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

Introduction

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

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

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

Specifications TRN BAX PRO

Physical Things and Usability

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

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

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

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

The BAX PRO are easy to drive.

Tonality and Technicalities

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Let’s have a look at the switch settings.

Equalization

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

Electronic Mode

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

Transparency Mode

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

Atmospheric Enhancement

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

High-Frequency Mode

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

Low Frequency Mode

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

Compared to the LETSHUOER EJ07M

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

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

Overall, the price difference appears arbitrary.

Concluding Remarks

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

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

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

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

Until next time…keep on listening!

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

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

Introduction to final A series

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

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

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

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

Let’s move forward.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

So how to approach such situation?

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

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

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

Fair enough. Enter the A series then !

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Well I guess I can consider this introduction over now…

At-a-glance Card

Full Device Card

Test setup and preliminary notes

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

Signature analysis

Tonality

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

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

Sub-Bass

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

Mid Bass

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

Mids

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

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

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

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

Male Vocals

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

Female Vocals

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

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

Highs

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

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

Technicalities

Soundstage

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

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

Imaging

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

Details

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

Instrument separation

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

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

Driveability

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

Physicals

Build

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

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

Fit

A 3-contact-point fit between the housing and the outer ear has been designed by final aiming at the best compromise between wearing firmness and light stress accumulation over time.

The design idea is quite brilliant to be honest, the rationale being: you need (just) 3 grip points to obtain stability. One is the eartip umbrella, inside the canal. Another one is the housing’s short front side vs the tragus. And the third can be any one of the possible 4 contact spots between the housing’s shaped back side and the concha – depending on one’s ear particular shape that of course will happen on one or another position. I would say that for my experience it all works as intended.

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

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

Comfort

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

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

Isolation

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

Cable

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

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

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

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

Specifications (declared)

Comparisons

final A3000 – € 109,99 Amazon.it

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

final A4000 – € 129,99 Amazon.de

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

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

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

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

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

Tanchjim Oxygen – € 269,00 AliExpress

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

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

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

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

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

There is *no* sibilance on Oxygen.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Considerations & conclusions

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

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

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

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

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

INTRO

How do I follow my fellow friend dishing out my take on the SMSL DO400? Sometimes I feel like a stand-up comedian that now has to follow an act that just knows how to nail it. Regardless, these DAC companies are in a space race back to the moon, and SMSL is much like the retail world in America tripping over itself to release two holiday displays at the same time…looking at you Costco with your Halloween and Christmas products out and it is only August.

There was an article that once said a DAC over $2 buys features, not performance however in this case the SMSL D0400 has pretty much all the features possible on a 2 channel DAC and knocks the performance off the chart. Originally discussed in our circle as a potential $1000 Swiss army black box, the SMSL DO400 is actually affordably priced at $500 given all the features and doodads.

IT’S WHAT’S INSIDE THAT COUNTS

The SMSL DO400 packs everything it can into the hardcover book-sized frame like my wife on a 3 day trip, everything except an analog input. I can see what Loomis is getting at, I am ok given the amount of digital features. It would be a waste to only use it as an analog preamp, but without a that feature it cannot claim the title of fledged preamp with one of every input.

SMSL DO400 includes state-of-the-art DAC chip from ESS, single-ended 6.35mm and both 4.4mm/ XLR balanced headphone outputs, remote control, optical, coax, USB, and I2S digital inputs, AES/EBU and RCA  XLR balanced outputs for use as a preamp. Avlaialbe in standard Black or Silver for something more visible.

Having tested several other SMSL devices and purchasing the SU-9 as my full-time desktop DAC, the DO400 is an upgrade in the DAC department and checking off all the SINAD, testing parameter boxes making it pretty boring in a numbers only game. It is a transparent DAC and powerful sounding headphone amp that easily drives my DROP Sennheiser HD6XX to full throttle.

The SMSL SU-9 was/is a great DAC. There were some quips about the ESS IMD hump, but sonically it was excellent. My nuisance conundrum was the lame 0-99 volume display. I really wanted to see 100 or at least a way to have the display turn off after a predetermined timeframe, both of which were resolved with the SMSL SU-10 and the SMSL DO400 carries the same heritage over. 

Now we get a -dB display for volume which is way more useful, and to add life to the display by offering auto turn-off times in the menu. Curiously they named it dimmer, I feel like display would have been a better menu category, it is not to be confused with brightness which is the next available menu setting.

You also get full access to the ESS Sabre ES9039MSPro features with sound color modes (slight EQ), the usual 7 low pass filters, DPLL settings for troublesome clocked digital inputs, and the XLR outputs have an adjustable +/- pin switch which is useful for goofballs like me that have some older Pro-amps like the Crest FA901 that use a reverse polarity XLR balanced input. I can use the SMSL DO400 as a digital preamp going into some powerful two channel goodness, even though some people forsaken fan noise as the devil.

The I2S setting also has reverse polarity settings. First time using it, so not sure how someone is supposed to know the I2S output type. For those utilizing DSD files, the SMSL D0400 is equipped with a third generation XMOS 316 chip.

That is not the only new addition to the SMSL DO400 as it is equipped with the TI TPA6120A2 current feedback integrated chip that provides a level of uniformity that rivals the art of a discrete design. The current feedback of the chips has a high slew rate that reduces odd-order distortion leaving the more favorable even order distortion that tube enthusiasts enjoy due to a rich warm aspect. From an electrical design standpoint it simplifies parts and provides a controlled and repeatable experience. 

COMPLAINTS AND CRITICISMS

At $500, there has to be some room for improvement and as things get more expensive so do the first world “problems”. The case cover is steel although quite solid still. The rotary knob has wobbles and the knobbies on the knob itself are a weird decoration. I would have preferred to have them on the outer edge so the knob has some grip. The knob is metal and not plastic, it’s the shaft of the rotary encoder that moves around. SMSL DO400 did plant itself firmly with four feet this time, I still have no idea why the SU-9 had only three.

Stylistic choices are purely individual taste, but overall the SMSL DO400 feels and looks like digital techno wizardry, rather than a symphonic masterpiece that pricey high-end devices tend to exude. There is no joy in clicking through menus, but I do appreciate all the features. SMSL needs to add a menu Exit that does not require the remote, waiting for the menu to go away to take back control of the volume knob is still a nuisance. Snobbery aside, I appreciate the value that everything the SMSL DO400 delivers because changes to this formula would most definitely hike up the price tag for little added value.

SOUND

Inputs tested were primarily the USB section, but also the optical via a Sony DVP-S7700 and Denon DVD-2200 and lastly the bluetooth for casual background chatter. Bluetooth connection was strong and worked at a fairly large distance.

Listening to the SMSL DO400 is everything you would expect of a high class DAC amp combo. It sounds extremely transparent and powerful. At -12dB on high gain, the Drop Sennheiser HD6XX is rocking hard, not something that I recommend long term. Switching over to low gain and pairing it with the awesome BGVP DM9, allows the SMSL DO400 to utilize its prowess. 

The BGVP DM10 has a very detailed upper end, and the SMSL DO400 can extract the nuances and microdynamics the DM10 is capable of recreating. Everything sounds hyped and lively leaving nothing to hide., it does not smooth or gloss over any detail.

Compared to the JDS Labs Atom with SMSL SU-9, the SMSL DO400 fleshed out the upper end by improving depth and black levels. Big band sounded large and lively as it should, cymbals and horns have natural sounding decay patterns. The Atom/SU-9 combo sounds overall smoothed out but still equally clean. The SMSL DO400 is well-rounded getting in all the corners and extracting out all the fine details. There is also double the power on tap for the DO400 over the Atom, so room for volume differences when comparing.

FINISH

While the JDS Labs Atom has served well to act not only as my headphone amp but also my preamp for the powered monitors, it will officially be replaced with the more solidly built SMSL DO400. The SU-9 is still a wonderfully built and excellent sounding DAC, the DO400 at only $100 more over the original price tag of the three footed SU-9, arrives with four feet, a larger footprint and a complete desktop solution with all features that is going to be hard to beat.

SMSL SU-9 will find a new home amongst my 2 channels setups. The absurdity of value the SMSL DO400 brings to the table is mind boggling, given that it’s essentially a D400ES ($550) plus a HO200 ($400) in one package. I still cannot fathom the value of the SMSL DO400, not sure where we go from here, but yeah this thing is cool.

DISCLAIMER

SMSL DO400 provided at no cost by Aoshida Audio. We thank them for that.

SPECIFICATIONS SMSL DO400

Product Page:

https://www.smsl-audio.com/portal/product/detail/id/843.html

Contact us!

Get it from AOSHIDA AUDIO

Our generic standard disclaimer.

About my measurements.

The post SMSL DO400 DAC/Headphone Amp Review (2) – Digital Wizardry Got Mojo Working appeared first on Music For The Masses.

If nothing else, SMSL packs a ton of features into the DO400—a high quality DAC (ES9039MSPRO chip with w/MQA decoding), digital preamp, high powered headphone amp and LDAC/AptX Bluetooth streaming. Aesthetics, UI and build are standard SMSL, albeit with a slightly revised display window which shows input source, sampling rate, etc.

Connectivity is impressive, with balanced and unbalanced outs, and a panoply of digital inputs. Curiously, there are no analog inputs, which limits the sources you can pair it with. Stepped volume control is very sensitive and, as previously, the single control knob on the face is very intuitive and user-friendly.

I road-tested the DO400 with an old Sony ES CD player and my desktop PC; I also used it as a preamp with my trusty Parasound HCA power amp as well as SMSL’s pocketbook-sized, Class D A300. I tested its headphone section with the 300 Ohm Sennheiser 650, the 60 Ohm Koss KSC75 and a gamut of sensitive (16-32 Ohm) IEMs, including the fantastic new BGVP DM9.

As a DAC, the DO400 epitomizes SMSL’s house sound—wide soundstage, prominent, well-controlled bass, a forward, driving midrange and very crisp, detailed high end. Notes are weightier than on SMSL’s cheaper offerings like the SMSL SU-6 or C100, although compared to SMSL’s fantastic, comparably priced SMSL SU-9 the DO400 sounds slightly brighter and less-smoothed over; there’s an analytical quality to the treble end which gives a hyper-pixilated sheen to piano keys and cymbal hits.

Tonality is nonetheless quite live-sounding, if occasionally exhausting. Like the SU-9, the various sound colors and DSD filters have a very subtle effect (more pronounced through the headphone section), though technoids will enjoy. 

Background is dead quiet and instrument separation is very clean. Largely because of these qualities, it’s really excellent as a preamp—transparent yet energetic, with considerable presence and drive even at lower volume.  It sounds like an expensive piece. (Note that Bluetooth sounds fine, though not transcendent; esp. when contrasted to the hi-res and even CD material I used for testing, I felt little urge to return to it).

I compared the DO400’s  DAC to my audio chum’s Chord Mojo  ($500ish), which has a similarly dynamic, open-sounding presentation. The Mojo sounds somewhat bassier and fuller, perhaps truer to source, but doesn’t present some the very fine detail you’ll hear on the SMSL. Sonically, we could not pick a clear winner between the two (the Mojo being better matched to heavy rock and the SMSL to subtler fare), though the SMSL has much superior UI and more functions.

As a headphone amp, the DO400 is characterized by its power, clarity, and precise instrument separation—every note is cleanly articulated and there’s no bunching of performers. There is a bit of unnatural adrenalized quality to the presentation—drums in particular have a loud, hyped-up quality even on quieter passages.

This effect is, predictably, less of a factor on less sensitive phones—the Senn HD 650 (which can sound lethargic without sufficient power) took on a palpably physical, toe-tapping presence while the cheap, tough-to-drive Koss presented much better bass control and sounded bigger-than-usual.

More efficient phones, however, tended to lose some composure, especially at the low end—the BGVP DM9, which are meticulously sculpted and accurate through my mobile and a dongle, sounded overdriven and billowy through the DO400 even without the HPA mode engaged.

In contrast, my cheaper headphone amps like the (tube) Aune T1 and the Pro-Ject Head Box presented significantly less detail, a thinner note presentation and a narrower stage, but were actually a better match for the DM9—warmer and more coherent, with less unruly bass, However, the DO400 has a noticeably quieter background–the difference is like being live in the studio vs. listening to a vinyl rig. 

So the DO400 is not a paragon of neutrality, and as a headphone amp it pairs better with higher impedance headphones. It does however have a lot of that elusive PRAT and is a clear step above SMSL’s very credible entry level DACs; especially considering its preamp functionality, registers as a lot of machine for the money. Another winner for the relentless SMSL machine.

Disclaimer: This unit was provided to me by Aoshida for review purposes and can be purchased here (tested at $499):

https://aoshida-audio.com/products/smsl-do400

I have passed this on to Durwood for his (generally better-informed) take; what he does with it is entirely up to him.

Specifications SMSL DO400

Contact us!

The post SMSL DO400 DAC And Headphone Amplifier Review (1) – Will The Circle Be Unbroken? appeared first on Music For The Masses.

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

INTRODUCTION

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

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

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

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

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

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

PHYSICAL THINGS AND USABILITY

PACKAGING AND ACCESSORIES

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

BUILD QUALITY

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

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

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

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

HANDLING

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

QUESTYLE M15 INTERNALS

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

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

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

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

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

TONALITY AND TECHNICALITIES

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

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

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

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

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

PAIRING NOTES

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

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

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

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

SELECT COMPARISONS

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

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

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

CONCLUDING REMARKS

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

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

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

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

MY VERDICT

4.5/5
THE dongle to beat.

Contact us!

DISCLAIMER

Get it from Questyle Shop.

Our generic standard disclaimer.

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

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

Cons — DO300 chassis is a fingerprint magnet
– Stage depth and microdynamics are lacking in comparison to higher end DACs
– Rotary encoder feels cheap
– Subpar playback of DSD files
– Too many similar options in SMSL’s own lineup

INTRODUCTION

SMSL has become immensely popular in recent years, thanks to the consistent delivery of well-measuring and well-specced source devices that match or undercut the competition in terms of many objective metrics.

The DO300 DAC is the latest in line of products that have a very impressive spec-sheet while the asking price is relatively modest. DO300 is also one of the first DACs to utilize the latest and greatest ESS Sabre ES9039MSPro chip, sporting class leading distortion figures and dynamic range. There is also numerous input and output options to mix and match with any system out there.

So, does the DO300 manage to harness the TOTL DAC chip inside to its full potential, or do they end up being another generic release? Let’s find out.

Note: the ratings given will be subjective to the price tier. Aoshida Audio was kind enough to provide me the DO300 for review.

Headphones and IEMs used: Sennheiser HD650, Hifiman HE-6se V2, Sennheiser IE 900

Price, while reviewed: $550. Can be bought from Aoshida Audio.

PHYSICAL THINGS AND USABILITY

PACKAGING AND ACCESSORIES

The packaging is a fairly basic cardboard box. Inside, you get the DO300 DAC itself, a power cable, an USB type-B to type-A cable, and a remote control. No batteries are included.

BUILD QUALITY

Build quality is good in general. The DO300 will not impress with its density or heft, but the CNC-milled aluminum chassis has smooth finish all around with a matte black paint-job. I am not a fan of the coating though, it catches fingerprint and grease all too readily.

The front panel is basically a large rotary encoder with a color LCD beside it to show the line-out gain, current phase, sampling rate, and input type. The LCD is not the best in terms of fidelity, with the contrast being lower than your typical smartphone. Then again, this is a mid-priced DAC and even higher tier ones employ far cheaper displays at times.

i do wish the LCD display showed a few more information, like the current selected filter, tone color enhancements etc. On a similar note, the rotary encoder is not my favorite. It has distinct steps but the feedback is somewhat mushy. There’s also some wobble to it when pressing down (to select an option, for example), which further cheapens the feeling.

As a result, I mostly operated the unit with the supplied remote control which makes it much easier to change the various tone colors, filters etc.

Now let’s move on the other ports on the back. You have the COAX/TOSLINK inputs, the usual USB input (type-B port), I2S, AES/EBU, and Bluetooth inputs. Outputs include both RCA (single-ended) and 3-pin XLRs (balanced).

SMSL basically put in every common input and output types in the market, so most users should not face an issue integrating this DAC into their chain, whether they’re running a small desk setup or a full-fledged stereo rig. I do wish the USB port was type-C because, well, type-C everything is the mantra nowadays (albeit type-B is more robust).

Some notes about the I2S input: I could not test it out due to the lack of such a device at my disposal. However, I shall receive the Cayin N7 soon, which has I2S out. I will update the sound section with impressions regarding I2S input if the difference is noticeable.

So, in essence: good build quality, with no visible imperfections or issues. The rotary encoder could be better though, and type-C input would be nice.

SPECIFICATIONS

The official specs are as follows:

The interesting part here is the ESS Sabre ES9039MSPro chipset. Apart from that mouthful of a name, this is a completely redesigned chipset, as per ESS’ claims. However, they have historically been opaque with their datasheets (with manufacturers or DIY-ers often having to sign NDAs before getting intricate details about the implementation).

Some forum discussions hint at the 9039MSPro being just a more power-efficient 9038, but it’s all speculations and hearsay for the time being.

As for the BT chipset, Qualcomm QCC5125 is utilized. It supports all mainstream codecs including several AptX variants and LDAC. The BT version is 5.0 which is “older” than the latest 5.2, but this should not be too big an issue. The rest of the components includes XMOS XU-316 USB chipset, SMSL’s self-developed system clock, a low-noise linear PSU (which works surprisingly well at suppressing ground hum and RF interference), and 11 dual op-amps.

Another plus is the automatic switching between any voltage range between 100V – 240V. This helps in avoiding the mess of mistakenly connecting the plug without switching the voltage selector and damaging components. So, while the internals are not the most beefed up and do not use many discrete components, the design is competent and should be fine for most use cases.

