnetic connector to attach the cable to the DAC/AMP device. The magnetic end of the cable locks on easily and can be used in either direction; this may lessen wear and tear for frequent cable changing.

Contrary to the impressions that a magnetic connector can cause an easy dislodgement of the cable from the DAC/AMP, it is actually not easy to remove this magnetic clamp once the cable is inside, and I had no issues with dislodging the cable on the go.

This cable is unfortunately proprietary. I do appreciate that this DAC/AMP dongle’s cable is detachable, as a non-detachable one may be a point of failure down the line. In this current year of 2021, it is really not excusable to have a non-detachable cable for these dongles (unless we are talking about an ultra-budget set), as a non-detachable cable is one awkward yank away from being a white elephant.

Build

The ITM01 is made of plastic, but is sturdy yet light. As mentioned above, the detachable cable definitely should prolong its lifespan.

Measuring in at 58 x 22 x 11 mm, this set can easily fit into a jeans pocket on the go.

This set has a 3.5 mm output (single ended) and has no balanced option.

Functionality

The IKKO Zerda ITM01 is a plug and play set, and is compatible with desktops/laptops, apple and android phones (depending on the cable type you order), without any need to install drivers.

Disclaimer: I am not an Apple fanboy and do not own any Apple products, so I opted for the USB C version and tested this set on Android phones and a Windows laptop. Please check with others who have bought the Lightning version if they have any issues with Apple products.

The volume buttons work as advertised on the IKKO Zerda ITM01, they can be pressed down with a satisfactory click. I appreciate that the volume steps in the ITM01 are quite fine, unlike the Tempotec Sonata HD Pro, which have huge volume levels in between each volume step.

Pressing the middle button once (short press) pauses or starts the music. This middle button also controls the mode if pressed for 3 seconds: music (yellow LED), movie (blue LED) and game mode (purple LED).

Technical Aspects

The IKKO Zerda ITM01 can support PCM up to 16Bit/384kHz and DSD up to DoP128.

I did not note any RF interference when putting the IKKO Zerda ITM01 through its paces. Neither did I hear any hiss nor clicking with changing tracks midway. There is a bit of a clicking noise however, when changing modes.

On the music mode (yellow LED), the IKKO Zerda ITM01 essentially is neutralish with a slight bass boost. This keeps it from sounding sterile and adds a little bit of fun to the equation. The background is pitch dark with highly sensitive IEMs.

In fact with the advertised <0.8Ω output impedance, this set is perfect for multi driver low impedance IEMs (rule of eights in audiophile teachings). I’ve tried some 9ish ohm low output impedance sets like the Audiosense T800 and TRI Starsea on this DAC/AMP without any issues.

With very high impedance earbuds and cans eg ~ 300 ohms, the IKKO Zerda ITM01 faired well and could drive such gear adequately. When paired with some power hungry IEMs, eg KBEAR BElieve/Final E3000 (low sensitivity) and TRI I3 (planar tribid), these all sounded good, with a lot more headroom to spare.

On the movie mode (blue LED), the soundstage was compressed a tinge, with a boost in the upper mids region, giving more clarity to voices. This gave a spherical blob of soundstage with the head as the reference point, and there was some loss in instrument separation.

I didn’t get a “surround sound” vibe with this mode though. The volume cap is also much higher here than on the music mode, and the volume levels may jump from the music mode when playing an equivalent track (so beware).

On the gaming mode (purple LED), the soundstage became unnaturally wide (it may not be suited for music listening as such), but this might aid in placement of gun shots and footsteps, especially for FPS players. Instrument separation does take a hit compared to the music mode.

Likewise, the volume cap here is also much more than on the music mode, and the volume can also jump suddenly compared to the music mode, while on the same test track.

Hence, when changing modes to the gaming/movie mode, as they have a different volume level/cap, my advise is to mute the volume of your device and put the source (eg phone/laptop) volume to zero, and slowly increase incrementally, in case of any sudden jumps in volume between the modes.

The IKKO Zerda ITM01 does get a bit warm with prolonged usage, but I’ve definitely had other dongle DAC/AMPs that go much hotter.

Comparisons

Compared to the Tempotec Sonata HD Pro, the ITM01 has about comparable sound quality, but the ITM01 is more fun sounding in view of a bass boost, compared to the rather neutral Sonata HD Pro; the Sonata HD Pro can sound a bit more boring as such.

The Sonata HD Pro also has weaker driving power, and can’t drive some more demanding gear, eg 300 ohm cans. Having said that, there are some mods (eg BHD firmware mod, or using a 3.5 mm to 3.5 mm adapter) to get the Sonata HD Pro to output more juice, but the volume steps on the Sonata HD Pro are also bigger, so fine tuning volume levels on the Sonata HD Pro isn’t as reliable.

Compared to the E1DA 9038D, the ITM01 has poorer soundstage and technicalities, but that is not surprising considering the E1DA 9038D is around double the price (the 9038D is not better by twice for sure).

Driving power on both sets are good for a single-ended dongle, but the E1DA 9038D drains more battery and gets noticeably warmer. The E1DA 9038D is also very neutral and may sound more boring and analytical than the ITM01.

Conclusions

The IKKO Zerda ITM01 is a swiss army knife of the budget dongle DAC/AMP arena. It has a music, gaming and movie mode, making it quite versatile. It also has volume controls and boasts a very innovative magnetic cable system. There is good power on tap, yet this set can still drive low impedance type IEMs because of its low output impedance.

This DAC/AMP dongle (on the music mode) features a neutral signature with some slight bass boost to add a bit of fun to the music. Soundwise, the ITM01 definitely holds its own at the budget segment, and at $59 USD, has really quite good price to performance ratio. Recommended!

Contact us!

Disclaimer

I would like to thank Rebecca from IKKO for providing this review unit. It can be purchased here: https://www.ikkoaudio.com/products/ikko-zerda-itm01-portable-audio-dac-detachable-magnetic-cable-adapter

Our generic standard disclaimer.

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

The post IKKO Zerda ITM01 Review (1) – Swiss Army Knife appeared first on Music For The Masses.

Nice build and good comfort. Beautiful shells.
Organic timbre.
Pleasant tonality.
Big bass yet with good quality and speed.
2 pin connector, better lifespan than MMCX in general.
Adequate accessories at this price bracket.
Easy to drive.

Cons

Below average isolation.
Shells may be a fingerprint or scratch magnet.
Not the best microdetails.
Not the most extended treble.

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

The KBEAR Aurora is a lush harmanish single DD set. It features a beautiful shell, organic timbre and great tonality. This set generally scores good marks across most departments, only perhaps lacking in treble extension and microdetails.

SPECIFICATIONS

• Driver configuration: 10mm Nano Titanium Plated Diaphragm
• Frequency response: 20 Hz – 20kHz
• Impedance: 18 Ω
• Sensitivity: 105 dB/mW
• Cable: 2 Pin (0.78mm), OFC Silver plated cable
• Tested at $169 USD

ACCESSORIES

The Aurora comes in a nice packaging featuring an Aurora Borealis motif.

Included are:
1) SPC blue cable (ties in nicely with the Aurora snowfield motif) – The cable is well braided, no microphonics, very thicc and substantial. The blue colour may be a bit too showy for some though.
2) Silicone tips of various sizes. Do tip roll to see what suits you sonically and for fit/isolation.
3) Carry case – faux leather, similar to the case seen in other KBEAR products
4) Cleaning cloth
5) Cleaning brush

The accessories provided are par for the course for a $100 USD range set.

I liked that KBEAR is using a cable with a 2 pin connector, I had my fair share of mishaps with MMCX type connectors after switching cables once too often, they ended up like spinning windvanes.

For the purposes of this review, the stock tips and stock cables were used, so as not to change the sound signature with aftermarket gear.

BUILD/COMFORT

Build wise, the Aurora has a shiny mirror like finish, akin to the HZSound Heart Mirror or Moondrop KXXS. The Aurora is quite light and smooth, it is well built with no funny edges to poke the ear. Comfort is very good. But due to the mirror like finish, this set may be finger print or scratch magnet, so do be careful with em.

The shells are quite a looker, while using them on the subway for isolation tests, a few curious commuters kept looking at the Aurora earpieces.

I didn’t have driver flex on my set, but this is partially related to ear anatomy an types of tips used, so YMMV.

ISOLATION

Unfortunately, the Aurora’s isolation is below average. I lost quite a lot of the bass frequencies when using them on a subway (bass is generally the first frequency lost in a noisy place). This skewed the sound to be a bit shouty in the upper mids/treble. So personally, I think the Aurora’s ideal sound is to be gotten when using them at home or in a quiet area.

DRIVABILITY

I tested the KBEAR Aurora with a Khadas Tone Board -> Schiit Asgard 3 amp, Khadas Tone Board -> Topping L30 amp, Sony NW A-55 DAP (Walkman One Plus v2 Mr Walkman Mod), smartphone, Shanling Q1 DAP, Tempotec Sonata HD Pro, E1DA 9038D, and a Khadas Tone Board -> Fiio A3 Amp.

The Aurora are relatively easy to drive, but scale well when amped, in the areas of bass tightness, soundstage, dynamics etc. They are definitely easier to drive than their older sibling the KBEAR BElieve.

SOUND & TECHNICALITIES

The KBEAR Aurora is a harmanish warm set. The Aurora Borealis icy motif may give an impression that this is an ice cold set in terms of tuning, but far from it be. The Aurora is actually warm and lush and leans towards analoguish, rather than a sterile frosty wintery wonderland.

The bass of the KBEAR Aurora is midbass focused, it is north of neutral but not at true basshead levels. Subbass extends well, you will get your rumble for the subbass frequencies.

Despite the copious bass, the bass speed is quite agile, note weight is on the thicker side, yet with very minimal midbass bleed. Listening to some of the faster bass movements on songs such as Sting’s “Englishman In New York” (interlude portion), some slower DD drivers can make the bass notes sound like a nebulous haze, but the Aurora passes this test.

Bass is not as fast as BA bass though, but not many sets manage to get a good mix of bass quantity/note weight and bass quality (speed, without bleed). Timbre and texture in the bass is quite good, in keeping with its DD roots.

