INTRO

Lately, TWS earphones like the Creative Aurvana Ace 2 have been impressing me more than the budget wired earphones in the same pricing range. With new technology from xMEMS that makes promises to improve our aural experience, the xMEMS technology is better suited for TWS given that it requires a constant voltage to keep the plates charged. While this may add an additional drain on the battery of the TWS, it does not seem to impact it too much.

DESIGN COMMENTARY

The xMEMS are similar flat panel type drivers, they do not have the excursion to reproduce bass frequencies as well without being larger than normal, so it seems better suited for treble duty for the time being. They do have larger models, but I am not aware of any commercial products using them currently.

MEMS have already been used for microphones in some wired models and also smartphones, now they are using it as an actual driver. There were even suggested automotive applications from other technology companies. It is a wide band piezo style silicone based surface mount device.

Seeing new technology making tons of promises is nothing new, the question is does it live up to the hype? So what does xMEMS promise? You can read about it here, or I have summarized my take:

• Semiconductor components that can be surface mounted, good for automated assembly.
• Improved material stiffness, this pushes the breakup mode higher in frequency where it is less audible especially if it can be pushed above 20Khz. They are claiming >10khz, so it must still be in the audible band.
• Phase Coherence
• Near-zero phase shift
• Excellent transient response
• Shock resistant up to huge values
• Easier fabrication (This implies a cost savings somewhere, either for the consumer or the manufacturer, most likely the latter.)
• Better uniformity. I have some experience in what they call binning. The tolerances of products may ultimately be graded and “binned” into lets say A,B,C etc categories. Binning can be used to match tolerances, charge more, provide longer warranties, charge less if they are slightly outside of tolerance, or used in other less demanding applications, etc or a combination of these. With better uniformity and stricter tolerances, then there is better matching from Left to Right channels.

Creative Aurvana Ace 2 is plastered predominantly on the rotating splash page for www.xmems.com They are the first model to use the Cowell/xMEMS coaxial driver so we are not getting all the claimed advantages of their single full range xMEMS model. It is new nonetheless, there are other brands using them too however, I see Noble Audio also has a model available for example.

FEATURES

The Creative Aurvana Ace 2 priced at $149 comes in a familiar earbud styled shell like the Airpod Pro, and charges via USB-C or wireless in a translucent compact case. On the bottom is a pairing button, and the USB-C port.

A new trend I am seeing more and more of is oval shaped nozzles. I know this is supposed to be a better match for our ears, however I seem to have mixed experiences with fitment. The Creative Aurvana Ace 2 shell is longer than the Moondrop Space which also has a similar shape and oval nozzles, and therefore fits better for me and of course others may have a different outcome.

With the Creative App, users can update firmware ( I already updated twice in the span of a month), change EQ presets or modify your own, and change the button controls. Screenshots are below. Additionally there are three sound modes, ANC, Ambient and off. I noticed the off mode keeps wind noises at bay, ANC and Ambient both amplify wind noise. Highly encouraged to use the app, otherwise you will miss out on firmware updates that may be required for proper operation.

Unfortunately, the ANC testing is at the wrong time of year as I have yet to fire up the lawn mower and have no airplane trips scheduled. Best I can do is test in the bathroom with the fan on. Bathroom fan testing reveals a quiet hair dryer sound, it is similar to the Moondrop Space. Sony WF-1000XM3 still reigns supreme for me (I have not tried the XM4/XM5 models).

The ambient mode on the Creative Aurvana Ace 2 was actually more enjoyable than the ANC. Somehow it improves the Ace 2 soundstaging similar to open-back earphones without the loss of bass. On windy days it will boost windnoise, but inside it works out great.

I briefly played with the EQ settings, it reacts strangely in that making changes to a band also makes changes to the surrounding band. You will notice it if you set a band, and then makes changes to the one right next to it, move it up or down and watch the neighboring band also move up or down with it. I have never seen this behavior with other apps, either is a glitch with the APP, or the Q is too wide.

SOUND

Tested with iPhone 13 and LG G8.

I would describe the Creative Aurvana Ace 2 as a V shaped tune if not close to Harman. Bass comes through boisterous and fat on the Creative Aurvana Ace 2, over accentuating say foot stomps that normally only slightly show up causing a jarring sensation.

Given Creative’s heritage in computer based audio for gaming purposes, this is probably a purposeful design goal and not necessarily a negative if primary use is for gaming. There are also soft landings on the bass hits and could use more definition. It slogs along on a Sunday stroll rather than with purpose.

Lower mids sound full and warm, while midrange comes through realistic sounding with plenty of blank spacing around them. This lets the vocalist sound like they are singing in a larger space and not closed in and dull. Woodwinds are soft and delicate sounding.

Creative Aurvana Ace 2 delivers on the quick transient treble response, I do not pickup any coloration. There are some hiccups, horns have trouble sounding continuous. Perhaps there is a crossover between the drivers smearing it making them sound jagged. Sparkle and air tail off in a good way, cymbals and triangles for example have nice shimmer and ringing as required.

Coming back to the bass output on the Creative Aurvana Ace 2, it pulls the wide stage forward with the whole stage between your ears. Timbre is pretty spot on, height is predictable. The KZ VXS Pro sounds less forward and lower midbass provides a tad more definition.

The final feature that I find invaluable is multipoint connection and the Creative Aurvana Ace 2 comes equipped with said feature. It worked flawlessly between my Iphone and LG G8. Initially I had trouble with my Lenovo laptop, but after a firmware update it seemed to rectify the problem of it immediately disconnecting. I did have a hiccup a few times where one earpiece was disconnected, I am not sure if it was user error or on purpose, but sticking them back in the case and then pulling them out made them both start working again.

GOOD TRAITS

Ambient, ANC modes
Multipoint
Wireless Charging
Brightish Treble sounds quick and mostly concise
EQ settings/App
Low Latency toggle in app
Charging case is pocket friendly

NEEDS IMPROVEMENT

Computer connection disconnects
Oval nozzles does not always fit well in my experience
Bass is boosted too much and could use more definition
ANC is not at Sony levels.
APTX Lossless and lower codec support
EQ band changes affect surrounding bands, needs work.

FINAL REMARKS

Creative Aurvana Ace 2 is a good choice for TWS if you want accentuated bass and clear upper treble but do not necessarily need top tier ANC. Although it is not a strong contender for ANC performance, the ambient mode is nice and opens them up. The petite case is appreciated, and has wireless charging, battery life seemed middle of the road.

At $149 value is on the low side when you start comparing to the larger market share of Sony, Bose, Apple and Sennheiser for example. You can even find the good models from those brands used for cheaper. I am not completely sold on xMEMS being the end all be all, but for a first go it has better dynamics and timbre than some planars and BA drivers, but there is not a big difference noticed yet.

Disclaimer: I appreciate that Creative sent these free of charge for evaluation, this review as always is influence free, guilt free, and gluten-free.

CREATIVE AURAVANA ACE 2 SPECIFICATIONS

Product Page

CREATIVE APP SCREENSHOTS

Contact us!

DISCLAIMER

Available for purchase direct from Creative, Amazon and other retailers.

Our generic standard disclaimer.

About my measurements.

The post Creative Aurvana Ace 2 TWS Featuring xMEMS IEM Review – Come As You Are appeared first on Music For The Masses.

Very large part of the following article originally appeared as a section of my review of Sennheiser’s flagships IE900. We decided to spin it off as a separate piece to give it the just independence, considering how sensible the topic is.

Introduction to counterfeits and fakes

According to Cambridge dictionary:

Counterfeiting :- noun. UK  /ˈkaʊntəˌfɪtɪŋ / – The activity of making illegal copies of things such as bank notes, DVDs, or official documents.

https://dictionary.cambridge.org/it/dizionario/inglese/counterfeiting

… and, let me modestly add, “any other element of registered intellectual property” (e.g. patented goods).

It goes by itself that counterfeiting is a crime defined and punished by the penal code of pretty much all modern countries. Selling products of known counterfeited nature is, of course, consequently also a crime.

This is not unimportant to know, as when one realises to have been sold a counterfeited unit, she/he can leverage on the much higher power of criminal law to pursue the recovery of her/his interests vs the offending seller – with much higher chances of a positive outcome, of course, when such fraudulent seller is identifiable and locatable, and subject to the laws of the same country as the buyer.

Beware of counterfeiting!

The market is literally flooded with fake / counterfeited IE900, and IE600, and many other Sennheiser sets – and not since yesterday.

Sadly the criminals involved with this are quite skilled on delivering aesthetically near-identical products (from the boxing down to the actual items), thus posing a serious threat to the casual user when it comes to choosing and giving trust to their vendors, especially considering the important price tags we are talking about.

Sennheiser recommends to buy new units exclusively from fully trusted, official Sennheiser distributors – and that’s a no brainer.

For second hand units – while of course remembering that channels like ebay or similar need to be taken with two (always better than one) grains of salt – a good idea is to have the seller send a picture with the unit serial number in advance, and get in contact with Sennheiser Consumer Hearing support services: they will check if the serial number is reported as legit.

An illustrative example

I happen to have access to a fake IE900 sample, which I could therefore compare with a guaranteed-genuine one coming directly from Sennheiser’s headquarters.

Sound quality wise I must say I expected a much bigger difference between the two sets. What surprised me the most was in particular the fake unit’s remarkable bilateral extension, reasonably similar to the original one. In terms of bass definition, note body and microdynamics, however, genuine IE900 are quite evidently better.

Visual counterfeiting on the fake unit is really staggering for how realistic it is, and how much attention and careful observation was required to discover the clues indicating the two units did not come from the same ultimate source. I took a few pictures, and shared them with Sennheiser personnel to have confirmation of my findings, and here is my report – with the hope that it may be useful to someone to avoid being frauded.

First and foremost, there was no way to spot any difference whatsoever about the printed carton box sleeve, not on the box’s internal structure and elements, the paddings etc. All apparently identical.

By closely assessing product details however some differences started to come up.

1) Cables’ earhook sheaths are not freely reshapeable on the fake unit I checked – they stay much firmer on their pristine curvature for how much you try to model them. Genuine Sennheiser sheaths are pliable almost like plasteline, and they stay in your wanted shape quite reliably while you wear them.

2) Cables’ chin sliders feature a Sennheiser logo sticker. The genuine one carries an S-logo hologram, the counterfeit one is very obvious flattened, non-holographic, clumsy imitation. Genuine cable is sitting on top in the following picture.

3) Genuine cable’s main sheath features a smooth, uniform, solid external finish. This fake unit’s sheath carries some sort of twisted wires appearance. You can appreciate this difference, too, from the picture above – where, again, the counterfeit cable is the coiled one, below the genuine one.

4) Assessing nozzle ends, genuine IE900 should look “pitch black”, while this counterfeit sample reveals silver colour inside through a wider mesh structure, as shown by this picture.

5) The pinned plastic plate carrying stock tips should show glossy S M L size letters, not matte ones. Furthermore, genuine foam tips have quite flat tops, not bulging ones. Based on this information, try yourself to spot the genuine set in the following picture .

YMMV

It’s of course worth noting that I could assess just one fake unit, so there is no certainty, let alone guarantee, that the above hints do apply to other cases. So don’t take the above clues are indicative, let alone exhaustive, as a “check list” to apply to a suspect IE900 sample.

This article will have done its own right if I succeeded in just making you aware that there is an issue with this, and a serious one too – and you better spend a lot of time and attention to avoid being scammed. Good luck!

The post Beware of Sennheiser IEM Counterfeits and Fakes! appeared first on Music For The Masses.

I have 3 units to test within my quite articulated home setup, and verify if / which sonic improvements are determined by the presence of one, or more, JitterBug FMJ units in line with and/or in parallel to my various DAC connections.

JitterBug FMJ retails in EU for € 69,00 and can be purchased from multiple sources, including Amazon. The manufacturer’s official information page is here.

At-a-glance Card

Introduction

I know it very well: there’s a thick population of “non-believers” who apriori refuse the whole concept of USB filtering.

Sole thing I can say about and to them is: fair enough ! If you are one of that lot I recommend you stop here, don’t go forward reading this article as I guarantee you won’t like it so why bother.

Some others are instead very confused about the topic.

Not about AudioQuest’s JitterBug FMJ per se, actually, or not yet about it, insofar as they “stop much before”, not having clear which “noise” are we talking about that a device like JitterBug FMJ (and others, in the same category) is supposed to do something with.

To all of them I dedicated the introduction to a past article of mine reviewing IFI’s Nano iUSB 3.0 filtered power supply, which I spun off into a separate post some time ago precisely to conveniently back-link to it from within other review articles (like this one), without dumbly “re-pasting” the whole thing again and again.

Long story (too) short: there’s of course no way nor need to “improve” on digital data quality. There’s however point, and need, to avoid that data depletes during transport, and/or that transport media (cables) “trojan-ride” spurious signals, together with legit data, which may, and will, perturbate the DAC’s activity.

General description and features

JitterBug FMJ looks like, and has the size of, a common USB-key drive. It’s in facts a sort of “passthrough” thingie: on one end is a USB-A male plug, on the opposite end a USB-A female connector.

The chassis is metallic, studied to protect the inside from nearfield RF interference. The female USB port is protected by a removable “cap” make of rubber mixed with carbon – that, too, aiming at tackling RF interference. Both such features (metal chassis and backport cap) are indeed inherent to this new “FMJ” version and were not present in the original JitterBug. FMJ standing in facts for “Full Metal Jacket”.

Finally, the ciruitry on the PCB inside the case is aiming at removing in-line RF interference, such as that generated (or transmitted) by pretty much any digital device e.g. a computer, a TV, an audio player, etc.

You can see JitterBug FMJ as a filter reducing / eliminating any signal coming out of a USB port which is distant from the working frequencies required by the digital data which are solely supposed to be managed by that port.

As a consequence the DAC will receive “just what it’s supposed to get”, with no, or at least much less “other spurious stuff”.

Of course electrical impurities might not be there in the first place in some case, or, they may be filtered/rejected by some circuitry built into the DAC device itself, and in these cases adding a Jitterbug FMJ may be simply… useless.

Another case where a JitterBug FMJ may be only partially or not-at-all beneficial, is of course when spurious signals and interference are picked up downstream of its location.

So in general JitterBug FMJ (and all other similar equipment) is not – as it cannot be – a guaranteed hit, nor a guaranteed complete solution.

As in all or at least most things audio, a try is needed to know if and how much it benefits each particular setup.