SMSL DO300 TONALITY AND TECHNICALITIES

I find describing the tonality of digital sources a futile exercise, as most of the characteristics depend on the pairing with various headphones and IEMs. Nonetheless, there are some commonalities between all pairings.

However, I consistently noticed some sonic characters on the DO300, even in blind testing. Basically: the DO300 has a noticeably harder hitting bass slam, and the stage is slightly cramped compared to my reference setup. Microdynamics is another area where the DO300 struggled, with subtle shifts in volume not being as apparent as they are on the LPGT.

Another gripe of mine is the playback of DSD files. Basically – if you listen to many DSD files, skip the DO300 altogether. The replay gain is too high, reducing dynamic range and robbing the DSD files of their nuances during playback. I have a few albums in DSD so overall it was not an issue but the few DSD64 and DSD128 tracks I tried with the DO300, things were not pretty.

Before proceeding further, a description of the test setup is in order. I used the Lotoo PAW Gold Touch (LPGT) + Cayin C9 as the reference system, and the SMSL DO300 is replaced as the DAC for the A/B test (LPGT would then act as the transport). The amp was left untouched, ensuring volume matched comparison.

One interesting feature the DO300 has is “phase inversion” where phase issues on the output side can be compensated for. I’d recommend keeping it turned off unless things sound “strange” (e.g. the center instruments or vocals sound strangely compressed).

PAIRING NOTES

IEMs

The Sennheiser IE 900 show noticeably harder-hitting bass when the DO300 is used as the DAC in the chain. The stage is also narrowed, and stage depth is reduced compared to the LPGT. This “effect” was consistent between tracks. The treble fortunately did not sound “etched” or “fatiguing”, so SMSL has improved upon one of my complaints in their previous offering – the M400.

SoftEars Turii also showed similar change in bass response. It also highlighted the lack of stage depth compared to the LPGT’s DAC section. Imaging seemed fine, though center-imaging is more convincing on the LPGT.

Headphones

The story continues with headphones. Sennheiser HD650 do not benefit from added bass slam as the driver is just incapable of reproducing such low notes, but the mid-bass tightened up slightly. I also tried out the “tube” tone color with the HD650, and while it emulated the soft bass bloom of tube amps, the mids were not as “colored” as they are on the Xduoo MT-601S with tube buffer, for example. An actual OTL amp like the Bottlehead Crack will display even more dramatic difference between SMSL’s emulated tube effect and the real thing.

Speakers

Finally, I used the SMSL DO300 with my desk rig and desk speakers (KEF LSX), with the Questyle CMA Twelve Master being a point of comparison. The KEFs have a low-frequency cut around 70Hz, so the change in bass was mostly imperceptible. The staging was noticeably different between the Questyle and the SMSL, however.

Basically, the Twelve Master had wider, deeper staging as the vocals sat a few inches further away in the presentation. It is not midrange recession, mind you, rather the center imaging and stage depth that is more up-front and “in-your-face” on the SMSL DAC.

COMPARISONS

vs SMSL M400

The M400 is one of the older SMSL DACs that I have tried. It’s one of the few DACs to run the now defunct AKM AK4499 chip (AKM’s past flagship) and offers similar settings to the newer DO300 including tone color and reconstruction filters.

The signature has noticeable differences, however. The DO300 is not as etched in the treble as the M400, and the M400 also tended to push upper-mids a bit too forward. The DO300 is a step up on that front. Staging and imaging are similar on both, but the bass slams harder on the DO300 (which seems to be a thing of this DAC at this point).

So, should existing M400 users upgrade? I think the DO300 is better, but the differences are subtle and a change of amp will have more profound effect. The bass and macrodynamic punch is definitely noticeable, so if you are into that, the DO300 can be an upgrade on that front.

CONCLUDING REMARKS

The DO300 is competent, no doubts about that. It measures well, has every input and output you may possibly want, and the BT support is the proverbial cherry on top (though I find BT audio lacking vs the usual wired affair and as such – ignore it unless absolutely necessary). The build is good and stock accessories are good enough to get you going.

Speaking of the sound, DO300’s bass reproduction is truly satisfying. If you like “slammy” bass – this won’t disappoint at all. Staging and imaging could be better, however, so could be the rendition of microdynamics. DSD files are played back with too high a gain, reducing DR in the process, so DSD collectors should skip this one

The big issue lies elsewhere – it’s about SMSL saturating its own lineup. There is the DO200 mk2, the D400ES, the D300 (with ROHM DAC), and even more upscale options in their VMV lineup of products. It gets dizzying, confusing, and the average consumer might even give up since there is no clear delineation between these products.

Nonetheless, if you are looking for a midrange DAC with most common inputs, some “sound shaping” via reconstruction filters and tone coloration/DSP options, and don’t care about DSD – then the DO300 is a good option. It’s overall better than the M400 it’s essentially replaced, though given SMSL’s rapid-fire release schedule, this one might get replaced soon anyway.

Despite that possibility, the DO300 gets a recommendation based on how solid an offering it is, all things considered.

Contact us!

DISCLAIMER

Get it from Aoshida Audio

Our generic standard disclaimer.

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

The post SMSL DO300 DAC Review – Spec Monster appeared first on Music For The Masses.

INTRO

Ambitious and hungry, the HIDIZS MS5 Dark Angel flagship emerges with hopes and dreams of chanting hymns from the shadows. Utilizing four quality balanced armatures from Sonion combined with a custom liquid crystal kevlar fiber dynamic driver, the HIDIZS MS5 is designed to extract the finest essence from all your recordings like a vampire.

HIDIZS aims to be the one stop shop everything portable audio company with past excellent products we reviewed such as the S9 Pro DAC and the AP80 Pro X. The HIDIZS MS5 is the shot of Irish cream in your coffee with quick bass speed, a sprinkle of lively midrange and exacting microdynamics in the treble worthy of a premium title.

Disclaimer: HIDIZS provided these directly to Audioreviews prior to the pre-sale. We chose to skip the affiliate links, donating to any Super PACS, having wisdom teeth removed, and waiting in long lines. Pre-sale pricing is $379 directly from HIDIZS starting April 21,2023 12am EST, after pre-sale period ends retail is listed at $399 and will be available from other retailers.

PACKAGE CONTENTS

Inside the package of the HIDIZS MS5 Dark Angel you will get a premium accessory kit. The earpieces are a one piece anodized aluminum alloy shell designed to reduce fingerprints and maintain a long lasting durable finish. They are large and bulky which makes for handling easy, but those with smaller ears might find them too large.

The universal shape is not as tight fighting as the Moondrop Blessing 2 Dusk or the Shozy Form 1.4 which both fit me better. The MS5 right ear piece requires some readjustment from time to time. This is normal for me on a majority of sets. The Moondrop and Shozy tuck into my crevices better, where the MS5 floats. Fitment is an extremely personal experience.

Adorned on the outside for all the world to see, the dark angel panel face plate is made with a skin friendly resin, although the only time it comes into contact with skin is via fingertips from inserting into your ears. The Dark Angel nomenclature comes from this face plate, but I cannot help un-see a Venom Marvel character, or forgive me a bicycle helmet. Who knew we needed ear protection without the hearing protection.

Sandwiched between the aluminum cavity and the resin face plate is a rose gold colored mesh that is for decoration only. All venting is provided through a controlled vent port that is of exact size to make sure both earpieces have no discrepancy between sizing that would affect the bass response. The external vent port appears to be a white resistive balanced armature filter damper. Since it is molded in, modding with a different damper is unlikely.

Premium detachable cabling of the HIDIZS MS5 is made from a mixture of 504 strands of 6N single crystal silver plated copper and 6N copper braided to form a total of 8 stands of wires sheathed in black environmentally friendly PVC giving it a shiny darker appearance with a sticky feeling.

The cable is weighty yet flexible and combined with the formed ear hooks stays firmly planted. The chin slider is for decoration, if it were open completely instead of having wire channels it would freely move, but it binds against the cable too much so I opted not to mess with it.

This is one area that is somewhat problematic as the weight combined with the aggressive ear hook deforms my ear and applies extra pressure. For longer listening sessions users will find it irritating. I wish they would have opted for something lighter, but still of the same quality. Consider replacing it.

With a plethora of tuning options between the included library of ear tips for Balanced, Bass and Vocals, the HIDIZS MS5 also includes three pairs of tuning nozzles screwed into a piece of aluminum plate with laser engraved text to help identify.

I would have preferred the color name included on the plate and adding a spot for the balanced pneumatic gold colored nozzles. At least it was a much more premium way to include them as opposed to in a plastic bag or attached to a piece of plastic like the Drop JVC HA-FDX1.

The replaceable pneumatic sound tuning filter- as HIDIZS refers to the nozzles – have a piece of open-celled foam in the balanced and bass pairs, while the silver treble colored ones have none. The red bass pair contains a higher density amount to cut back on treble letting the bass become slightly more prominent. For those who really like to tweak, you can experiment with your own materials such as cotton, gauze, other foams, etc. You might want to consider a little removal thread locker to prevent them from unscrewing and getting lost.

As I peered into the open cavity while changing these sound tuning nozzles, I can see 4 guided tube openings via a plastic insert. One of those tube openings includes a white colored resistive balanced armature damper used to tune and tame resonances of the balanced armatures.

It uses 3 different balanced armatures from Sonion, the E50DT for highs, 2389 (dual armature) for mid/highs, and the 17A003 for the lower midrange. The combined dual armature is how they count four. The 10mm Kevlar center cone attached by a liquid crystal surround dynamic takes over the low end.

The three different sets of eartips for the HIDIZS MS5 each serve for different purposes. The Vocal eartips have a shorter thicker stem and a wider opening to allow more sound through at a closer point to the exit and allow for placement closer to your eardrum if allowed by fitment.

The ones marked Bass and Balanced appear similar for stem and opening sizing, the only difference I detect is the black bass ear tips have a thicker outer shell to better retain shape and to minimize sound leakage.

What flagship IEM would not be complete without a protective carrying case, and the HIDIZS MS5 provides a roomy premium leather zippered case. Inside it is coated with a fleece material to prevent moisture build up. Plenty roomy, the mesh pocket can hold some of the accessories. It’s  large for a pants pocket, but fine in a coat or bag. It’s the same size as the Moondrop Blessing 2 Dusk carrying case.

SOUND

Tested primarily with the HIDIZS AP80 Pro-X , SMSL DO100/HO100/SU-9

Seems fitting to pair the HIDIZS MS5 with the HIDIZS AP80 Pro-X for excellent power output, however I also tested with the LG G8. One thing to consider is that this is a low impedance earphone spec’d at 5.3 ohms, it does dip further to ~4 ohms around 1khz. That might be hard for some devices to drive properly in a different sense as output impedance of the device can impact high frequency response roll-off.

The overall sound signature of the HIDIZS MS5 is balanced with medium levels of boosted bass and elevated pinna gain. For once I get to not call this a Harman tuning, as they notch out an area that can be sensitive to some around 4Khz, and also ease into the upper midrange pinna gain instead of a straight climb to the peak and keep it fairly level out to 9khz. For the bulk of my listening I selected the balanced ear tips and balanced nozzles.

The bass nozzles soften the treble giving a more relaxed and non-fatiguing listening session, but the bass is more dominant and fuller. The treble nozzles allow free flow of everything the Sonion balanced armatures have to offer and really bring orchestral works to life with their light and airy capabilities.

Bass is full and warm, extension reaches the bottom and feels centered to provide nice balance between mid-bass and sub-bass. They have similarly wonderfully tight and controlled bass as the Shozy Form 1.4, but with the sub-bass of the Blessing 2 Dusk. The elevation avoids sounding too boomy and coming from some recent sets that boosted only the lowest last octave that could present as thin sounding, the HIDIZS MS5 is anything but. The tapering off is gradual but not bleeding, blending with the Sonion BA well. For me it tapers off before vocals start sounding too muddy and honky, instead a little chesty. If I EQ out around 250Hz it sounds closer to the Moondrop Blessing 2 Dusk.

Vocals deliver all the nuances and never sound strained unless the recording was over-driven. I definitely recommend using the vocal ear tips, as the upper registers are tamed with the smaller bores. Since it eases into the treble, the vocals feel a bit pulled back. The lower mid-range upper mid-bass tends to pull forward the staging. It is noticeable when switching back and forth with the Moondrop Blessing 2 Dusk.

Sliding into the treble, the HIDIZS MS5 delivers all the nuances you expect out of a flagship. While it may not have the air like qualities of the 7HZ Timeless, it delivers a superbly brilliant upper end. Listening to Queen’s Crazy Little Thing Called Love, you get a real sense of space as the drums sticks tap the edge of the drums, something the Moondrop Blessing 2 Dusk is also capable of.

One of my other favorite hybrids the Shozy Form 1.4 does not deliver that kind of technical ability to resolve that level of detail. I can really pick out the nuances of the different cymbal strikes, or the fluttering of the pads and levers opening and closing in a solo saxophone.

TECHNICALITIES

For classical fans or even acoustic rock fans, height information comes through excellent as I listen to Georgia Peach Acoustic Alchemy when the chimes in the beginning come in, the higher chimes propagate higher. The HIDIZS MS5 is a high resolution set without feeling over-blown or fatiguing sound wise. For those that find it to have too much presence might actually want to use the bass tuning filters.https://www.audioreviews.org/hidizs-ms5-review-2-review-ap/

When comparing the HIDIZS MS5 to the Moondrop Blessing 2 Dusk, they are nearly identically wonderful. The difference between the two becomes apparent in the staging. Since the HIDIZS MS5 has more upper mid-bass, the staging feels U shaped, with the extra bass pulling some instruments closer around the edges hence what I call U shape not to be confused with U shaped frequency tuning.

The Moondrop Blessing 2 Dusk has a more even or straight position. As a result overall the HIDIZS MS5 sounds wide and forward, with depth front to back good, but overall the whole stage is closer.

Layering front to back is excellent with nothing ever feeling congested. Microdynamic detail retrieval is excellent. Nothing ever feels out of place. HIDIZS utilized excellent drivers and implemented the Sonion to their fullest ability. The multi-BA budgets do not even stand close, and I would hope not at this mid-tier pricing level ($150-500).

A HAPPY ENDING

The HIDZS MS5 Dark Angel swoops in and steals my attention away from my other favorites. The resolution and brilliance is superb. The use of the excellent Sonion balanced armatures combined with the fullness of the dynamic driver is a good match. The things some might not find appealing are the thicker lower midrange/upper midbass transition, forwardness of the stage, the heavy weight of the premium styled cable, and the bulkiness of the size.

Sometimes less is more, but overall I give it an A/B in tuning and an A- in technical abilities. One of my only favorites from HIDIZS. For those that prefer a diffuse field tuning from Etymotic or the Harman tuning, you will find these more energetic, but in my opinion in all the right places.

SPECIFICATIONS

GRAPHS

• Left vs Right
• Tuning filter comparison
• HIDIZS MS5 vs Shozy Form 1.4 vs Moondrop Blessing 2 Dusk
• Impedance Plot

Contact us!

DISCLAIMER

Get it from the HIDIZS store.

Our generic standard disclaimer.

About my measurements.

The post HIDIZS MS5 Dark Angel Review (1) – Venom Protection appeared first on Music For The Masses.

At-a-glance Card

Important foreword

I feel it’s appropriate to extend an informative preamble here, you’ll understand why as you read on.

As you might (or might not?) know, the people at final do take a quite scientific approach to acoustics, and to their headphones design in consequence. If you didn’t yet, I warmly recommend you to spend a couple of hours (or more) on this article.

Until a few years ago final’s strategy line was to develop “in-ear versions” of their flagship D8000 headphones aiming at delivering something as close as possible to the “allrounder” archetipe. Such was, and still is, their E-series.

Later on, final took a different approach: investigating specific musical genres and their listeners’ preferences and/or requirements as a basis to develop IEMs focused on each particular situation.

Final A- and B- series are the results of such different strategy.

Final shared some more detail regarding their studies and consequent choices.

First and foremost they put attention on the aspect of “distance perception”.

When listening to some musical genres – namely orchestral classical or big band jazz – more than others spatiality is key. Thinking to the “real thing” (the orchestra in the theatre) you expect, and therefore you want , to “feel” their music “in a big room”, and perceive the different distance the various instruments or instrument grups are placed at from your seat, and from each other.

Oppositely, when one listens to hard rock, pop, or even small-group jazz (think to a trio in a smokey canteen) widespread 3D spacing is not important as indeed it does not correspond to “the real thing”. In such situation you indeed expect a group of voices playing physically close to one another, and what you want is not hearing them artificially scattered here or there, rather you want them to be rendered “sonically well separated” from one another.

When at a live venue of a small group you do in facts always discern the guitar from the bass and the voice even if they are all standing on a stage less than 10 square meters – such discernment capability is instead too often “lost in translation” while we listen to corresponding audio tracks.

Another key element that final focused on is what techies call the sound’s “dynamic range”.

Vulgarly translated, think to dynamic range as the number of distinguishable shades of a certain physical quantity. A box with 12 colored pencils from dark red to black is an example of a much tighter dynamic range compared to a big box of 144 Caran d’Ache, still going from dark red to same black.

Ported onto audio terms, a wider dynamic range sound is what you want to appreciate all the most minute variations Maria Callas was able to issue while warbling, or Uto Ughi can deliver from a Guarnieri del Gesù.

Oddly enough, in some cases a wider dynamic range is less desireable. Using only 12 colored pencils, in facts, it is much easier to tell a red from an orange, even if they are drawn one adjacent to the other, for the simple reason that there is apriori only “one” red and “one” orange in your palette, not a dozen different intermediate nuances of each.

When you have “a lot of space” in between two color (or sounds) spots, one blue the other red, you can have each reproduced with more subtle nuances. Oppositely if the two spots are closer to one another, or even overlapping each other, your first priority is to avoid they mix into a violet!