The KBEAR Aurora’s lower mids are slightly depressed (not overly so). There is a boost in the upper mids, but they have an upper mids that is a few dB lesser than a traditional harman IEM. So generally, they manage to thread a fine line of having a forward upper mids without going too much into shouty territory. Perhaps there is some upper mids glare if one uses them outdoors (poor isolation kills the bass and overly emphasizes the upper mids/treble), or on some poorly recorded tracks or at louder volumes (Fletcher Munson curve).

But by and large, this set doesn’t have the usual banshee upper mids seen in CHIFI tuning, the pinna gain here is around 10 – 11 db. Vocals are forward compared to instruments, and timbral accuracy for vocals is rather organic. I would describe the mids in the Aurora to be on the lusher and thicker side, but it may not have the best transparency or clarity. Think of an analoguish signature like the BLON BL-03 but with better technical performance.

The KBEAR Aurora has moderate treble extension, though it may not be as airy as some multi BA types. So sparkle is a bit tamed, cymbal and high hat hits are a bit muted with the tuning, but consequently, I don’t find the Aurora fatiguing. Some slight microdetails are lost as such. Sibilance is very mild.

In technicalities, the KBEAR Aurora have above average soundstage (in height, depth and width). Imaging and instrument separation are also above average at this price bracket (for a single DD set), though clarity and microdetails are not the best. Those multi driver/hybrid types at the $100ish bracket might be better at technicalities, but some of them have timbre or coherency issues. So different strokes for different folks, pick your poison.

Timbre on the KBEAR Aurora is very good. In fact, I’d say the Aurora have better timbral accuracy than the KBEAR BElieve and some other similarly priced single DD sets. Acoustic instruments like brass, woodwind and stringed instruments all sounded organic. Considering the KBEAR Aurora use a titanium driver, I was pleasantly surprised by the timbre (my past experiences with titanium drivers IEMs wasn’t the best when it came to timbre, eg DUNU DM480, Audiosense AQ7).

COMPARISONS

I have compared the KBEAR Aurora with a few single DD at the upper budget-midfi segment. Hybrids and pure BA types were left out of the comparisons as they have different pros and cons among the different transducer types.

KBEAR BElieve ($159 USD)

Compared to the older KBEAR BElieve, the Aurora is much easier to drive, and it has more subbass extension than the BElieve. The BElieve has more upper mids and treble, and also has better technicalities and resolution. The Aurora has better bass speed, especially at the midbass, whereas the BElieve’s midbass could be quite nebulous, especially when underpowered.

Timbral accuracy is better on the KBEAR Aurora, and it isn’t as hot in the upper mids either.

The KBEAR Aurora and the BElieve are kind of sidegrades, each have their pros and cons as such.

The KBEAR BElieve is no longer in production, but word on the street is that the Vento Conductor T-500 Pro is very similar to the BElieve, or might be an OEM of sorts. So if you are still looking for the BElieve, perhaps consider getting the T-500 Pro.

Tanchjim Oxygen ($269 USD)

The Tanchjim Oxygen is one of the benchmark single DD sets in midfi CHIFIdom. The Oxygen has a more extended treble and air and it also has all round better timbre, better technicalities and a better bass quality (better timbre, texture and speed). The Oxygen has a slightly thinner note weight though, when compared to the more analoguish sounding Aurora.

Definitely the Oxygen is the superior set, but it is $100 USD more expensive.

TForce Yuan Li ($119 USD)

The TForce Yuan Li is a bit less V shaped than the Aurora. The Aurora has bigger bass quantities and more subbass extension. Timbre is better on the Aurora, with the Aurora also having a not so hot upper mids region. Technicalities are also better on the Aurora.

Both sets have a very nice shell and accessories, but if you can top up the $50 USD or so, the Aurora is a marginal upgrade.

CONCLUSIONS

The KBEAR Aurora is a lush harmanish single DD set. It features a beautiful shell, organic timbre and great tonality. This set generally scores good marks across most departments, only perhaps lacking in treble extension and microdetails.

The “Aurora borealis” naming convention here is quite a good choice, as this set melds good looks and sound in a nice little package, like the northern lights.

Definitely the Aurora is a set that single DD lovers and timbre lovers should consider!

Contact us!

You find an INDEX of all our earphone reviews HERE.

DISCLAIMER

I would like to thank KBEAR for providing this review unit. It can be gotten at https://www.aliexpress.com/item/1005003109134536.html

Our generic standard disclaimer.

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

The post KBEAR Aurora Review (1) – Aurora Borealis appeared first on Music For The Masses.

Cons — Smoothness and richness reduced in revised tuning; still lacks treble extension; still needs strong amplification.

Executive Summary

The TRI I3 Pro remains a unique sounding planar-magnetic earphone that now features more bass and upper midrange which results in improved transparency, clarity, liveliness, and dynamics, at the expense of richness and note weight.

Introduction

KBEAR released their original $169 TRI I3 in late 2019. It was the cheapest planar magnetic earphone on the market and received lots of attention. We analyzed it to death – here the takes by KopiOkaya, Baskingshark, and myself – and also addressed the pros and cons of planar-magnetic drivers.

The original was plagued by channel imbalance, lack of nozzle lips (any eartips were stuck in my ears after each use), the earpieces were “sumo sized” (Baskinghark), the cable did not harmonize sonically, and some say the tips didn’t either. All of these (except the eartips) have been addressed in the Pro model.

Regardless, the original’s sonic offerings were so appealing to the users that the model prevailed until recently – almost unheard of in this genre.

Specifications

Physical Things and Usability

In the box are the earpieces, 2 sets of eartips, cable, pleather pouch (known from Diamond and Believe models), cleaning cloth (!), cleaning brush, and paperwork.

The aluminium alloy earpieces, although shrunk by 26% compared to the original, are still not the smallest lightest but they are (still) very comfortable for me. Build and haptic are premium. The 5N OFC (oxygen-free copper) cable works sonically, has no microphonics, is pliable but a bit on the heavy side. Optically, it is nothing special. in terms of comfort, I had no problems listening through a double CD. Isolation remains average.

The grey stock eartips are fine for me, I cannot not find any better alternatives after some tip rolling. Amplification is required for the I3 Pro to shine, and the more the better. Regular dongles were ok, but the EarMen TR-amp worked best in releasing the sonic details.

Physical Differences between TRI I3 Pro and TRI I3

As you can see from the 2 photos, the shell size has been reduced in volume by 26% (the number is from the product page) without changing shape. You further recognize the nozzle lip added to the Pro.

Tonality and Technicalities

Equipment used: MacBook Air + EarMen TR-amp. Hidizs S9 Pro, Earstudio HUD100, AudioQuest Dragonfly Redw. JitterBug FMJ, AudioQuest DragonFly Cobalt, Astell & Kern PEE51; grey stock eartips. Worked best with the most powerful TR-amp.

KBEAR have addressed a few concerns about their original I3 but kept the principal sonic character. The changes are rather tonal nuances of the original packed into smaller shells.

The I3 Pro is still a warm (but to a lesser extent) iem with that special planar-magnetic timbre that is so different from the rest of the competition – a unique feature of this earphone.

As you can see from a graph comparison, the I3 Pro received boosts at the low end and in the upper midrange, which pronounces the original model’s U-shape. But instead of the vocals being pushed back, they are actually moved forward. This means that the upper midrange wins the balance game over the low end.

In the big picture, the TRI Pro has become brighter, faster (at least perceived so), more dynamic, but also a bit leaner however cleaner in the midrange.

Although the low end has been boosted (and the pinna gain is still at an acceptable 11 dB), it is somewhat compensated for by the elevate upper midrange so that the bass perception is only marginally stronger compared to the original. It is still a bit on the slow side as it is typical for planar-magnetic drivers. It ain’t fuzzy but could be tighter. Because of the changes in the mid frequencies, the bass appears faster than it probably is. Extension into sub-bass is average.

The lower midrange has moved forward and lost a bit of richness and weight. It is leaner, brighter, and more forward. This is probably the biggest sonic difference to the original. And I am not sure it is better for everybody, but it makes for more midrange clarity and dynamics. And it leaves the impression of more sparkle and bite but the Pro is also more prone to be fatiguing to some.

Treble has essentially remained the same. The rolloff is too early at the expense of sparkle and air. That’s probably the reason for raising the upper midrange. 

Soundstage has been deepened because of the increased U-shape which makes for improved spatial cues and transparency. The stage has become more three dimensional. Co-blogger Larry records a loss of width, he claims the more forward presentation (I add: increased depth) gives the impression of a narrower stage. One could say, the original I3’s stage is flatter and wider. I find the increased three-dimensionality an improvement, but such perception may vary individually.

The technicalities also remain mostly the same, that is average. Instrument separation, resolution are all good but not outstanding. Midrange clarity and air as well as dynamics have been improved.

Since the I3 Pro is so unique, it is pointless comparing it to other models in this price segment. Take it or leave it.

Concluding Remarks

The TRI I3 Pro is an upgrade over the 2019 original in many respects and a sidegrade in others. 

Upgraded were the size of shells and therefore comfort, added nozzle lips, included cleaning cloth…and the price, too :). Sound has become brighter, livelier, more transparent, and more dynamic, but the at the cost of richness and note weight, and it digs into that famous ChiFi peak, at least marginally.

Nevertheless, the TRI I3 Pro remains a completely different beast because of its unique sonic appeal, and therefore competitive, even at the upgraded price. Sadly, I observe such raises throughout the ChiFi community, lately.

When starting comparing original and Pro version, I first favoured the former. But with increasing A/B-ing, I find the Pro version better as livelier sounding. The IE3 Pro is still one of the lowest priced planar-magnetic iems on the market and should remain an audio enthusiasts’ favourite.

Until next time…keep on listening!

Contact us!

All Our 304 Earphone and Earbud Reviews (with Links)

Disclaimer

The TRI I3 Pro were provided from KBEAR for my review and I thank them for that.

Get the TRI I3 Pro from KBEAR Official Store

Our generic standard disclaimer.

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

The post KBEAR TRI I3 Pro Review – Children Of The Evolution appeared first on Music For The Masses.

Cons — Overall generic U-shaped sound; poor cohesion between bass and midrange; thick, slow low end compromises the overall impression; lacks treble extension; adds nothing new, Beryllium just an advertisement gimmick?

Executive Summary

The NiceHCK Lofty earphone is as middle of the road U-shaped sounding as it gets, with a thick bass, lean, sharp midrange, and lack of lower treble. But it offers excellent haptic and build.