How to use it (in the manufacturer’s intention)

Quite simply, Jitterbug FMJ is intended to be plugged into a USB port on a music player host (a pc, a mac or a linux box). Then, the USB cable leading to an external DAC or DAC/AMP will be plugged onto JitterBug FMJ’s female connector.

There’s no driver to install, no options to set. Just plug it in and leave it there.

The removable rubber cap covering JitterBug FMJ’s female port is supposed to be put back in place when no USB cable is connected. That’s because the carbon mixed into the rubber material helps acting as an anti-RF shield.

Always according to AudioQuest there’s also another way to use JitterBug FMJ: install 2 of them in parallel on the same host machine, plugging them onto two different USB ports (partaking to the same internal USB hub).

Onto one of the two JitterBug FMJ the USB cable going to the DAC is supposed to be plugged. The other JitterBug FMJ will just stay passively there, with the back rubber cap installed, and may (or may not) add a further level of intereference removal from the USB line.

OK, but does JitterBug FMJ actually work ?

Simply put: yes, and well, too.

First things first, I tried Jitterbug FMJ at its main intended usage scenario: plugged in-line between a host and a USB DAC or DAC-AMP.

I tried this on all 4 different hosts I normally use (also) for audio application, which are

• an aging MacBook Pro 2012 reourposed into acting exclusively as a Roon server
• a Lenovo Y520 laptop with Windows 10 which is my main general purpose work platform, including Roon Remoting, and gaming
• a BananaPi M2+ box with Debian Linux acting exclusively as a Roon Bridge, and
• a RaspberryPi 4 with Dietpi Linux (a well packaged Debian distro) also exclusively acting as a Roon bridge.

DACs (DAC/AMPs) connected to those include my Questyle CMA400i, the Earmen ST-AMP unit I’m reviewing, and the main “dongles” I own, which include Apogee Groove, E1DA’s PowerDAC 2.1, 9038D and 9038SG3, Questyle M15 and AudioQuest’s own DragonFly Cobalt. Oh, and a Chord Mojo, too, every now and then.

“Dongles” (i.e. host-powered) devices are by definition those exposed at the highest risk of “inheriting” host perturbance carried over via digital interconnects, that’s why I expect JitterBug FMJ’s effect to be most evident on them.

I also expect JitterBug FMJ to be more beneficial on devices plugged onto my Y520 laptop, and less so when the host is one of the raspberries (you should know the rationales of such expectation if you know this stuff at the technological level, or if you read my article referenced above).

Long story short: JitterBug FMJ does work, i.e. it did deliver a sound improvement, in all my different install positions.

The effect on final sound has been more evident, at times totally obvious, in some cases, and more subtle in others.

I can hear improvement on two main areas: better, more rounded up, fuller notes and darker background. Both these improvements together also result in a better sense of macrodynamics (imaging), which, depending on musical genre, also improves on rhythm perception.

Expectedly, out of all my gear the device for which the improvement is most subtle (yet still audible) is Questyle CMA-400i, no matter the host it is connected to.

Again very expectedly, the cases where Jitterbug FMJ’s improvement is obvious are those involving dongles (all of them – yes, including AudioQuest’s own Dragonfly Cobalt), connected to all my hosts, and maximally when connected to my Y520 “gaming” laptop.

Of course I also tried the other manufacturer-suggested use case, which is that of adding a second JitterBug FMJ in parallel to a first one, connected to a free USB port on the same host transport as the one onto which a USB DAC is connected.

This time my experience is not positive. Not negative either, actually, but I could not perceive any “further” improvement over the one obtained by the first unit – the one just plugged in-line between the host and the DAC. This happens on any one of my hosts, be them the small ARM SBC’s or the “noisy” gaming laptop.

Comparisons

iFi iSilencer+ (€ 59)

iSilencer is marketed as a device pursuing totally similar aims as JitterBug FMJ, so we can see it as iFi’s direct alternative to it. I had the opportunity to test a (few of) iSilencer unit(s), and I must say that, unlike Jitterbug FMJ, they did not hit the spot in my case.

Sadly, in my environment iSilencer wasn’t merely transparent (read: useless) but actually made sound worse: it fundamentally makes tones brighter, depressing mids and bass, reducing stage depth and making imaging worse.

iFi iPurifier 3 (€ 129/149)

iPurifier 3 is another device falling in the general “digital signal filters” category, but instead of removing carry-over electrical noise it focuses on signal timing – which is something on which JitterBug FMJ is only “consequently” involved.

I will soon release a piece about iPurifier3 but long story short: (in my setup) it does work. I’ve in particular been using it in-between one of my ARM-based Roon bridges and the Questyle CMA-400i desktop DAC-AMP, and it carried an audible improvement in terms of better treble notes definition, and perceivable better room size definition.

What’s even more interesting is that iPurifier 3 synergises positively with JitterBug FMJ: if I plug JitterBug FMJ on the ARM’s USB port, and iPurifier 3 on CMA-400i’s USB input port, I get both improvements at the same time. Very nice!

Conclusions

To me, JitterBug FMJ works – and very well so. It makes now standard part of my home setup, and I see no downsides to its adoption as an in-line USB channel filter, also considering its quite modest price tag.

A great thank you goes to AudioQuest for providing me with 2 more units (in addition to the one I earlier had already personally purchased) to allow me for extensive testing in multiple configurations.

Thanks a bunch to coblogger Kazi for the nice title image, too.

The post AudioQuest JitterBug FMJ Review – It’s Not About Dancing… appeared first on Music For The Masses.

The latest Mac generation features a relatively good audio circuit that makes many budget dongles and headphone amps obsolete.

Introduction

Apple computers, unlike the company’s mobile devices, have traditionally delivered poor audio quality through their 3.5 mm headphone socket. And most Windows machines are not any better.

Plugging an earphone or headphone into my 2012 MacBook Air and listening to iTunes/Apple Music creates a dull and blunt listening experience. This low quality is a contradiction to the capabilities of digital audio, which goes back at least 20 years. Even the 2013 iPhone 5S had stunning audio quality. Similarly, Apple’s “Lightning to 3.5 mm Audio Adapter” delivers excellent sound quality.

In order to make computers sound better, digital audio pioneer Gordon Rankin of Wavelength Audio (and contractor to AudioQuest), invented the dongle DAC back in 2012, the DragonFly Black. A tiny device without its own battery, it drew power from the host. The DragonFly was restricted to use with a computer as it drew more than 100 mA, too much for iPhone to handle.

As of 2016, the next version of the “Black” was within the iPhone’s current draw tolerance. Many companies jumped on the bandwagon flooding the market with such devices. But not all dongles are equal and ALL of them are a compromise. Such that draw little current (and therefore drain your phone company slowly) have limited power, and the powerful ones empty your phone’s battery fast.

When it comes to dongle-DAC use with computers, current drain is largely irrelevant considering that desktop machines don’t have a battery at all, and notebooks have high battery capacities compared to a phone. Power is therefore no problem with computer application, sound quality has foremost priority.

Dongle DACs typically have 1 to 2 V, depending on impedance. Some, such as the Helm Bolt, automatically switch voltage depending on detected headphone impedance.

Apple introduced a new integrated audio circuit in their latest models:

• MacBook Air introduced in 2022
• MacBook Pro introduced in 2021 or later
• Mac mini introduced in 2023
• Mac Studio introduced in 2022

These models contain an audio circuit that is power wise very similar to dongles such as the Helm Bolt, ifi Audio GO Link, DragonFly Red and Cobalt. Below 150 ohm headphone impedance, the circuit provides a voltage of 1.25 V RMS, above 150 ohm and up to 1000 ohm, the headphone jack delivers 3 V RMS. You find Apple’s respective support article here.

Apple’s integrated DAC supports sample rates up to 96 kHz (just like the AudioQuest DragonFly Cobalt).

I calculated the resulting power and current drain as displayed in the following table:

What we have learnt so far is that Apple’s new audio circuit is as powerful as a standard dongle DAC of the kind that also works with a phone. Yes, there are more powerful dongles on the market such as the Apogee Groove, Questyle M15, or ifi Audio Go bar, which will work better with insensitive headphones.

The 2022 MacBook Air with the M2 processor has its headphone jack on the right-hand side.

Amplification and Sound Quality

Playing in-ears with 32 ohm impedance is a piece of cake, even the 70 ohm Sennheiser HD 25 headphones (on the title photo) get lots of volume. Just like many “standard dongle DACs”, the 300 ohm Sennheiser HD 600 brings the Mac audio to its limits. Yes, it principally works, but it lacks pizazz.

The current-hungry Final E5000 iems are a special case in that they do not run well with most current-conserving dongle DACs and daps, for example the ifi Go link, Helm Bolt or TempoTec V6. They play loud enough but lack bass control, an indication that hey don’t receive enough current.

My testing confirms the tech data comparison with comparable dongles.

And here comes the surprise: the sound quality of Apple’s new audio quality is…astonishingly good for what it is: crisp, transparent, clear. Very surprising. It sounds very similar (in terms of quality) to the ifi Go link or Helm Bolt.

Concluding Remarks

Apple’s new adaptive audio circuit finally sounds quite decent. Poor audio circuits in computers were the reason for the invention of the dongle DAC. The idea was to keep it small, down to the size of a thumb drive.

Some basic $50-100 dongle DACs have now become obsolete for modern Macs, which makes these devices even more compact. Where Apple are exaggerating is with the compatibility with high-impedance headphones. It principally works, but you are better off with a dedicated, powerful, headphone DAC/amp such as the ifi GO bar or the Questyle M15 on the go.

Testing this is easy: if you have a new Mac, try it out. If you don’t have one, don’t bother as you won’t buy one for this purpose anyway.

Until next time…keep on listening!

Contact us!

Disclaimer

Our generic standard disclaimer.

The post Using Headphones With Your New Mac [Without An External DAC/Amp] – A Review appeared first on Music For The Masses.

Introduction

One of my most “interesting” discoveries for me has been that a high end, high efficiency IT system (e.g. an hi-tier Laptop) can be quite far from being an ideal platform for an apparently “light” data transfer activity such as streaming digital audio from where its passive containers (the FLAC or WAV files) are, up to a USB-connected DAC.

The first and simplest perplexity an IT enthusiast, or specialist, comes up with when confronted with the above statement is some variation of:

“Cmon… A bit is a bit! The PC just has to transfer a digital file to a digital device, via a digital interface. Don’t tell me you ‘hear’ deterioration in the process as there can’t obviously be – data will not deteriorate!”.

Of course it’s exactly like that.

A bit is a bit, and the very same bits stored into (say) a FLAC file onto the PC’s hard disk will reach the externally connected USB DAC once sent over. No doubt. No error.

Too bad that this is not the point.

Cables as trojan horses

DACs are devices supposed to take such digital data (FLAC or whatever files) and convert their contents “on the fly” (i.e., while still receiving them, one little chunk at a time) into analog data (i.e. the music we all want to enjoy).

So far so logic. The problem is that a few unobvious caveats apply.

First of all it’s important to understand that while EMI (Electro Magnetic Interference) and RFI (Radio Frequency Interference) investing, say, a laser printer while printing a Word page on paper is not going to significantly (or at all) change the quality of a 600 dpi printed text, DAC chips and the rest of the circuitry around them will change (and significantly so) their behaviour, and ultimately reproduce “different sounding music”, when subject to EM/RF (and other) perturbance.

And no, it’s not enough to protect (“shield”) the DAC against perturbances in the human audible frequency ranges (20-20.000 Herz give or take) because this all is not about preserving the DAC’s job result after it was obtained, rather it’s about making sure the DAC is not “disturbed while doing its job” (simplistically said).

The bad news is in facts that DAC chips, and the electronics “around” them inside the box are sensible to frequencies up to a few Giga herz (!), which can sadly come from a virtually infinite spectrum of possible origins.

“Well then this is mostly about properly shielding the physical DAC box, so any possible “waves” polluting the environment near my DAC will not get in, no? Is this why I often read that a desktop device will most often be better than a mobile one?“

Sadly, no.

Or yes, of course you would ideally want a “nicely shielded dac box”. And yes, this is (normally) an inherent advantage desktop systems have over portable ones. That’s quite logical. But not enough.

Seriously pernicious interference can first of all come from the DAC’s power supply itself.

Converting from Alternate Current (supplied by the wall outlet) to Continuous Current (required by the DAC electronics to work) creates in general “side effects”, which are nasty for our DAC, and are transported into it by the very electrical cable which is needed to feed it with the “good part” of its required power.

Ideally, we would want:

1. a “side effect free” Power Transformer, to generate an as apriori-pure CC as possibile, and
2. shielded power transport cables to avoid “collecting noise on the go”.

Furthermore: the USB cable is another trojan horse for noise – and the more so if the same cable is used to carry both data and power into those DACs that do not have a separate input port for an independent power supply.

A PC 99.9% of the times has not been designed with audio-grade EMI/RFI prevention in mind, for the simple reason that it won’t be required by 99.9% of its uses.

All sorts of “bad waves” (I’m again vulgarising here) do happen inside the PC, and do indeed propalate out via any connected electrical conductor – there surely included the USB cable, the same on which our “a bit is a bit is a bit” data is unawarely travelling.

Timing is vital

Should the above (vulgarised) scenario be not enough, there’s even more to take care of. Again, I’ll make this a bit simplistic but give me some rope here, or wordage gets too complicated and it all’d get even worse

Data communication between a PC and another PC, or between a PC and a HD for example, are designed to be “as quick as possible”, while not necessarily “as time-regular as possible”.

While saving your Word file from your PC memory to your HD the actual writing speed might vary during the process as a consequence of many factors (your PC doing something else at the same time, the HD receiving other files at the same time, the HD speed recalibrating following thermal variations, etc etc etc). Depending on what actually happens, your file will save like one tenth of a second faster or slower. Who cares…

In a very bad case a peak of interference will force a data packet retransmission: a full second might be lost in the process (how bad!…). What really matters though is that no quality difference will be there at the end: our file will be “perfectly intact” on the HD.

Not the same applies when the “receipient” is a DAC.

Audio devices require to receive digital data on a perfectly timed schedule. Otherwise (guess what?) the DAC being unable to autonomously correct such schedule, it will convert data at the “irregular” pace with which it receives them, and the result will be “different music” than expected.

Data flow into the DAC must follow a sort of atomic-clock-precision “metronome”.

Now guess what else: when you connect an external DAC to a PC via USB, the default choice is using the PC’s internal “metronome” (called “Clock”), which – you know that by now – is sub-par for our audio purposes as it never was designed with the level of accuracy, and never equipped with those pace-granting gimmicks a DAC desperately needs.