Thinking in these terms, orchestral music, or anyhow music composed of many “voices”, be them acoustic or electronic, coming from multiple, spread-out physical positions will better require higher space reconstruction and dynamic range capabilities.

Oppositely, music generated by very few instruments/voices/sources playing shoulder-to-shoulder will rather want all voices to be “more or less in the same spot”, and that’s when the highest available proweness in rendering them clearly distinct from one another becomes crucial.

The B series has been developed exactly thinking to such last mentioned applicative scenario: small groups acting on physically small stages, with overlapping sounds and voices – calling for relatively lesser need for “spatial amplitude” in exchange for much higher sonic separation capabilities.

This graph taken from final’s web site is at this point quite readable.

The term “Clarity” in this case is used in the sense of “being able to tell different sounds apart from one another”.

For completeness: the opposite scenario is the typical big orchestral setup, involving many voices positioned on a quite (or very!) sizeable physical stage. In such case priority #1 is rendering the amplitude of the original, real scene. Technically, translates into micro-managing sound timing, and rendering distant sounds as clean and articulated as close ones. That is final A-series ballpark, instead.

At the end of this lengthy preamble, I hope I made its very reason obvious: don’t blame your Fiat Panda turtle speed and deafening noise if your purpose is covering 50.000 KM/year on motorways, nor criticise your BMW 530 if costs your a pretty penny of gas in the messy downtown traffic.

Full Device Card

Test setup

Sony NW-A55 mrWalkman / Questyle QP1R / Questyle M15 / E1DA 9038SG3 / Questyle CMA-400i – Stock Final E tips – Dunu DUW-02S silver plated cable – lossless 16-24/44.1-192 FLAC and DSD 64/128/256 tracks.

Signature analysis

Tonality

B3 are just a bit on the bright side of neutral, with a presentation I would call roughly W-shaped. The timbre is very interesting: notes are clear and bodied, detailed and meaty – not simply “analogue”, rather “organically lifelike”. Veeery different from what’s commonly called “BA timbre”.

Sub-Bass

Sub-bass reflects the inherent limitations of BA drivers: its extreme end is in facts modestly rolled off. Not a big deal for my tastes: standup bass rumble is there anyhow. I can make it a bit more evident with some light EQing, which B3 bear with a certain tranquillity.

Mid Bass

Mid bass is very good but before that it’s… surprising. The BA driver reserverd to B3’s mid and low frequencies yields solid body and relaxed-calibrated transients, delivering still fast and punchy yet – very uncommonly for a BA – textured, flowery and meaty notes. For my personal taste B3’s midbass is at times even a tad too “imperative” – first time I hear such situation on a BA driver. Again, this can be easily corrected by some light EQing.

Mids

Mids are just spectactular: moderately forward, bodied, textured, articulated. Acoustic piano, guitar and tenor sax benefit most from this tuning.

Male Vocals

Baritones on B3 sound natural if just a whiff too much bodied to come across as “totally” realistic. Tenors are better in this sense: less “flowery” then baritones while still very much organic.

Female Vocals

Opposite to the male case, female voices are very good and cured, yet a purist might say they could use a bit more butter. And that’s true, in a sense, but in such case the rest of the tones “around” the soprano would have to be adapted too, to avoid losing coherence.

Highs

One of the two BA drivers is exclusively dedicated to this segment, with the quite obvious target of delivering an engaging and detailed experience while staying rigorously south of excesses. And boy did they succeed! A very good compromise has been reached here between note body and fine granularity, livelyness and unoffensiveness.

Technicalities

Soundstage

Unsurprisingly considering their apriori design choices, B3’s soundstage is not more than average for it price class. It is however, if modestly, extended in all directions including some depth. Caveat: stage size also depends on fit – deeper push-in = narrower scene, as always.

Imaging

All instruments are well cut-out from the ensemble – for how closed-in may it be – and realistically cast on the scene with good body, to a very organic result.

Details

Detail retrieval is very good on B3, however you shouldn’t expect a “detail monster” effect, whereby details are thrown at you as “the first thing you hear”. It’s indeed the other way around here: on the frontline you hear main-bodied notes, while back layers bring you the details that complement the sound richness.

That’s very likely the consequence of the precise tuning choices operated in particular on the trebles, where as I mentioned above an evident succeeded effort has been applied to delivered the highest possible energy while never scanting into excess and fatigue.

Instrument separation

Layering and instrument separation is arguably where B3 deliver their best. Capitalising on their timbre clarity, on the accuracy of their tonal calibration, and – why not – on particular driving hardware features, they deliver a really uncommon separation quality. If their design purpose was to render small, closed-in groups with the maximum single-voice definition, they no doubt hit the bullseye here.

Driveability

It’s not so easy to drive the B3 due to quite modest sensitivity (102dB/mw). Nothing as hard as a nasty planar however – a modestly amplified source is basically enough.

Physicals

Build

Housings are produced by Metal Injection Moulding, a process involving mixing steel powder with another element to form a resin which is then moulded at high temperature into the desired shape. The result is solid and sturdy, and aesthetically very pleasing at least for my tastes.

Fit

A 3-contact-point fit between the housing and the outer ear has been designed by final aiming at the best compromise between wearing firmness and light stress accumulation over time.

The design idea is quite brilliant to be honest, the rationale being: you need (just) 3 grip points to obtain stability. One is the eartip umbrella, inside the canal. Another one is the housing’s short front side vs the tragus.

And the third can be any one of the possible 4 contact spots between the housing’s shaped back side and the concha – depending on one’s ear particular shape that of course will happen on one or another position. I would say that for my experience it works as intended.

What I just find sub-ideal is the nozzle length which is a tad too short and makes tip selection pickier than it should. In my case the working trick luckily “just” stays in choosing a bigger size for my left ear: that gets me a firm grip and seal even if the tip stops “just in” the canal, relieving the need to push the housings too much into my left concha.

Comfort

B3’s particular housings size, their 3-point-fit design, and their external finish all contribute to a good comfort once I found my right “personal” position.

Isolation

Passive isolation is quite nice once B3 are properly fitted, but not more than that as the housings are not designed to “fill up” the concha, which would of course block more of the leak.

Cable

Stock cable is Final C106, a Junkosha silver plated copper with fixed 3.5 termination – it’s the same cable bundled as stock on A8000 and E5000. I recently focused how sonically limited such cable is – it’s at best on par with some quite cheap chifi alternatives, with the bad difference of it retailing for like 200$ when purchased alone.

In addition to that no modular termination plugs are available, so pairing B3 to a balanced source requires swapping it anyhow. To this day in 2023, and for packages like B3 starting to cost around 500$ list, I think final could do better.

After some cable rolling for my experience better stay on silver plated – pure copper “combs” B3’s trebles a bit too much – so I find Dunu DUW-02S an adequate quality option for B3. Compared to stock layering and note contouring get obviously better, and bass is better defined, less flowery.

Specifications (declared)

Comparisons

I’ll list a few comparisons down here, trying to be (for once) quite succint while hopefully informative enough

final B1 (€699 EU list)

Insofar as another member of the B-series, B1 follows the same apriori musical pairing indications as B3. Featuring a Dynamic driver in the mid & low frequencis in lieu of B3’s BA driver, B1’s timbre is full and lush, tonality is obviously warm and V-shaped, their bass is viscerally deep and authoritative (even too much), mids are more recessed, and trebles are relaxed. If B3 pleases those like me longing for organic, unadultered acoustic renditions, B1 obviously caters to people liking bass-colored, energetic playbacks. B1 is also very tricky to drive, requiring much more current than most portable sources are able to deliver, and when underbiased they sound dark and quite ugly (E5000, anyone?).

final F7200 (€ 469 EU list)

To me F7200 are [even more] specialised drivers, particularly dedicated to vocal performances like songwriters singers etc. Pretty much the single best driver I ever heard on that application. B3 offer more bodied, natural and more extended bass, and a bit better trebles.

Intime Miyabi (JPY 21000 + import costs)

Miyabi offer a more “classical-all-rounder” presentation with stronger bass personality, and those unique piezo-trebles-without-piezo-timbre. A close call on layering and separation with the edge probably in Miyabi’s favour, if not by much. Mids are better on B3, which also deliver “silkier” notes all over the spectrum, but cost twice as much.

final A5000 (€ 299 EU list)

As I tried to outline in the foreword up above, A-series stems from a polar-opposite design intention (rendering big bands instead of small groups) – no wonder then how B3 and A5000 sound different like day and night. A5000 draws a much wider space, and cast instruments all over it with a lot of clean air in-between one another. Notes are dryer on A5000 all accross the spectrum, its timbre is leaner, detail retrieval is “more upfront”. High mids and trebles may be “hot” for some on A5000, which do react very positively to EQ however. TL;DR: A5000 and B3 are fundamentally “complementary”.

iBasso IT04 (€ 499,00)

IT04, too, feature particular proweness on layering / separation, and prefer casting a more intimate scene with band elements imaged as more closed-in to one another. A very good job was done on IT04 bringing the 3 BA driver’s tonality close to their DD one, which however deprives IT04 of that little % of “treble life” which is there on B3 instead. IT04 has an open-V shape, warm-ish presentation in lieu of B3’s more W-shaped, bright-neutral one.

Oriveti OH500 (€ 499,00)

OH500 offer a U-shaped, warmer presentation compared to B3. Both ends (bass and treble) are more evident on OH500. Layering, separation and detail retrieval are better on B3, more so in the low end. OH500 are (even) pickier to drive then B3.

Dunu EST112 (€ 489,00)

EST112 has slower and fuzzier (bur more visceral) bass, not as full vocals and a bit more tamed trebles (which are in my books EST112 Achille’s heel tbh) compare to B3. Stage casting is a bit wider on EST112, layering is better on B3.

Considerations & conclusions

B3’s main cyphre is realism. When applied to the music they were designed for they gift their owner a stunning sense of physical presence on the scene. Instruments and players are cast near you such that you can almost reach out and touch them.

Even more importantly, B3 deliver a note discernment capability over the music being played which gets surprisingly close to that of your own ears when you are sitting in the front lines of a live venue. All of this paired with a deliciously organic timbre on a bright-neutral tonality.

As my eighteen readers know I am not a collector. Life is too short, and I have too little free time to spend any of that on second-best options, when I am lucky enough to have more than one availalble. B3 are part of my (very) short best-option list.

Our generic standard disclaimer.

P.S. – for the record: as any truly affectionated user knows spelling, “final Co., Ltd.” lowercase (“final”) is not a typo 

The post Final B3 Review – Realism For Real appeared first on Music For The Masses.

The $265 TempoTec Serenade X “Full Balance Designed Integrated Network Streaming Music Player” is a fabulous all-in-one mid-fi player that successfully marries functionality and sound. A complete package and a true pleasure on all fronts using it. Plays even lossless via Apple AirPlay 2...

The TempoTec Serenade X was kindly provided by the manufacturer, and I thank them for that. You find more information on the TempoTec website.

Introduction

TempoTec are a Chinese company that have come a long way recently. Previously best known for their budget DACs, they stepped into the limelight with their excellent V6 Digital Analog Player, a wonderfully tuned device at around a (very attractive) $329.

I became interested in the TempoTec Serenade X because I wanted to find out what it could do for us. After all, it is an unusually looking device. In short, it can do A LOT…it streams…per internet from the usual subscription services (Tidal, Qobuz etc.), per Bluetooth from your tablet/phone, per USB from the computer, external hard drive, or simply a USB stick…and per coax or Toslink (or USB) from your CD player. Did I forget anything?

The Serenade X excels through its functionality while having a decent however standardized, prefabricated sound through 2 standard SoCs.

Specifications TempoTec Serenade X

Physical Things

In the package are the device, a screw-on Bluetooth antenna, the 12V power supply, a USB-A to USB-C cable, 1 HiBy 4.4 mm (female) to 3.5 mm (male) adapter, 1 GB USB-thumb drive, a microfibre cleaning cloth, and the usual paperwork.

The TempoTec Serenade X is an unusually shaped device and appears like the love child of a tablet computer and a RC Battery Charger.

The chassis is made of metal and the whole top is reflective glass. The latter contains a relatively small 3.2″ touch screen of intermediate resolution – which does the job for me. The build quality is fine. What may be confusing, initially, is that most functionality is handled by the touch screen, but some (for example volume) by a set of physical buttons.

The Serenade’s X footprint is rather small (12 x 10 x 4.5 cm) and all you need is a wall socket. This makes it attractive for small desks and even hotel rooms.

Technology/Architecture

The Serenade X sports a dual ESS9219C chipset (“System on Chip” or “SoC”) for a fully balanced design. This means DAC and amp are on the same chip. This saves space however creates a somewhat prefabricated sound and amplification.

And since DAC and amp cannot be separated, it is not possible to create a digital output. All outputs are therefore analog.

All functionality is controlled by a FPGA digital management circuit. Volume is controlled digitally by hardware button and by the HiByLink mobile app.

Firmware can be downloaded from the TempoTec website and easily updated via a USB stick.

Interface

Top Panel

Contains all control functions via the touch screen and a button panel. Operation is intuitive.

Back Panel: I/O

All inputs are digital, the outputs are analog. You can connect CD players, daps, DACs, and computer via S/PDIF (coax, optical), USB-A and USB-C. On the receiving end you can connect 4.4 mm plugs (headphone or amp) for balanced operation, and RCA interconnects for single-ended amplifiers.

Functionality and Operation

The Tempotec Serenade X is an incredibly versatile device.

It does

• play music through balanced headphone circuits and balanced or single ended external amplifier
• play music from wireless sources: Tidal & Qobuz (Wifi), Apple AirPlay 2 (“Apple Music”) & Bluetooth (“Spotify”) etc. (from computer, phone)
• play music from wired sources: coaxial & S/PDIF (CD player, DAC, dap), USB-A & USB-C (computer, dap, internal HiBy player)
• feature the HiBy player that can be controlled from your phone via the free HiByLink app
• let you tweak the sound with HiBy’s very smart MSEB parametric equalizer
• let you update the Firmware through a set of files downloaded directly or through a computer from the TempoTec website.

It does not have

• integrated Spotify (can be mitigated by streaming from phone/computer via Bluetooth)
• Roon capabilities
• digital outputs (cannot connect to an external DAC)
• a microSD card slot (can be mitigated by a USB adapter)

Whilst this list is somewhat overwhelming, the menu is intuitive and self explanatory. I will explain the most important features and workarounds as follows.

Menu System

The touch screen displays a compact menu that lets you access and choose the various inputs including streaming services, wireless connectivities, settings, the HiBy music player, and the MSEB (which stands for “Mage Sound 8-ball”). MSEB is a parametric, very intuitive EQ.

Wireless Options

Apple AirPlay 2 vs. Bluetooth 5.0 vs. Wifi

The Serenade offers these three wireless input possibilities.

Wifi: does not allow for direct streaming, it just transfers data to a connected drive.

Bluetooth & Apple AirPlay 2: you can play music from your computer/phone via Bluetooth (all current codecs) or Apple AirPlay 2. Both work differently.

Bluetooth uses a direct connection whereas AirPlay 2 connects via the network. This allows for bigger data streams including images so that AirPlay 2 can play lossless, Bluetooth cannot. Apple users frolic.

Streaming Services

Tidal, Qobuz: you can connect to and control Tidal and Qobuz via Wifi through the Serenade’s interface.

Apple Music: streams lossless from your phone or Mac with Apple AirPlay 2. Album art shows on Serenade X’s screen.

Spotify: There is no Spotify option in the menu, which you can stream via Bluetooth from your phone or computer. The downside is “no cover art”, just a generic screen on the Serenade X’s display.

Wired Options

Toslink/optical: CD-players, DACs, and my old Questyle QP1R dap have optical line outs.

Coaxial: works with most DACs and CD players.

USB-A, USB-C: connect your thumb drive, SSD, or similar with your music library on it.

No micro-SD card slot? Not a problem. Use a USB memory-card reader.

Integrated Option: The HiBy 3.0 Music Player with HiBy Link Remote

The Serenade X features a built-in HiBy music player which you also find in many digital analog players. It is sourced by an external drive. I use a 128 GB thumb drive. The free HiByLink app turns your phone into a remote (if your headphone cord is longer than your arms).

The HiBy music player is also on the TempoTec V6 and the Hidisz AP80 Pro-X (and many more). It is intuitive, offers lots of tweaks (for example an MSEB), and it sounds better than Apple’s Music player on my iPhone.

Sound and Amplification

As mentioned, the Serenade X features 2 standard SoCs, that is DAC and amp are on the same ESS chip. This creates a standard sound and output power as experienced, for example, in the Qudelix-5K, Hidizs XO, FiiO BTR5, a few Shanlings, and the Hidizs AP80 Pro-X dap. The amplification (see specs) is powerful enough to drive my 300 Ω  Sennheiser HD 600 with ease.

The audio engineer cannot manipulate the analog output stage and the amp, and only has the option to put fllters and/or components at the end of it, as done in the Questyle M15. I assume the latter was the case as the Serenade X sounds livelier and faster than other devices using these SoCs.

As with the peers, the sound is still off analyical-neutral into very slight colour, with good extension at both ends. What’s improved over the standard sound is better transparency and a more vivid, crisper presentation. The balanced circuit makes for an especially large headroom. I also find the resolution very good. There is no hint of stridency and the timbre is very good. I picked the finest details out of a transcribed Mozart oboe concerto.

So whilst audio snobs may role their eyes, the combination of balanced and AirPlay 2 make for a well-rounded, enjoyable listening experience.

Serenade X vs. Dongles and DAPS

After we have explored all input and out options, a compact functionality comparison with DAPs and phones with dongles is warranted.