Introduction

Iems with Beryllium drivers have been a novelty for some time. Beryllium is a rather stiff material that should deliver a tighter, faster and cleaner bass response compared to conventional dynamic drivers. We expect a natural-sounding midrange, fuller with exceptional details and texture. With the rigidity and elasticity of beryllium, the treble can be extend even further without harshness or grain, resulting in a transparent, crisp sound that is comfortable for long listening sessions (KopiOkaya).

Beryllium drivers are expensive in production and very difficult to implement properly. The two earphones that work well with this driver type are the Dunu Luna ($1700) and the Final Audio A8000 ($2000), but this comes at a price. For example, one Dunu driver allegedly costs $150 in production. So, a Beryllium iem at $240 sounds like a great deal. But will it work as expected?

KBEAR went the Beryllium route with their hyped and now discontinued “Believe” model, which, priced at $159, appeared too good to be true – and it created a loss for the company. And while some really like(d) it, I found that it did not feature the traits you’d expect from a Beryllium diaphragm.

The bass was not tight but rather thick and boomy, and the midrange was overly lean. I speculate that diaphragm was so stiff and fast that filters had to dampen it to a level so that the Beryllium character got lost. I still have a prototype that is sounding speedier than light…very aggressive.

Now, NiceHCK are trying their luck. The company stands for excellent earphone cables at competitive prices, but they also dabble in earphones and earbuds. We have reviewed quite a few of their models, which are hit and miss sonically, while always built very well.

Specifications

Physical Things and Usability

The Lofty comes in a fancy blue leather container with 2 different sets of eartips (S/M/L), a high-quality 6N OCC cable, and the usual paperwork.

The “N” number in 6N refers to degree of copper purity. 6 refers to six nines as in 99.9999% pure copper (5N would mean 99.999% and so on).  OCC 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 blue cable is textile coated, rather thick, and on the heavier side, reminiscent of a small rope. It has some microphonics.

The earpieces are of very high quality, too: CnC-machined airplane grade aluminium. They are a somewhat big and heavy, but they fit me well and are quite comfortable. No problems, though they could be smaller for a single DD iem. Isolation is soso, but this depends on the individual ear canals.

The tips are NiceHCK’s standard fare, there was no attempt made to harmonize tips and earpieces, which constitutes a lack of attention to detail imo. None of the stock tips worked for me sonically.

The Lofty’s low impedance and high sensitivity do not require a particularly powerful source. A phone works just fine.

Tonality and Technicalities

Equipment used: MacBook Air, iPhone SE (1st gen.); AudioQuest DragonFly Cobalt, Hidizs S9 Pro; Earstudio HUD 100, several eartips.

TL;DR: the NiceHCK is pretending to be special with its Beryllium driver but it shows a rather conventional U-shape. Its bass is slow and almost vulgar, which spoils the rest of it. You would expect a Beryllium driver to be fast.

I followed the instructions and broke the earphone in for >100 hours.

So, yes, the low end, that is always the first thing my ears record. I tried different tips: both kinds of stock tips, Azla SednaEarfit, SpinFit CP145, and generic short-stemmed wide-bores. They all contribute to slight sonic differences which remain nuances.

First, the low end does not dig deep enough, there is simply something missing, Second, the low end is not composed or focused, it is slow and therefore loose and rubbery sounding. It lacks tightness, layering, and speed and is just the opposite of what you expect from a stiff Beryllium diaphragm: thick! Nevertheless, it has a decent slam which keeps hammering fuzzy mediocrity against my eardrums.

The fact that NiceHCK supply their standard eartips does not speak for a well thought-out design. I have the best success with the SpinFit CP145 as they push the low-end slightly back…and therefore the low midrange forward….but they cannot fix the lack of speed.

You can twist and turn it as you want, that bass spoils the party (considering the price tag).

The midrange is heavily influenced by the low-end variations from the eartips. The stock tips partially congest but also rein-force the vocals and deepen the stage. The less low-end you admit by your tip selection, the more do the vocals move forward. Vocals are a bit sharp and could be fuller bodied, but you can’t get that rubbery, fuzzy character out of the vocals department, which lacks clarity.

Good that the bass balanced the upper midrange peaks, they do not introduce any fatigue to my ears but the occasional shoutiness. In summary, thick, fuzzy bass and lean, sharp midrange do not fit well together, cohesion is somewhat lacking.

And the treble?

Which treble? A sharp rolloff occurs at 5 kHz and the treble disappears into oblivion. Lower treble missing in action. Cymbals may be crisp, but the challenge is to hear them.

As to technicalities: stage is not very wide and can be deep depending on eartips used. Resolution, separation, and microdynamics are not worthy of a $240 unit, not by a long shot. Timbre is ok. The NiceHCK Lofty is just ordinary and devoid of finesse.

NiceHCK Lofty Compared

The Lofty, when run side-by-side with the $250 JVC HA-FDX1, experiences its limitations, in particular its lack of balance. The JVCs are much more homogenous sounding whereas the Lofty has a finetuning issue between its thick bass, its lean, sharp midrange, and its modest treble. Their vocals and bass simply don’t fit together. The JVCs are not congested, and offer a wider but less deep soundstage. The Lofty really brings out the JVC’s qualities.

The $60 VE BIE Pro sound flatter than the Lofty, they lack depth in comparison, also have bass problems (peak too low in FR creates a blunt kick), and are not as dynamic.

The $350 Sennheiser IE 400 PRO are the smoothest, warmest, and most inviting of the lot. And they are also much better balanced and cohesive sounding than the Lofty.

The discontinued KBEAR Believe was another ~$200 Beryllium-driver earphone, which failed my analysis based on its overly thick low end and dramatically lean midrange. I gave it away and therefore cannot compare it with the Lofty.

The $180 NF Audio NM2+ has a tighter bass than the Lofty, and also a brutally harsh 4-5 kHz peak that blows it out of any contention. Also note its much better treble extension.

Concluding Remarks

The Lofty is NiceHCK’s jump on the Beryllium bandwagon. However, its signature is a rather conventional U-shape and the sound lacks speed and fine tuning, and therefore finesse to the point that I have doubt the driver is really made of stiff Beryllium. A London record label once excelled with the slogan: “if it ain’t stiff, it ain’ worth a f…” ‘nough said.

The Lofty offers nothing new but rather takes us back 2-3 years. The broadly comparable $250 JVC HA-FDX1 is the far better option.

If the NiceHCK Lofty was an $80 iem, I would laud it for its good staging and immersive character. But considering its $240 price tag, the Lofty’s overall performance is rather unimpressive and just ordinary. But at least it it not fatiguing.

Until next time…keep on listening!

Contact us!

All Our 280 Earphone and Earbud Reviews (with Links)

Disclaimer

The NiceHCK Lofty was provided unsolicited from NiceHCK Audio Store for review and I thank them for that.

Get the Lofty from the NiceHCK Audio Store

Our generic standard disclaimer.

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

Gallery

The post NiceHCK Lofty Beryllium IEM Review – If It Ain’t Stiff… appeared first on Music For The Masses.

Comfortable, light, good build.
Neutralish sound – doesn’t colour frequencies, and potrays the connected IEM as it is.
Excellent sound quality.
Good battery life.
Modular system to allow MMCX and 2 pin options for IEMs.
Strong and easy BT connectivity and range. No dropouts for BT.
Has a mic to take calls.
Volume controller.

Cons:

No LDAC or aptX LL/HD
No charging case.
Hisses with highly sensitive IEMs.
No water proofing.

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

The NiceHCK HB2 is a bluetooth wireless adapter that has a modular MMCX/2 pin connector, this increases pairing options for detachable IEMs. It has great sound quality, good battery life and excellent connectivity.

SPECIFICATIONS

• Bluetooth version: Bluetooth 5.2 (Qualcomm QCC3040)
• Bluetooth coding: SBC, AAC, aptX
• Wireless range: 10 meters
• SNR: 59 dB
• Playtime: 13 hours
• Charging time: 1.5 hours
• Tested at $79 USD

ACCESSORIES

In addition to the BT adapter, it comes with:

1) Modular MMCX, 0.78mm 2 Pin and NX7 2 Pin types.

• This is the selling point of the NiceHCK HB2! It comes with a unique 3 types of detachable modules, where one can disconnect the module from the BT adapter, so one can use various IEM connector type housing with it – MMCX, 0.78mm 2 Pin and NX7 2 Pin types.
• The modular design is also good in that usually the connector area is the first point to fail after repeated wear and tear, so no biggie buying the detachable modules, rather than replacing the entire device.

2) USB-C charging cable

BUILD/COMFORT

The NiceHCK HB2 is very comfortable, light and ergonomic. I’ve even used it for 10 hour sessions and forgot it’s in use. The wire guides are flexible and they don’t impinge on the ears, even with a mask and spectacles on. The build quality is rather sturdy too.

The NiceHCK HB2 has no waterproofing mentioned in the specs unfortunately. But FWIW, I’ve used it in some slightly rainy conditions and even with gym and exercise for the past 3 weeks and there are no issues thus far, fingers crossed.

FUNCTION/CONNECTIVITY

Holding a long press on the back of the device turns it on. The left and right sides pair up automatically when turned on, and I had no issues with pairing it with multiple BT devices, all devices recognized the NiceHCK HB2 on the spot. Pressing the power button for 5 seconds conversely turns it off.

The buttons for the NiceHCK HB2 work as advertised:

Interestingly, only one side of the NiceHCK HB2 can be used independently without the need to turn on the other side. This can be an option for some who only want one side in the ear for calls, or say if the other side is being charged. One thing to nitpick is that the buttons are quite sensitive, and are located at the rear of the device, so they can be accidentally touched sometimes.

The NiceHCK HB2 has a mic and can take calls, with good sound quality for calls. I’ve tried it on a few online meetings with no complaints from the others in the conferences with regards to voice quality.

I also liked the volume controller on the NiceHCK HB2. In contrast, some BT adapters like the iBasso CF01 have no volume control on it, so if say one is far away from the BT device used to pair with it, one has to physically go over to the device to change the volume, unlike the NiceHCK HB2, which just requires a tap on the housing.

Connectivity is excellent on the NiceHCK HB2, I have not a single drop out whatsoever in the past 3 weeks that I’ve been using them. The BT range is about 10 meters or so, assuming no walls/obstructions are in the path.

