Shozy Form 1.1 Review – Brief Sonic Impressions

In his comparison with the Shozy Form 1.4, Jürgen gave details of the specs etc. of this one, so this will not be the usual full Audioreviews exposition (Jürgen’s full review of the Shozy Form 1.4 is here). Because I haven’t heard the Shozy Form 1.4, this mini-review will focus on the sonic aspects of the Shozy Form 1.1 in isolation. One non-sonic factor to note is that the price has come down a little since the original review – they’re now $US 68 rather than $US 75.

TONALITY AND TECHNICALITIES

In my ears with the largest provided black silicone tips (a good fit for me although I usually take medium), the bass is overly emphasized and intrudes on the lower mids. Attacks in this area are not fast (which could be ok for you if you like bass that’s more ‘rounded’) and reverb detail is not preserved on decays. The muddy, boomy texture in the bass is not helped by the mids having a very smooth presentation, with subdued dynamics. The plus side of this is that they’re relaxing, but even for me (usually a liker of smooth mids) this is ‘too much of a good thing’.

Upper mids are not prominent, which will find favour with some (the tuning is not ‘Harman’ or ‘Etymotic’), but this is a handicap with these ‘phones because of their unrevealing lower mids: the entire midrange comes across as suppressed. There’s a bump up into the lower treble, but this is a bit scratchy, with hashy cymbals and sibilance. The masked (lower) and relaxed/suppressed (mid to upper) midrange character make imaging & staging imprecise, but on the plus side make for undemanding, non-fatiguing listening during long sessions.

Comparing with a similarly upper-mid-relaxed earphone, the UE900 (ok, maybe inappropriate because the UE900 is a 4BA and was rather more expensive – but it has a similar downward-sloping tonality), the lower mids on the UE are not overpowered by the upper bass and are much better resolved, cleaning up imaging and staging. Treble is similar in quantity but cleaner, not so sibilant or scratchy. Male vocals have much more nuance and female vocals more clarity.

Measurement Mysteries

Crinacle’s measurements of the two Forms show similar bass responses, and he reported hearing them as similar. Jürgen however heard the Shozy Form 1.4 as more bassy than the Shozy Form 1.1, but his measurements showed the opposite. I suspect this is because he used the KZ Starline tips to measure both, but the ‘large’ stock black silicone (not foam, as his review says) for listening. The large black tips are actually pretty small – on the small end of medium for me, and Jürgen usually fits a larger tip. Listening with these tips, I suspect the larger bodies of the 1.4s provided a component of seal in Jürgen’s ears to reinforce the bass he heard. 

My measurements with both stock tips and Starlines are similar to Jürgen’s (same coupler, so with the same tips no surprise). The ‘hiccup’ at about 100 Hz with the stock tips is because the tips are a fairly loose fit in the coupler tube and so wobble at the resonant frequency of the earpiece/tip mass, ‘soaking up’ some of the sonic energy (Tyll Hertsens of the late lamented InnerFidelity referred to the same effect with headphones as ‘pad bounce’).  The difference between the two tip types around 12 kHz probably just reflects different interaction with the resonant frequency of the coupler. I didn’t detect an obvious difference in this area, but I admit this is at the upper limit of my old ears.

The low-relief impedance profile shows the Shozy Form 1.1 are not responsive to/dependent on amplifier output impedance. However, the relaxed character of these earphones would probably be best complemented (or compensated for) by being driven with something dynamic and fast.

All of this illustrates that different tips (and earphone bodies) will fit different ears and sometimes different measurement couplers in different ways. The bass could be controlled with tip rolling but with the shallow fit of these things meaning some degree of seal is also provided by the earpiece bodies, so getting just the right degree of leakage might be tricky and will be very individual depending on ear size & shape. It is therefore difficult to make specific tip recommendations. 

Modding?

The Shozy Form 1.1 have only a single vent in each shell – at the rear, behind the drivers. Restricting airflow through a rear vent will typically reduce the mid-bass, opposite to the effect of restricting a front vent (which also tends to work more on the lower bass/sub-bass). To try to ameliorate the (for me) overdone bass, I covered the rear ports with 3M Micropore medical tape. While this did improve the tonal balance (my measurements suggest about 6 dB bass reduction; see graph below) and its bleed into the lower mids, it did no favours for the already not-great technicalities: transients remained sluggish and dynamics seemed to be suppressed even further. This indicates that the (overly, to me) slow and relaxed low end I heard without tape isn’t just a result of the Shozy Form 1.1’s downward-sloping tonal balance.

CONCLUDING REMARKS

In summary, this could be a polarizing earphone. I suspect much of the differently perceived bass and its effects up into the midrange between myself and Jürgen is down to how the tips and bodies fit our different ears. While this could be managed to some degree with tips, it’d be tricky as getting the midrange right would require just the right amount of bass leakage – and therefore wouldn’t suit bassheads and would compromise isolation. Even if the bottom-heavy tonality were cured, the technicalities, particularly in the lower half of the frequency spectrum, remain sub-par and the treble is a bit scratchy too. 

On the plus side though, these Shozy Form 1.1 are a non-fatiguing listen – so if you like a smooth signature, are driving them with something dynamic, and are willing to experiment with tips (depending on your ears), these might be ok for you. Personally for the money I’d find something else. For a smooth listen with better tonal balance, the Moondrop Starfield is currently around $30 more; and for a more technicality-driven presentation and a slightly more prominent upper midrange, the Blon BL-05s is around $30 less. I’ve heard neither myself, but both have been favourably reviewed here (Starfield,BL-05s 1, 2, 3).

Contact us!

DISCLAIMER

The Shozy Form 1.1 were initially sent to Jürgen Kraus by the Shozy Team out of Hon Kong, who passed them on to Biodegraded for his sonic impressions.

Get the Shozy Form 1.1 from HifiGo

Our generic standard disclaimer.

About my measurements.

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

RELATED…