Concluding Remarks

I usually don’t give recommendations, but this is an easy one if the special funcionality and “balanced sound quality” fits your needs. I really enjoy using the Serenade X simply because of its versatility and have done so for hours and hours: it is a small, intelligent, and reasonably powerful all-in-one device.

Until next time…keep on listening!

Contact us!

Disclaimer

Our generic standard disclaimer.

Gallery

The post TempoTec Serenade X Digital Desktop Player Review – Rocking The Jukebox appeared first on Music For The Masses.

At-a-glance Card

Full Device Card

Test setup

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

Signature analysis

Tonality

Hodur’s presentation is an evident W-shape, reaching good result in terms of tonal balancing however lacking in terms of timbre coherence and overall organicity. Bass is rather flowery, treble is by converse dry and technical, and such two souls don’t merge one into another as smoothly as they should (and I would prefer).

The general timbre is somewhat lean accross the board, with a partial exception represented by the sub bass – which also contributes to the mentioned incoherency feeling. Mid bass helps warming the presentation up, without adding too much butter to the notes however.

Sub-Bass

Sub bass is well extended and present. The rumble often gets an excessive bit out of control up to sounding bloaty, and interfering with the midbass’ job.

Mid Bass

Hodur’s midbass is… uncommon. I can describe it as strong, warming also insofar as not particularly fast, although not sloppy at all, either. Which would all be good if it were not for a moderate artificial timbre making it lack realism.

In more vulgar terms Hodur’s bass overall (sub+mid) is quite deep, energetic and colored, and as such I find it more pleasant when listening to some genres (electronic, rock…) and less ideal on others (acoustic music in general, jazz, classical…)

Mids

Mids are where Hodur’s overall lean timbre deepens its roots. Their tuning is quite brave in a sense, especially for the higher half of the mids segment which is forward, energetic and somewhat bright while succeeding in staying south of shouty – although sometimes by a tiny margin. Note weight is lacking everywhere, which is a pity as this results in missing organicity especially on acoustic music.

Male Vocals

Male voices like the rest of the lower part of the mid segment are more recessed than the rest. Add some note thinness and you easily look elsewhere if you’re fond of tenor vocals.

Female Vocals

Female vocals are much better than male on Hodur, insofar as much more forward, brighter, cleaner and more energetic. The downside is they come very close to shoutyness some times, and sadly they do pass the sibilance threshold in a few occasions too many, and they lack the body it takes to make them convincingly natural/organic.

Highs

Treble is no doubt “the” strong point on Hodur, with particular regards to its EST driver performance, which kicks in just above highmids, by ear I’d say around 3.5/4K onwards. Highmids’ already fast, BA-style transients become supersnappy thanks to the well tuned EST, never scanting into artificial metallic or “electrical” timbre. Good job here!

Without prejudice to what noted before about horizontal tonal incoherence, here’s where the re-balancing role played by the bass reveals itself as so precious in the overall Hodur presentation, which would certainly come across as “overly trebly” otherwise. Indeed, within its noted limitations the ensemble taken as a whole is indeed pleasant, I reckon especially for “treble heads” longing for “not-just-bright” IEMs.

Technicalities

Soundstage

Hodur draw a modestly wide and high stage, however depth is above average – provided of course a good DAC is upstream, needles to say (or is it?).

Imaging

Hodur’s imaging is no better than average, and that’s already a compensated evaluation resulting from a bit better performance on less crowded passages, and definitely fuzzy rendering on more crowded ones.

Details

Hodur’s EST driver is very good at detail retrieval within of course its applicative scope (treble frequencies). Not the same happens on mid frequencies, where details are at best average due to lean note body, and especially on the bass, where texture is quite basic and an over-flowerly (so to call it) rumble tends to often fog the segment off.

Instrument separation

Even more than imaging, Hodur lack big time on instrument separation. Everything is made difficult by the lack of microdynamics coming off the BA and the EST drivers, negatively paired with sub bass’s “rumble dust” covering the lower registers too often.

Driveability

While not particularly hard to drive in terms of sound volume Hodur are very tricky to bias as their DD is very sensible to dampening, and their 8 ohm impedance calls for quite specific sources – or the midbass gets immediately bumped up which, coupled with the already “egocentric” subbass, makes up for a sort of “indistinct blob” down there, which is certainly not pleasant to hear.

In addition to impedance, beware warm sources mainly as they negatively resonate with Hodur’s difficulties on instrument separation.

Physicals

Build

It’s of course totally subjective but I find Hodur’s “kidney” shape very nice both in terms of ergonomics and aesthetics. I could instead easily do without the thin line of sparkling little stones added as a decoration on the backplate. The aluminum structure comes across as convincingly solid.

Fit

Nozzles are not particularly long so the fit stays on a somewhat shallow level. In my particular case a 1-size-larger than normal eartip on the left channel helps getting the right fit.

Comfort

Very comfy once properly fit thanks to the modest sized, oval shaped and smoothed housings. Surely amongst the most comfortable IEMs I ever used.

Isolation

Passive isolation is quite average, and depends on how you sit the housings into the concha so each one’s experience will be a bit different.

Cable

Hodur are supplied with a nice hybrid material (silver plate copper + pure copper) stock cable bearing modular termination plugs. Oddly enough, only 3.5 and 4.4mm terminations are included in the bundle, no 2.5 plug – a pity.

The modular system does not come with a click-lock mechanism to secure the plug in place, which makes me suspect that terminal plugs may tend to become a bit lose over time. This is however a speculation, as I used the Hodur for a few weeks and those have definitely not produced any form of deterioration on the system.

Specifications (declared)

Miscellaneous notes

Hodur are one of those few IEMs I encountered for which even a short “burn-in” did make for a very obvious improvement. Out of the box the bass was totally unaudible (fully bloated) and the entire presentation was obscure, compressed. Just a couple of short auditions later, it all settled to what I tried to describe here above.

Hodur are supplied with a very, very good bundle of eartips: a full 5-sizes set of Final Type-E (black), a 3-sizes set of Kinera K07 tips (very, very similar – read identical – to Kbear A07), and a 4-sizes set of Kinera K-205-02. In particular, I found it difficult to decide which between Type-E and K07 pair better on the Hodur. In the end I probably prefer K07 as they tend to “tame” the sub-bass bloat a bit.

The carton box… Well this is an odd one. Of course it has nothing to do with sound. It however caught me (in positive) for how creative, well-designed, and well realised it appeared when I unpacked it.

I mean it: it’s a box which is clearly trying to communicate with me, being European, both in terms of historical evocation, colour and shape selections, internal setup, storytelling… everything. Very well conceived. Immediately afterwards, however, I was stunned when I noticed with which incredible lack of accuracy the copywrite has been developed for the box and the literature inside it.

Grammaical errors, typos, wrong translations, symplistic lexical forms. Even 2 out of 3 syllabic splittings are ridiculously wrong (this stuff is taught at primary school). Horrible. Seems as if Kinera paid a good level, international-cultured professional marketeer for the general brand design and graphic concept, but didnt put any attention in hiring someone knowing English at a decent level.

A glowing example of how even a single amateur-level contributor can waste the otherwise very good work carried out by other good professionals. Ah, well…

Comparisons

Geek World GK10 ($48)

GK10 feature 2 DD, 1 BA, 2 Piezo drivers, and a price which is 1/6 then Hodur’s

GK10 have more limited sub bass extension so they generate less rumble then Hodur. Mid bass on GK10 is also lower in accentuation compared to Hodur, and at times it appears like a bit “dampened” (for lack of a more appropriate word).

That said however, sub and mid bass are more organic on GK10 and they don’t interfere with the rest of the segments. Mids are more recessed on GK10 but also less lean compared to Hodur, so globally more pleasant.

No female voice sibilance on GK10 unlike Hodur. Trebles are somewhat similar, with Hodur having it this time as the “Piezo-timbre” comes out more prominent and more often on GK10 vs how nicely “discrete” the EST nature of the driver is on Hodur. Detail retrieval is better on Hodur’s trebles, equivalently modest on mids on both models, and much better on GK10’s bass.

Both GK10 and Hodur suffer from timbre incoherence issues, Hodur being the worst of the two due to more invasive bass. Unlike Hodur, GK10 offer very precise imaging and nothing short of surprising layering (especially considering its ridiculous price). Stage drawing is different: taller for GK10, deeper for Hodur, both limited horizontally.

Both are tricky to bias due to identical ultralow impedance (8 ohm). Hodur is more comfortable to wear.

BQEYZ Summer ($129)

Summer feature 1 DD, 1 BA, 1 Piezo ceramic driver at less then half Hodur’s price.

Summer have less important mid-bass, and a sub-bass which is similar in quantity to Hodur’s, but is not bloaty so won’t steal the scene. Mids and vocals are quite similar on the two models, in both cases too lean to sound organic, nontheless decent overall. Highmids are better on Hodur, except for the sibilance.

Trebles are very similar, with Hodur having the edge in terms of quality and timbre, Summer’s piezo nature coming out more evident in comparison. Detail retrieval is better on Hodur’s trebles, similar on either’s mids, and better on Summer’s bass.

Summer images much better than Hodur, although with a sharp preference for horizontal distribution / stereo effect. Layering is obviously better on Summer. Stage is wider on Summer, way deeper on Hodur. S

ummer is much easier to properly bias thanks to its 32 ohm impedance and good sensitivity. Summer is more capricious in terms of eartips selection, and a bit less comfortable than Hodur to wear.

Shuoer Tape ($116)

Tape feature 1 DD, 1 Electret Tweeter for little more than one third of Hodur’s price.

Tape’s sub and mid bass are monumentally better than Hodur in terms of elevation, cleanness, power, texture… everything. Different from Hodur’s W-shape, Tape feature an obvious V-shape presentation resulting in mids being recessed in addition to lean (in that, quite similar to Hodur’s).

Female vocals scant into sibilance on Tape as well. Trebles are extremely good on Tape, and it’s a really tight call on deciding which is better compared to Hodur – I’d probably settle for a tie, considering that Tape offer a tad more body which I like better, but they feature a 16KHz peak which may be nasty for some, and calls for some EQ correction in most cases.

Detail retrieval is similar high quality on either model’s trebles, and is hands down better on Tape for the bass segment.

Imaging and layering are much better on Tape, easy enough for how lacking they are on Hodur. Stage is almost holographic on Tape, which are also much easier to drive then Hodur. Tape are extremely – or I should probably say infuriatingly – capricious as for tips selection, and depending on ear shape they may be not comfortable at all to wear.

Intime Miyabi ($145 + import costs)

Miyabi feature 1 DD, 1 Piezo ceramic tweeter for little more than half Hodur’s price.

Sub bass is less prominent on Miyabi then on Hodur, and never bloaty let alone invasive. Mid bass has similar elevation on Miyabi and Hodur, however quality wise it is very obviously better on Miyabi in terms of precision, slam, texture, detail and organicity.

Mids are more recessed on Miyabi however they are much more organic compared to Hodur. Vocals are much better on Miyabi, tenors are absolutely organic, realistic, and contraltos and sopranos are bodied and even flutey at times.

Trebles is where both models express some of their magic and it’s a tight call to say which is better but I would give the palm to Miyabi in this case: superthin detail comes out a bit better on Hodur but this in my books superseded by Miyabi piezo’s “typical timbre” virtually disappearing, diluted in a well bodied, natural, realistic, transparent treble tone coming off that driver. Miyabi retrieve way more and better defined details from bass and mids.

Imaging and especially layering / separation is where Miyabi excel and are worth a few times their prices so the comparison with the very modest (in this area) Hodur is just… embarassing. Stage is better on Miyabi horizontally and vertically, while the two models are similar in terms of depth.

Both models are very easy to fit and comfortable to wear. Miyabi require some more amping power than Hodur, but are much less tricky to dampen thanks to a much more “urban” impedance (22 ohm).

Conclusions

These Hodur deliver a definitely pleasant overall presentation, featuring energetic, engaging musicality with a particular accent on treble definition and detail, and a solid deep bass counterbalancing the tonality on the opposite end.

They are also amongst the most comfortable UIEMs I ever worn – this is also worth noting. On the down side I hear a non-organic timbre making them hardly fit for acoustic music, timbre incoherence and fuzzy instrument separation.

The sample has been provided free of charge courtesy of Kinera staff, which we thank once again for the testing opportunity.

Our generic standard disclaimer.

The post Kinera Hodur Review – Treble And More appeared first on Music For The Masses.

The ifi Audio Go bar was supplied by the company for my review – and I thank them for that. You find more information on the Go bar’s product page.

Introduction

My first portable DAC/amp was (and still is) the ifi Audio iDSD nano Black Label (which I treated in my hip-dac review). It was a safe buy as it had won quite a few awards – and it is still available. The nano BL is a microcosm of what ifi Audio stands for: classic shape, integrated IE Match, house sound. It is still my standard for headphone measurements.

The nano BL is a rather blocky device with limited portability, it is rather transportable. It is reasonably powerful and can drive headphones up to 300 ohm easily.

In contrast, the Go bar is a small device as it does not contain a battery. It draws its current from its source, that is a phone/tablet or a computer. This has its pros and cons as will be discussed below.

Alberto has already taken apart the Go bar’s technical and functional aspects in very great detail. I therefore would like to add and give my 5 cents where we differ – and possibly simplify some details. After all any review is to a large extent subjective.

What is most important to me is functionality, especially when it comes to miniature devices. How does the Go bar fare in the wide field of applications I’d like to use it for?

Specifications

Physical Things and Usability

The Go bar probably received its name from a pun derived from its portability (“Go”) and its form factor (“gold bar”). And it has the dimensions of a Bounty chocolate bar. In the box are the Go bar with a nifty leather case, 2 high-quality OTG (“On The Go”) cables with adapter, and the paperwork. That’s all you need to connect the Go bar to any computer, Android device, even iOS devices. No other accessories required.

The build quality, haptic, and mechanisms of all parts are outstanding. The chassis is made of alloy, workmanship is impeccable, the the button mechanisms are precise. Same with cables and USB adapter, which feel premium. Physically, the Go bar is high end.

Functionality and Operation

As to the Go bar’s “standard staples”: it features two circuits, a single-ended 3.5 mm one, and the ever emerging balanced with 4.4 mm socket. Although the 3.5 mm is S-balanced, the true 4.4 mm balanced circuit has better generally better specs and is more powerful. Try using mainly this one, that’s where the Go bar’s value is.

The Go bar features a 16-core XMOS micro controller with proprietary firmware to optimize the analog output quality through synergy with the Cirrus DAC. It features a precision clock to minimize jitter.

There are 4 different digital filter options available to minimize unwanted sonic artifacts:

• BP’ (Cyan): Bit-Perfect: no digital filtering, no pre or post ringing
• ‘STD’ (Red): Standard, modest filtering, modest pre and post ringing
• ‘MIN’ (Yellow): Minimum phase, slow roll-off, minimum pre and post ringing
• ‘GTO’ (White): Gibbs Transient-Optimised: upsampled to 352/384kHz, minimum filtering, no pre ringing, minimum post ringing

Ringing relates to an unwanted echo effect before (pre-) and after (post-) a note. Post ringing is actually a normal artifact of human hearing, pre ringing is not. Many claim pre ringing is not audible. This is a tricky topic and you are advised to rely on your ears.

In some aspects, the Go bar is the most complete dongle on the market as it has functionality no competitor offers: IEMatch, S-balanced, XBass, and XSpace.

IEMatch is an extremely useful tool for low-impedance iems in that it increases output impedance done by resistors dampening the amplifier. It removes hiss from very sensitive iems, for example the 16 ohm Dunu Zen. Check out Alberto’s detailed description of IEMatch in his Go bar review as well as his article dedicated to this tech feature.

XBass elevates the frequencies close to the sub-bass, adding a dry punch which can be quite enjoyable. The company calls it “an analogue bass boost to ‘add back’ lost bass response for more accurate reproduction of the original.”

XSpace, as you could imagine, adds headroom. It is, in their own words “a holographic sound field to open up your music to give you the spaciousness of a live concert.“

S-balanced (Single-Ended Compatible Balanced) means that the listener gets the benefits of a balanced circuit (2 amplifiers) with a normal 3.5 mm TRS plug (also with 3.5 mm TRRS).

Turbo is ifi Audio’s fancy term for high gain: it adds 6 dB to the signal. This is quite impressive considering the dedicated Helm dB12 adds maximally 12 dB.

Last but not least, the Go bar’s firmware is user updatable. It can be downloaded here.

Amplification and Power Management

Power management is not very efficient. The Go bar draws more than twice the current as the AudioQuest DragonFly Cobalt, and 50% more than the comparable Questyle M15. Most iPhones allow only a draw of 100 mA, which is below the Go bar’s 140 mA. My iPhone SE (1st gen.) does work with the Go bar, albeit with greatly reduced power.

In any way will phones not be the ideal partner for the Go bar. Any dongle without a battery can only be a compromise: those with low current draw (AudioQuest DragonFlys) will be easy on your phone’s battery, but may not be able to handle low-impedance/inefficient headphones well. Current hogs like the Go bar will have a more powerful performance, but will empty the host battery fast, or will not work with the host at all.

The best compromise is the Questyle M15, which has both acceptable current draw and much power. ifi Audio’s next step should be to reduce Go bar’s energy consumption, possibly even with a firmware update.

In terms of amplification power, the Go bar delivers 475mW@32Ω and 7.2V@600Ω on its balanced circuit, and 300mW@32Ω; 3.8V@600Ω on its single-ended circuit. Ignoring the single-ended circuit (it should only be used in emergency cases) the superior balanced circuit drives low-impedance iems such as my Final E5000 and Final A3000 very well, and it also handles the 300 ohm Sennheiser HD 600 with ease.

I have not tested any more demanding devices but would have my doubts that Go bar does justice to powerhungry planar magnetic headphones.