The NiceHCK HB2 doesn’t come with a charging case unfortunately, but it takes around 1.5 hours to reach a full charge. Battery life is advertised at 13 hours, I think it is thereabouts ballpark from my testing, but as per most BT/wireless devices, that is expected to go down with repeated charging cycles, and it also depends on the volume one listens at and perhaps the file type (lossless versus lossy).

TECHNICAL ASPECTS

The NiceHCK HB2 uses the Qualcomm QCC3040 TWS chipset. It has BT 5.2 with support for aptX, SBC and AAC, but unfortunately doesn’t support LDAC or aptX LL/HD.

For the purposes of this review, I paired the NiceHCK HB2 with a range of 15 IEMs. From more power hungry sets like the TRI I3 (contains planars) and the KBEAR BElieve (low sensitivity beryllium driver), to some fussier low impedance/high sensitivity multi driver sets like the Audiosense T800 and TRI Starsea.

Pairings:

• Audiosense T800
• BLON BL-03
• BLON Cardinal
• iBasso CF01
• KBEAR BElieve
• Kinera BD005 Pro
• LZ A7
• Oriveti New Primacy
• Tanchjim Oxygen
• TFZ Tequila
• TRI I3
• TRI Starsea
• Westone 3 (MMCX modded)
• Westone W30
• Whizzer HE01

This device packs quite a lot of juice, and it could power the KBEAR BElieve and TRI I3 with headroom to spare. One thing I would have to nitpick, is that there is some hiss noted with high sensitivity type multi BA IEMs like those mentioned above.

One can mitigate the hiss to some extent by lowering the volume on the NiceHCK HB2, and just jacking up the volume from the BT device you are connected to. Generally the hiss also is not perceived when one is outdoors or when music starts playing anyway.

Dynamics are good on the NiceHCK HB2, there isn’t much loss of the subbass, which is a common occurance in TWS/BT sets. There is some loss of the higher treble, but when one uses BT and wireless stuff on the go and outside,

I think it is quite hard to really notice this. I really liked that the NiceHCK HB2 doesn’t colour the sound much, it just faithfully transmits the sound signature of the attached IEM. So far of the IEMs I’ve paired with it, they all sound the same in terms of general FR as the wired version of these IEMs, though of course wired gear in general tends to have better dynamics, microdetails and technical performance.

COMPARISONS

Even among wireless gear, I generally prefer BT adapters (like the TRN BT20S and TRN BT20), rather than TWS stuff, as I’d like to use my favourite detachable IEMs (with famililar sound signatures) on the go, and hence these BT adapters allow me to reuse the IEM. Plus I think that TWS buds are limited sooner or later by the BT tech or battery life (with repeat charges), so at least the IEM can be kept even if the TWS bud dies/gets outdated.

I’ve the TRN BT20 and TRN BT20S and the iBasso CF01 for these BT adapters. The NiceHCK HB2 sound better than these 3 in terms of sound quality/dynamics and also in terms of connectivity. The iBasso CF01 is more expensive, but comes with a charging case.

I’ve had a few drop outs with the iBasso CF01s and there is a shorter connection distance than the NiceHCK HB2. The iBasso CF01 also only features a MMCX non detachable connector, so that limits the IEM types that can be used with it. The iBasso CF01 has no volume controller as mentioned prior.

CONCLUSIONS

The NiceHCK HB2 is a bluetooth wireless adapter that has a modular MMCX/2 pin connector, this increases pairing options for detachable IEMs. It has great sound quality, good battery life and excellent connectivity.

If a charging case was added, this BT adapter would have been perfect, but as it is, I would recommend this set for those that want the convenience of a wireless connection on the go!

Contact us!

You find an INDEX of all our earphone reviews HERE.

DISCLAIMER

I bought the NiceHCK HB2 with a discount from the NiceHCK Aliexpress shop: https://www.aliexpress.com/item/1005002848089532.html.

Our generic standard disclaimer.

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

The post NiceHCK HB2 Review – Nice, As Per Namesake! appeared first on Music For The Masses.

Cons — Dirt attractors: need regular washing; can get out of shape and need to be re-shaped in hot water; not for short-nozzles iems; pricey.

Distinctive Features — Best fitting of all eartips I have used; enhances vocals in many earphones.

Executive Summary

The Azla Xelastec are completely unique short-stemmed wide-bore eartips in that they provide the perfect fit through their incredible grip AND move vocals forward in many earphones.

Introduction

Azla is a company out of Korea that offers two earphones, an amplifier, and lots of different silicone eartips. Their most famous product has been the Azla SednaEarFit Original Series, consisting of four models, two of them long-stemmed, two of them short-stemmed, all of them wide-bores.

These are very popular with audio enthusiasts, typically hard to get outside of Asia, and mostly sold out. The designs are based on the analysis of almost 800 ear shapes. All Azla products are manufactured in the Republic of Korea.

Xelastec Design

Azla have recently added the Xelastec eartips to their portfolio, short-stemmed wide-bores made of German Kraiburg TPE different to any other earphone on the market.

TPE is short for Thermoplastic Elastomers, also known as thermoplastic rubbers, a class of copolymers or a physical mix of polymers (usually a plastic and a rubber) that consist of materials with both thermoplastic and elastomeric properties.

The benefit of using thermoplastic elastomers is the ability to stretch to moderate elongations and return to its near original shape creating a longer life and better physical range than other materials [see Wikipedia].

The material is extremely grippy and also extremely deformable. The umbrella moulds perfectly into the shape of one’s ear canal. Fit, hold, seal, and isolation of the Xelastec are therefore perfect.

And when the eartips retain their deformed shape, the original shape can be restored in a bath of warm to hot water (but not too hot; rinsed off with cold water). The TPE is unfortunately a dirt attractor, but can be washed easily with water.

In terms of earphone fit, the short stems require a certain nozzle length. The inner stem diameter of 3.6 mm is stretchable enough to fit standard 4.5 mm nozzles. All Azlas come in 6 different umbrella sizes (see size chart above) to fit any ear canal. Be aware that their sizes are unusual: Azla’s L corresponds to other company’s XL. Check your numbers before ordering.

Sound?

I typically do not give sonic descriptions of eartips, as different designs yield different results depending on earphone and individual ear canal. The Azla Xelastec are somewhat of an exception as they have a tendency to work well with more iems than other makes models in my experience.

I have not found many earphones the Xelastec did not make a difference to the better. Their risk of failure/dissatifaction is smaller, but you pay for it.

In my experience (almost 1 year of testing them), the Xelastec show the biggest improvements with V-shaped sound profiles. They move the vocals forward and therefore, passively, the bass backward, considering the human ear hears the whole frequency spectrum in context. Bass boom was decreased or disappeared altogether.

This worked well for me with the Meze RAI Solo, Shozy Form 1.4, Shozy Form 1.1, Shozy Rouge, and NiceHCK NX7 Mk3, in less so with the KBEAR Believe.

In comparison, the Azla SednaEarfit (Original Series) Light, shortstemmed, boost the bass and move the vocals back in many iems. The difference is substantial.

What KopiOkaya says

Co-blogger Larry Fulton alias KopiOkaya summarizes the main characteristics of the leading third-party eartips in his famous eartips guide, including the Azla Xelastec. His professional opinion is as follows:

Azla SednaEarFit XELASTEC
Bore size: regular
Stem length: regular
Feel: soft, grippy and sticky
Bass: 4.0
Midrange: 5.0
Treble: 3.75
Soundstage: 3.50
Vocal presence: 5.0

The most expensive eartip in my collection. Isolation is impeccable. If you love vocals, THIS IS IT! Vocal presence is extremely 3D. Best of all it doesn’t affect bass and treble. Projects soundstage a bit narrower than regular SednaEarFit.

Concluding Remarks

The Azla Xelastec are probably the best and most versatile eartips on the market – and unfortunately the most expensive. They work well with most earphones and have a higher rate of success “fixing” an iem’s sound than the competition I have tested, particularly when addressing the vocals department. Yes, they are pricey but they need to be in the “tips box” of every audio enthusiast.

Until next time…keep on listening!

Gallery

Contact us!

Disclaimer

The Azla Xelastec eartips were kindly provided by Azla in Gangnam almost a year ago. And I thank them for that.

Get more information from Azla’s Xelastec product page.

Our generic standard disclaimer.

The post Azla SednaEarfit Xelastec Eartips Review – Vocals Enhancer appeared first on Music For The Masses.

Of course, there are other solutions, such as USB galvanic isolators (either electrical or optical) and analog devices such as ADUM-chip based isolators but we are not going there… we shall focus on both iSilencer+ and JitterBug FMJ in this discussion. 

DISCLAIMER: I bought both devices AT FULL RETAIL PRICE with my own money. Thus, my verdicts are not affected or influenced by their manufacturers in any way.

Many folks approach this type of accessory with utmost skepticism. There are a few technical forums that have tested these devices with precision audio analysers proving they do nothing, thus labeling them “snake oil”… We are not going to debate that either.

To me, without actual listening, measurements, diagrams, and graphs tell us nothing about sound. Superior technical performance does not equate to musicality.

Both devices do what they advertised… That is to clean up noise and improve sound.

We shall focus mainly on their SONIC PERFORMANCE. 

Equipment used:

• AudioQuest DragonFly Cobalt
• AudioQuest DragonFly Red
• E1DA 9038S G3
• Asus Xonar Essence STU DAC
• Topping E30/L30 stack
• KBEAR BElieve
• Etymotic ER4SR
• TRN MT1 (modded)
• Lenovo ThinkPad X1 Carbon + Foobar2000
• Self-assembled Intel i7/Asus-based desktop PC + Foobar2000
• Redmi Note 9 Pro + UAPP
• Raspberry Pi 4 Model B + Volumio

Both devices are connected at the host end. As Gordon Rankin, designer of JitterBug FMJ, puts it:

“I put the JitterBug at the host side because I want all that EMI/RFI and other BS that the computer is spitting out to stay there and not get to the endpoint.” 

iFi iSilencer+

When I bought the iSilencer+, it was US$10 cheaper than JitterBug FMJ but this has changed since July 2021. Both are priced at US$59.95 now.

iSilencer+ has a plastic housing with a layer of soft rubber-coating. During installation and removal, this housing slides back and forth, which some folks may find annoying.