Furtherly, even when the PC and the DAC “somehow manage” to adopt an adequately reliable clock to keep data flow pacing as regularly as the DAC wants, internal PC EMI/RFI can – and will – screw timing up every now and then anyway. And, DAC chips in general don’t come with built-in “circuitry” capable to correct such “hiccups” on the fly.

Lastly: as pacing is so important each DAC has its own independent metronome clock generator inside, used to master the timing of all its internal operations. A similar little device (“oscillator”) than the one used inside the PC generates that, just a more precise (and expensive) one. Too bad that such device is an electrical device like all the rest inside there, so should inbound power supply be not perfectly clean… yes, you guessed it

What a mess. What can we do?

Well very simply put what I just tried to say until now tells us that first and foremost a “generic” IT system (a PC, a Laptop…) is for a number of reasons far from being an ideal choice as an “audio player” when audiophile-grade results are wanted.

To solve the problem there are three possible conceptual approaches

1. Adopt more “audio-adequate” systems as digital players, and/or
2. Adopt “higher tier” audio devices (DACs) equipped with appropriate “noise countering” circuitry, and/or
3. Adopt additional devices, stacked “in between” the digital player and the DAC to “correct issues” on the go

A super-simple example of type-1 approach is using a battery powered device as digital player: it will infacts apriori have less power-originating noise as it will not require a power transformer (although… careful here: batteries are not totally noise-free either… but let’s not overcomplicate the story now).

Always in the type-1 area: stay away from general purpose PCs, even more so if they are beefed-up gaming rigs. Every single chip on the motherboard is a potential (and effective!) source of EMI/RFI and of time-pacing perturbance.

Even on “simpler hw” machines then gaming rigs the more different stuff the operating system is asking the hw to do while sending data out, the worse for our case. Using an appropriate SBC (Single Board Computer) class device driven by a stripped-down OS where only the essential processes to our special case are kept alive is, barred exceptions and caveats, a technically much healtier – if technically steeper – path to follow for best results given the situation.

A DAC offering the possibility to get power from an independent, audio-quality Power Supply instead of sucking it from the host via the same USB cable used for data is then the first and simplest example of type-2 approach.

DACs capable of inverting the default master-slave USB protocol, and play the “host” role themselves while receiving USB data from the host are another. And so on.

And finally, a number of articles will over time appear on our blog covering devices and accessories of various vendors and types implementing “type-3 approach” at various levels. Stay tuned

The post A Bit Is A Bit Is A Bit. Or… Is It? appeared first on Music For The Masses.

It took me so long to make myself a decently clear idea about this topic that I eventually took a breath and put it down in form of a single (hopefully) organised story. Enjoy!

The problem we have, and how does it matter

DACs’ business is receiving digital files and re-convert them into analog electrical signals. Such signals are then amplified and sent to drivers (big loudspeakers or small IEMs, it doesn’t matter now) to become audible music.

Sadly while doing its job a DAC, any DAC, fatally produces “spurious copies” of each note. .

Such unwanted “note replicas” are higher frequency copies of their relavant intended note, and such “higher” frequencies are beyond the humanly audible range. That’s why we call such artefact notes “Ultrasonic images“.

If they are not audible why the heck do we care about them? For two reasons.

First reason: the frequencies at which these notes are generated are not audible by our ears, but are significant for our physical drivers (the tweeters in our speakers) – which overheat and overwear and can even break if they receive them or they receive them “too loud”. Indeed, on a wider horizon, the DAC might also produce or anyhow transmit various other forms on unwanted high or very high frequency “notes”.

For this reason alone we should find a way to avoid or kill such images, like any other ultra high frequency stuff.

The second reason is a bit more complicated.

On certain conditions when two notes close to one another are played, a sort of “reciprocal disturbance” happens between such two notes. That’s called “Inter-Modulation Distortion” (IMD).

Let’s get this picture as a conceptual example:

Suppose our “real” notes are the two big peaks in the center. Sometimes, they will “autogenerate” those shorter and leaner ones you see at their sides, one on the left (lower frequency), one on the right (higher frequency). The picture shows a case with only 2 spurious notes generated, but they could be more.

Now let’s suppose that the left real note in our example actually is one of those unwanted Ultrasonic Images produced by our DAC. As we said above, it will be on a too high frequency to be heard. Let’s suppose it’s at 21Khz. So of course it won’t be audible but big chances are that it’s “left side baby copy” might well be “distant enough” from “mummy” as to fall below 20KHz, so within the hearable frequency range.

That’s why this is called “fold-back effect”, and that’s the second important reason why we need to help our DAC getting rid of high frequency images generated during the reconstruction process in the first place.

Summary: DACs produce spurious ultrasonic images. Those need to be taken care of to prevent damage to drivers, and audible sound alterations.

The solution, and its drawbacks

How do we get rid of the ultrasonic images? With a filter.

That is, with some circuitry that (simplistically put) makes sure that once the DAC has done its job reconstructing our wanted music + those extra unwanted notes at higher-then-audible frequencies, a cut down is imposed on all frequencies above the maximum humanly audible level – effectively “filtering” them off.

No ultrasonic images, of course, so also no “fold-back” IMD-generated audible spurious notes.

Was it so easy? Well no, not so easy.

This filter we need is an electrical circuit and as such not “perfectly ideal” as we would dream it to be. If by my description above you imagined a sort of guillotine blade cutting the crap out, with no side effects, well… no.

What we would ideally want it a filter that leaves audible music totally unoutched, and kills all and only those ultrasonic images. Instead, real world filters will either let some of those ultrasonic images pass through, or apply some change to audible music, or both.

Depending on how it’s realised, the filter will have inaccuracies and side effects that we can’t entirely avoid. Such imperfections can first of all be more or less important depending on the original music’s sampling rate, and besides that the unwanted audible sonic changes might be more or less unwelcome by each particular user.

So that’s why it’s in a sense nice if a DAC device offers a choice amongst different filters: we will end up choosing the best – or least bad, if you wish – one depending on our tastes.

So let me explain about these filters imperfections and how they impact on our music. Let’s start with the inaccuracies.

Fast and slow filters

To describe how these filters work we use certain methods and graphical representations. Here is one.

This graph shows the behaviour of 3 different filters as they are implemented on a certain DAC. Forget about the specific DAC model now, this is just to describe in principle how these filters work and inhowmuch can they be different from one another.

This graph plots the attenuation (the reduction of “loudness”) that each filter imposes to the analog signal (our music) that’s coming out of the DAC.

On the X axis we have the frequencies. Remember human audible music gets as high as 20Khz.

On the Y axis we have the output “power” reduction which that filter applies, expressed in dB. Zero dB = zero impact. -110dB = shut up!

The signal being processed (the “music”) in this specific case is white noise, so a sort of “artificial music” composed of notes of all frequencies, all at the same power level. The white noise sampling rate in this example is 44.1Khz.

If there weren’t any filter, the graph would be an horizontal line accross the entire graph space, stuck on 0dB.

Let’s look at the graph lines, starting by following them from their upper left point, where they hit against the Y axis, and going towards the right.

All lines are equally flat up there, one on top of the other, and they all indicate zero dB attenuation (marked on the Y axis).  That means: all those filters apply no attenuation at all on all frequencies until… (follow the plots going right by at the same time reading down on the X  axis) …at least until 18KHz.

If we now keep “going right” from 18KHz, we see the various plot lines spreading apart.

The green and the purple lines are the first which start to “go down” right after 18Khz. The red line stays instead flat horizontal, stuck on 0dB attenuation, until above 21KHz.

The green line “drops” faster than the purple one. At 20KHz the green line is already at approx -12dB, while the purple line is still around -5dB. The green line “drops dead” (-110dB attenuation or so) just above 22Khz. The purple line reaches the same “full attenuation” level not before 28KHz.

So what does this mean?

We know that ultrasonic images can only happen above 50% of the input sampling frequency, in this case 22.05KHz.

The graphs tell us that the “green filter” (i.e. the filter represented by the green line) gives full attenuation to all signals lower than just above 22KHz so our green guy will kill all our ultrasonic images, we won’t get any.

Viceversa the purple filter will take its sweeter time before dropping down, and will let quite some ultrasonic images pass through. All those until approx 28KHz will pass, although progressively more and more attenuated as their frequency goes up.

Both the green and the purple filter also have a visibile drawback: they both start their job from 18KHz, which is still within the audible range.

While “dropping faster” to be able to cut everything above 22Khz, the green filter applies a stronger cut on the higher part of the audible range (-12dB or so at 20KHz, which is a lot). The purple filter is more permissive with images, but also less punitive on trebles (only -5dB or so at 20Khz).

Let’s look at the red line now.

Its vertical part is visually roughly parallel to the green one, it’s just offset towards the right by 2KHz.

So how does the red filter work? Test if you got the drill from above.

Summarising: all these filters have some sort of inaccuracy. These of graphs tell us that which sound frequencies are cut down by our filters, and how much power do our filters take off from them (zero, full, or something in between).

One filter makes fewer frequencies pass, the other lets more of them through. And this, already, prompts us to wonder which option is best for us.

But before that, let’s investigate about filters’ side effects.

Ringing, everywhere

Let’s talk about the frequencies (the musical notes) which our filter lets through.

Shall those notes pass through really unmodified ?  Or will the filter introduce any audible modification to them?

To study how these filters behave in terms of transparency we use a different test procedure, and graph. While before we submitted “all frequencies at once” (white noise) to the filter, now we’ll oppositely submit just one note to the filter – an as “neat”, quick, sharp and clean note as possible. And we’ll plot what our device (the filter) outputs as a result.

We call such single clean input note “impulse”. And the output is an “impulse response”.

We can imagine to create a pure impulse as a digital file where all samples are set at zero value (representing pitch black silence of course), and just one sample has the digital value of a single, loud note.

Assuming that note plays at a frequency which the filter is not attenuating, an ideal filter will of course reconstruct precisely that note in analogue form, and nothing else. Will a real world filter behave differently?

This is a good first example of impulse response graph.

(For the illustrations I am helping myself with the pictures published within this article, which is very well written by the way, and might also be interesting for you to take a look at).

On the X axis there’s time. On the Y (vertical) axis there is Voltage, so ultimately output power.

The plot of an ideal filter applied to the DAC’s reconstruction of an ideal impulse would be a dead flat horizontal line at 0 Volts (total silence), until a precise time where voltage pops up for a very brief moment (the Impulse), and then comes immediately back down to zero, to continue dead flat onto zero forever thereafter.

The picture above is instead the plot of a real world situation.

The peak in the middle is what we expected: the impulse note reconstructed based on the single <>0 digital sample in the input file. So far so good.

The unexpected part is those ripples to the left (so, in time, before the note) and to the right (so right after the note).

If the note we are talking about is audible, those ripples will be audible in terms of (faint) “fringes” to the notes. That note will not come across perfectly neat as it should. Ideally we would not want those ripples then, but let’s not commit suicide yet. The ripples before the note are called “pre-ringing” by the way, those after are called “post-ringing”.

The graph above reports the impulse response of a fast filter.

If you remember, a fast filter is what in general seems most desireable as it cuts ultrasonic images quickly. Now we find a quite important drawback though: a fast filter adds unwanted note alterations both before and after each note.

Let’s see how a slow filter behaves:

The central part is very similar of course, but the ripples (the “ringing”) are minimal in comparison to the fast filter case.

So we know from the previous chapter that the slow filter is less effective in terms of ultrasonic images cutting, but it turns out to be much less impactful in terms of changes on the musical notes themselves.

Ringing, single-sidedly

The fast and slow filters we saw in the previous chapter produce more or less ringing both before and after their impulse response, are sometimes called “linear phase” filters.

In tech talk, the “phase” of filter refers to a delay. Too complicated. Here, let’s concentrate on the effects more than on the technical causes.

On linear phase filters the impulse energy is in its maximum part concentrated at the exact time when the note needs to be played, with some fringes of energy “escaping” some time before and some time after the pulse. The two filters we saw before obey to this decription: the high peak is in the center of their graph, and the ripples are at both its sides.

Other filters can be created which instead concentrate the maximum part of the incoming energy at the beginning of the impulse response, and overflow only onto the time past that. Like this:

A filter like this is called a “minimum phase” filter.

The impulsive part (the main note) is totally similar to the fast, linear phase sibling. The ripples, however, are only after the note.

Open brackets. As you’ll notice this graph has “a lot” of ripples – although only on the right side – so this will be a “fast, minimum phase” filter. Close brackets.

The amplitude of the ripples after the note is bigger (ripples are taller) compared to that of the ripples before or after the note observed in the “fast, linear” case. Indeed, it’s double. The fact is that the total energy is the same: in the linear case it gets distributed “a bit before and a bit after” the “main event”, here instead the ex-flow it’s all “delayed to after” the peak note.

Soooo……. there is no pre-ringing!

Lastly, let’s consider a “slow, minimum phase” filter. How will it be?

As expected: similarly to the “slow, linear phase” case the ripples are minimal compared to the fast alternative, and similarly to the “slow, minimum phase” case the ripples are only after the impulse. No pre-ringing.

There are quite a few other ways to build reconstruction filters but it was never my intention to write an encyclopedia. These 4 cases are quite enough for us to get where the main trick stays.

Ringing ?

I mentioned before that we would ideally want ringing not to be there at all.  Do we really ?  Less than it seems, actually. That, for two reasons.

First reason.

It’s crucial to note that our internal auditory organs… do ring too.

When our internal ear receives an “impulse” (a relatively strong, sudden sound) our organs will vibrate in conjunction with that note… and for a short time after it. This is so physiological that our brain… knows!

Our perception of a “neat” (not reverberating, not “persisting”) sound is the result of an originally neat note hitting our ears. There, some human post-ringing is added, then it all goes to the brain which… subtracts (tares off, if you wish) the ringing and tells us that the note was “neat”.

On the flip side, our ear organs do not pre-ring when they receive a sound. So when our brain gets some “thing” coming before a sound it will “remark it immediately” as “odd”.

Given this, a filter-inducted note post-ringing will actually be much less important that it seems on paper. As long as it is modest in amplitude and/or length it will be masked in full or in part by our physiological system.

The filter’s pre-ringing instead, that will most matter. As our brain does not know what pre-ringing even means (!) a note affected by even modest pre-ringing will first of all be decoded as “strange”, “not totally right”.

Second reason.

Ringing will not happen on each single note played by the DAC. Oppositely, it will happen only on somewhat “unlegit” notes: e.g. those connected with clipping, or with pre-existant ringing.

As it looks, then, we should never actually have ringing as long as we listen to good quality digital tracks. Do we?