Sound

The Go bar follows the tradition of previous ifi DAC/amps in that it has a neutral signature with a light tinge of warmth. Call it “tepid”. It is less warm, more neutral, crisper and swifter than the nano BL. More like the excellent hip-dac. I took my time: >4 months of testing (apologies to ifi Audio).

The Go bar’s notes are like its build: accentuated, articulate, controlled, composed, cohesive, detailed, clean. The sound is from a single mold. The sonic image is of good clarity and detail. Extension at both ends is good however subtle, never overwhelming or intrusive. Treble is “sweet”.

The sound is substantially better with the balanced circuit. Comparing the sonic image to a picture means clear well defined lines with a good depth – and no overpixelation.

Comparisons

Go bar, Audioquest DragonFly Cobalt, and Questyle M15 have one thing in common: lots of proprietary engineering that elevates them from the mass of dongles. All of these are very good but have different purposes and different features. A direct comparison is difficult as all of them, being without battery, are a compromise.

AudioQuest DragonFly Cobalt

This is actually an unfair comparison – unfair to both. The Cobalt is designed for low current draw to work with iPhone, and it is therefore of limited power. It therefore lacks the “greedy” balanced circuit. The Go bar will not work well with iPhone but delivers much more power on the computer than the Cobalt.

Even before it comes to sound quality, the user will distinguish the two based on their different purposes. Both are no real competitors but complementary. In the limited overlap both have (for example 32 ohm earphones), the Cobalt is probably unbeatable, sonically, with its rich, textured, detailed sound. The Go bar is more composed but a bit more analytical, the Cobalt is more “musical”.

Questyle M15

The M15 is a more fitting competitor. It also features 3.5 mm single-ended and 4.4 mm balanced circuits. It cannot reach the Go bar in terms of its superb build and haptic, or in the quality of the included cables. In terms of design, the M15 features 2 standard ESS SoCs with two of Questyle’s own Current Mode Amplification modules.

The M15 has its tonal emphasis in the midrange, the Go bar more in the lower frequencies. I’d assign the Go Bar a marginally better articulation/accentuation, and the M15 a more organic presentation, although both come really close in terms of sound quality.

The biggest difference between the two are the features: Go Bar has XBass, Space, and selectable digital filters – but the M15 has a more effective power management (less battery drain) and works better with iPhone. Also different is the operation: the Go bar bypasses the phone/computers internal volume control completely…it is handled entirely by its buttons.

Both Go bar and M15 are less portable than the DragonFly Cobalt. Alberto also threw the Apogee Groove into the mix, which only works with single dynamic drivers and essentially not with phones. So it is of very limited use. But it offers an unbeatable spatial reconstruction – and no features whatsoever.

In summary, the Go bar may be the most polished and accentuated sounding of the lot, but, as always, it comes down to personal taste, which to choose.

Concluding Remarks

The ifi Audio Go bar is the equivalent of a comprehensive no-hassle package. Everything is of very high quality: the build including the button mechanism, the included adapter and cables, the functionality (including IEMatch, XBass and XSpace), the power, and, of course, the sound.

It is one of these rare things you can buy blind. Just I did with its older brother, the iDSD nano BL. Oh, in the meantime the Go bar has caught up to his older brother in terms of awards.

Until next time…keep on listening!

Contact us!

Disclaimer

The ifi Audio Go bar was supplied by the company for my review – and I thank them for that. You find more information on the Go bar’s product page.

Our generic standard disclaimer.

The post ifi Audio GO bar Review (2) – Comprehensive No-Hassle Package appeared first on Music For The Masses.

Die ifi Audio Go-Bar wurde mir von der Firma für meinen Test zur Verfügung gestellt – dafür danke ich ihnen. Mehr Informationen finden Sie auf der Produktseite.

Der Author diese Artikels ist in Deutschland geboren und aufgewachsen, hat aber mehr als die Hälfte seines Lebens in Kanada verbracht. Ihm ging das geschwollene Gelaber der meisten deutschen Rezenten auf den Geist. Daher dieser Versuch: ist immer noch etwas hölzern, da aus dem Englischen übersetzt. Die Original Artikel findet man hier.

Einführung

Mein erster tragbarer DAC/Verstärker war (und ist immer noch) der ifi Audio iDSD nano Black Label (den ich in meiner hip-dac-Rezension behandelt habe). Es war ein sicherer Kauf, da er einige Preise gewonnen hatte – und er ist immer noch erhältlich. Der nano BL ist ein Mikrokosmos dessen, wofür ifi Audio steht: klassische Form, integriertes IE Match, Hausklang. Er ist immer noch mein Standard für Kopfhörermessungen. 

Der nano BL ist ein eher klobiges Gerät mit begrenzter Tragbarkeit, er ist mehr transportabel als alles andere. Er ist aber recht leistungsstark und kann Kopfhörer bis 300 Ohm problemlos ansteuern. 

Im Gegensatz dazu ist der Go bar ein kleines Gerät, da er keine Batterie enthält. Er bezieht seinen Strom aus seinem Quellgerät, also einem Telefon/Tablet oder einem Computer. Das hat seine Vor- und Nachteile, wie wir weiter unten besprechen werden. 

Co-blogger Alberto hat die technischen und funktionellen Aspekte des Go bar bereits sehr detailliert auseinandergenommen. Ich möchte daher meine 5 Cents hinzufügen und sagen, wo wir uns unterscheiden – und möglicherweise einige Details vereinfachen. Schließlich ist jede Bewertung zu einem großen Teil subjektiv.

Das Wichtigste für mich ist die Funktionalität, gerade bei Miniaturgeräten. Wie schlägt sich der Go bar in dem weiten Feld der Anwendungen, für die ich ihn einsetzen möchte?

Technische Daten des Go bar

Physische Dinge und Benutzerfreundlichkeit

Der Go bar erhielt seinen Namen wahrscheinlich von einem Wortspiel zwischen seiner Tragbarkeit (“Go”) und seinem Formfaktor (“Goldbarren”). Und er hat die Abmessungen eines Bounty Schokoriegels.

In der Schachtel befinden sich der Go bar mit einer schicken Ledertasche, 2 OTG (“On The Go”) Kabel mit Adapter und der Papierkram. Das ist alles, was Sie brauchen, um den Go bar an jeden Computer, jedes Android-Gerät und sogar an iOS-Geräte anzuschließen. Es ist kein weiteres Zubehör erforderlich. 

Die Verarbeitungsqualität, Haptik und Mechanik aller Teile sind hervorragend. Das Gehäuse ist aus einer Legierung gefertigt, die Verarbeitung ist tadellos, die Tastenmechanismen sind präzise. Das Gleiche gilt für Kabel und USB-Adapter, die sich hochwertig anfühlen. Physisch ist der Go Bar High-End.

Funktionsweise und Betrieb

Zu den “Standards” des Go bar: er verfügt über zwei Schaltkreise, einen “single-ended” asymmetrischen 3.5-mm Schaltkreis und den immer beliebter werdenden “balanced” symmetrischen Schaltkreis mit 4.4-mm Anschluss. Obwohl der 3.5-mm-Schaltkreis “S-balanced” ist, hat der 4.4 mm Schaltkreis allgemein bessere Spezifikationen und ist leistungsfähiger. Versuchen Sie, hauptsächlich diesen zu verwenden, denn darin liegt der Wert des Go bar. 

Der Go bar verfügt über einen 16-Kern-XMOS-Mikrocontroller mit proprietärer Firmware zur Optimierung der analogen Ausgangsqualität durch Synergie mit dem Cirrus DAC. Er verfügt über einen Präzisionstakt, um Jitter zu minimieren. 

Es stehen 4 verschiedene digitale Filteroptionen zur Verfügung, um unerwünschte klangliche Artefakte zu minimieren:

• BP’ (Cyan): Bit-Perfect: no digital filtering, no pre or post ringing
• ‘STD’ (Red): Standard, modest filtering, modest pre and post ringing
• ‘MIN’ (Yellow): Minimum phase, slow roll-off, minimum pre and post ringing
• ‘GTO’ (White): Gibbs Transient-Optimised: upsampled to 352/384kHz, minimum filtering, no pre ringing, minimum post ringing

Beim “Ringing” handelt es sich um einen unerwünschten Echoeffekt vor (pre-) und nach (post-) einem Ton. Nachklingeln ist eigentlich ein normales Artefakt des menschlichen Gehörs, Vorklingeln nicht. Viele behaupten, Vorklingeln sei nicht hörbar. Dies ist ein heikles Thema und Sie sollten sich auf Ihre Ohren verlassen.

In mancher Hinsicht ist der Go bar der vollständigste Dongle auf dem Markt, da er über Funktionen verfügt, die kein Mitbewerber bietet: IEMatch, S-balanced, XBass und XSpace.

IEMatch ist ein äußerst nützliches Werkzeug für niederohmige Verstärker, da es die Ausgangsimpedanz durch Widerstände erhöht, die den Verstärker dämpfen. Es entfernt das Rauschen von sehr empfindlichen Kopfhörern, z.B. dem 16 Ohm Dunu Zen. Sehen Sie sich Albertos detaillierte Beschreibung von IEMatch in seinem Go bar Artikel sowie seinen Artikel zu diesem technischen Feature an.

XBass hebt die Frequenzen in der Nähe des Subbasses an und fügt einen trockenen Kick hinzu, der sehr angenehm sein kann. Das Unternehmen nennt es “eine analoge Bassverstärkung, um verloren gegangene Basswiedergabe für eine genauere Reproduktion des Originals ‘zurückzugeben’.”

XSpace fügt, wie Sie sich vorstellen können, Headroom hinzu. Es ist, in ihren eigenen Worten, “ein holografisches Klangfeld, das Ihre Musik öffnet und Ihnen die Räumlichkeit eines Live-Konzerts gibt.”

S-balanced (Single-Ended Compatible Balanced) bedeutet, dass der Hörer die Vorteile einer symmetrischen Schaltung (2 Verstärker) mit einem normalen 3,5 mm TRS-Stecker (auch mit 3,5 mm TRRS) erhält.

Turbo ist ifi Audios schicke Bezeichnung für High Gain: Es fügt dem Signal 6 dB hinzu. Das ist ziemlich beeindruckend, wenn man bedenkt, dass der nur-Verstärker (ohne DAC) Helm dB12 maximal 12 dB hinzufügt.

Zu guter letzt ist die Firmware der Go Bar vom Benutzer aktualisierbar. Sie kann hier heruntergeladen werden.

Verstärkung und Strom Management

Das Strommanagement ist nicht sehr effizient. Der Go bar zieht mehr als doppelt so viel Strom wie der AudioQuest DragonFly Cobalt und 50 % mehr als der vergleichbare Questyle M15. Die meisten iPhones erlauben nur eine Stromaufnahme von 100 mA, was unter den 140 mA der Go Bar liegt. Mein iPhone SE (1. Generation) funktioniert mit dem Go-Bar, wenn auch mit stark reduzierter Leistung. 

Auf jeden Fall sind Handys nicht der ideale Partner für den Go Bar. Jeder Dongle ohne Akku kann nur ein Kompromiss sein: Dongles mit geringer Stromaufnahme (AudioQuest DragonFlys) schonen zwar den Akku des Handys, können aber möglicherweise nicht gut mit niederohmigen/ineffizienten Kopfhörern umgehen. Stromfresser wie der Go Bar sind zwar leistungsfähiger, leeren aber den Akku des Quellgeräts schnell oder funktionieren überhaupt nicht damit.

Das Beste aus beiden Welten ist der Questyle M15, der sowohl eine akzeptable Stromaufnahme als auch viel Leistung hat. ifi Audios nächster Schritt sollte sein, den Energieverbrauch des Go bar zu reduzieren, möglicherweise sogar mit einem Firmware-Update.

Was die Verstärkungsleistung betrifft, so liefert der Go bar 475mW@32Ω und 7.2V@600Ω in seinem symmetrischen Schaltkreis und 300mW@32Ω; 3.8V@600Ω in seinem asymmetrischen Schaltkreis. Ignoriert man letzteren (er sollte nur in Notfällen verwendet werden), treibt der überlegene balanced Schaltkreis niederohmige/ineffiziente Hörer wie meine Final E5000 und Final A3000 Kopfhörer sehr gut an, und er bewältigt auch den 300 Ω Sennheiser HD 600 mit Leichtigkeit.

Ich habe keine anspruchsvolleren Hörer getestet, aber ich hätte meine Zweifel, dass Go bar den leistungshungrigen planar-magnetischen Kopfhörern gerecht wird.

Sound

Der Go bar folgt der Tradition früherer ifi DAC/Verstärker, indem er eine neutrale Signatur mit einem leichten Hauch von Wärme aufweist. Nennen Sie es “lauwarm”. Er ist weniger warm, neutraler, knackiger und flotter als der nano BL. Mehr wie der ausgezeichnete hip-dac. Ich habe mir Zeit zum testen gelassen: >4 Monate (Entschuldigung an ifi Audio)…”gut Ding braucht Weil.”

Die Töne des Go bar sind wie sein Aufbau: akzentuiert, artikuliert, kontrolliert, komponiert, zusammenhängend, detailliert, sauber. Der Klang ist aus einem Guss. Das Klangbild ist von guter Klarheit und Detailtreue. Die Erweiterung an beiden Enden ist gut, aber subtil, niemals überwältigend oder aufdringlich. Die Höhen sind “sweet”. Der “balanced/symmetrische” Klang ist wesentlich besser als auf dem single-ended/asymmetrischen Schaltkreis. Vergleicht man das Klangbild mit einem Foto, so erkennt man klare, gut definierte Linien mit einer guten Tiefe – und keine Überpixelierung.

Vergleiche

Go bar, Audioquest DragonFly Cobalt und Questyle M15 haben eines gemeinsam: viel eigene Qualitätstechnik, die sie von der Masse der “Dongles” abhebt. Alle diese Geräte sind sehr gut, haben aber unterschiedliche Zwecke und Funktionen. Ein direkter Vergleich ist schwierig, da sie alle (ohne Batterie!) einen Kompromiss darstellen.

AudioQuest DragonFly Cobalt

Dies ist eigentlich ein unfairer Vergleich – für beide. Der Cobalt ist für eine geringe Stromaufnahme ausgelegt, um mit dem iPhone zu arbeiten, und hat daher eine begrenzte Leistung. Ihm fehlt daher ein “balanced/asymmetrischer” Schaltkreis. Der Go Bar funktioniert nicht gut mit dem iPhone, liefert aber viel mehr Leistung auf dem Computer. 

Noch bevor es um die Klangqualität geht, wird der Benutzer die beiden aufgrund ihrer unterschiedlichen Zwecke unterscheiden. Sie sind keine echten Konkurrenten, sondern ergänzen sich. In der begrenzten Überlappung, die beide haben (z. B. 32 ohm-Kopfhörer), ist der Cobalt mit seinem vollen, strukturierten und detaillierten Klang wahrscheinlich unschlagbar. Der Go bar ist ruhiger, aber etwas analytischer, der Cobalt ist “musikalischer”.

Questyle M15

Der M15 ist ein passenderer Konkurrent. Er verfügt ebenfalls über 3,5 mm single-ended- und 4,4 mm balanced Schaltkreise. Er kommt nicht an den Go Bar heran, was seine hervorragende Verarbeitung und Haptik oder die Qualität der mitgelieferten Kabel angeht. Konstruktiv verfügt der M15 über 2 Standard-ESS-SoCs mit zwei Questyle-eigenen Current-Mode-Verstärkungsmodulen.

Der M15 hat seinen klanglichen Schwerpunkt in den Mitten, der Go Bar eher in den unteren Frequenzen. Ich würde dem Go Bar eine geringfügig bessere Artikulation/Akzentuierung zuschreiben, obwohl beide in Bezug auf die Klangqualität sehr nahe beieinander liegen.

Der größte Unterschied zwischen den beiden sind die Funktionen: Der Go Bar hat XBass, Space und wählbare Digitalfilter – aber der M15 hat ein effektiveres Energiemanagement (weniger Batterieverbrauch) und funktioniert besser mit dem iPhone. Ein weiterer Unterschied ist die Bedienung: Die Go Bar umgeht die interne Lautstärkeregelung des Telefons/Computers komplett… sie wird vollständig über die Tasten gesteuert.

Sowohl Go bar als auch M15 sind weniger tragbar als der DragonFly Cobalt. Alberto warf auch den Apogee Groove in die Runde, der nur mit einzelnen dynamischen Treibern funktioniert und grundsätzlich nicht mit Handys. Es ist also nur sehr begrenzt einsetzbar. Aber es bietet eine unschlagbare räumliche Rekonstruktion – und überhaupt keine Features.

Zusammenfassend lässt sich sagen, dass die Go-Bar vielleicht der ausgefeilteste und akzentuierteste Klang von allen ist.

Abschliessende Bemerkungen

Der ifi Audio Go bar ist das Äquivalent eines Rundum-Sorglos-Pakets. Alles ist von sehr hoher Qualität: der Aufbau einschließlich des Tastenmechanismus, der mitgelieferte Adapter und die Kabel, die Funktionalität (einschließlich IEMatch, XBass und XSpace), die Leistung und natürlich der Klang. 

Es ist eines dieser seltenen Dinge, die man blind kaufen kann. So wie ich es mit seinem älteren Bruder, dem iDSD nano BL, getan habe. Oh, in der Zwischenzeit hat der Go bar seinen älteren Bruder in Sachen Auszeichnungen eingeholt.

Contact us!

Disclaimer

Der ifi Audio Go Barwurde von der Firma für meine Analyse zur Verfügung gestellt – und ich danke ihnen dafür. Weitere Informationen finden Sie auf der Produktseite der Go Bar. 

Our generic standard disclaimer.

The post ifi Audio GO bar Test – Rundum-Sorglos Paket appeared first on Music For The Masses.