Compared to JitterBug FMJ, iSilencer+:

• sounds crisp with upper-midrange glare
• more open and airy
• mid-forward but rest of the frequency spectrum are thrown backward
• less bass impact, drab dynamics
• soundstage is one-dimensional
• USB noise reduction not as thorough (just a bit)

AudioQuest JitterBug FMJ

FMJ is the latest JitterBug from AudioQuest. The original had the same circuitry but no shielded enclosure. JitterBug FMJ housing is made of aluminium, feels solid and sturdy. Nothing is loose or wobbly. Size-wise, JitterBug FMJ is thicker and a slightly longer than iSilencer+.

Compared to iSilencer, JitterBug FMJ:

• overall sounds fuller and more 3D
• better dynamics and bass punch
• better depth and instrument separation
• better sense of PRAT
• cleaner, darker background

Out of curiosity and fun, I piggybacked both devices to create the “ultimate USB decrapifier”…

Host > (iSilencer+ / JitterBug FMJ) > Endpoint

Guess what happened? It actually made the sound worse. Everything sounded constricted and bone dry. I also detected slightly lowered volume gain.

So which one do I choose? Well, it depends. Ultimately, it all boils down to synergy. If your equipment is bright and cool-neutral, I suggest you go for JitterBug FMJ. If you own iFi gears, iSilencer+ does improve clarity and make the “iFi sound” less warm (or wooly).

JitterBug FMJ sounds more 3D in comparison, thus instruments and vocals are more distinctive and bodied. iSliencer+ sounds flatter in comparison. Ironically, AudioQuest DragonFly Cobalt matches the iSilencer+ better to me. Both devices filter USB VBUS/GND noise. JitterBug FMJ does it more thoroughly than iSilencer+.

Verdict

Since both devices are priced the same, it depends on availability. To many of us living in Southeast Asia, iFi products are more common and widely available. Those living in North America may find AudioQuest products easier to access.

If I have to rate both devices, I will give iFi iSilencer+ a 7 out of 10 and JitterBug FMJ an 8 out of 10. I prefer the synergy JitterBug FMJ gives to my audio gears.

USB filters are nothing new. Both iFi and AudioQuest have been making them for years. Some may find this kind of accessory unnecessary… To me, these are good to have… They DO affect sound and enhance music enjoyment to some extent. Whether or not you believe in their effects, I will leave it up to you to decide.

Contact us!

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

The post iSilencer+ And JitterBug FMJ Review/Comparison – Silence Of The Jitterbug appeared first on Music For The Masses.

Not only in absolute terms – it is nothing short of an absolutely out-dash-standing device – but in relative ones too: it taught me personally so much for such a low price and effort that even when I outgrow it I will forever stay in debt of a smile and a hug.

And times for back-condescending reminiscence are not even on the horizon at the moment. For the simple reason that I reckon it will take quite some more time for me to have the budget – which I would assess in approximately 1K€ – to invest in a real stack upgrade, vs yet another step in the sidegrade carousel which is what Groove teleported me out of really.

A quick TOC before we start, for those who wouldn’t bother reading “all” my bla-bla (yeah, you’re forgiven):

What’s that?

Apogee Groove is a USB DAC-AMP device.

I’m pretty sure a wide portion of the budget audiophile community have never heard about this, in spite of it being on the market since 2015. Chances are many have never heard of Apogee Electronics Corp. in the first place, indeed.

Apogee is a US-based professional audio equipment designer and manufacturer in business since 1985. They earned their glory (and money) from audio professionals thanks to their patents and products: initially analog filters which would retrofit Sony and other high-end analog devices significantly upgrading their quality, later followed by breakthrough-innovative Digital Audio interfaces. Their target market is musicians, producers, and sound engineers – it’s therefore quite normal their brand is totally off the usual chifi marketing hype circus.

Groove is Apogee’s “entry level” portable DAC-AMP aimed at providing audio pros with an easy-going tool they can carry with them and plug onto their laptops while on the go, delivering a quality which needs to be in-line with Apogee’s higher-end equiment the same customer is supposed to regularly use in their studio. E.g. Apogee Symphony, to name something.

I’m not here for marketing but I find this storytelling video from Apogee’s web site explains superclearly what their intendend positioning is about Groove. (TL;DW: “[Dad, an affirmed musician,] is listening to super-high quality stuff all day every day […] so I bring the Groove, plug it into the laptop, and it feels and sounds as if it was in the studio”)

Getting closer to the actual device: no internal battery, Apogee Groove needs to be connected to a USB host (a PC for example) to even turn on. The USB channel is its only input – both for power and digital data.

“Cmon, cut it. It’s just a dongle!”

Yes and no. Structurally it’s a dongle yes. But it’s bigger, heavier and most of all it absorbs 340mA from the host, which is a lot. It’s therefore technically possible but practically unviable to use a phone, or a tablet, or even a lower end DAP as an easy host / transport. For on-the-go usage a Laptop is reasonably required, or some DIY creativity with a nice battery bank and a tool like iFi iDefender+. But let’s not deviate – for the sake of this article let’s say this is a “hi-power demanding dongle”.

It’s got a single output: 3.5mm single ended phone out. It supports PCM up to 24 bit / 192 KHz, and does not support DSD, nor MQA. Specifications are available here. Some numbers might seem odd at first glance.

“LOL! No MQA, no balanced output. My dongle’s specs are 3 times better, and I can use it for hours on my phone !…”

… Keep reading

As a DAC: just phenomenal

Die-hard measurement freaks may want to take a look here. No, it’s no ASR.

The reconstruction filter is very good, but by far the most important of all those graphs is the frequency response one, which is wonderfuly linear well into the 60KHz range, and that’s why when playing FLACs sampled at 96KHz Apogee Groove delivers clarity and space reconstruction audibly even superior to what it delivers from 44.1KHz data – where performance is nonetheless already a full pair of steps above the usual budget suspects.

Compared to Groove, some other systems (often coming with the not too secondary “feature” of a 10X price tag…) may arguably be even more precisely optimised for 44.1KHz data, but their response drops dramatically rapidly immediately after 20KHz (e.g., Hugo).

Enough graphs. Let’s audition.

Starting from the most evident part: Apogee Groove draws on space in a totally stunning way. Yes, already at 44.1KHz – and even more mesmerisingly at higher sampling rates.

Never heard something like that before, and I yet have to hear anything really similar let alone better. Spatial reconstruction is nothing less than phenomenal out of the box, and that, and imaging, are easily better than what I can hear from Chord Mojo, iFi nano iDSD BL, iFi Micro iDSD Signature, as well as Questyle QP1R, Lotoo Paw 6000 and Gold Touch – when considering their DAC performances. Groove is really one class above. At least one.

Apogee Groove’s DAC also delivers high end detail, texture, openness and intonation. All other DACs I heard as of yet barred none offer a paler representation of instrument textures. Some may have a blacker background (e.g. Micro iDSD Sig), or can offer higher sharpness on high end details (e.g. Mojo), but most if not all the alternatives I heard are fundamentally duller (in comparison) and/or smear on detail and/or miss out on that unique, incredibly well calibrated “suspense factor” Groove puts in transients.

Summarising: Apogee Groove delivers a totally unique dimensional feel to the sonic images. It’s technical, but musical. Controlled, but emotional.

Compared to mid-tier competition Apogee Groove’s DAC wins easy, and big. By just casually plugging it in and listening the difference it totally obvious.

Its DAC tuning quality taken per se is actually at an even higher level than its price would suggest when compared to professional tier alternatives, but in that case Apogee Groove’s small physical size starts to represent an issue as it makes it technically impossible to pack high level of power filtering inside, or a separate, cleaner powering line, like it can be found on superior systems (Holo May, Schiit Yggdrasil…).

The little kid can be belped a bit though, and per my experience it’s big time worth doing it, as its performances furtherly improve and significantly so:

• privilege a Linux distro + a technical, lightweight music player, or an Android box + UAPP, over a generic Windows or Mac system;
• filter out and/or divert the VBUS power line into a cleaner source;
• manage grounding issues and rebalance DC;
• reclock / regen the USB signal;
• etc

On my #1 desktop stack Apogee Groove is USB-connected to the laptop host and powered via an iFi Nano iUSB3.0 (my take on that here) + an Uptone USPCB. The difference vs plugging directly onto the host is totally evident: voicing is furtherly open, detailed, imaged. I’ll soon finalise my switch from the laptop onto a Linux based box to furtherly improve the upstream quality (iUSB3 is a nice filter, but it’s always better having less dirt to filter out in the first place isn’t it).

Surely, additional infrastructural elements as a better PS, some competent USB reclocker etc will add to the total cost. Again, if the comparison reference is mainstream chifi DAC or DAC-AMP none of that is needed: Apogee Groove will run circles around those “as-is”. Integrating Apogee Groove with additional infrastructural elements serves the purpose of making it “clinge to” much upper-tier (i.e. way more expensive alternatives).

As an AMP: here’s where it gets tricky

First time I plugged my E4000 into Groove I had a sort of jaw-dropping reaction. That was unlike any other source I ever tried. Most of this was surely coming from Groove’s DAC capacities, but how much did the AMP part contribute on that?

What I did was of course trying to plug all amps I had, or I could get (on loaner for reviews, from friends… I won’t make a list here) downstream and try and find differences. Basically: not a single sub 200$ amplifier I tried on there made Groove’s native output into E4000 better. Most of them (as a matter of facts: all of them except just one) reduced dynamics, made stage smaller or flatter, or compressed the range – read: they are less clean.

My amp sensei taught me that “amps don’t add to dacs – they can only take away, if they are not clean enough”.

The key amp job is leaving a DAC’s voice unmodified while properly feeding the load the odd way it sometimes requires – otherwise it will be the load i.e. the headphone/IEM to ruin the DAC’s work in its turn.

My first E4000-based test was simply telling me that Groove’s built-in amp stage is (sometimes dramatically) cleaner than all external amps I have at hand, while at the same time capable enough to optimally bias its transducers.

Why did this happen? And will this be “always” the case?

Apogee Groove’s amp stage uses a current gain IC in its main circuit and according to Apogee the whole amp shapes the current waveform, aiming at keeping that stable, unlike what traditional amps do, which is shaping the voltage waveform instead.

They call it Constant Current Drive^tm technology, and – to paraphrase Steve Jobs – “boy did they patent it !”. They are not even keen on talking or explaining its details – it’s indeed “not so clear” how exactly Apogee Groove does what it actually does.

Be as it may, Groove’s output promises to sound very coherent in virtually all supported situations, no matter how “restless” the load impedance is.