Yes, precisely. Too bad that “good quality digital tracks” are surprisingly rare. Ever heard of Loudness War for example? Good audiophile-quality masters are, indeed, extremely rare to find. The last place where to look for some in my experience is an online streaming service (any online streaming service). But that’s another story.

Connecting some dots

Let’s summarise what we learnt until now:

• Bloody DACs create unwanted artefact notes
• Such artefacts only appear at frequencies higher than 50% of the original digital file sampling rate (so e.g. for a 44.1KHz file they start happening above 22.05KHz)
• Those artefacts need to be removed as they create problems both audible (affecting the music) and non audible (affecting audio devices)
• To remove them we use filters, which are engineered in different possible ways
• Filters of different types have different scope/efficiency spans, and come with different side-effects.

About filters we learnt that:

• Fast filters start killing notes very few KHz higher in frequency from the filter’s inception frequency.
• Slow filters oppositely let notes of much higher frequencies vs their inception frequency pass through.
• Linear filters (be they fast or slow) add some note imperfection called ringing both before and after the notes
• Minimum phase filters (be they fast or slow) add stronger ringing after the notes, but none before them.

Finally, we noted that the human auditory system has some modest physiological post-ringing, but no pre-ringing.

So in summary: filters do kill unwanted ultrasonic frequencies but they introduce some issues while doing that, so there’s a tradeoff to be found between how strict is the filter and how much of we can afford bear, or even we appreciate, filter’s drawbacks.

To make an example of such tradeoff let’s go back to the graph we originally used to learn how these filters macroscopically work. Here it is, do you remember it?

The specific case is an ordinary CD-quality 44.1KHz digital track.

Which will be the pros and cons of those 3 filters ? Try yourself !

Size Sampling frequency matters

It’s not entirely accurate to take 20KHz as the top frequency that matters to our purpose of an optimal music reproduction.

While it is in facts true that no human hear can perceive sounds higher than 20Khz frequency (and only being young, too!), it is also true that music is not made of sounds only, but also of timing.

Information about silences (their length), echoes (their timings) etc, can involve frequencies much beyond 20Khz. Sileces, echoes etc are what adds spatial accents to the sound.

Of course not all digital tracks will be sophisticated enough to even contain such high(er) frequency space-related information in the first place. A bad recording is a bad recording, and do we want to talk about bad mastering? Sheesh.

Also, it does take a not too ordinary DAC to appropriately make use of such >20KHz (see my article about Apogee Groove for an example, and some hint on the reasons for this).

When talking in general terms as we are doing today, however, we must appreciate that frequencies above 20Khz are not easily expendable as one may think at first.

Which of course makes our filters story even more dramatic. If you read back the conclusions of the previous chapter – those commenting on the pros and cons of the Green / Red / Purple filters we used for training – this is the reason why I underlined that all three filters would harm soundstage a bit.

Now on to some good news, for a change.

Suppose we have our digital tracks sampled at sample rate much higher than ordinary CD-quality. Let’s say they are at 96Khz.

The DAC will start producing its ultrasonic artifacts starting from (remember?) one half of that, so in this case artifacts will not have frequencies lower than 96/2 = 48Khz.

That’s a lot above our human hearing upper limit, and also up quite enough to let most if not all those high(er) frequency samples partaking to spatial cues that we mentioned just before.

Connecting more dots

If we can count on digital tracks sampled at rates much higher than 44.1KHz, then the situation changes when it comes to the pros and cons of fast and slow filters.

Let’s recycle our training case: the green / red / purple filters. Let’s assume the track is sampled at 96Khz instead of 44.1KHz this time. Artefacts will start to appear from 48KHz on up.

The Green filter would in this case drop dead at 48KHz, killing all artefacts. Perfect like before. It would start from 4Khz lower, so from 44KHz. Unlike the previous case, this would not harm treble air, nor likely spatial-related frequencies at all. Perfect (thanks to the higher incoming sampling rate!). As a fast, minimum phase filter there would be some just modest post ringing. Good!

The Red filter would drop dead at 50KHz so it would let 2KHz open for Ultrasonic images. Not totally welcome yet surely unaudible. Fold-back images would be there, but too far off from audibility threshold for some to pass it. Nice-ish. Inception would be at 45KHz so still zero harm to treble tones nor to treble air, and hardly any chance of chopping on soundstange. Good. Still a fast linear filter so its pre-ringing smoothing notes down would be there. So-so (tastes dependent).

The Purple filter would drop dead at 54KHz so even more (unaudible but potentially harmful) ultrasonic artefacts and little to none of their IMDs would reach down enough to fold-back into audibility. Not so good. Inception at 44KHz so again zero harm to treble notes, treble air and likely to soundstage too. Good. It’s a linear filter so smoothing notes down due to pre-ringing. So-so (tastes dependent).

Choices

So in the end which reconstruction filter would I choose – if given the option of course ?

Like in many other aspects of audio (and of life)… it depends.

First and foremost, it depends on the the digital music’s sample rate. Sarting from higher up, fold-back images generated by the slow filter will hardly if ever fall into audible range. Which makes a slow filter’s main benefit – its significantly more modest ringing – a much more “affordable” option of course.

This is so much true that whenever at all possible and doable at a decent technical level, up sampling lower rate (44.1/48KHz) tracks onto at least twice the rate is a no brainer to me!

Another discriminating element to consider is one’s preference in terms of note transients. I do tend to prefer short transients, cleaner timbres. Therefore I sharply lean towards minimum phase filters, which unlike linear filters are immune from pre-ringing.

When my tracks are desperately 44.1KHz, and my transport does not give me a [viable] up sampling option, then I’m kinda forced to opt for a fast filter of course. Which will generate much stronger ringing compared to the slow alternative, and will make minimum phase even more desireable vs linear!

Lastly, all of the above is to be taken “in principle”, and not necessarily “in practice”, as the path going from principles to practice passes through actuality, in our case it pass through the particular DAC devices we actually have available. Our DAC may not offer a choice of different filters. Or, may offer only a very restricted choice. Or even may offer various filters of which some well implemented and others badly implemented.

Very long story short: the above is how it should work. How it does work can only be told by our ears – with good peace of all die-hard objectivists.

The post Reconstruction Filters For Dummies appeared first on Music For The Masses.

Logitech Media Server is a piece of software, and it’s well described here: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Logitech_Media_Server

The highlights:

• It gets music files or streams from a plethora of diverse origins (files on local storage, files from private or public cloud storage, streams from other private streaming platforms eg another LMS or from public services eg Spotify, Tidal, Qobuz…), transcodes formats if need be, and streams/sends the songs towards compatible “renderers”, i.e. music players which in their turn feed the actual audio hw (DAC -> AMP -> Transducer)
• It’s available for Windows, Mac and of course Linux, including a few specialised Linux distributions
• It therefore runs on “usual” X386/64 hw, Apple hw, and – what matters most – on a huge array of low cost and especially low power consuming SBCs (Single Board Computers)
• Considering today’s available hw performance level, its system (CPU/RAM etc) requirements for an even fancy home setup are unbelievably low
• It’s free (GNU)

LMS does not “play music”, it just collects music, and manages its stock and access, and distributes them to the actual music players (the “renderes”).

As a “renderer” you can use either a preconfigured hardware device e.g. a Chromecast, a Squeezebox, etc which can be reached via various channels like wired ethernet, wifi ethernet, BT, AirpPlay and protocols like DLNA etc, or you can install a compatible receiver software on a general purpose system e.g. your pc, your Mac, your xbox, etc, or finally you can build a “hardware rendering device” from scracth, which is indeed my case and the good news is that it is way less complicated than it seems.

The physical system acting as LMS server may also have a Renderer inside, to “manage files, and play them out” from the same machine. Even in such case though that machine will keep being able to stream audio to other external Renderers.

While streaming audio to Renders, LMS can also manage keeping them “in sync”, resulting in simultaneous music playout in different rooms, for example.

So summarising:

• LMS is “the server”, the manager of the whole system. It cllects and indexes music files, makes them browsable, and sends (“streams”) them to companion devices called “Renderers”.
• The Renderers are the devices which get digital music data streams from LMS and push them into a locally connected DAC>AMP>Speaker/HP/IEM stack.

How I deployed it

No I won’t write a full book on the infinite ways to deploy an LMS infrastructure. I’ll just describe how my own infrastructure has been organised, for you to take inspiration

My LMS is running on an SBC-class computer.

In my specific case we’re talking about a BananaPi M2+ (recently upgraded from a NanoPi NEO2 , which is now dedicated to other tasks) but it could easily be “any” RaspberryPi, or dozens of similar alternatives.

My Banana-LMS server is wired-connected to my main home network switch.

Another SBC-class server is acting as a general file server for my home needs, that’s where my digital music files are deposited, and my Banana-LMS accesses them via NFS. In a simpler setup, I could plug a USB drive right onto Banana-LMS of course.

Once installed, the LMS server publishes an HTML interface. Which means that from any one of my PCs, or Laptops, or wifi devices (phones, tablets, daps…) I can access it as long as I can browse onto its address.

LMS creates an index of all music files on the storage, much like any “media manager” application does (including those inside DAPs).

Let’s now suspend the LMS description for a sec, and pass on to the Renderers.

Renderers

My first Renderer was is – guess what – a RaspberryPi Zero W.

As you read above, a Renderer is a device which takes the digital music data from the LMS server and sends them to the actual DAC. To do so, some sort of “music player” application is required. My choice on that is PiCorePlayer which I like as it offers two great features at the same time: it’s super-easy to install, and it sounds wonderfully well.

PiCorePlayer on Linux platform is distributed complete with a bare-bones Linux distribution, ready to work and do its job – and its job only – at the best of the hosting hardware ability. The maximally stripped-down, highly-optimised nature of PiCorePlayer’s underlying Linux distro is crucial to its performance as a low noise music player.

It’s good to note that PiCorePlayer also optionally carries LMS built in. That means that in an even simpler situation I could have avoided keeping a standalone Banana-LMS device acting as a server, and I could have elected one or my Renderers to the role of Renderer and Server for itself, and for all others.

Once at least one Renderer (the PiCorePlayer) is installed and running, I can go back onto LMS’s webpage – called from a phone, while sitting on the sofa – and I’ll see a Renderer available in my network. At that point I can browse and choose a song from LMS’s visual index, a Renderer to send it to, and click PLAY.

I have a total of 3 RPi-base Renderers active right now.

Allo

My first Renderer is the aforementioned RaspberryPi ZeroW, and it’s called Allo, at it hosts an Allo MiniBoss I2C DAC card.

Such mini-network-DAC box is subsequently connected to an Allo Volt+ amp box, giving juice to a pair of Roth Audio OLIRA1 bookshelvers. Depending on my seasonal feelings, the Allo renderer and its downstream line is either installed in a sitting corner in my livingroom, or takes some place on my desk and around it as a nearfield setup, for some non-overpretentious-quality audio output.

Groovy

My second PiCorePlayer-based Renderer is a Raspberry model 3B+, which is sitting on my desk, next to my PC.

To this Renderer one of my Groove units is normally plugged in, and it’s the resource I tap onto when I want to enjoy some specific drivers directly paired to the Groove. Hence the name “Groovy”

Indeed, Groovy is also what I typically use as a realiable, reasonably-clean USB host to audition other USB-input DACs or DAC/AMPs that I happen to receive from time to time.

Fun

The third PiCorePlayer Renderer is named “Fun”, and it’s based on a more recent RaspberryPi model 4B.

This is the support device for my “main desktop stack” for headphones at the moment, ending into my Burson Fun headphone amp – hence of course the name given to the PCP device.

Cutting the laptop out

Until some time ago I used to have a 4th Rendering point represented by my Windows Laptop itself. You do that by installing a windows app called SqueezeLite-X, which takes care of talking to the backend LMS server – much like a PiCorePlayer does. I used to, as I said, then more recently I quit using my laptop as a host for musical playing for good.

Long story short: the level of perturbance generated on a multipurpose, multimedia, gaming-level laptop like mine is significant. While a filter like the iFi Nano iUSB 3.0 undoubtedly helps reducing much of that, it’s nevertheless quite evident that cutting the problem at the source instead of fixing it later is a smarter option, when available! So I quit employing a noisy platform like a laptop in the first place, and now excluisively adopt less-noisy-to-begin-with ones for my musical pleasures.

More about LMS

So LMS allows me to browse my local digital music collection, and “play out” my preferred tracks on any of my connected Renderers.

I can reach that and browse through it via a normal web browser, or a nice number of supporting apps – either fully dedicated ones (e.g. OrangeSqueeze or others, available on Google Play) or multi purpose ones (e.g. UAPP, Neutron, HiBy Music, or any other app featuring DLNA-Controller capabilities)

If music tracks are decently tagged LMS also does some nice job in terms of music collection presentation. You can also have it acquire and cache album art, album and artist info, and even lyrics from various online resources.

If you access it via a browser you can choose the GUI “skin” you prefer, or customise your own if you are skilled enough. The UI is not remotely as phantasmagorical as on higher rank systems like Roon, but still quite pleasing nonetheless, with the non-secondary side-benefit of being… free!

And there’s more: a host of additional features can be activated / removed in forms of plugins.  Some examples:

Format conversion. LMS can convert to/from countless digital formats “on the fly”, i.e. while actually sending the file to the Renderer (and the DAC attached to it). So for example it can convert (e.g.) a DSF 128 track into a 24 bit / 176.4KHz PCM FLAC file while sending it to an endpoint which won’t natively be able to decode the DSF itself. Big caveat: this does require quite some muscle! My BananaPi-LMS does not have enough for that, for example. So for all DSD-level tracks I have, I took care of creating their relevant PCM (FLAC) version, and stored it as an alternative version of the same album on my NAS, and let LMS access them too.

Tidal, Spotify, Qobuz integration. Adding account credentials to LMS, it will connect to those services and make them available for browsing from within its GUI, and for reforwarding to the Renderers – just like it happens for any local-resident digital track.

UPnP / DLNA integration. I partially already covered this above. Any DLNA-capable mobile device (phone, tablet, dap, etc) can home interact with LMS. If the device only has DLNA-client support, you can only use it as a sort of Renderer – i.e., you need another device to browse LMS and push music from LMS into the DLNA-client device. If the device has full DLNA-controller support, instead, then it will be able to browse LMS in full authonomy, and call tracks to play onto itself. This – of course – can happen from “inside home”, and from “outside home”, provided you made your LMS accessible from the outside of course, and that your outgoing internet bandwidth is at least decent.

Airplay integration, Webradio integration, etc etc etc

Summary and conclusions

So, summarising: Logitech Media Server can be the heart and the brain of an entire domestic audio infrastructure.