Cons — The Gravastar Mars Pro is expensive
– Heavy for portable use
– Mono output unless you buy two of them
– Bass distorts at very high SPL
– Too much sub-bass boost drowns out the mids
– Treble lacks definition and clarity

INTRODUCTION

Gravastar comes up with the craziest of designs that look unlike anything on the market. It’s TWS IEMs, the Sirius Pro, stood out in terms of overall aesthetics which is more of a “love it or hate it” affair. I personally find the Gravastar offerings to be unique in their design language, and hope that the brand keeps doing their own thing.

The Mars Pro is Gravastar’s flagship bluetooth speakers, coming in at a premium price-tag which pits it against some established Bluetooth bookshelf speakers. However, the Mars Pro has the same ace up its sleeve – the unique design language. Nobody who glanced at it for the first time could tell that it was a speaker, which tells a lot about the intention of such a product.

Gravastar Mars Pro not only intends to be a conversation starter, it also tries to be a competent speaker in the process. Does it hit the mark, or is it all skin-deep? Let’s find out.

Note: the ratings given will be subjective to the price tier. Dunu was kind enough to send me the Luna as part of the Review Tour (thanks Tom!)

Price, while reviewed: $330. Can be bought from Gravastar’s Official Website.

PHYSICAL THINGS AND USABILITY

PACKAGING AND ACCESSORIES

The package itself is quite a looker. Inside, you get the speaker itself, a type-C to type-C cable for charging, and another type-C + aux cable. More on the last bit in the build section.

BUILD QUALITY

Now, where to start…

The Gravastar Mars Pro looks like an alien trooper, for the lack of a better description. Depending on the edition, you can get weapons and shield on the side of the speaker (Shark 14 version) or a set of half-broken horns (Aurochs). Really, it’s one bizareness after another, but they all somehow mesh into the overarching theme.

Onto the more material side of things, the chassis is hand-painted zinc-alloy for the most part. The attention to detail here is extraordinary, and I can’t quite recall such a feat on a product that’s not marketed as artisan or boutique. There are subtle bumps and damage marks on the chassis that feel real to the touch.

At the bottom, three adjustable feet (with integrated LEDs) provide the balance and act as a base upon which the speaker stands. You can fold and unfold the legs to set the speakers in various angles. Unfortunately, the feet only have three adjustable positions, so maneuverability is a bit compromised. There are rubber nubs underneath the feet for better grip.

At the front of the unit there is the speaker grille, which also houses a bunch of LED strips. The conical driver dome is entirely encased by a metal cage, which also protects it against external damage. The bass port is one the back but it’s exposed, which is the only weak-link in this otherwise bullet-proof build.

At the bottom there’s a type-C port that also doubles as aux-in via the supplied type-C+aux cable. At the top, there are three buttons for operating the unit, and a touch-sensitive volume bar.

One thing that’s not apparent at all from the pictures is the sheer heft of the unit: it’s about 1.5 kgs. Yes, you read that right: 1.5 kgs of metal put in a shell that’s about 18 cm in diameter. This makes for a very dense and hefty speaker that’s on par in terms of weight with much larger speakers.

However, I’m not gonna dock points for this simply because Gravastar made the Mars Pro to have such heft by the material choice alone. Thus, the Mars Pro is the best built Bluetooth speaker I’ve ever laid my eyes or hands on, bar none.

GENERAL OPERATION

General operation is fairly simple. There are three buttons on the back of the device. The center buttons acts as power button, and is flanked by the LED control button and the Bluetooth pairing button.

Pressing the LED button cycles through the RGB colors, whereas long pressing the power button turns the unit on or off. There is also a touch sensitive volume control bar on top that is only activated during playback. I have made a short video to demo the entire thing so please have a look below:

DRIVER SETUP

The only driver description we get from Gravastar’s site is that it is a “full-range subwoofer”. The exposed bass reflector on the back is suspended by a flexible material to allow better low-end control.

TONALITY AND TECHNICALITIES

The sound is where I am a bit disappointed in the Mars Pro. Sure, it gets loud, and sounds surprisingly full for a single speaker, but it’s all in… mono. For stereo playback, you need two of them, which makes the total cost go over USD$500. Ouch!

Judging them as a sole unit, the lack in sub-bass rumble is immediately obvious. Even far higher tier floor-standing speakers fall short here, so nothing against Gravastar. However, they decided to boost the bass despite the physically limited driver. This results in distortion in bass-heavy tracks when the volume is pushed very high.

The mids are recessed, and highs even more so. The rolled-off highs help in reducing fatigue, but it also imparts a sense of muddiness and mushiness across the spectrum. Imaging, staging is out of the equation as, well, it’s a mono speaker by itself. I did not have a second unit to judge those factors.

Dynamics are again mushy, with sudden bass drops getting compressed into a puddle of bass. Crescendos lack the upper octaves because, well, rolled off treble.

I think I wouldn’t mind the sound of the Mars Pro on a $50-$100 bluetooth speaker. But these are three times the price at least, so based on sound quality alone – not a good value. The likes of Sony SRS-XG300 costs lower while having a more controlled sound that’s more balanced across the spectrum.

CONCLUDING REMARKS

The Gravastar Mars Pro is one of the, if not the most unique Bluetooth portable speaker you can find around. It resonates with my geeky heart in terms of design and overall finish, and I have saved a spot for the Mars Pro on my table since getting the unit.

Unfortunately, too much attention was put into design and not a lot of it was spared for the sound. Given the asking price (which is magnified due to the unique chassis), one should and probably would expect better sound.

I hope Gravastar rethinks the tuning of the Mars Pro, lessens the bass a bit, and focuses on getting a more balanced sound across the spectrum rather than heavy, dense bass that clouds everything it touches.

The Gravastar Mars Pro only gets a recommendation if you need something to decorate your desktop or side-table and like the particular steam-punk aesthetics it is going for. If sound quality is the priority and nothing else – better look elsewhere.

Contact us!

DISCLAIMER

Get it from Gravastar Store

Our generic standard disclaimer.

PHOTOGRAPHY

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

The post Gravastar Mars Pro Bluetooth Speakers Review – Form over Function appeared first on Music For The Masses.

Cons — Heavy, bulky design
– No line-in/amp-only function
– Picky about USB cables
– Not for very sensitive IEMs

INTRODUCTION

EarMen has made a name with its source gears, and the Angel is the flagship “portable” DAC-Amp offering in its lineup. This also happens to be the first Earmen product I’ll be reviewing, so there’s that.

From a market-positioning perspective, the Angel fills the niche of “portable powerhouse” DAC-Amps that have rather high output power, albeit in a less pocket-friendly manner compared to typical dongles. Usually the idea is to power inefficient planars and high impedance dynamic drivers while on-the-go, or perhaps to settle for a minimal setup that can be moved around in a pinch.

Does the Earmen Angel manage to carve a spot for itself, or is the first attempt at a powerhouse dongle a forgettable one? Let’s find out.

Note: the ratings given will be subjective to the price tier. Earmen was kind enough to provide me the Angel for review.

Headphones and IEMs used: Sennheiser HD650, Hifiman Arya Stealth, Hifiman HE-6se V2, Moondrop Venus, Dunu Zen, Final E5000

Price, while reviewed: $800. Can be bought from Earmen’s Official Store.

PHYSICAL THINGS AND USABILITY

PACKAGING AND ACCESSORIES

I received the Angel without any retail package, since back then a retail package was not even designed yet. So please check other reviews over at head-fi for a proper visual depiction of the packaging and accessories.

BUILD QUALITY

Exceptional, in one word. The blue finish is unique and makes the Angel stand out from a myriad of similarly-toned devices. I imagine this colorway could be divisive, but I find it flashy while being tasteful. A very fine line that Earmen manages to tread well.

The entire build is a three piece construction, with the front and back “caps” being held by 4 screws. The middle shell is milled out of a single piece of aluminum. The front panel of the device has the output jacks (4.4mm and 3.5mm respectively), gain switch, pre-amp mode selector, LED indicator, and the rotary encoder.

The rotary encoder has very smooth feedback with precise “steps” that have the right amount of feedback. It also doubles as the power buttons, since pressing it down is how you turn on or off the device. There is a slight wobble to the wheel for this reason but it’s very common for wheels that can be pressed downwards.

The LED indicator flashes between alternating colors depending on the input selected, the sampling rate/format of the file etc. A more detailed description can be found in the following.

The back houses two USB type-C ports: one for charging, and one for data transmission. The separated inputs are great to avoid any potential interference between the power and data lines, but poses a new challenge: finding a USB type-C cable that works. I have 7 different USB type-C cables, all but one failed to connect the Angel to my PC.

Another oddity is the situation with fast chargers. Basically – the Angel do not charge at all with fast chargers. I tried three different fast chargers, two of them supported USB PD and another supported Quick-Charge 3.0. No dice. In the end, I got success by charging for a regular 5V-2A adapter which was excruciatingly slow.

Update: it turns out that Earmen recommends charging with 5V-2A chargers in the manual. So this limitation is by design.

Full recharge takes over 3 hours. Quite a long time, but the Angel holds charge really well. Standby drain is practically negligible. Moreover, the amp section does not even engage if no headphones are connected, so that’s another nifty power-saving feature.

Now let’s move on the other ports on the back. You have the COAX/TOSLINK input, and finally two line-out ports in balanced or single-ended flavor. A curious omission here is a line-in. That way it would be possible to use the Angel as an amp alone. But alas.

Overall, flagship-grade build quality with no qualms whatsoever regarding the workmanship.

USABILITY

The Angel is rather substantial in size. You can grab it in one hand, but stacking together with a phone, for example, is quite impractical. I find the Angel more suited as a sort of “transportable” device than something truly portable. The 340gm of weight definitely hints toward that direction.

Battery life has been within expectations for a device of its class. When powering the Sennheiser HD650 and Hifiman Arya SE, the Angel lasted me about 7 hours on a single charge. The 2x3000mAh battery pack does the job, though I suspect using IEMs will yield slightly better results. Nonetheless, expect to charge every other day if you are a frequent user.

Another nifty usability feature is how the rotary encoder works. It acts as a fully digital potentiometer for one, and the volume is automatically reset to zero every time you unplug something or turn the unit off.

As a result, the chances of accidentally blasting your ears with high volume becomes diminutive. It does make volume-matching and comparing between multiple IEMs/headphones a chore, but that’s something you don’t do every day.

The dial also works as pre-amp volume control when the line-out voltage is set to “pre-out” via the switch on the front. Setting it to “direct” turns on fixed-voltage line-out mode instead, which is useful when connecting external amps.

SPECIFICATIONS

Earmen does not specify the exact current at a specific load on their website. So I asked them for those figures and they told me that the output power of Angel is:

• Single-ended: 1.62W @32 Ohm
• Balanced: 2.25W @32 Ohm

The Sabre ES9038Q2M is used as the DAC chip, which is the highest end 2-channel Sabre DAC. The rest of the specs are as follows:

TONALITY AND TECHNICALITIES

I find describing the tonality of digital sources a futile exercise, as most of the characteristics depend on the pairing with various headphones and IEMs. Nonetheless, there are some commonalities between all pairings, and in general the Earmen Angel has a “Reference” tuning. Which is another speak for: they are neutral and does not really emphasize on any frequencies.

There is a bit of “excitement” up top, which can be evident while pairing with some warm/laid-back gears, but it’s not overdone. The upper-mids/lower-treble show a hint of the infamous “Sabre glare”, though it’s not distracting and well under control. The staging was consistently wider than average. Rest of it is how it should be – uncolored, close to neutral.

PAIRING NOTES

IEMs

The Angel pairs well with moderately sensitive IEMs with 16ohms or higher impedance. Anything lower with high sensitivity, and you will notice some hiss. Anything lower with low sensitivity (ala Final E5000), you’ll notice that IEMs sound underpowered.

I noticed some hiss with the Campfire Holocene and Dunu Zen (when using Gain+ mode especially). Granted – this DAC-Amp is way overkill for those sensitive IEMs but certain products in this category manages to handle IEMs just as well. I find the Angel to be more geared towards headphone use than IEMs for this reason.

On the positive side, output impedance is lower than 1ohm, so you should not have issues with multi-BA or hybrid IEMs having their frequency response thrown off.

A surprise exception was the current crop of planar IEMs, which paired wonderfully. Dynamics were spot on, and the staging was somewhat widened (a weakness of most if not all planar magnetic IEMs in the current market, the non-Audeze ones that is).

Headphones

Powering headphones is where the Angel flexes its muscles, especially planar magnetic headphones that do not require absurd wattage.

I have tried a number of Hifiman planars with the Angel and apart from the HE-6se V2 (83dB/mW @ 50 ohms) – the rest of them were adequately powered. The pairing with Arya SE was something exceptional. Great bass slam, enveloping headstage, precise imaging, no harshness in treble – just wonderful all around. If you own an Arya SE – try the Angel.

Sennheiser’s high impedance dynamics were driven well too. The HD650 lacked the warmth and tactility that you get on an OTL tube amp, but it sounded as good as on any solid state amp. There is plenty of voltage swing here to fully power the drivers (usually HD650 and the likes require >= 6Vrms to sound their best, I will link to the calculations here if I can find them again).

A note about the Gain+ mode here: it adds some distortion to the sound which might be distracting esp on planars. I did not need to use the Gain+ mode that much but your mileage may vary. I’d recommend not using it until you absolutely need to.

Overall, if you are predominantly a headphone user, the Earmen Angel will be a fantastic source for most of them, unless all you own are the Hifiman Susvara, Abyss 1266, HEDDPHONE V2, or the likes. In which case – none of the portable sources can really help.

As standalone DAC

The DAC section is very competent and competes well with other desktop DACs in this range, e.g. SMSL M400. While those desktop DACs have more outputs and features like filter selection, the sonic differences are fairly minimal considering the massive difference in footprint. There’s also MQA decoding capabilities for those who believe in MQA.

As a result, I can see the Angel being a transportable all-in-one while on the go, and a nifty DAC connected to some powerful headphone amps when at home or desk. You may have to invest into some 4.4mm to XLR cables but the flexibility on offer is excellent.

COMPARISONS

vs iFi xDSD Gryphon

The iFi xDSD Gryphon has become one of the most popular portable DAC-Amps around. We reviewed it and found it to be a great all-rounder.

When it comes to build quality, both are exceptional. The Gryphon has a sleeker, more modern design, whereas the Angel has the subtlety of a muscle car. Poor car analogies aside, the weight difference between them is substantial, with the Gryphon being over 100gm lighter.

Despite the lighter weight, I don’t think Gryphon makes a suitable “stack” either, since the wide footprint makes it awkward to hold the phone and the Gryphon together. To aid in that, iFi has added Bluetooth DAC functionalities to Gryphon, which is absent on the Angel. Gryphon also has the ability to select different filters, and the on-screen display is a helpful addition.

The volume pot on the Gryphon is analog, vs the digital rotary encoder on the Angel. Gryphon also has hardware EQ functionalities which are fun to use.

The Angel has been on the backfoot until now, but it hits back with sheer output power. Planar magnetic and high impedance dynamics are far better driven on the Angel, with loads of headroom to spare. The DAC section is also better overall, with noticeably wider stage and better dynamics when connected to external amps.

The Gryphon pairs better with IEMs, and the IEMatch switch is another helpful addition. To summarize: for predominantly IEM usage and BT capabilities, the Gryphon is the better choice. For using as a standalone DAC and to power planars or high impedance dynamics – the Angel is a no-brainer.

CONCLUDING REMARKS

The summary kind of writes itself – if you are a predominantly headphone user, and need something to carry on the go or act as a solid DAC when on the desk, the Earmen Angel is one of the best options out there. The build is excellent, the usability features handy, and the price is rather competitive when you consider the overall market of such devices.

The biggest downside here is the slight hiss with sensitive IEMs, and the lack of a line-in which would allow DAP users to use the Angel as an amp. Given the target demography, these are not deal breakers, as when connected to external amps or full-size cans the Angel just shine.

I think that the Earmen Angel will gain a following over time, as devices of their class usually do. As such, I have no qualms to recommend the Angel for headphone users who need something portable.

MY VERDICT

4.25/5

Contact us!

DISCLAIMER

Get it from Earmen Store

Our generic standard disclaimer.

PHOTOGRAPHY

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

The post Earmen Angel Review – Future Cult Classics appeared first on Music For The Masses.

The $469 SMSL DO200 MKII is a versatile and very-good-sounding DAC with additional inputs and lots of sound options.

The $469 SMSL DO200 MKII was kindly provided by AOSHIDA Audio for my review – and I thank them for that.

Introduction

Foshang ShuangMuSanLin Electronics company, or short “SMSL” out of Shenzhen, China have specialized in developing and marketing DACs, headphone amplifiers, and power amplifiers since 2009. SMSL offer a broad selection of model for all wallet sizes – which make selection of the right one difficult.

Over at Audio Science Reviews (ASR), essentially every one of SMSL products measures so well with SINAD that people believe, without listening, they sound great…and that all SMSL DACs models essentially sound the same (as they measure the same).

We are rather skeptical as correlation between SINAD measurements and sound quality has yet to be established. In fact, some devices that are designed to measure well with steady-state sine waves may sound harsh when playing music.

Luckily, this discrepancy appears not to be the case for SMSL products. In fact, Loomis and Durwood are SMSL junkies – there is hardly any space on their desks for anything else…I am sure :). They have collectively tested these models:

Therefore, in the SMSL case, we have rare agreements between ASR and us, which reconciles the views of “objecticists” and “subjectivists”. A win win situation. So good for you, the reader.

But we still differ in that point that low-end DACs and premium DACs do not sound the same. For this reason, SMSL offer a range of devices for all wallets and expectations.

I’m an SMSL newbie, and, to my confusion, there are (too) many models to choose from, ranging from $200 to $1000. How should I know which one is right for my setup – and for yours? Aoshida Audio kindly asked me to analyze the SMSL DO200 MKII, which is in the company’s midrange.