Another quite surprising feature is Apogee Groove’s uncommonly high output impedance: 20 Ohm.

Such is welcome of course when plugging high impedance cans, while it is in general a serious hurdle when pairing lower impedance earphones or IEMs, which would “sound bad” in such situation. Groove offers you to forget the “8X impedance rule”.

Summarising: Apogee Groove won’t incur into FR-skewing effect when driving low impedance loads, or higher impedance ones featuring wild impedance swings (HD800, anyone?).

“Wow. So… Groove is the ultimate amp, all good, all fantastic?”

No. Groove’s amp stage has two quite significant limitations, and a third partial one.

First: depending on load requirements Apogee Groove may, and will, lack power.

Apogee Groove takes power from the USB2 line (supports USB3 if need be), and more precisely absorbs a maximum of 340mA from there, while on the output side it delivers 40mW and a bit more than 5V (!!) into 600 Ohm.

With that, beasts like HD800 (300 Ohm 102 dB), or HD650 (300 Ohm, 103 dB) will be perfectly supported as they welcome / require as high voltage as possible – and 5V starts to be “a pretty bit” – but absorb very little current, and Apogee Groove’s unique capability to cope with wide load impedance swings does the rest.

On the flip side, Groove falls short when paired with the like of Shure SRH1540. That’s because relatively low impedance & low sensitivity headphones require little voltage but a lot of current, and Groove simply won’t have enough (like all of its direct competitors by the way, but that’s another story).

Second: Apogee Groove won’t support all crossover setups.

In Apogee’s own words: “Apogee does not recommend the Apogee Groove for use with multi-driver balanced armature in-ear monitors. Due to the design of the balanced armature drivers and crossover networks used in this type of headphone, the Groove’s Constant Current Drive amplifier technology may result in uneven frequency response when used with certain models.”

Apogee Groove’s very technology aimed at automatically compensating for impedance mismatches and misalignments is at the origin of this (a crossover filter is working on capacitive components!…).

No harm to the circuits will happen when trying, they will just sound “bad”, not coherent. Shuoer Tape, Oriveti OH500 are examples.

Luckily, not all multidriver IEMs include filters: final B1 and B3 for example do not – and in facts are perfectly supported by Apogee Groove, as the disclaimer does not even apply to them in the first place really.

And even more luckily, to my direct experience a few crossover-equipped multidrivers do nonetheless work properly even on Apogee Groove’s unique amp stage: Ikko OH10, KBear Lark, Intime Sora 2 are all examples of this.

However the main message stands: for multidriver IEMs we can’t rely on Groove’s internal amp stage. Apogee told us crystal clear their technology doesn’t take responsibility for this.

The main way around the issue in employing a separate downstream amplifier of course. Again, be ready to spend some money for it to avoid depleting on other aspects of the output.

What also in some case works is adding an impedance adapter on Groove’s output. I am not 100% sure as to “why” exactly this works but it does. I suspect in such case Groove “sees” a stable full-resistive load, and does not engage in trying to compensate impedance variations.

Third and last: odd limitations on some (few) specific drivers.

Groove’s technology allowing for “8X rule disregard” does work like magic… almost always.

To just toss some examples, I auditioned final E3000, A3000 and E4000, or Tanchjim Oxygen on “quite a few” (!) sources.

If I consider mobile / transportable devices (DAPs, DAC/AMPs), Apogee Groove beats them all on DAC performance grounds, and is the best overall source (i.e., including the AMP stage) with the sole possible exception of Lotoo Paw Gold Touch (but it’s debateable, really). Which is twice as suriprising if I consider Groove’s native output impedance. Virtually impossible is also to find a better alternative looking amongst desktop class devices, but that’s logical as those are primarily designed for overears – typically requiring optimal voltage vs current modulation.

On the other hand, drivers like Koss KPH30i (60 Ohm 101 dB) paired to Apogee Groove present a very modest yet audible mid-bass bump – typical of an impedance mismatch situation. And in facts applying an impedance adapter (e.g. an iFi iEMatch, or equivalent) solves the problem.

Why exactly Apogee Groove can “perfectly manage” even lower impedance drivers, and doesn’t entirely support KPH30i is frankly still obscure to me. May be some specialty on KPH30i tuning? Difficult for me to say.

I might mention another “imperfect support” example, which is final E5000. But my extended experience with those taught me it’s them to be enigmatic. It’s simply not honest to take them as a benchmark for a source “normality” – if something, the other way around indeed!

At-a-glance Card

Conclusion

Besides simply “sounding incredibly better” than anything I had tried before, from the day I got it Apogee Groove has been extremely educational for me as it represented my affordable opportunity to hear and understand superior-tier sound quality.

There’s no going back for me: lower quality reconstruction filters, lack of spatial depth, and fuzzy or at best approximate imaging and layering are something I just don’t have a single reason to bear anymore.

As I tried to describe, there ain’t such thing as a Graal. Apogee Groove, too, has its limits. No direct DSD support is one, and USB2 (24 bit 192 KHz) maximum PCM resolution is another. It also lacks MQA support but that’s never been nor will be any of my concern. Also, the need to “help out” its built-in amp stage to cope with some specific loads turned out to be less of an issue for me than it appeared initially (ymmv).

Anyhow, Groove is so good that not only I adopted it as my core infrastructure on both my home stacks (yes, I bought a second unit after the first) but I even started modulating the rest of my gear relative to it, instead of the other way around. This is fundamentally due to budget restrictions: an headphone amplifier which is “clean enough” to hold true to Groove’s output, while offering appropriate power modulation for this or that driver which is not perfectly biased by Groove directly is no toy.

So I started to reason as follows: does a driver I like work perfectly on Groove? Does it even scale up with Groove? It’s a keeper! Does it not? Better be a really outstanding piece of gear! E.g.: SRH1540 – those are so good as to justify an adequate amp stage just for them, even if it’ll end up costing no way less than 350$ (eyeing a Jotunheim 2 as a minimum acceptable quality stadard at the moment).

That’s what I mean for “game change”: Apogee Groove flipped my perspective.

This is actually a general concept indeed, and a general recommendation. Who is keen on getting the best sound quality into his ears often gives priority to drivers (headphones / IEMs – it seems logical as they are the bits producing the actual sound, right?), then AMPs (as they are those supposed to “feed” the drivers well), keeping DACs last, and not even considering where does digital music come from (the player, a.k.a. “transport”).

The above paradigm is totally wrong. DAC first. Always. The DAC is the voice. Amping me as I sing totally off-key is pointless believe me. Same with a crappy DAC. Get a good DAC. The best your budget can buy. At the same time, make sure the DAC isn’t sent too much crap (i.e. spend money on the transport). Only then you are ready to define your budget for an AMP, and finally you will know which drivers you can choose.

I didn’t mention Groove’s price. Guess. Then open the last spoiler.

Even factoring the extra cost in for an iEMatch to keep at hand and use for this or that odd-behaving IEM – which I learnt is needed with just about any desktop-class amp anyway – I solidly put Groove’s price in no-brainer territory for the quality it delivers.

Final disclaimer: My Groove devices are my own property since day one, have not been supplied as loaners or any other sampling form.

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

Our generic standard disclaimer.

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

The post Apogee Groove Review – Changing The Budget Game For Good (since 2015) appeared first on Music For The Masses.

Curiously, neither of us seem to like it very much—notes have an artificially lean texture and high end sounds metallic—it’s the sonic equivalent of a meal at a high-end restaurant which is well-prepared using high-quality ingredients, but just doesn’t taste that good. KBear’s cheaper offerings like the KB04 and (esp.) the Diamond are less “refined”, and present a less detailed high-end, but are viscerally more satisfying, not to mention considerably cheaper.

Ç’est la guerre.

SPECIFICATIONS

Drivers: pure beryllium diaphragm dynamic
Impedance: 17 Ω
Sensitivity: 98 dB/mW [neutral amplification needed]
Frequency Range: 20 – 20,000 Hz
Cable/Connector: 4 strands of 6N single crystal copper/2 pin 0.78 mm
Tested at: $159

DISCLAIMER

The KBEAR Believe was provided unsolicited to Jürgen by KBEAR Official Store for our analyses and we thank them for that.

Get the Believe from KBEAR Official Store.

Our generic standard disclaimer.

About my measurements.

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

Contact us!

The post KBEAR Believe Review (4) – Random Thoughts appeared first on Music For The Masses.

Soundwise, the SONY WF-1000XM3 present a sort of reverse-L signature, with boosted subwoofer-type bass which retains pretty good definition despite a tendency to sound a bit boomy; the low end does tend to dominate the proceeding although it doesn’t smear or bleed into the higher frequencies. As with the over-ears, the SONY WF-1000XM3 has a warm tonality with a rich note texture and a wide soundstage, albeit with limited height and depth; well-placed performers sound like they’re playing in a large, low-ceilinged hall. Mids are full-bodied and clear, while high end is smooth, with limited extension—these are clearly tuned to avoid harshness and grain, such that some microdetail and sheen is missing on cymbals and acoustic guitar strings.  (Note that some have complained about the lack of AptX and LDAC codecs). I found these very listenable overall—less detailed but also beefier and less-compressed sounding than the Galaxy Buds +. Purely on sonic merits, I still prefer the Cambridge Melomania, which offers the same warm, analogue quality but better-integrated bass and a bit more sparkle. Comparison to the Liberty Pro 2 is closer—the Sony has a more natural timbre, while the Pro 2 has better-behaved, less obtrusive bass and more high-end extension.  However, neither holds up to good comparably-priced wired IEMs like the Shozy Form 1.4 or the KBear Believe, which have a significantly higher level of resolution and present more information and nuance.

At the end of the day, I’d rate these as a very good example of the TWS genre, which is to say they’re very well designed, work well for calls and media, and more than serviceable for non-critical music listening. Especially if noise cancellation is a priority, these are easy to recommend.

Disclaimer: borrowed from Durwood, who bought ‘em with his own hard-earned trust funds. 

Contact us!

The post SONY WF-1000XM3 True Wireless Earphones Review – Good Enough appeared first on Music For The Masses.