What it ultimately offered me is:

• A centralised visual database of all my local digital audio material
• Some nice integration with extra artist / track information
• Access from within home, and from outside (via VPN).
• An “easy” way to keep digital audio transport off from general purpose computer hardware and OS (higher audio quality)

All this at an extremely low cost profile: LMS and its various Rendering companion sw packages are free of licenses, they can run on ARM-based hardware which is both inexpensive to buy (compared to an X86/X64 class alternative) and to electrically power up.

LMS served me well as my main audio infrastructure until a few months ago, when I switched over to Roon. I’ll write another piece on that… soon(tm).

The post A Logitech Media Server / LMS Infrastructure (Update) appeared first on Music For The Masses.

Introduction

The Apogee Groove is a very good sounding “dongle” DAC/amp that replaces a desktop stack for many. It draws its current from the source device and has a rather high output impedance of 20 ohm (the competition is typically < 1 ohm), which makes it problematic for use with low-impedance iems. The manufacturer does not recommend using it with multidriver iems either.

Whilst the laws of physics appear to limit the Apogee Groove’s use, there are some welcome exceptions to the rule(s)…which will be discussed in the following.

General Considerations

The 1/8 Rule

If you multiply the output impedance of your source by eight, that’s the lowest impedance headphones you should use with that source. For example, the Apogee Groove with its 20 ohm output impedance should be paired with  >160 ohm headphones.

What if the Output Impedance violates the 1/8 Rule? 

There will be variations in the headphone’s frequency response. With some headphones, especially balanced armature or multi driver designs, these variations can be rather extreme. Typical is bloated, boomy bass as the headphone does not get enough power.

Why are BA Drivers problematic (Multis and even single BAs)? 

With some headphones, especially balanced armature or multidriver designs, these variations can be rather extreme. Example: these headphones usually have a rated impedance between 16 and 32 ohm but their actual impedance typically varies greatly with frequency. The 21 ohm Ultimate Ears SuperFi 5, for example, ranges from 10 ohms to 90 ohms. These wide variations frequently interact in unfavourable ways with the output Impedance of the source. 

What about single DD Drivers? 

The impedance variations across the frequency spectrum are not as severe as with BAs…or there is no variation at all.

Apogee Groove only

What is different for the Apogee Groove with single DDs?

The 1/8 rule can be disregarded for single DDs with the Apogee Groove, thanks to Apogee’s special “Constant Current Drive” tech, and not even “in every single pair case”.  The CCD technology compensates for impedance mismatches between source and headphones. Without CCD tech all sub 100 ohm drivers you’d connect would have a very noticeable mid bass bump. Apogee Groove won’t alter FR when driving low impedance loads, or higher impedance ones featuring wild impedance swings.

What is different for the Apogee Groove with BAs and Multidrivers?

We would expect the Groove’s high output impedance to alter the BA’s/multidrivers’ frequency responses.

Apogee themselves advise against the use of multidriver BAs and crossover networks as their “Constant Current Drive” technology may result in uneven frequency response when used with certain models.”

Their impedance mismatch compensation does not work with many multidriver BAs. But why? 

There may be a conflict between crossover filters (using capacitors) and CCD. The technology may work with non-capacitive filters …or some other trick. 

I speculate the the Groove has a better chance of compensating for impedance variations in BAs, if these are not extravagant. Would be interesting to compare the impedance profiles of such BAs that work and some that don’t.

BUT: unless you compare frequency responses measured using Apogee Groove against a low-impedance amp, you don’t know wether your frequency response was skewed, as the deviations may not be that audibly obvious in some cases…considering our generally poor auditory memory and our expectation bias.

Hope this all makes sense to you.

Until next time…keep on listening!

Sources used

Discussion with Alberto and Kazi. Photos by Kazi.

http://nwavguy.blogspot.com/2011/02/headphone-impedance-explained.html

http://nwavguy.blogspot.com/2011/02/headphone-amp-impedance.html

Contact us!

The post The 1/8 Rule And The Apogee Groove – A Tech Discussion appeared first on Music For The Masses.

This article has had 151,367 views as of 2023-12-28.

The eartips are listed in alphabetical order.

Latest Additions

March 2024 additions: SoundMAGIC Silicone Eartips (Pumpkin-shape), ICE CLEAR Earphone Plug, Azla SednaEarfit XELASTEC II, Azla SednaEarfit Max ASMR (Standard), Azla SednaEarfit Foamax (Standard), INfiter Variety Dot IE45 Short for TWS (Dow Corning silicone and graphene), INfiter Variety Dot IE45 Short for TWS (Dow Corning silicone), Nfiter Variety Dot IE45Pro Short for TWS (Black), Nfiter Variety Dot IE45Pro Short for TWS (Clear), INfiter WS38 for TWS (Clear white), INfiter WS43 for TWS (Clear blue).

February 2024 additions: Azla SednaEarfit ORIGIN for In-Ear Monitor & TWS, Jomo Audio ONYX Double Flanges Premium Silicone Eartips (For IEMs), Penon Audio Liqueur Silicone Eartips (Black), Penon Audio Liqueur Silicone Eartips (Orange).

January 2024 addition: Z Reviews Render Eartips.

Testing Parameters and Disclaimer

The following tests of silicone eartips are based on my evaluations and listening observations. All test are conducted in a quiet listening environment. Fit is ensured such that eartips are properly inserted and seated into the ear canal with good seal. I have to elaborate, your experiences may vary.

Associated equipment list: Sources – Luxury & Precision W4, Questyle M15 and Sony WM-A105. IEMs – 7Hz Timeless, 7Hz Salnotes Zero, 7Hz Sonus, Tanchjim Oxygen and Moondrop Blessing 2.

Disclaimer: All scores are subjected to change without notice. I may update or add new scores every few months when I acquire new eartips.

NOTE: I don’t have favorite eartips but if I want neutrality, SpinFits CP-145 is my first pick usually. For IEM tuning, I always use reversed KZ Starline, follow by stock eartips from the manufacturer. 

A

Acoustune AEX07

Bore size: regular
Stem length: regular
Feel: sturdy and firm
Bass: 3.50
Midrange: 5.00
Treble: 4.25
Soundstage: 3.75
Vocal presence: 4.00

For neutral tonality with emphasis in midrange. The AEX07 sounds closer to AET07a than AET07. Improved overall tonal texture and clarity over the latter. Note weight is is denser than AET07a however it sounds less congested than AET07. A good middle-ground between its two predecessors. My new favorite Acoustune eartip.

Purchased from MTMT Audio, Hong Kong.

Acoustune AET06
Bore size: double flange, regular
Stem length: extremely short
Feel: firm and sturdy
Bass: 5.0
Midrange: 5
Treble: 4
Soundstage: 3.75
Vocal presence: 5
Similar to AET08 in many ways but with an even tighter bass punch. Vocal is bodied and three-dimensional
Purchased from MTMT Audio, Hong Kong.

Acoustune AET06a (Enhanced comfort)
Bore size: double flange, regular
Stem length: extremely short
Feel: firm and pliable (slightly softer than AET06a)
Bass: 4.75
Midrange: 5
Treble: 4.25
Soundstage: 3.75
Vocal presence: 5
Virtually identical to AET06 with a hair bit cleaner and more sparkling upper-midrange and treble. Feels softer than AET06 thus less pressure inside the ears.
Purchased from MTMT Audio, Hong Kong.

Acoustune AET07
Bore size: regular
Stem length: regular
Feel: sturdy and firm
Bass: 3.75
Midrange: 5
Treble: 4
Soundstage: 3.5
Vocal presence: 4
For neutral tonality with emphasis in midrange. Similar to SpinFit CP-145 in many ways but with better bass texture and vocal presence.
Purchased from Japan through a friend

Acoustune AET07a
Bore size: regular
Stem length: regular
Feel: sturdy and firm
Bass: 3.75
Midrange: 5
Treble: 4
Soundstage: 3.5
Vocal presence: 4.25
Slight improvement over Acoustune AET07 in texture, detail, tonal purity and vocal clarity.
Purchased from MTMT Audio, Hong Kong

Acoustune AET08
Bore size: regular
Stem length: regular
Feel: firm and sturdy
Bass: 4.5
Midrange: 5
Treble: 3.5
Soundstage: 3.5
Vocal presence: 5
For vocal, midrange and solid bass
Purchased from Japan through a friend

Acoustune AEX07

Bore size: regular
Stem length: regular
Feel: sturdy and firm
Bass: 3.50
Midrange: 5.00
Treble: 4.25
Soundstage: 3.75
Vocal presence: 4.00

For neutral tonality with emphasis in midrange. The AEX07 sounds closer to AET07a than AET07. Improved overall tonal texture and clarity over the latter. Note weight is is denser than AET07a however it sounds less congested than AET07. A good middle-ground between its two predecessors. My new favorite Acoustune eartip.

Purchased from MTMT Audio, Hong Kong.

Acoustune AEX50

Bore size: wide
Stem length: regular 
Feel: soft and sturdy
Bass: 1.50
Midrange: 2.50
Treble: 4.25
Soundstage: 3.75
Vocal presence: 3.50

Acoustune AEX50

Bore size: wide
Stem length: regular 
Feel: soft and sturdy
Bass: 1.50
Midrange: 2.50
Treble: 4.25
Soundstage: 3.75
Vocal presence: 3.50

What was Acoustune thinking when they came out these?! 

These eartips are “directional” (meaning you must wear them in a certain way) and a pain in the butt to put on. You need lots of patience and time to get them to sit well inside the ears. Getting the proper “ear seal” is nearly impossible. There is literally zero isolation. The design adopts a WW2 helmet-like umbrella shape with double “wings” design. The wide wing is to face the inner-part of the entrance to the ear canal, and the narrow wing facing out (see attached photos). 

Unfortunately, I couldn’t get them to fit in my ears properly not matter how hard I tried. Although made of soft memory polymer, they become uncomfortable, irritating and warm inside my ears after a while.

Sound-wise, these eartips thin the sound so much that they make your TOTL IEMs sound like 1950s transistor radio. Everything sounds distant, lean and sibilance. 

Purchased from MTMT Audio, Hong Kong.

Acoustune AEX70
Bore size: regular
Stem length: regular
Feel: soft and pliable
Bass: 3.50
Midrange: 4.50
Treble: 4.25
Soundstage: 4.25
Vocal presence: 4.00

Another addition to the new Acoustune AEX family. To me, these sound the most open and airy among the AEX members. Tonality and note weight are lighter than AEX07, as well as the older AET07. Overall, the AEX70 sounds cleaner and clearer than both AEX07 and AET07.

Purchased from MTMT Audio, Hong Kong.

ADV Eartune Fidelity U Elliptical Silicone Eartips (horizontal fit)
Bore size: small (4mm)
Stem length: short
Feel: flexible, soft and pliable
Bass: 3.5
Midrange: 4
Treble: 3.5
Soundstage: 2.5
Vocal presence: 3.5
An interesting elliptical eartip which fits two ways and can affect sound. The not so interesting part is it projects a smaller soundstage and vocals get thrown backwards. In both fittings, I experienced quite significant treble roll-off and details lost. Isolation is NOT GOOD!
Sample from ADVSound, courtesy of co-blogger Baskingshark.

ADV Eartune Fidelity U Elliptical Silicone Eartips (vertical fit)
Bore size: small (4mm)
Stem length: short
Feel: flexible, soft and pliable
Bass: 3.0
Midrange: 3.5
Treble: 3.5
Soundstage: 2.5
Vocal presence: 3.5
An interesting elliptical eartip which fits two ways and can affect sound. The not so interesting part is it projects a smaller soundstage and vocals get thrown backwards. In both fittings, I experienced quite significant treble roll-off and details lost. Isolation is NOT GOOD!
Sample from ADVSound, courtesy of co-blogger Baskingshark.

AKG Anti-allergenic Sleeves for K3003
Bore size: regular
Stem length: regular
Feel: soft and firm
Bass: 4.25
Midrange: 5.0
Treble: 4
Soundstage: 3.75
Vocal presence: 5.0
Yes, it is called “anti-allergenic sleeves”. If you can find these at your local earphone stores, GET IT! These sound extremely close to Azla SednaEarFit XELASTEC but at half the cost. If you are not used to the grippiness or tackiness of the XELASTEC, AKG is the best alternative. Vocal is forward with very good dimension and ambience. 3D. Best of all it doesn’t affect bass and treble.
Purchase from a friend who bought from AKG outlet in Germany

ALPEX Hi-Unit HSE-A1000
Bore size: wide
Stem length: short
Feel: soft and pliable
Bass: 4.25
Midrange: 4.25
Treble: 4.50
Soundstage: 4.0
Vocal presence: 4.25
These wide bore eartips bear an uncanny resemblance to JVC Spiral Dot in look but they don’t sound alike. The HSE-A1000 is brighter, more open and livelier. Midrange has more sparkle and life. The bass is cleaner, tighter and more textured. Best of all, they cost only a fraction of the JVC. I am surprised how good these are. What a hidden gem!
Purchased from Amazon Japan

Audiosense S400 Soft Silicone Eartips
Bore size: regular
Stem length: short
Feel: flexible and firm
Bass: 4.25
Midrange: 5.0
Treble: 4.0
Soundstage: 4.0
Vocal presence: 4.5
Both Baskingshark and Vannak Pech are fans of this eartip. It adds “round-meatiness” (a.k.a smoothness and body) to the music without clouding the low-mids. Vocals can be a tad forward but still very pleasant. I would rank its sonic signatures between SpinFit CP-145 and Final Audio Type E eartips. Similar to SpinFits, it has a pivoting cap design.
Purchased from Audiosense Official Store on AliExpress

Audio-Technica FineFit ER-CKM55M
Bore size: small
Stem length: regular
Feel: soft and flrm
Bass: 4
Midrange: 4.5
Treble: 3.5
Soundstage: 3
Vocal presence: 4
Bassy eartips that accentuates on vocal. Soundstage is smaller than most tips.
Purchased from Stereo Electronics (Singapore)

Azla SednaEarFit Crystal (Standard)

Bore size: regular
Stem length: regular
Feel: soft, grippy and sticky
Bass: 3.5
Midrange: 5.0
Treble: 4.25
Soundstage: 4.0
Vocal presence: 5.0

Another pricey eartip offering from Azla. Feels just like XELASTEC. Both XELASTEC and Crystal excel in the midrange and vocals. Their most obvious differences are in the upper-mids and mid-bass range where Crystal adds a touch more instrument presence, separation and space. Mid-bass is cleaner and clearer than XELASTEC yet doesn’t sacrifice warmth and body. It is good to note that Crystal does not have the upper-midrange “ringing” that plagues XELASTEC.
Purchased from Amazon Japan

Azla SednaEarfit Crystal (for TWS)
Bore size: regular
Stem length: short
Feel: soft, grippy and sticky
Bass: 3.5
Midrange: 5.0
Treble: 4.25
Soundstage: 4.0
Vocal presence: 5.0

Another pricey eartip offering from Azla. Feels similar to XELASTEC but with a shallower in-ear fit. Both XELASTEC and Crystal excel in the midrange and vocals. Their most obvious differences are in the upper-mids and mid-bass range where Crystal adds a touch more instrument presence, separation and space. Mid-bass is cleaner and clearer than XELASTEC yet doesn’t sacrifice warmth and body. It is good to note that Crystal does not have the upper-midrange “ringing” that plagues XELASTEC. Can be used for both IEM and TWS.