Specifications SMSL DO200 MKII

What’s in a DAC?

As we know, a digital to analog converter “DAC” transforms a digital data stream, called bits, as small voltage fluctuations into an analog signal. Although its analog output stage does some of the amplification, a DAC mainly delivers sonic quality not quantity. And despite what some people tell us, the quality fo a DAC is as important as the pickup on your record player: garbage in, garbage out.

I had a $400 CAD NAD CD player connected to my home stereo for many years. And I was happy with it. At the time of purchase, CD players had made a great step forward, and the NAD was (kind of) competing with a $2000 Cambridge Audio player. 10 years later, I replaced the NAD with the $1300 CAD Marantz SA8005 – the rest of the stereo system remained the same.

The difference was immediately obvious: the Marantz delivered a much richer, fuller sound. Gone was that lean lower midrange I had falsely attributed to the speakers. No A/B-ing necessary.

The only big change in this stereo system was the DAC. So much to voices who claim DACs do not make a difference.

Technology/Architecture

The SMSL DO200 MKII features two ES9068AS DAC chips for decoding, characterized by MQA data handling in both USB and SPDIF (coaxial, optical) and low power drain.

Five OPA1612A opamps can be found the analog output stage. The microcontroller is a XMOS XU-316 chip, which is standard in higher-end devices.

Qualtech’s latest Bluetooth 5.0 chip supports SBC, AAC, aptX, aptX HD, and LDAC codecs.

Firmware is upgradeable through the USB port.

Physical Things

In the package are the DAC, a detachable power cord, a USB cable, the screw-on Bluetooth antenna, a remote, the warranty card and the manual [download]. The actual square box with rounded corners is of mid size (21 cm wide, 18.5 cm deep, and 4.8 cm tall) and requires quite a bit of desk space.

Its shell is made of high-quality CNC-machined aluminum for shielding the interior from magnetic interference. SMSL pride themselves of their excellent workmanship and love to detail.

It also features a tempered IPS glass display panel. The low-noise power supply is integrated in the chassis – and shielded. The included remote is pretty standard, made of plastic, and requires 2 AA batteries.

Functionality and Operation

The SMSL DO200 MKII works as a DAC and pre-amp, single ended and balanced. It can be controlled by a knob and a remote control.

Interface

Front panel and back panels are clearly laid out. All connectivity is in the rear.

Front Panel

The front panel features the high resolution glass panel display and a function knob. The know shares its functionalities with the remote. The display can be dimmed and switched off with the frontal knob and the remote.

Back Panel: I/O

The SMSL DO200 MKII is a superstar when it comes to inputs. Apart from the usual USB, coaxial, and optical, it also offers I²S, and AES/EBU. The outputs are fairly standard: RCA for single-ended and XLR for balanced.

Remote

The ergonomic RC-8C remote handles all functionality with a variety of buttons. It is straight forward to comprehend.

Settings

The SMSL DO200 MKII offers the user a plethora of choices in terms of functionality and sound. The DAC can be set to Pre-amp mode, the inputs and outputs are selectable, I²S mode, I²S iDSD channel, audio phase, and you can change screen brightness or turn it off. You can even change some of the remote’s functionality (“FN key”).

In terms of sound, you can set PCM filters, sound colour and DPLL yielding 450 possible combinations for each input.

The most important setting are explained as follows.

PCM Filters

The SMSL DO200 MKII offers three PCM filters (and no DSD filters), aiming to remove sonic artifacts from the output signal: “Fast Linear”, “Slow Minimum”, and “Minimum Phase”. They operate above 20 kHz, that is above the audible frequencies. But none of them is ideal, each of these has pros and cons, and the opinions about them are as far apart as theory and reality.

In theory, when you read Alberto’s detailed article on digital filters, you would prefer the “Minimum Phase” filter, as it has no “pre-ringing” (an unwanted echo effect before the actual signal). Others consider this pre-ringing as inaudible and prefer “Fast Linear”, as it is the most technically accurate, and claims pre-ringing is generally inaudible.

Then again, there are more variables that contribute to individual sound preferences, so that some prefer one type of filter in one DAC, and another kind in another model.

Try it out for yourself and start with the default.

Sound Color

There are 10 settings for “Sound Color”: standard, 3 “Rich”, 3 “Tube, and 3 “Crystal” by introducing different “harmonic distortions”. Again, you choose the one according to your preference. A good way of adapting the sound to your room.

DPLL

The “Digital Phase-Locked Loop” (DPLL) is a proprietary setting by the chip manufacturer ESS. It is some kind of correction for poorly timed input signal – to avoid signal interruptions. Particularly useful if a TV is the source.

I²S Mode and Audio Phase

The DO200 MKII has rare I²S “eye-squared-ess” inputs in the shape of an HDMI port. I²S is just another electrical serial bus interface standard used for connecting digital audio devices together. This give you the options to match different I²S standards and reverse channels if they are incorrect when streaming DSD.

Audio Phase can be set to normal and inverted. This is useful for correcting phase issues that affect sound.

Sound

I was once invited for an A/B test between two multibit dacs, the $249 chip-based Schiit Modi and the $899 resistor-ladder (R-2R) Soekris dac1421 (both now discontinued) each of them connected to a stereo system with loudspeakers. This in response to a forum discussion according to which some heard a sonic difference – and others didn’t.

At casual listening, there was initially hardly any difference, but with increasing duration, the Soekris revealed better imaging, resolution, and a more organic sound. This was most clearly audible in cymbals, which were much harsher and less natural in the Schiit.

I auditioned the SMSL DO200 MKII for 2 months.

w. Stereo System

The SMSL DO200 MKII offers 450 different settings (3 PCM filters, 10 sound signatures, and 15 DPLL settings). Using two different inputs/cable types (Toslink and coax) yields a total of 900 choices. For time constraints, I therefore used the default settings (“fast linear filter”, standard signature, and standard DPLL). And I A/B/C-ed the DO200 MkII on the fly with the Marantz’s internal Cirrus DAC – and the $799 EarMen Tradutto (also swapping Toslink and coax between the two external DACs back and forth).

Nevertheless, a 100% consisted comparison is not possible because of the use of different variables: cables, filters, and sound preferences (“harmonic distortions”) etc.

I spent a few partial afternoons on this – and report that the differences are rather subtle. The SMSL DO200 MKII performed well to my ears, with good extension on both ends, great composure, great detail, and no harshness whatsoever (no “robotic” cymbals, though it may be a bit more technical up there than the Marantz). It worked just fine with this stereo system. Corners were a bit more rounded with the Toslink compared to the coax – I hope jitter is not the reason for this. But using different inputs made a bigger difference than changing the PCM filters.

Comparing to the Marantz and Tradutto was rather difficult. The Marantz sounds a bit more organic and richer in bass and midrange, but also looser, less composed, and therefore cruder. The SMSL is a technically better, cleaner performer with a superior resolution and separation, but it is also more constrained and flatter in terms of space/stage – and leaner in the bass and midrange.

The almost double-priced Tradutto was also a bit more organic and fuller in the midrange, and more visceral sounding than the SMSL DO200 MKII. SMSL is more enclosed/encapsulated, and Tradutto is more outgoing and more immersive with a bit more depth. But it took some time to figure it out – and you can file this under “diminishing return”.

As alluded to, the differences were not instantly obvious, it takes some time for the ears to pick them up. I double checked all this with the Sennheiser HD 600 headphones plugged into the Luxman amp.

I also checked the SMSL’s timbre extensively with several recordings of J.S. Bach’s Brandenburg concertos. It sounded as natural as any good DAC.

Over the holidays, I ran the SMSL DO200 MKII 24/7 with Christmas music (jazz, classical, acoustic rock, pop)…and really enjoyed it.

In everyday application does the SMSL do complete justice to any upper mid price $$$$ stereo system. The small differences between the three DACs tested may answer our question why SMSL offers DACs in essentially every price category. Unfortunately, the potential buyer has the issue of making the right choice for their system. Good luck!

w. Headphone Amp

The headphone test confirmed my findings with the big stereo system. The SMSL DO200 MKII harmonized with the warm >$1000 Burson Funk (price includes Super Charger and opamps) very well. Resolution and extension were very good, there was no hint of harshness, the timbre was organic. And while I was really enjoying this combo, swapping the USB cables made zero difference. I think the two (SMSL and Funk) are a really great combination.

Replacing the DO200 MKII with the EarMen Tradutto resulted essentially in the same difference as experienced with the stereo system: the Tradutto had a bit more depth and a richer midrange, but it took a while until my ears could clearly distinguish the two.

In summary, the transducers made the biggest difference in my tests, that is the loudspeakers and the headphones. None of the DACs used changed the sonic characteristics much. The SMSL DO200 MKII is a fine DAC for my purposes. Unfortunately, I did not have a budget DAC for comparison, but I expect it produces a cruder and harsher sound.

Bluetooth

I tested the Bluetooth sound my the large stereo, A/B-ing two iPhones with the same playlist: one hardwired to the DO200 MKII, the other per TWS. Bluetooth was still very good sounding but not quite as “audiophile” as trough coax and optical cables. The basic characteristics were the same, but the Bluetooth sound has some corners knocked off: a bit less extension at both ends, a bit less dynamics and clarity, and a bit less fullness and depth. The listening experience remained, however, enjoyable.

Bluetooth connectivity was great, no dropouts, and I could walk with my iphone in almost every corner to my 2000 sq ft house without losing the signal.

In the end, the Bluetooth sound is prefabricated by Qualcomm’s SoC (System on Chip), and would be identical between DAC using the same SoC. Bluetooth functionality should therefore neither be a dealmaker or a dealbreaker.

SMSL DO200 MKII vs. SMSL SU-9Pro

SMSL offers a number of DAC models, and the SU-9Pro is just $30 higher priced than the DO200 MKII. While I doubt that there are significant sonic differences (I have not tested the SU-9Pro but I am sure they have a similar if not the same analog output state), there are certainly differences in functionality.

First, the SU-9Pro lacks two of DO200 MKII’s inputs: AES/EBU and I²S.

Second, both have different DAC architectures. The DO200 MK II features two ES9068AS chips with 5 OPA1612 opamps, and the SU-9Pro a single ES9039MSPRO D/A chip with 11 OPA1612 opamps. The difference in opamp numbers is probably a function of the chipsets. The ES9039MSPRO D/A takes over the tasks of 2 conventional DAC chips. Both architectures result in different data handling and functionalities.

The SU-9Pro offers therefore 5 more PCM filters and also 4 DSD filters. Outputs, sound colour, DPLL, and Audio Phase options remain the same between the two models.

Concluding Remarks

The SMSL DO200 MKII is a competent DAC with all bells & whistles, including a great selection of inputs and all sorts of sonic adjustment options. It performed very well in my tests and I will happily use it in the future. I am sure, somebody will measure it and attest it great results on that front, too [UPDATE: exactly this happened 1 month later].

While the SMSL DO200 MKII works well for me, it is up to you to find out how it pairs with your equipment.

Until next time…keep on listening!

Contact us!

Disclaimer

The SMSL DO200 MKII was kindly supplied by AOSHIDA Audio.

Our generic standard disclaimer.

The post SMSL DO200 MKII DAC Review – Four Wheel Drive appeared first on Music For The Masses.

Amongst the best drivers in my collection there’s surely Final’s F7200 – their F-series flagship model. Originally released in 2016, I’m not sure if it’s completely discontinued by the manufacturer yet. Its MSRP used to be ¥ 50730,00 (which is today’s € 360,00 give or take). This piece will try to convey why these babies have little chance to be phased off my arsenal.

At-a-glance Card

Full Device Card

Test setup

Sources: Sony NW-A55 mrWalkman / Questyle QP1R / Questyle M15 / E1DA 9038SG3 and 9038D – Spinfit CP-100+ tips – Stock Junkosha high purity OFC silver plated cable – lossless 16-24/44.1-192 FLAC tracks.

Signature analysis

Tonality

F7200 timbre is clean, clear and organic, natural, with a sort of “lifelike” taste. That, alone, is arguably worth the entire pricetag. Tonality is eminently neutral, with a centric accent.

Sub-Bass

Bass is fully extended, but the very last portion is rolled off. With deep(er) insertion sub-bass gets more evident but, although never in show star position. The rumble generated by drums and acoustic + electrical bass come out as foundation, but only as such

Mid Bass

Midbass is eminently organic, and adorably technical. The oomph is purposefully kept to the minimum necessary to deliver solid and unfailing bass presence, while staying sure kickdrum never haloes off.

Mids

F7200 mids are no doubt the star of the show, along with the delicious organic timbre. Highmids are evidently tamed down, and when tips are not selected properly they almost disappear from the presentation; viceversa they play a very calibrated, positive role when tips and insertion are optimised. There seems to be no way on earth to get highmids to glare, or deliver sibilance. Wind and brass instruments are rendered very, very well.

Male Vocals

Male vocals are in near-perfect territory, at least for my taste. They are wonderfully organic, clean, textured and baritones are never artificially cavernous.

Female Vocals

Female vocals being for their large part in highmids territory resent of F7200 fit sentitivity: choose the wrong tips and/or insertion, and ladies, and particularly sopranoes, will sound lean, lifeless, undetailed. Get the fit equation solved and you’ll hear great female vocals, again (like males) extremely organic and natural. They might do with a 5% more of “butter”, but I’m probably nitpicking.

Highs

Although trebles can surely be called “quite transparent and airy”, the Brilliance section is definitely kept at bay here. So trebles are “just airy”, not “superbly airy”. Cymbals and (high) strings are ok, although they do lack their “thinnest sparks” so to say.

Technicalities

Soundstage

F7200 soundstage is significantly sized, especially in the sense of height and width, depth is just a bit shorter. Changes depending on insertion level (the deeper the fit, the more intimate the stage).

Imaging

Imaging is greatly executed: intruments are coherently and credibly cast onto the available space, and there is significant quantity of clean air in between them.

Details

Microdetail digging is better in the bass than in the highmids and trebles, where it’s “good” (as it needs to be considering the product price) but not more. I reckon F7200 discount the tuners’ choice to stay conservative in the High Mids and Brilliance here.

Instrument separation

Separation / layering is probably the single F7200 aspect which is mostly impacted by physical positioning and eartip choice. Once that’s optimised, voices and front/back instruments are always intelligible from one another, seriously busy passages included. Microdynamics are also very good when the right tips are selected, while they get dramatically cut off when choosing the wrong ones.

Driveability

In spite of the nominally not particularly low, F7200 are actually quite power hungry for one, and very sensible to amping quality for another. Don’t dream to pair them with a phone or a lowend dap as this would only result in a much lesser pleasant output than what they actually can deliver

Physicals

Build

F7200 housings are full metal “bullet” shaped, and carry a wonderful mirror finish. Aesthetically they are even more beautiful than E5000 and I guess that’s quite something to state. Their shape is evidently designed to invite the user to insert them deep in the ear canal: their diameter is just 5.5mm and they weigh like 2g.

Fit

F7200 are amongst the most fit-problematic IEMs I ever came accross.

As previously mentioned, they are designed to facilitate a (relatively) deep insertion into the ear canal. Bringing the nozzles closer to the eardrum offers solid bass, superb clarity and even smoother trebles – on the flip side soundstage gets a bit more intimate.

Reading it seems “easy enough”, and even easier looking at the above picture, but finding the exact sweetspot in each one’s ear does take some trial and patience.

And such patience is nothing compared to the how much you need to overcome eartips selection hassle…

Final Audio is known to pay maniac attention to perfectly fitting accessories, but I must say that on F7200 they dramatically failed: the bundled Type-E eartips are simply… unfit for F7200 – for the simple reason that their stem’s diameter is too large to properly “grip” onto the nozzles.

While Type-E stems are not “oversized” enough to skip off when pulling the drivers out of your ears (at least that…), they are indeed a tad too large to effectively counter the insertion force the user applies when pushing the housings into the canal, this very often, read always, resulting in the actual nozzles coming exposed out of the eartips’ bore, which of course ends up distorting/decalibrating the entire presentation.

A pair of transparent “plastic barrels” (they call them “Safe Fit Rings”) are supplied with F7200, which are supposed to avoid exactly that: put them onto the housings before fitting the tips, and they will “stop cap” the tips from sliding too much down the housing’s body if need be.

Brilliant. Too bad that such Safe Fit Rings are too short to effectively prevent the mishap when applied to… the very Type-E tips!! So on with a loooong tip rolling session then.

End result: Comply TSX-500 foams work OK, and Spinfit CP-100+ also work marvelously well.

Comfort

F7200 are bullet shaped IEMs and this thing alone is not felt comfortable by some people. I’m in the opposite group – I find bullet shapes greatly comfortable – although of course the shape itself prevents side-sleeping on them, for example. Once the fit equation gets solved (see above), I personally find F7200 near-perfectly comfortable.

Isolation

Deeper insertion helps a ton improving on isolation, which is in other cases a partial Achille’s heel of all bullet shaped drivers. Both Spinfit CP-100+ and Comply TSX-500 deliver very good isolation, with the latter being a tad better as it normally is the case with foams.

Cable

Being F7200 the flagship model in the F line, it’s quite normal to expect final to bundle it with a high-end cable and in facts that’s the case. The Junkosha-manufactured high-purity OFC silver plated cable has the same features as the one bundled with E5000, B3, B1 and A8000 and it’s by all means a quality cable both in terms of build and sonic pairing.

I would love it even more if it were a further bit more flexible. And twice more if it came with modular terminations – especially in light of the bottomline product cost.

One oddity to note about F7200 is that MMCX connectors on the housings are positioned on their bullet barrels’ back surfaces, instead of on their sides like it happens e.g. on E4000 or E5000. Which means that the cable needs to have angle-shaped male MMCX connectors to properly pair with F7200. Like this:

Of course Final Audio does sell spare cables – maybe one wants a balanced-terminated one? – fitted with those very uncommon connectors. Let’s just say I won’t spoiler their prices for you…

How about rolling a pre-owned different MMCX cable onto F7200 instead?