Pros — Hand-painted shells are quite beautiful
– Warm V-shaped tuning that works across a variety of genres
– Good soundstage and imaging
– Good isolation, comfortable fit

Cons — Didn’t come with an usable carry case
– Lower mids are slightly scooped resulting in thinner male vocals
– Bass lacks rumble
– Artificiality in the timbre

INTRODUCTION

Reecho is a relatively newcomer in the IEM scene. They seem to have garnered some recognition thanks to their Seasons Series of IEMs (Spring, Summer) which tried to make a niche in the $100–150 bracket.

Reecho Insects Awaken is their latest release and seems to be their “flagship” of sorts, at least in the international market. It’s a 4BA setup and at $330 aims to take on some of the favorite mid-rangers, which is never an easy task. Quite a bit to explore, thus without further ado.

Note: the ratings given will be subjective to the price tier.  the ratings given will be subjective to the price tier. Penon Audio was kind enough to send a review unit of the Reecho Insects Awaken. Disclaimer.

Sources used: Questyle CMA-400i, Cowon Plenue R2

Price (while reviewed): $330

PHYSICAL THINGS AND USABILITY

IN THE BOX…

The packaging of the Reecho Insects Awaken is a looker indeed. I personally don’t like to describe boxes but this here demands a few words. The IEMs are placed inside a multi-tiered jewelry-box like contraption. The doors swing outwards and you slide out each compartment for the IEMs/cables/tips etc. Very neat and unlike anything I’ve found in the price bracket.

Unfortunately, the stellar unboxing experience doesn’t quite translate to the accessories. There is no compact carry case, for one, as you’re supposed to use on the compartments in the box as carrying case (they are too large for that purpose). Moreover, the cable on mine came with reversed polarity so I had to go for another cable in my possession. This might be a unit-specific issue and you will get a new cable in such cases as a replacement but it’s an inconvenience nonetheless.

Fortunately, the tips are of good quality, and the cable itself looks well-built. Just that I expected more when I started unboxing them. 
3.5/5

APPEARANCE, HAPTIC, AND BUILD QUALITY

Reecho Insects Awaken (man I’m gonna have a hard time getting used to this name) has a 3D printed resin shell, which is quite common nowadays. What’s not so common is the hand-painted shells where the colors are apparently poured inside the cavity and thus has subtle differences between units which makes each of them unique. I personally like the faceplate artwork, it’s quite appealing.

Since this is an all-BA design with no vented BA drivers, there’s no visible vent. The nozzle has two separate bores (one for the bass, another for mid+treble from what I gather). The nozzles have differing size too which is at times overlooked in certain designs. Overall, I like the design and find the build solid. The only thing I’m not a fan of is the flush 2-pin connector which doesn’t feel as secure as recessed ones. 
4.5/5

ERGONOMICS, COMFORT, ISOLATION, AND FIT

Due to their pseudo-custom design and surprisingly lightweight nature, the Reecho Insects Awaken has superb wearing comfort. They also isolate noise well due to the sealed housing. 
4.5/5

TECH INSIDE

The Reecho Insects Awaken is a 4 balanced armature configuration, with two Knowles RAF-32873 full-range drivers tasked with tackling the bass (15–500Hz), and the composite/dual Knowles 30017 driver handling the midrange/treble. The unique thing about this implementation is that Reecho used two full-range drivers solely as bass drivers. They achieved this is by employing a dual-acoustic ultra-low frequency acoustic filter where one filter handles frequencies between 5–50Hz and the other deals with frequencies between 50–500Hz. I was personally a bit perplexed as to why they didn’t just use a vented BA (for better bass slam) or one of the Knowles bass drivers in tandem but after listening to the Insects Awaken I came to respect Reecho’s decision. 

SOUND

The general tuning is sub-bass focused/V-shaped with extended treble. 

Sound impressions are made using the Spinfit CP-145 tips and stock blue tips. Stock cable was replaced with $35 CEMA Electro Acousti OCC one (2.5mm)

Bass: The bass on the Reecho Insects Awaken has a strong sub-bass focus. It has a pretty sizable boost between 20–80Hz and thus emphasizes the sub-bass notes by ~10dB over the lower-midrange. In case of a regular dynamic driver IEM this amount of sub-bass rise would only make sense in a bass-head tuning. However, due to the BA drivers and their lower excursion, this sub-bass doesn’t become overzealous for the most part. 

Sub-bass rumble is adequate, though it doesn’t sound as good as some dynamic driver offerings in this range. Mid-bass has good amount of body and slam making snare hits sound satisfactory. There’s no discernible bass bleed into lower-mids, though in bass-heavy tracks the sub-bass masks male vocals. Bass does lack texture as is common with BA drivers. In fast flowing bass sections the drivers seem to smear the notes a bit, sadly. 

In short, the bass-focus will satisfy those who listen to a lot of modern music. It won’t replicate the rumble and texture/thickness of a good ol’ dynamic driver but for an all-BA offering it’s quite good indeed.
4/5

Mids: The lower-mids on the Reecho Insects Awaken, as stated before, is recessed compared to the bass/upper-mids/treble. Aside from the masking effect, the male vocals are also a bit behind female ones in songs where you’ve both of them. Baritone vocals lack their usual heft as a result. Fortunately the upper-mids are devoid of any shoutiness and remains smooth, non-fatiguing throughout. There’s a peak at 3KHz that’s just about on the same level as the sub-bass shelf which reigns in the shrillness.

All is not rosy, however, as we encounter the dreaded BA timbre here. The vocals sound alright but string instruments lack the body and tactility one might expect. Same applies to percussion instruments.

One thing that’s above-average here is the microdynamics. Subtle gradations in volume is well portrayed unlike many other offerings in the range. Resolved detail is also above-average. 
4/5

Treble: The treble on the Reecho Insects Awaken is quite extended. It does have a peak around the presence region (5.5/6KHz) and then starts gradually rolling off. This peak can become a bit problematic on some cymbal heavy tracks as it brings the leading edge of cymbal hits on the forefront, but at the same time this was quite enjoyable in some of the metal tracks that I regularly listen to (e.g. Lamb of God discography). The audible extension goes until ~12KHz or so after which the treble becomes muted. This leads to sensation of airiness to some degree. Rest assured: the Reecho Insects Awaken is not a dark sounding IEM and will cater well to those who want some airiness in the presentation. 
4/5

Soundstage: Staging has good width, average height, and good depth. It won’t give you an out-of-the-head experience but won’t sound congested either. Layering of instruments is also quite well executed. I found the Reecho Insects Awaken to be very good for watching movies and gaming for these reasons.
4/5

Imaging: Vocals are projected slightly at the front while instruments surround them. Spatial cues originate from cardinal and ordinal positions unlike some other IEMs in the range. Instrument separation is great in most cases (for the price) but can suffer in tracks that have heavy bass emphasis (the sub-bass focus congests the air between instruments). For most cases, however, the imaging/instrument positioning is excellent. 
4.5/5

Source and Amping: At 13ohms and 110dB of sensitivity, the Reecho Insects Awaken is very easy to drive. However, it is prone to source hiss, so I’d recommend a source with low noise floor. Also I won’t recommend connecting it to sources with high output impedance and high voltage swings. 

Bang-for-buck: The competition is stiff at around the $300 bracket. You got the perennial favorite Moondrop Blessing 2/Blessing 2 Dusk, the neutral-head’s bible Etymotic ER2XR, and the plethora of other multi-BA/hybrid offerings that pop up in this particular bracket every now and then and get hyped to the moon. Despite all that, I find the Reecho Insects Awaken to be competitive in terms of sound quality and it looks gorgeous to boot. It does lack the visceral bass thump/tactility of a dynamic driver in a hybrid configuration (very popular lately). However, those who’d prefer an all-BA setup due to the faster transients of such drivers and won’t mind/want a V-shaped tuning will find the Insects Awaken a good option. 
4/5

SELECT COMPARISONS

vs Cayin YB-04 ($400): The Cayin YB-04 is a relatively obscure model but has quite a bit of similarity with the Reecho Insects Awaken in terms of driver setup/price. The Cayin YB-04 also has a dual-BA for the low-end and two BA drivers for mids and highs. In terms of build quality, I prefer the Cayin model over Reecho Insects Awaken simply because of how dense it feels in hand. As a result, comfort suffers though, and the Reecho Insects Awaken is far more comfortable to wire (and also has a more snug fit). 

As for the sound, the YB-04 has a very anemic low-end and has more upper-mid/lower-treble emphasis compared to the Insects Awaken. This results in a sense of better perceived clarity at the expense of potential listening fatigue. Soundstage is similar on both but imaging is better on the Insects Awaken. Given the superior bass response and a warmer presentation in the mids, I’d pick the Insects Awaken over the YB-04 myself all things considered. However, if you want more clarity and even more extended treble, the Cayin YB-04 will be the better pick.

vs Moondrop Blessing2 ($300): The Moondrop Blessing 2 (and the Crinacle tune version dubbed Blessing2 Dusk) has pretty much become the standard in the sub-$500 category. Compared to the Insects Awaken, the Blessing 2 has a similar build but inferior comfort. The Blessing2 has a thick nozzle and that can be problematic for many. 

However, if you can get past the fit issues the Blessing2 has an overall superior sound to the Insects Awaken IMO in terms of overall technicalities. Due to being a 1DD+4BA model, the bass on the Blessing2 has better texture and dynamics (even though it’s nowhere near the best bass in this price bracket). The vocals on the Blessing2 has better articulation and the lower mids are fuller, though it can get slightly hot on certain tracks which the Insects Awaken avoids. Treble has similar extension though the sense of air is better felt on the Insects Awaken. Soundstage is wider on the Insects Awaken but depth/height is similar. Where the Blessing2 trumps the Insects Awaken is even better imaging (the Blessing2 has pretty much the best imaging in its price-class, along with a couple IMR IEMs). One thing that’s a big issue on the Blessing2 is its incohorency. The dynamic driver sounds radically different from the BAs which showcase even stronger BA timbre than on the Insects Awaken.

To summarize: if fit is not an issue and you don’t mind the incohorency — the Moondrop Blessing2 will be the better buy (though I hate the stock cable). However, if you want a more coherent presentation, wider stage, airier treble, and more agile sub-bass response the Reecho Insects Awaken might suit you better. I personally don’t like the Blessing2 that much due to the incohorency so there’s that.

vs Dunu Studio SA6 ($550): The Dunu Studio SA6 retails for $220 more than the Reecho Insects Awaken and thus does not really share the same price bracket. However, since I already have one in possession and both are all-BA offerings I decided to do a little comparison. 