Purchased from MTMT Audio, Hong Kong

Azla SednaEarfit Foamax (Standard)
Bore size: wide bore with Waxguard.
Stem length: regular
Feel: medium density firmness and spongy

Bass: 4.50
Midrange: 5.00
Treble: 4.00
Soundstage: 3.50
Vocal presence: 5.00

I came across the SednaEarfit Foamax ear tips and was intrigued by users who claimed they were a superior alternative to the significantly more expensive Sony EP-NI1000M. If these claims hold true, Azla could have a major success on their hands.

In terms of sound quality, the SednaEarfit Foamax offers a crisper and clearer soundscape compared to the Sony. Vocals are more prominent and detailed, and the treble boasts a touch more vibrancy. However, the bass performance and soundstage are largely comparable between the two.

The SednaEarfit Foamax feels softer and plusher than the Sony, thanks to its slow rebound foam that regains its shape completely within 30 seconds. Additionally, the built-in mesh avoids causing any discomfort to the ear canal, unlike the Comply’s own Waxguard.

So, is the SednaEarfit Foamax better than the Sony EP-NI1000M? While I believe they offer a compelling alternative at a significantly lower price point, I personally favor the Sony’s more balanced sound signature. Nevertheless, considering they cost slightly more than half the price of the Sony, SednaEarfit Foamax is definitely worth considering.

Purchased from Amazon Japan

Azla SednaEarfit Max ASMR (Standard)
Bore size: narrow bore with Waxguard, short cap
Stem length: regular
Feel: firm and flexible

Bass: 4.50
Midrange: 4.50
Treble: 3.50
Soundstage: 3.25
Vocal presence: 5.00

This eartip, the narrow bore version of the SednaEarFit Max, offers a distinct variation within the family. Compared to its sibling, SednaEarFit Max ASMR tightens the sound, resulting in a smaller perceived soundstage. However, it compensates with a more precise and focused sonic image. Additionally, it delivers superior tonal density, improved textural clarity, and richer vocals. As the name suggests, vocals are emphasized and brought forward in the mix, creating a sense of intimacy. However, there is a trade-off in the form of reduced treble extension and a lack of high-frequency sparkle. This translates to a smoother and more natural but potentially less detailed listening experience overall.

Purchased from Amazon Japan

Azla SednaEarfit ORIGIN for In-Ear Monitor & TWS
Bore size: regular, tapered to a wide opening
Stem length: long
Feel: firm and flexible

Bass: 5.00
Midrange: 4.50
Treble: 3.50
Soundstage: 4.00
Vocal presence: 4.75

The ORIGIN eartips are, without a doubt, the most bass-forward I’ve ever encountered. But fear not, bassheads, because this is a good thing! They deliver a satisfying low-end rumble that’s surprisingly free from bloat and muddiness. While they might not pack the same punchy, dynamic punch as the Penon Audio Liqueur black eartips, the ORIGIN compensates with a smooth, fluid presentation for vocals, offering a truly captivating listening experience. However, there’s a catch. While the lower frequencies are a feast, the upper treble frequencies exhibit a slight roll-off, meaning they lack some sparkle and airiness. So, if you crave razor-sharp highs, these might not be your best bet. Overall, if you’re a bass aficionado who values smooth vocals, the ORIGIN eartips are definitely worth considering. They excel at creating a rich and immersive listening experience, but may not be the ideal choice for those seeking a more analytical or balanced sound signature. Perfect eartips pairing for Simgot IEMs especially with EA1000.

Purchased from Amazon Japan.

Azla Sedna EarFit (Regular)
Bore size: wide
Stem length: long
Feel: sturdy and very firm
Bass: 4
Midrange: 4.5
Treble: 4
Soundstage: 3.75
Vocal presence: 4.5
For long nozzle good midrange
Purchased from Amazon Japan

Azla SednaEarFit Short

Bore size: wide
Stem length: regular
Feel: sturdy and very firm
Bass: 3.75
Midrange: 4.50
Treble: 3.75
Soundstage: 3.75
Vocal presence: 4.50

Imagine the SednaEarFit Regular but with the stem chopped down a bit. These shorter SednaEarFits bring the music closer to your ears, making everything sound crisper, clearer and a bit more forward. They offer a similar experience to the SednaEarFit Light Short but with a delicate overall sound.

Purchased from Amazon Japan.

Azla Sedna EarFit (Light)
Bore size: wide
Stem length: long
Feel: sturdy and very firm
Bass: 3.75
Midrange: 4
Treble: 3.5
Soundstage: 3.75
Vocal presence: 4.25
A “lighter” version of the regular Sedna EarFit. More balanced-sounding overall.
Purchased from Amazon Japan

Azla SednaEarFit (Light) Short
Bore size: wide
Stem length: regular
Feel: sturdy and very firm
Bass: 3.75
Midrange: 4.25
Treble: 3.75
Soundstage: 3.75
Vocal presence: 4.5
A “short-stem” version of SednaEarFitLight. Both nozzles are brought closer to the eardrums thus enhancement in overall clarity and vocal presence, which means stereo image and presentation are slightly more forward.
Purchased from MTMT Audio, Hong Kong

Azla SednaEarFit Max (Standard)

Bore size: wide (with waxguard)
Stem length: regular
Feel: sturdy and firm

Bass: 4.50
Midrange: 3.50
Treble: 3.50
Soundstage: 3.00
Vocal presence: 3.50

Another highly-requested eartips from the audiophile community. However, just like its TWS sibling, these are not my favorite! First of all, their fitting is awful. It is too short for my ear canal. Second, I am not a fan of having waxguard inside the nozzle. And finally, why people like these are the main reasons for my dislikes. They introduce too much bass and mid-bass boost. The treble clarity and extension are suppressed and restricted. Vocals have a thick nasally undertone and are pushed forward. Overall, these present an average tonality that is surpassed by many cheaper eartips. If you haven’t purchased these, save your money. Azla SednaEarFit (Light) Short is better. It is another déjà vu moment for me with SednaEarfit Max series.

Purchased from Amazon, Singapore.

Azla SednaEarFit Max (for TWS)

Bore size: wide (with waxguard)
Stem length: regular
Feel: sturdy and firm
Bass: 4.50
Midrange: 3.50
Treble: 3.50
Soundstage: 3.00
Vocal presence: 4.00

I was “urged” to review these eartips and I can understand why so many people like it. However, these are not my favorite! First of all, their fitting is awful. It is too short for my ear canal. Second, I am not a fan of having waxguard inside the nozzle. And finally, why people like these are the main reasons for my dislikes. They introduce too much bass and mid-bass boost. The treble clarity and extension are suppressed as well. Vocals have a thick nasally undertone and are pushed forward. Overall, these present an average tonality that is surpassed by many cheaper eartips. If you haven’t purchased these, save your money. Azla SednaEarFit (Light) Short is better in my opinion.

Purchased from MTMT Audio, Hong Kong

Azla SednaEarFit Vivid Edition

Bore size: narrow 
Stem length: regular
Feel: sturdy and very firm
Bass: 4.25
Midrange: 4.50
Treble: 4.25
Soundstage: 3.75
Vocal presence: 4.75

At first glance, these look like colourful version of SednaEarFitLight Short. Upon close examination, they are very different in looks, feel and sound. SednaEarFit Vivid Edition feels softer and plusher. It has a narrower bore and sounds livelier than SednaEarFit Light Short. Bass is punchier, better texture and definition. Vocals sound cleaner, clearer and slightly forward. Upper-registers are brighter and slightly more extended than SednaEarFitLight Short. This eartips definitely deserve the “Vivid Edition” title. Not suitable for bright or shouty IEMs. 

Purchased from MTMT Audio, Hong Kong

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

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

Azla SednaEarfit XELASTEC II
Bore size: regular, with Waxguard
Stem length: regular
Feel: firm and grippy

Bass: 4.00
Midrange: 5.00
Treble: 4.00
Soundstage: 4.00
Vocal presence: 5.00

Compared to its predecessor, XELASTEC II offers a less sticky, dust-resistant surface. The flexible Waxguard improves the sound with smoother treble and reduced upper-midrange glare, all while preserving the core strengths of the original. For fans of the original XELASTEC who prefer a less sticky feel, XELASTEC II is the perfect choice.

Purchased from Amazon JP

B

BGVP A07 Eartips
Bore size: regular
Stem length: regular
Feel: sturdy and firm
Bass: 3.75
Midrange: 5
Treble: 4
Soundstage: 3.5
Vocal presence: 4.25
Suspiciously similar to Acoustune AET07. Heck… It sounds closer to AET07a than AET07. Neutral tonality with emphasis in midrange and top-end sparkle. I find this eartip to have better bass texture, dynamics and vocal presence than SpinFit CP100 and CP145. The A07 is often labeled as “vocal” eartip for most stock tips offering.Purchased from BGVP Taobao store

BGVP A08 Eartips
Bore size: regular
Stem length: regular
Feel: firm and sturdy
Bass: 4.5
Midrange: 5
Treble: 3.5
Soundstage: 3.5
Vocal presence: 5
Suspiciously similar to Acoustune AET08, this eartip adds thickness to bass and midrange. However, unlike Acoustune AET08, I find it a speck bright. The A08 is often labeled as “bass” eartip for most stock tips offering.Purchased from BGVP Taobao store

BGVP Electric Blue “ArtMagic VG4” Silicone Vocal Eartip
Bore size: regular 
Stem length: regular
Feel: soft and flexible
Bass: 3.5
Midrange: 5.0
Treble: 4.25
Soundstage: 4.0
Vocal presence: 4.0This eartip comes stock with BGVP ArtMagic VG4, ArtMagic V12 and DH3, labeled under “vocal” eartip. Highly-praised by Singaporean audiophile Reza Emmanuel as his standard reference, I must say this eartip is extremely comfortable, literally fatigue-free for long listening sessions.

Sound is clean, tight and very well-textured. Bass and low-mids are detailed, punchy and dynamic. Midrange is clear with excellent separation. Upper-mids and treble are smooth and extended with good amount of air and spacial cues. Vocal position is ‘just nice” – that is neither too forward nor too laid-back. Soundstage is realistically wide without sounding too spread-out. Similar to SpinFit, this eartip comes with a pivoting umbrella/cap.
Specially-ordered from BGVP Taobao Official Store as they do not sell this eartip individually. 

BGVP E01 Eartips
Bore size: regular
Stem length: regular
Feel: soft and sturdy
Bass: 4
Midrange: 5
Treble: 3.75
Soundstage: 4
Vocal presence: 4
Looks identical to Final Audio Type E eartips it has a balanced sound that tames harshness. I find it lacks the smoothness of original Final Audio Type E eartips. This style of eartip is often labeled as “balance” eartip for most stock tips offering.Purchased from BGVP Taobao store

BGVP S01 Eartips
Bore size: Very wide with narrow opening
Stem length: regular
Feel: firm and sturdy
Bass: 3.25
Midrange: 5
Treble: 5
Soundstage: 3.0
Vocal presence: 3.0
A very interesting eartip with an exceptionally wide nozzle and narrow opening. Treble is vastly emphasize with a hint of bass and midrange. Works very well for dull-sounding earphones but make sure you can fit it 6.5mm diameter bore.
Purchased from BGVP Taobao store

BVGP W01 Eartips
Bore size: wide
Stem length: short and stubby
Feel: short and flexible
Bass: 4.0
Midrange: 4.25
Treble: 3.75
Soundstage: 3.75
Vocal presence: 4.5Short stem and wide bore brings nozzle closer to the eardrums thus enhancement in overall clarity and vocal presence, which means stereo image and presentation are slightly more forward. A slight boost in mid-bass is noticeable. 
Purchased from BGVP Taobao store

BGVP Y01 Eartips
Bore size: Very wide with narrow opening
Stem length: regular
Feel: firm and sturdy
Bass: 3.75
Midrange: 5
Treble: 5
Soundstage: 3.0
Vocal presence: 3.0
A very interesting eartip with an exceptionally wide nozzle and narrow opening. Similar to BGVP S01 but with a smidgen more bass. Works well for dull-sounding earphones but make sure you can fit it 6.5mm diameter bore.
Purchased from BGVP Taobao store

C

Canal Works CW Dual Nozzle (CWU-DECM)
Bore size: wide / short cap
Stem length: short
Feel: soft and pliable
Bass: 3.25
Midrange: 4.5
Treble: 4
Soundstage: 3.5
Vocal presence: 3.75
For neutral tonality with slight bass reduction and laid-back vocal compared to SpinFit CP-145. Otherwise both sound quite similar.
Purchased from Japan through a friend

Canal Works CW Dual Nozzle 《肉球》”Nikukyuu” (CWU-GDECM)

Bore size: wide / short cap
Stem length: short
Feel: soft and pliable
Bass: 3.50
Midrange: 4.50
Treble: 4.00
Soundstage: 3.50
Vocal presence: 3.75

This eartip is basically Canal Works CW-DECM with silicone “gel” infused to the inner-cavity of the cap. For neutral tonality with improved bass weight, otherwise both the “gel” and “non-gel” versions sound quite similar.

Purchased from Amazon, Japan

Canal Works CW Single Nozzle (CWU-ECM)
Bore size: small
Stem length: short
Feel: sturdy and firm
Bass: 4.25
Midrange: 5
Treble: 5
Soundstage: 4
Vocal presence: 4.25
Eerily similar to Radius Deep Mount but with slightly less vocal presence and less transparent. Not suitable for bright earphones.
Purchased from Japan through a friend

Canal Works CW Single Nozzle 《肉球》”Nikukyuu” (CWU-GECM)

Bore size: narrow
Stem length: short
Feel: sturdy and firm
Bass: 4.75
Midrange: 5.00
Treble: 5.00
Soundstage: 4.00
Vocal presence: 4.50

This eartip is basically Canal Works CWU-ECM with silicone “gel” infused to the inner-cavity of the cap. Improved bass and lower-midrange over the “non-gel” version. Not suitable for bright-sounding earphones.