Well… I found these 90° M-F MMCX passthrough plugs by CEMA to work for the job. A tad expensive for what they are, but still a good value especially if one wants to fit a pre-owned expensive cable.

Specifications (declared)

Comparisons

Final Heaven VI (was $499, now discountinued)

Both Heaven VI and F7200 offer a natural timbre and neutral-ish presentation, with F7200 being comparative clearer, Heaven VI comparatively warmer. Heaven VI have perceivably more solid note weight in the midbass, and smoother trebles up above. Both offer limited rumble, and for both shelfing sub-bass up with an EQ does not help significantly. Heaven VI mids – delicious in absolute terms – are less forward and a bit dryer compared to F7200’s. Vocals are very organic on Heaven VI, stunningly realistic on F7200. Overall, Heaven VI are probably more similar to all-rounders than F7200.

Heaven VI have a non-replaceable single-ended cable. They are easier to drive compared to F7200, and are much less capricious then F7200 when it comes to eartips, stock Final A-series tips being perfect for my tastes.

Penon Sphere ($159)

Sphere are unjustly unfamous 1-BA IEMs shining both on the technological (driver quality and extension) and tuning standpoints, an even more so if we consider their relatively modest asking price. Very similar to F7200 in terms of technicalities, Sphere’s presentation is quite different instead: they are tuned to come across warm-balanced instead of clear-neutral, and they concentrate on delivering stunning bass, mids and highmids alongside with much more combed, smoothed trebles compared to F7200’s, which are airier and sparklier up above, and less bodied down low.

Form factor is also completely different: Sphere’s housings are in the universal shape ballpark, no deep insertion needed/possible. Correct driveability is also much harder on Sphere’s side, featuring ultralow impedance.

Final B3 (€ 499 MSRP)

B3 are based on a 2-BA architecture in lieu of the 1-BA inside F7200, and feature universal-shaped instead of bullet-shaped housings. The dual driver setup grants B3 the full spectral extention that’s partially missing on F7200: sub-bass is more present, midbass is sensibly (even) fuller and highmids and low trebles are more articulated, offering a superior grade of microdynamics and finer detail extraction capability compared to F7200.

Vocals, and I would say guitars too are still better on F7200 though, where a sort of magic perfection spot is hit. B3’s mids are a bit more forward compared to F7200. Neither model knows what “sibilance” is about. F7200 might in some cases be perceived as hotter in the trebles. Layering and separation are very similar, with a small edge in favour of B3 possibly thanks again to the dual driver setup.

B3 are tougher to drive compared to F7200, but much less demanding in terms of fitting and tips selection (stock E-type are OK).

Conclusions

F7200 are incredibly good at two things. One is obvious like the sun in the sky: vocals. Couldn’t find an equivalently realistic rendering of human singing voices yet. Such proficiency of course invites the user to apply F7200 to acoustic and vocal music, like songwriters, opera etc.

Then there’s the other F7200 outstanding aspect: separation and layering. These babies are outstanding at telling the grains from the bran, the vocals from the instruments, and not only on “unplugged”, acoustic scenarios, but on hard rock, grunge, punk too.

Season these ingredients with excellent comfort and the dish easily becomes a signature one in your cuisine

The F7200 sample I’m talking about is my own property.

Our generic standard disclaimer.

The post Final F7200 Review – Telling Voices Apart appeared first on Music For The Masses.

Ergo: Voonaudio, who register as sincere (and certainly enthusiastic) folks, sell what they promise are authentic Sennheiser phones at attractive prices and customer-friendly policies (my sample arrived very quickly from China and were in fact 100% genuine). Check them out.

The Momentum 4 are more plasticky and generic-looking than earlier, leather and metal- clad Momentum models, but seem sturdier and more durable.  Fit is stable and comfort is pretty good, without undue clamping pressure, although these can feel slightly heavy and/or get warm over extended use.

The Momentum 4 ditches the physical control buttons of prior models for the touch-sensitive surface of the right earcup; the touch controls are intuitive and responsive. ANC is very effective, if not class-leading (the Sony XM4 is a little better at blocking out low frequencies).  Battery life, however, is unrivalled—up to 60 hours w/ANC. 

Tech features are off the hook—auto off, multipoint pairing, adjustable ANC, call quality enhancing—and the app has all sorts of preset and custom EQ features, including the ability to set different sound profiles for different locations.

It’s all very innovative, if somewhat over-complicated for us Luddites. The BT 5.2 connectivity is powerful, although I did experience a few pauses and/or dropouts, perhaps because the auto-pause function is hyper-sensitive.

In contrast to the more balanced, subdued signature of prior (wireless and wired) Momentum models, the 4 has a surprisingly energetic, L-shaped presentation, with enhanced, deep-but-controlled low end and full-sounding midrange (Tweaking the various EQ functions varies the degree of bass thump but doesn’t radically alter the stock sound character).

Soundstage extends beyond your head and is very enveloping and 3D; stereo spread and instrument placement are very accurate. Timbre is warmish and notes have a lot of body; high end sounds slightly rolled off but retains some sparkle; snare and cymbal hits have good transient speed and are reasonably well-reproduced, if a tad hollow and unnatural-sounding. However, overall clarity is very good (these excel at movies and podcasts) and coherence is perfect—there are no odd dips or peaks.

Where these trail good wired models (and even some BT phones like the AKG NC70 or Phiaton 900) is in tonal accuracy—while quite detailed, the Momentum 4 has a frenetic, digitally-enhanced quality which clearly favors danceable PRAT and immersion over audiophile-transparency. It’s free from glare and sharpness, but you never forget you are listening to Bluetooth and not to a precise rendering of the source.

Likewise, in contrast to the dead quiet background of Sennheiser’s wired models like the HD600, there’s faint but audible white noise on the  Momentum 4, which tends to soften/blur the presentation on acoustic fare—I believe this is attributable to the fact that the ANC cannot be wholly disengaged. That said, the Momentum 4 sounds livelier and less clinical on more uptempo genres than the leaner-textured, less-bassy HD600.

The Sony XM4 have a similarly expansive soundstage as the M4, with similarly good imaging, but sound comparatively closed-in and laid-back, with less extended low end and less high-end detail. I do prefer the fit and UI on the Sony, but the Sennheiser presents more information and is the more exciting listen.

Apple’s AirPods Max have a similarly bass-boosted, warm and forward (also slightly unnatural) tonality with a big, enveloping stage. However, the Momentum 4 has more high-end extension and more microdetail; likewise the Momentum 4 has the richer midrange–it is the less-compressed, better-sounding phone.

On a quick listen, the Bose QC45 is more comfortable and has even better ANC, but sounds flatter and leaner, with an overemphasized midrange and less high end detail and sizzle. Ultimately, comparing the Momentum 4 to its competitors is sorta like comparing German to Japanese sports sedans, which is to say that the latter may have better build, or more refined features, but don’t provide the same driving thrill. 

I wish the Momentum 4 was a few grams lighter and that they offered higher rez codecs like aptX HD or LDAC. At the end of the day, however, these are minor quibbles. Taking into account the <$300 street price, the impressive tech and the insane battery life (and not having heard the latest-and-greatest from B&W or Focal), I’d venture the Momentum 4 is the best of the current mainstream players.

Thumbs way up.

Disclaimer: as noted these were sent to us gratis by Voonaudio (https://www.voonaudio.com), who otherwise made no attempt to influence our review. We receive no compensation (except, hopefully, good Karma) from sales made by them.

Sennheiser Momentum 4 Wireless Specifications

Contact us!

47 Bluetooth & TWS Devices

The post Sennheiser Momentum 4 Wireless Over-Ear Headphones Review – A BMW For Your Listening Pleasure appeared first on Music For The Masses.

OH5 can be bought from Ikko’s website for approx $495 before promos. There’s a nice giveaway promo going on right now, and I have been hinted that a xmas promo is also coming up so stay tuned on their website in the coming days

At-a-glance Card

Full Device Card

Test setup

Sources: Apogee Groove / Sony NW-A55 mrWalkman / Questyle QP1R / E1DA 9038SG3 / Questyle M15 – Radius Deepmount tips – Stock cable – lossless 16-24/44.1-192 FLAC tracks.

Signature analysis

Tonality

OH5’s tonality is warm-balanced, and the timbre is bodied and polished.

Sub-Bass

Sub bass is there but doesnt shine enough. Looking at the graph it does not seem too much rolled off but from actual audition you can check that rumble may use some help to be more evident, and this also impacts negatively on spatial drawing of course. Mid bass elevation tends to cover it, too.

Mid Bass

OH5 have an evidently enhanced mid bass which is key to their global tonality in a positive sense on one hand, but paired to somehow “dampened” transients it also contributes to limitating overall resolving power.

Mids

OH5 mids are very well positioned in terms or relative relation with bass and trebles – not forward, not recessed – to the general purpose of obtaining a globally balanced, horizontally-calibrated presentation (much more so than the graph seems to say). Their tonality is very well “centered”. Highmids ramp up quite rapidly and deliver quite some energy, thus sometimes (although rarely) resulting in some minor inconsistency with the mid and lower ones. Those overly sensitive to 3KHz might be a bit “touched” on some tracks (I’m not in that category, rather the other way around), yet I cound’t hear sibilance which is great of course.

Male Vocals

Vocals on OH5 are good, with particular regards to male vocals. While midbass sometimes gets too close (and does sometimes overlap baritones) they come across very organic, especially on tenor registers.

Female Vocals

Female vocals are also good. A clear preference has been given to energy vs smoothness here. Purists of flutey sopranos may not consider OH5 as top of the block – but apart from that this is another spot where a good job has been made on the OH5.

Highs

OH5’s treble is nice, somewhat airy, and most of all energetic, sparkly while also staying combed, smooth though, so they are in the end not offensive while still staying engaging. The 4.5KHz peak gets hot at times, and depending on eartips selection and/or personal preference/sensibility it may want to be tamed by surgical equing. Other then that, a nice job was done here.

Technicalities

Soundstage

OH5 draw an average sized stage, with a decent width, some height but very limited depth.

Imaging

Macro dynamics (imaging) is good, although primarily in the sense of stereo separation given their flat-ish spatial rendering capabilities. Central panned instruments and/or mono tracks, suffer from OH5’s limitation in terms of layering/separation.

Details

Detail retrieval, like instrument separation, is dramatically sub-average for this price class. It’s quite evident that the entire tuners’ effort has been concentrated on delivering tonal pleasantness and a specific musicality tone, sacrificing resolution and analithical skills.

Instrument separation

Layering and instrument separation are the other major Achille’s heels of OH5, together with detail retrieval as previously noted. There’s little chance to appreciate various voices’ / instruments’ nuances in their singular identities even on acoustic, well mastered, uncompressed tracks.

Driveability

It’s not difficult to drive OH5 as their sensitivity is relevant, and their impedance is on a level where many amps deliver their best current, or near that. A decent phone should be enough, and surely not particularly powerful sources will be.

Physicals

Build

Housings offer a convincing impression of solidity, and sport a very pleasing design style.

Fit

In my case OH5’s shape and size are the right shape and size to fit my concha without difficulty, filling it up almost completely. The nozzles are not very long so long stem tips are in order for me as pushing the housings in beyond a certain point is a no go. In the end I settled for Radius Deepmount.

Comfort

As long as I adopt long stemmed tips, OH5 are very comfy for me once fit. Their weight is also “right” (not too light to “disappear”, not to heavy). They’d become unbearable however if equipped with short stemmed tips, as their housings would hit my antitragus (this is a common issue I have with similar shaped housings e.g. Final A and B series, Tanchjim Oxygen, etc especially on my left ear)

Isolation

As housings do fill my conchas quite well, some level of passive isolation is achieved in my case.

Cable

I found stock cable is quite nice. In addition to good sonic behaviour and very nice haptics, it comes with a modular plug system and 3 termination plugs included in the package (3.5, 2.5 and 4.4). Modular plugs miss a lock-in mechanism but they seem quite firm in position anyway so all OK on that front too.

After further experience with cables etc I must amend as follows. Stock cable is OK from the construction quality standpoint. In terms of sonic pairing it clearly contributes to OH5’s general “more musical than technical” presentation. After rotating lowend and less-lowend cables, I can for example say that pairing a Dunu DUW-02S impacts quite evidently in terms of snappier transients, wider stage, better note contour and layering. 

Specifications (declared)

Considerations and hints

What positively hits you about OH5 is its musicality. Somehow the tuners managed to reach a particular tonal balance, adding a quite personal color to the music being played, and such color is indeed pleasing. The sound coming from OH5 is bodied, vibrant, warm and enveloping. It’s energetic but also rounded off, smooth – there’s no sharp edge, no rigid brick wall, and no floppy surface either.

You got to love OH5’s particular color to appreciate that, of course, which might not happen to you. If you do like its timbre, however, chances are you might develop a particular affection for OH5.

On the flip side, I find OH5 compromise quite dramatically on key technicalities, first of all layering and instrument separation. I am no EQ guru, so I couldn’t (and I wouldn’t) find out inhowmuch the situation is due to aposteriori tuning or to the driver’s specific nature. What I did is play with Roon’s PEQ and after some fiddling I could devine some touch-ups wich make the situation a bit better (for my tastes of course)

Low shelf    55Hz  4dB   0.71
Peak        150Hz -3dB   0.5
Peak        950Hz  1.3dB 1
Peak       4500Hz -2dB   2

The 150Hz demotion helps making midbass much more polite and somewhat faster. The low shelf adds some missing “rumble tail” to bass notes. The 950Hz (or thereabout) pushup also helps de-dampening midbass and lowmids and the 4.5K dip takes some hotness away from metal notes.

All those figures are not carved in stone, take them as ballpark values, but if you try you will hear instrument separation and clarity improving, a more detailed bass, and a quite evident opening on stage drawing especially in the depth direction. Play with values to learn how sensible each one is to the final result.

An alternative possible intervention is adopting TRI Clarion eartips. In such case the pushdown on 150Hz or thereabout is not needed anymore, however a more generous dampening intervention gets required on the highmids – I would add a -2dB or so to 3Khz for example, in that case.

Lastly: some care is in order about ideal source pairings. OH5 do not welcome bass-strong sources too much. Questyle M15 or QP1R, and E1DA 9038xx dongles all OK. Groove on the other hand excites OH5’s “artistic” midbass too much, yielding a too dark result, thus not even being able to help OH5 on adding space depth which is amongst Groove’s specialties in general.

Comparisons

Final E4000 ($149)

The epitome of IEMs featuring strong musical personality (color) which grew on me since the day I got them and won’t ever leave me, even now that I have technically better alternatives, are Final E4000. And guess what: E4000 and OH5’s personal “voicings” offer quote a few common points.

Both are warm, smooth, musically “pop” and deliver a very particular balance between smoothness and strenght, energy and pampering. Compared to OH5, E4000 are… more japanese: silkier, a bit (even) more elegant in a sense. OH5 feel more energetic – in a good sense.

OH5 are braver on the trebles compared to E4000, even at the cost of minorly overdoing sometimes. E4000 on the other hand are very good at layering and separation, where OH5 is dramatically lacking, especially on the mid and low segments.

E4000 are much more demanding in terms of source power, and they have the not secondary advantage of costing one third of what OH5 do.

Oriolus Isabellae ($500 street price)

Isabellae’s musical personality is evidently different from OH5’s insofar as they deliver a V shape presentation, with relatively recessed mids and important, enhanced sub bass and bass (for the connoisseurs: something more in the ballpark of Ikko’s other model, the OH10). This alone of course already imprints a big part of the comparison between the two products.

Beyond that, Isabellae’s high mids are smoother, and trebles are less energetic, yet airier compared to OH5. Mid bass is definitely more textured and detailed on Isabellae, while still staying on the relaxed and buttery side in general. Sub bass is OK out of the box on Isabellae while it requires some help on OH5. Most of all, layering, resolution and detail retrieval is obvisouly better on Isabellae, which are also equivalently undemanding in terms of source power as OH5 are.

Dunu ZEN ($699)

Zen’s bass is arguably as good as the industry gets at least until pulling Softears stuff to the comparison table: perfectly calibrated mix of punchyness and body, volume and texture. ZEN also has beyond outstandind microdynamics and layering capabilities – on both fronts, that’s very much unlike what happens on OH5. On the opposite end, trebles are marginally but perceivably airier on OH5, although highmid sensitives as previously noted my consider that segment on the limit or even a bit beyond their preference. Taken as a whole, OH5 have a stronger musical personality (love or hate, of course), ZEN are more “technical”, and 40%+ more expensive. I’m referring to original ZEN model, not the subsequent Pro version (which I find less nice then its sibling).

Conclusions

OH5 are a nicely and coherently colored set. As such, they can be target of “unquenchable hatred and indomitable love” – like that other well known invididual from some 200 years ago, you know – depending on one’s own ego. Simply put, if you are the uncurably curious audiophile addict you may want to check these, knowing chances are you might viscerally love them, or find them as being “not your cup of tea”. I hope my article did convey at least some hints to educate your guess before you actually carry that out.

In summary OH5 deliver a bodied, vibrant, warm and enveloping musical experience. They are energetic while also smoothed. An evident accurate job has been carried out behind the curtains here to get to such point.

Their major downside is on resolving power and layering proweness, which can be helped a bit albeit not solved – without revolutionising the entire presentation – by means of some surgical EQ as I also tried to hint you about, here above.

The OH5 sample covered in this article has been delivered to me courtesy of Ikko staff which I warmly thank once again for the opportunity.

Our generic standard disclaimer.

The post Ikko OH5 Asgard Review – Music Better Than The Rest appeared first on Music For The Masses.