The Dunu Studio SA6 has a six BA driver setup with two vented Sonion woofers that offer near-DD like thump/rumble. You can also control the amount of low-end with a switch on the housing. It has a more snug fit and far better accessories than the Insects Awaken. In terms of sound, it is indeed a wholesale upgrade on all front. Probably the stage width is where Reecho gains some upper-hand but overall resolution, staging, separation is perceptibly superior on the Dunu Studio SA6.

That being said, whether it’s worth spending the extra $200 on the Studio SA6 for the superior bass response and fuller lower-mids is something a buyer should decide themselves.

CONCLUDING REMARKS

Reecho Insects Awaken doesn’t do much wrong, frankly. It’s tuned well, has no glaring tonal flaws, and the issues it suffers from are more inherent to BA tech itself (timbre/lack of bass texture). I can recommend the Reecho Insects Awaken to those who want an all-BA IEM with a slight V-shaped tuning and good imaging. The Reecho Insects Awaken works across a variety of genre and will suit movies/gaming purposes as well. It’s flown under the radar so far due to the hype surrounding Blessing2, but those who wasn’t impressed with Moondrop Blessing2’s incoherency or had fitting issues should give this one a try IMO.

On the next release I hope they don’t scoop the lower-mids as much as it’s done on this one, and also employs vented Sonion woofers instead of the current Knowles one. Reecho seems to have found a good tuning formula and managed to pique my interest with that, so I am eager to see what they come up with in the future. 

MY VERDICT

Overall Rating: 4/5

Recommended. An overall solid offering suffering from some BA timbral issues.

Our rating scheme explained

Contact us!

DISCLAIMER

The Reecho Insects Awaken was sent as a loaner for the purpose of this review.

Available for purchase from Penon Official Store

Our generic standard disclaimer.

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

PHOTOGRAPHY

The post Reecho Insects Awaken 4-BA IEM Complete Review – Getting it Right appeared first on Music For The Masses.

As with the Kanas and KXXS, the Starfield goes for the Harman target, which emphasizes midbass and upper mids, and presents a warm, energetic signature with meaty note texture. However, although possessing decent depth and rumble, the Starfield tones down the low-end quantity, which gives these a more coherent presentation; like the Kanas Pro the bass isn’t the fastest and some smudging into the mids is discernable, but the overall effect is very live-sounding. Mids are aggressive, with a lot of presence and drive, while treble is smooth and wholly free of stridency, with a gentle roll-off around  8k or so. The Starfield doesn’t aspire to the hyper-revealing detail and precision of good BAs, and cymbals and percussion may lack some crispness. However, these have an inalienable lushness and silkiness; they’re the polar opposite of clinical.

Soundstage here is wide and deep; probably because of the slightly loose bass imaging isn’t class-leading, though these remain uncongested, with good air between performers.  Tonality isn’t free from coloration (“syrupy” comes to mind), and it’s not the most resolving, but is wholly non-fatiguiging and very musical. More expensive recent DDs like the NF NM+ and the KBear Believe image better,  present more nuance and sparkle and have quicker transients, but lack the realism of Starfield; the NM+ and Believe sound over-processed and metallic in comparison. The Starfield also cuts the similarly-priced Tin T4 by a good margin, with a richer timbre and a less spiky treble.

The Starfield isn’t a purist’s earphone; it won’t satisfy detail junkies or bassheads and isn’t as technically accomplished as some peers. However, it’s the kind of piece that simply sounds better than the sum of its parts and, at least for me, is tough to beat at this bracket. Highly recommended.

SPECIFICATIONS

Model: Starfield
Driver Unit: CNT carbon nano tube diaphragm-10 mm dual cavity dynamic driver
Sensitivity: 122 dB/Vrms (@1kHz)
Impedance: 32Ω ± 15 %(@1 kHz)
Frequency Response: 10 Hz – 36 kHz(free-field 1/4 inch MIC, -3dB)
Effective frequency response: 20 Hz – 20 kHz
Cable: 24 AWG Litz 4N OFC cable
Pin: 2pin 0.78mm
Tested at: $109
Link: Aliepress Moondrop Official Store

DISCLAIMER

Forwarded from Jürgen who had received it from Moondrop in Chengdu. Thank you very much.

Product Link: MOONDROP Official Store

Manufacturer’s Website: Moondrop Co.

Our generic standard disclaimer.

About my measurements.

Our generic standard disclaimer.

About my measurements.

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

Contact us!

The post Moondrop Starfield Review (2) – Another Country Heard From appeared first on Music For The Masses.

Cons — None.

INTRODUCTION

I love adapters. Yes, you are reading correctly. I have boxes of them…see photo at the bottom. But when I recently received a couple of German premium earphone review loaners with a combined worth exceeding $5000, they came with an adapter. And guess wh

at, it was a ddHifi branded one. A Chinese adapter on a German premium earphone cable? Must be of good quality. And it was. In fact it worked so well that I purchased three versions of it way before I received the actual two units for this review.

One of them, the ddHifi TC25i let’s one connect a 2.5 mm mm balanced cable to an iPhone’s lightning port. The other one, ddHifi TCI28i, turns the iPhone’s lightning adapter into a USB-C port. I will explain the practicality of these devices in the following – also get some idea from the images throughout and at the bottom of this article.

SPECIFICATIONS TC25i

• ddHiFi 
• Apple Lightning to 2.5 mm headphone jack adapter
• Material: CNC-machined 316 stainless steel unibody shell
• Supports in-line control on CTIA standard earphones
• Supports full functionality for Apple earphones
• Supports iPhone, iPad, and iPod Touch models running iOS 10.0 or later
• THD+N: < -92 db
• DNR: > 110 db
• SNR: > 120 db
• Dimensions: 0.74 x 0.44 x 0.4 in (18.8 x 11.2 x 10.2 mm)
• Weight: 0.2 oz (6 g)
• Tested at: $40
• Product page: ddHifi

SPECIFICATIONS TC28i

• Input: Lighting
• Output: USB-C
• Material: Aluminum alloy
• Dimensions: 0.7 x 0.4 x 0.5 in (18.5 x 9.5 x 13.5 mm)
• Tested at: $30
• Product page: ddHifi

PHYSICAL THINGS AND USABILITY/FEATURES

The TC25i and TC28i are robust, sturdy, small, and light – and made of metal. Build and haptic are excellent.

What do these adapter do? I’ll discuss this as follows. Note: the reviewed versions will only work with iPhones and iPads, even if these devices are mantled with the thickest possible cases. And – in order to give you some idea what these adapters can be used for, I appended a set of images of my own applications below.

TC25i Lightning to 2.5mm Headphone Adapter: is essentially the equivalent to the Apple lightning audio adapter (which I reviewed in great detail), but with a 2.5 mm output. Although all 2.5 mm cables are “balanced”, the TCi25 is not. Its sister adapter TC35i features a 3.5 mm adapter and serves the same purpose as the Apple lightning adapter.

The TCi25i/TC35i have a lot of technology packed into that small enclosure: a microscopic stereo digital-to-analog converter (DAC), a stereo headphone amplifier, a microphone preamplifier, and monophonic analog-to-digital converter (ADC) – and power converters to run this all.

Considering that any connector is a sonic bottleneck and that the wire in the Apple Audio adapter is the limiting factor for any premium cable, cable aficionados are better off with the TCi25.

TC28i Lightning to USB Type C Adapter: is simply a connector for dongles. It essentially serves the purpose of the Apple lightning camera adapter. When connecting your iPhone to a dongle via the Apple adapter, you create a rather long chain. The TC28i shortens this “snake” and makes it more portable.

There is a big difference, however, between Apple and ddHifi in that the former has the traditional USB-A connector whereas the ddHifi TC28i features the smaller USB-C connector.

This is no problem as most dongles come with either connectivity. And if everything fails, there are cheap USB-C to USB-A connectors.

TONALITY AND TECHNICALITIES OF THE TCI25i

First test of the ddHifi TC25i lightning to 2.5 mm adapter against the iPhone 5S’s internal dac/amp (which is essentially identical to the Apple audio adapter for later iPhones).

The iPhone 5S is a formidable audio player: https://www.kenrockwell.com/…/iphone-5s-audio-quality.htm. Result: no noticeable difference found in terms of sound quality and amplification power.

So what does the TC25i sound like? I agree with the Headphone Collector also analyzed the Apple audio adapter [here]…as said, the ddHifi TC25i sounds essentially identical . He writes: “…Neutral, clear, clean and very precise. Basically as audibly transparent, good-sounding and clean-sounding to my ears as it gets. Precise and tight bass reproduction with sensitive multi-BA in-ears.

VALUE

TC25i Lightning to 2.5mm Headphone Adapter, although identical sounding as the Apple Lightning Adapter, may appear expensive at four times the price.

But: Apple does not offer a 2.5 mm adapter and their dongle is plastic/rubber with a cable that is prone to fray. The TC25i is made of metal (and has therefore the much better haptic and durability), is much less conspicuous because of its smaller size, and is extremely practical as you don’t have to earphone change cables when switching between devices.

It is also classy compared to the Apple. And it is particularly useful when deploying cables with the unreliable MMCX connectors. It may save you money in the long run by not ripping your MMCX connectors apart.

The TC28i Lightning to Type C Adapter costs about the same as the Apple camera adapter. Again, the ddHifi product is smaller, more rugged, and has the better haptic. The difference between the two – that is USB-A for the Apples and USB-C for the ddHifi – is somewhat unimportant as most peripherals come with both-type cables – and if not, there are cheap quality adapters, the best from UGREEN.

CONCLUDING REMARKS

I love adapters and the ddHifi adapters are on top of my list. They are high-quality and therefore good enough to be used with the most premium equipment, they look and feel good, they are priced right, and they are extremely practical.

While these two units had been provided by dHifi, I purchased other ddHifi adapters for my pleasure so impressed was I. You will see ddHifi adapters all over this blog. Check it out for yourself:

https://www.audioreviews.org/?s=ddHifi

Until next time…keep on listening!

Contact us!

DISCLAIMER

These ddHifi adapters were provided by ddHifi – and I thank them for that.

Get them from ddHifi.

Our generic standard disclaimer.

EXAMPLES OF APPLICATIONS…

The post ddHiFi TC25i Lightning to 2.5mm Headphone Adapter And TC28i Lightning to USB-C Adapter Review – Connect Your iPhone appeared first on Music For The Masses.