Purchased from Amazon, Japan

Canyon Silikon-Eartips ET400 (Bass)
Bore size: wide
Stem length: short
Feel: soft and firm
Bass: 3.50
Midrange: 3.25
Treble: 4.0
Soundstage: 4.50
Vocal presence: 3.0
Canyon is a German company however these eartips are made in China. Interestingly, I find these eartips very pleasing, especially in staging. The ET400 is laid back yet retains imaging scale and focus very well. Although the packaging says “bass”, the ET400 isn’t bassy or rumbly. I would classify it as balanced with a touch of midrange warmth.
Purchased from Canyon Official Taobao Store.

CleanPiece Anti-bacteria Silicone Eartip
Bore size: narrow
Stem length: short
Feel: soft and flexible
Bass: 4.25
Midrange: 4.0
Treble: 3.0
Soundstage: 3.75
Vocal presence: 3.0
An interesting audiophile’s “sanitary” product from Japan, and made in Japan. How true is the anti-bacteria, anti-microbial and anti-virus properties I don’t know (it comes in a plastic “petri dish”) but I do know these eartips roll-off treble and thicken bass and mid-bass. You lose clarity but gain body and smoothness. Recommended for bright and harsh sounding IEMs.
Purchased from Amazon.jp

D

ddHiFi ST35 Silicone Eartips (Standard)

Bore size: regular
Stem length: regular
Feel: soft and firm
Bass: 4.75
Midrange: 5.00
Treble: 3.50
Soundstage: 3.50
Vocal presence: 5.00

A slightly more bassy version of Acoustune AET08. The ST35 has solid and punchy bass, full-bodied midrange and good vocal presence. Nonetheless, it has a slightly rolled-off treble. Similar to the AET08, soundstage and stereo imaging are average. Instruments and voices are tad front forward but non-offensive. It has a pivoting umbrella just like SpinFits. Comes in a nice plastic storage case with 3 pairs of your chosen size.

Purchased from ddHiFi Official Taobao Store

Divinus MOCHI TIP (for IEM/TWS)
Bore size: wide
Stem length: very short
Feel: soft, elastic and pliable
Bass: 3.50
Midrange: 5.00
Treble: 4.50
Soundstage: 5.00
Vocal presence: 4.50

These eartips have an extremely shallow fit due to their noticeably short stem. They produce a very midrange-forward sound with suppressed mid-bass and forward vocals. The soundstage is open and airy. They remind me of Moondrop Spring Tips with a sturdier cap and shorter stem. Vocals can sound sibilant and piercing when matched with bright earphones, so be very careful with your pairings.

Purchased from Audion Shopee Store (Indonesia)

Divinus Velvet Eartips (Standard)
Bore size: tapered, narrow to wide
Stem length: short
Feel: smooth and soft
Bass: 4.00
Midrange: 5.00
Treble: 5.00
Soundstage: 4.25
Vocal presence: 4.50

If you don’t look closely, this eartip looks almost identical to Radius Deep Mount. It has the Beefeater bearskin shape which is wide on top and narrow at the bottom. Quite a transparent sounding eartip I must say. Sounds brighter than Deep Mount with slightly less bass. Korean Radius Deep Mount? Not suitable piercing or lean sounding IEMs.

Purchased from e*earphone, Japan

Divinus Velvet Eartips (for TWS)
Bore size: wide
Stem length: very short
Feel: smooth and soft
Bass: 3.00.
Midrange: 5.00
Treble: 5.00
Soundstage: 3.50
Vocal presence: 5.00

A shorter version of standard Divinus Velvet Eartips with very noticeable bass and low-mids reduction. Comfortable but unsuitable for earphones or TWS with short nozzle.

Purchased from e*earphone, Japan.

Dunu Candy Eartips
Bore size: regular
Stem length: regular
Feel: soft and pliable
Bass: 3.25
Midrange: 4.00
Treble: 4.00
Soundstage: 4.50
Vocal presence: 3.50

I am neither impressed by its lightweight nor its relaxed presentation. Vocal is a tad too recessed for my liking. Nevertheless, stage is spacious and airy. Goes well with forward-sounding IEM.

Purchased from Dunu Official Taobao Store

Dunu S&S Eartips
Bore size: regular
Stem length: regular
Feel: rubbery and elastic
Bass: 4.00
Midrange: 4.50
Treble: 4.00
Soundstage: 5.00
Vocal presence: 4.00

The first time I tried these eartips was when I auditioned the Dunu Talos. The S&S eartips was part of their stock accessories. I immediately fell in love with these eartips. It presents clean yet balanced sound signature with a large soundstage, both width and depth, and good imaging. Perfect match for planar IEMs (these are attached permanently to my Timeless and Timeless AE). My only complain is they have an awkward fit and can be uncomfortable for some people. Comes in a plastic storage case with 3 pairs of your chosen size. Good stuff!

Purchased from Dunu Official Taobao Store

E

EarrBond Barreleye Blue 
Bore size: regular
Stem length: regular
Feel: soft with sturdy core
Bass: 3.5
Midrange: 4.25
Treble: 4.5
Soundstage: 4.5
Vocal presence: 4.0
Different from EarrBond New Hybrid series, Barreleye eartips use a sturdy silicone core which give an surprisingly good seal without the squishy feel of foam. Similar to the New Hybrid series, sound is laid back. Barreleye Blue has better clarity, instrument separation, treble extension, stage depth and layering than Barreleye Green and New Hybrid.

However due to its emphasis in the upper-midrange and treble regions, Barreleye Blue isn’t suitable for bright, sibilant or harsh sounding earphones. Group member Vannak Pech described the sound as if “when you apply contrast filter to your image…”.
Purchased from MTMT Audio (Hong Kong)

EarrBond Barreleye Green
Bore size: regular
Stem length: regular
Feel: soft with firm core
Bass: 4.0
Midrange: 4.0
Treble: 4.25
Soundstage: 4
Vocal presence: 4.5
Different from EarrBond New Hybrid series, Barreleye eartips use a firm silicone core which gives an surprisingly good seal without the squishy feel of foam. Similar to the New Hybrid series, sound is laid back. Barreleye Green adds body and bass punch but it lacks the clarity, instrument separation, treble extension, stage depth and layering of Barreleye Blue. 
Purchased from MTMT Audio (Hong Kong)

EarrBond EBT New Hybrid Design Eartips with Metal Core (CU) Copper

Bore size: regular, with copper insert
Stem length: regular
Feel: soft with semi-firm core

Bass: 4.25
Midrange: 4.00
Treble: 4.00
Soundstage: 4.25
Vocal presence: 4.25

At US$50 for two pairs (mimimum order quantity is 2 pairs), these hybrid eartips are one of the most expensive eartips in my collection. Equally as comfortable as original EarrBond EBT eartips and feels softer than Pentaconn COREIR Brass eartips. Isolation is exceptional. Are they worth US$25 a pair? Frankly, no! Performance is on par with silicone eartips such as Final Type E and Divinus Velvet. However, if you are looking for foam-level isolation with upper-midrange clarity, look no further. The difference between copper and stainless steel is copper eartips sound warmer and fuller. The vocals are more intimate also.

Safety concerns: Since the metal cores are inserted halfway into the nozzle. It may accidentally slipped out and leave inside the ear canal… Let’s say I am paranoid.

Purchased from MTMT Audio (Hong Kong)

EarrBond EBT New Hybrid Design Eartips with Metal Core (SS) Stainless Steel

Bore size: regular, with stainless steel insert
Stem length: regular
Feel: soft with semi-firm core

Bass: 4.00
Midrange: 4.25
Treble: 4.25
Soundstage: 4.25
Vocal presence: 4.50

At US$50 for two (mimimum order quantity is 2 pairs), these hybrid eartips are one of the most expensive eartips in my collection. Equally as comfortable as normal EarrBond EBT eartips and feels softer than Pentaconn COREIR Brass eartips. Isolation is exceptional. Are they worth US$25 a pair? Frankly, no! Performance is on par with silicone eartips such as Radius Deep Mount and Acoustune AET08. However, if you are looking for foam-level isolation with upper-midrange clarity, look no further. The difference between copper and stainless steel is the latter sounds brighter and has a more sparkly top-end. Vocal sounds livelier as well.

Safety concerns: Since the metal cores are inserted halfway into the nozzle. It may accidentally slip out and leave inside the ear canal… Let’s say I am paranoid

Purchased from MTMT Audio (Hong Kong)

EarrBond New Hybrid Design
Bore size: regular
Stem length: regular
Feel: soft and spongy
Bass: 3.5
Midrange: 4.25
Treble: 4
Soundstage: 4
Vocal presence: 3.25
EarrBond is softer and more squishy compared to other hybrid eartips, thus more comfortable for long-listening sessions. The moment you put them on, they simply disappear into your ear canals. Furthermore, they isolate well too. Sound-wise these are a bit too laid back for my taste. Also, I could detect some sibilance on a some female vocal tracks. In term of wearing comfort and isolation, this win hands down.
Purchased from MTMT Audio (Hong Kong)

Elecom Spare Ear Cap (EHP-CAP10)
Bore size: wide
Stem length: short
Feel: soft and flexible
Bass: 4
Midrange: 4.5
Treble: 4.5
Soundstage: 4.25
Vocal presence: 4.25
The brand Elecom is relatively unknown outside of Asia. These eartips surprised me with their exceptionally good sound and budget-friendly price. For ￥250 or US$2.50, you’ll get 4 pairs of eartips consist of X-Small, Small, Medium and Large sizes. Sound-wise, it is neutral tonality with emphasis in upper-bass and midrange regions (which adds body) as well as in vocals. I rank these higher than SpinFit CP-145 and on-par with Final Audio Type-E (black) eartips. Everybody should get these eartips if they ever come across it.
Purchased from Amazon.jp

Elecom Spare Ear Cap (EHP-CAP20)
Bore size: narrow
Stem length: regular
Feel: sturdy and firm

Bass: 4.50
Midrange: 4.75
Treble: 4.00
Soundstage: 4.00
Vocal presence: 4.50

I will like to thank Jeremy Phua for bringing this eartips to my attention. Japanese consumer electronics brand Elecom is relatively unknown outside of Asia. But even in Singapore (where I live), Elecom products are uncommon.

Some online rumours claimed that Tanchjim includes this as the stock eartips with some of their IEMs. I have the stock eartips from Tanchjim Tanya. After comparing both, my conclusions are they look “quite” similar but sound different.

Nonetheless, this eartip sounds energetic but balanced overall. My only gripe is that vocals can sound a bit strident and nasally. Not as refined as Acoustune AET07 or SpinFit CP-100.

Purchased from Amazon.jp

Eletech Baroque Luxury Hi-Fi Eartips

Bore size: wide
Stem length: short
Feel: smooth and soft

Bass: 3.75
Midrange: 5.00
Treble: 4.25
Soundstage: 4.50
Vocal presence: 4.75

These eartips are so soft and smooth, they feel like luxury! The texture is similar to Divinus Velvet eartips. They suppress the mid-bass and bring the midrange and upper midrange forward, making them perfect for warm or muddy sounding IEMs. The soundstage is wide, deep, and tall, giving a sense of space around every instrument and artist.

My only gripe is that the silicone material feels thin, which affects the ear seal and isolation.

Compared to Azla SednaEarFit (Light) Short eartips, the Azlas have better low-end punch, vocal clarity, and airiness. The Baroque eartips sound smoother overall.

Compared to Moondrop Spring Tips eartips, the Spring Tips have more vocal presence and are clearer and cleaner. However, the Baroque eartips sound more organic, have better tonal weight, and are less fatiguing.

Overall, the Baroque is a great addition to any eartip collection.

Purchased from Element Technology (Singapore)

Epro Horn-shaped Tips
Bore size: cone-shaped, tempered (4mm nozzle end, 5mm bell end)
Stem length: regular
Feel: soft and flexible
Bass: 4 25
Midrange: 4.5
Treble: 4
Soundstage: 3.75
Vocal presence: 4.25
Made of graphene and unlike most eartips, Epro has a cone-shaped tempered bore of 4mm at nozzle end to 5mm at the bell. It adds warmth, body and texture to vocals It tames harsh and peaky treble exceptionally well too. It DOESN’T roll-off highs and kills the air and ambient like some other foam tips. What I really enjoy about the Epro is that it adds a buttery smooth to the overall sound which make harsh-sounding earphones, such as the KZ ZS6, listenable again.
Purchased from Treoo Singapore

Epro Horn-shaped Tips (EP01)
Bore size: a cone-shaped tempered super widebore (5mm nozzle end, 8mm bell end)
Stem length: short
Feel: soft and flexible
Bass: 3.50
Midrange: 4.50
Treble: 4.25
Soundstage: 4.50
Vocal presence: 4.50

Epro Horn-shaped Tips EP01 has a cone-shaped tempered bore of 5mm at nozzle end to 8mm at the bell. These eartips have the widest bore I have seen. But unlike conventional wide bore eartips, which usually makes everything sound thin and clear, EP01 adds body and texture to the overall sound. Just like its sibling the EP00, these eartips tame sibilance and peaky treble exceptionally well. However, it DOESN’T roll-off highs and kills the air and ambience like some other foam tips. Epro EP01 adds smoothness to the overall sound which tames harsh-sounding earphones. The best eartips to have if you want clarity, smoothness and note weight at the same time.

Purchased from Amazon US.

Epro Horn-shaped Tips Truly Wireless (for TWS)
Bore size: cone-shaped, tempered (4mm nozzle end, 5mm bell end)
Stem length: Short
Feel: soft and flexible
Bass: 4.00
Midrange: 4.50
Treble: 4.25
Soundstage: 3.75
Vocal presence: 4.50
Made of graphene and unlike most eartips, Epro has a cone-shaped tempered bore of 4mm at nozzle end to 5mm at the bell. It adds warmth, body and texture to vocals, It tames harsh and peaky treble exceptionally well too. It DOESN’T roll-off highs and kills the air and ambient like some other foam tips. What I really enjoy about the Epro is that it adds a buttery smooth to the overall sound which make harsh-sounding earphones listenable again. This short nozzle version has more vocal presence and less mid-bass bloom than regular Epro Horn-shaped Tips.

Purchased from Treoo Singapore

EPZ Eartips (double flange)
Bore size: narrow
Stem length: very short
Feel: soft and pliable
Bass: 4.00
Midrange: 4.50
Treble: 4.50
Soundstage: 3.00
Vocal presence: 4.00

Do take note that these eartips fit smaller than normal (I am wearing Large instead of my usual Medium). Extremely short and narrow nozzle that I have tough time trying to put them on. Although double-flanged, they did not fit inside my ears properly. Nonetheless, a comfortable set of eartips if they fit you. I find the soundstage narrow and compressed.

Purchased from EPZ Taobao Store

EPZ Eartips (short cap)
Bore size: regular
Stem length: short
Feel: soft and pliable
Bass: 3.75
Midrange: 4.50
Treble: 4.50
Soundstage: 4.00
Vocal presence: 4.50

Do take note that these eartips fit smaller than normal (I am wearing Large instead of my usual Medium). Neutral tonality with a clean and clear overall presentation. My only gripe is the short cap which makes this eartip unsuitable for earphones with short nozzles.

Purchased from EPZ Taobao Store

F

FAudio “Vocal” Premium Silicone Earphone Tips
Bore size: regular
Stem length: regular
Feel: soft and firm
Bass: 3.25
Midrange: 4.75
Treble: 4
Soundstage: 4
Vocal presence: 5
Accentuates on vocal and midrange but it also makes sibilance more noticeable. My favorite vocal eartip is still the SednaEarFit XELASTEC.
Purchased from MTMT Audio, Hong Kong

FAudio “Instrument” Premium Silicone Earphone Tips
Bore size: regular
Stem length: regular
Feel: soft and firm
Bass: 5
Midrange: 4.75
Treble: 3.5
Soundstage: 4
Vocal presence: 4.25
Very punchy, fun, musical-sounding eartips. Sub-bass is exceptional. Vocal and mids are laid-back. Soundstage is average.
Purchased from MTMT Audio, Hong Kong

Fender SureSeal Tips
Bore size: tapered widebore
Stem length: short
Feel: soft, grippy and sticky
Bass: 4.25
Midrange: 4.0
Treble: 3.75
Soundstage: 3.75
Vocal presence: 4.5
Vastly similar to Azla SednaEarFit XELASTEC, Fender SureSeal offers a more laid-back presentation with balanced sound. Mid-bass is a tad fuller. Soundstage slightly wider than XELASTEC but imaging is less precise. SureSeal does not suffer from the upper-midrange ring that plagues XELASTEC especially with DD-based earphones. Expect dust-magnet. All thermoplastic elastomer eartips require regular washing and sanitizing to prevent ears infection.
Purchased from Amazon.jp.

Feaulle Latex H570 For General Earplugs
Bore size: wide
Stem length: regular
Feel: plush and grippy

Bass: 3.50
Midrange: 5.0
Treble: 5.0
Soundstage: 4.75
Vocal presence: 5.0

These “latex” eartips remind me of TRI Clarion. So, if you enjoy TRI Clarion, you will definitely love these. Overall tone is bright and lean. Vocals are sibilant but give very good enunciation. Stage and imaging are quite good. Resolves very well. Fit and comfort are good. These don’t feel sticky or attract dust like Azla SednaEarFit XELASTEC.

Purchased from Feaulle Taobao Store.

FiiO Silicone (Balanced Ear tips)
Stem length: regular
Feel: soft and flexible
Bass: 3.25
Midrange: 4
Treble: 3.5
Soundstage: 4
Vocal presence: 3.25
Nice sounding eartips with a toned down bass and treble.
Purchased from FiiO store on Taobao (Mainland China)

FiiO Silicone (Bass Eartips)
Bore size: regular
Stem length: regular
Feel: soft and firm
Bass: 4
Midrange: 3.5
Treble: 3.5
Soundstage: 3.5
Vocal presence: 4
This is similar to many stock tips like those from TRN.
Purchased from FiiO store on Taobao (Mainland China)

FiiO Silicone (Vocal Eartips)
Bore size: regular
Stem length: regular
Feel: soft and firm
Bass: 2.5
Midrange: 4.25
Treble: 4.25
Soundstage: 4.25
Vocal presence: 5
These tips cut bass drastically!
Purchased from FiiO store on Taobao (Mainland China)

Filter H270 TPE Eartips
Bore size: regular with grille
Stem length: short
Feel: soft and firm
Bass: 4.0
Midrange: 5.0
Treble: 4.5
Soundstage: 4.0
Vocal presence: 5.0

Is this US$7 per pair Chinese-made TPE eartip comparable to Azla SednaEarFits XELASTEC and Fender SureSeal? I am sorry to say the H270 eartip doesn’t feel and wear like a TPE eartip. Thus, I do suspect it isn’t made of TPE at all. Probably made of silicone at best. Nonetheless, H270 is a very lively-sounding eartip. Bass is quite punchy.

Sub-bass rumble is good. Midrange is crisp and clear. Treble extension is very good. Soundstage and imaging are good. If you can overlook the fact that this isn’t made of TPE like they claimed, this is a pretty decent eartip. In terms of sound, it is closer to SureSeal than XELASTEC. Both eartips have accentuated upper-mids and treble.
Purchased from Filter Taobao official store

Filter H370 Latex Eartips
Bore size: elliptical-shaped, regular with grille
Stem length: short
Feel: soft and firm
Bass: 2.0
Midrange: 3.75
Treble: 3.0
Soundstage: 3.0
Vocal presence: 3.5

This Chinese Filter H370 does remind me a bit of ADV Eartune Fidelity U Elliptical eartip but performs far worse… Yup, in my encyclopedia of eartips this one is pretty bad. First thing you will notice is how boomy and wooly the bass is. It is so bad that it bleeds into the mids. Upper treble is rolled-off, thus lacking a sense of space and openness. All-in-all, the H370 is a dark-sounding eartip with poor technicalities. Comfort-wise is quite good though. What a pity!
Purchased from Filter Taobao official store

Final Audio Type A
Bore size: narrow
Stem length: regular
Feel: soft and firm
Bass: 3.75
Midrange: 5
Treble: 4.0
Soundstage: 4. 8
Vocal presence: 4
Less common than Type E. Let’s call this Type E with a slightly boosted treble and thus lesser bass. As a whole it gives better clarity. The overall tonality remains quite balanced.
Purchased from Amazon.jp.

Final Audio Type B
Bore size: regular
Stem length: regular
Feel: soft and plush
Bass: 4.25
Midrange: 5
Treble: 3.75
Soundstage: 4
Vocal presence: 4
Less common than Type E. Let’s call this Type E with a slightly boosted bass. Overall sound is more round robust as well. My favorite eartips for diffused-field oriented earphones
Purchased from Amazon.jp

Final Audio Type E
Bore size: regular
Stem length: regular
Feel: soft and sturdy
Bass: 4
Midrange: 5
Treble: 3.75
Soundstage: 4
Vocal presence: 4
For balance sound. Tame harsh earphones
Purchased from ConnectIT (Singapore)

Final Audio Type E (Clear, Clear/Red) 2020 Edition)
Bore size: regular
Stem length: regular
Feel: soft and sturdy
Bass: 4
Midrange: 5
Treble: 4.25
Soundstage: 4 25
Vocal presence: 4.5
Sounds cleaner, clearer, brighter and tighter bass than conventional black Final Audio Type E eartip. Improved vocal lucidity. Tonally more accurate as well.
Purchased from Amazon Japan

Final Audio Type E (Canjam Singapore 2023 Edition)
Bore size: regular
Stem length: regular
Feel: soft and sturdy
Bass: 4.00
Midrange: 5.00
Treble: 4.25
Soundstage: 4 25
Vocal presence: 4.50

It comes in various colours, as well as glow-in-the-dark green. Sounds cleaner, clearer, brighter, and tighter bass than conventional black Final Audio Type E eartip. Improved vocal lucidity. Tonally more accurate as well.

Raffled from Project Perfect Pte Ltd (DITA) booth at Canjam Singapore

Final Audio Type E (for TWS)
Bore size: wide
Stem length: short
Feel: soft and sturdy
Bass: 3.25
Midrange: 5.00
Treble: 4.75
Soundstage: 4.50
Vocal presence: 5.00

Quite the opposite of regular Final Type E eartips sonic-wise, These tips intensify upper-mids and treble, which unfortunately, introduces sibilance to female vocals and makes cymbals sound tinny. This can be unpleasant especially when used with bright earphones. Staging and ambience are better than regular Type E. Use with caution!

Purchased from Final Audio Official Taobao Store

Final Type E Silicon Eartips for True Wireless (clear)
Bore size: regular
Stem length: short
Feel: soft and pliable
Bass: 3.25
Midrange: 5
Treble: 5
Soundstage: 5
Vocal presence: 4
Overall, similar to Final Type E True Wireless (black) but with slightly less bass.
Purchased from MTMT Audio, Hong Kong

FiiO HS18 Silicone Ear Tips
Bore size: regular
Stem length: regular
Feel: soft and light
Bass: 4.50
Midrange: 5.00
Treble: 4.00
Soundstage: 4.50
Vocal presence: 4.50

The FiiO HS18 is extremely thin and I was afraid this might affect its seal and isolation… Well, I worried too much. The HS18 is soft, lightweight and comfortable. Seal and isolation are good. Neutral tonality with very “bouncy” bass. Midrange is smooth and laid-back. Treble is crisp and sparkly however its presence is not emphasized (which is a good thing in general). Soundstage is very open and airy. One of the better eartips I have tested in 2022. Yes, the FiiO HS18 can rival some of the pricier offerings from SpinFit, Acoustune and Azla. For the record, I hardly, almost rarely, praise a FiiO product.

Purchased from FiiO Taobao Official Store

I

ICE CLEAR Earphone Plug
Bore size: wide
Stem length: regular
Feel: grippy but firm
Bass: 3.25
Midrange: 5.00
Treble: 4.50
Soundstage: 5.00
Vocal presence: 5.00

These eartips, likely made by TPE (thermoplastic elastomer), offer surprising competition to the Azla SednaFit Crystal eartips. At only $10 for three pairs, they deliver performance that rivals the Crystal’s, with just a slight decrease in the emphasis of bass and sub-bass notes. However, the true strength of these TPE eartips lies in their exceptional clarity, resolution, and ability to create a wide soundstage. My one complaint is that the material feels a bit too rigid and produces a cracking noise whenever I move my jaw

Purchased from 德海基业数码专营店 (Dehaijiyeshuma) Taobao store

INfilter Variety Dot Ear Tip
Bore size: wide
Stem length: short
Feel: pliable and firm
Bass: 4.25
Midrange: 3.75
Treble: 3.00
Soundstage: 3.75
Vocal presence: 4.00

A JVC Spiral Dot clone but more bassy and a tad smoother. Midrange details are a little smeared, resolution lacking. Unfortunately, this still can’t replace the good ol’ Spiral Dot.

Purchased from Focus Audio Taobao Store

INfilter Variety Dot Pro Ear Tip
Bore size: wide
Stem length: short
Feel: pliable and firm
Bass: 4.25
Midrange: 4.00
Treble: 3.50
Soundstage: 3.75
Vocal presence: 4.00

A JVC Spiral Dot clone. Sounds almost identical to the Variety Dot but with cleaner and more open upper-registers. Personally, I will choose this over the original Variety Dot.

Purchased from Focus Audio Taobao Store

INfiter Variety Dot IE45 Short for TWS (Dow Corning silicone and graphene)
Bore size: wide with short cap
Stem length: very short
Feel: pliable and firm

Bass: 4.00
Midrange: 4.25
Treble: 4.00
Soundstage: 3.50
Vocal presence: 4.50

The Infiter IE45 eartips are designed primarily for True Wireless earbuds, but they can also be used with traditional In-Ear Monitors. They are known for their smooth, balanced sound signature that prioritizes clarity. The IE45 eartips deliver a smooth and balanced sound experience that is pleasing to the listener. They avoid harshness or excessive emphasis on any particular frequency range. These eartips prioritize clarity, ensuring that vocals and instruments are well-defined and easy to distinguish within the mix. The graphene-infused version of the IE45 eartips further enhances the smoothness and reduces listener fatigue. This is achieved through the unique properties of graphene, a material known for its excellent damping properties. The IE45 eartips offer good value for the price. They provide a significant improvement in sound quality for both TWS earbuds and IEMs, without breaking the bank.

Purchased from INfiter Taobao Store

INfiter Variety Dot IE45 Short for TWS (Dow Corning silicone)
Bore size: wide with short cap
Stem length: very short
Feel: pliable and firm

Bass: 4.00
Midrange: 4.00
Treble: 4.00
Soundstage: 4.50
Vocal presence: 4.50

Originally designed for True Wireless earbuds, the Infiter IE45 eartips are also compatible with In-Ear Monitors. Known for their smooth, balanced sound, these eartips prioritize clarity, making them ideal for listeners who prefer a clean and accurate listening experience. Vocals are clear and well-defined, making it easy to understand lyrics or dialogue. The smooth, non-harsh treble ensures a pleasant listening experience without any fatiguing sharpness. The Clear version offers an open and airy soundstage, creating a wider and more immersive listening experience. They provide a decent overall sound, with a focus on clarity and comfort, making them a suitable option for value-conscious listeners who prioritize comfort.

Purchased from INfiter Taobao Store

INfiter Variety Dot IE45Pro Short for TWS (Black)
Bore size: wide with short cap
Stem length: very short
Feel: pliable and firm

Bass: 3.25
Midrange: 4.20
Treble: 4.50
Soundstage: 4.50
Vocal presence: 5.00

Originally designed for True Wireless earbuds, the Infiter IE45Pro eartips can also be used with In-Ear Monitors. They are known for their smooth, balanced sound signature that prioritizes clarity, making them a good choice for listeners who prefer a clean and accurate listening experience. The Black version is made from a soft, comfortable material that allows for extended wear without fatigue. Vocals sound clear and well-defined, making it easy to understand the lyrics or dialogue in your audio. The treble is also smooth and free of harshness, ensuring a pleasant listening experience without any fatiguing sharpness. The soundstage offered by the Black version is open and airy, creating a wider and more immersive listening experience. They provide a decent overall sound experience with a focus on clarity and comfort, making them a suitable option for listeners who prioritize comfort and good value.

Purchased from INfiter Taobao Store

INfiter Variety Dot IE45Pro Short for TWS (Clear)
Bore size: wide with short cap
Stem length: very short
Feel: pliable and firm

Bass: 4.00
Midrange: 4.00
Treble: 3.75
Soundstage: 3.50
Vocal presence: 4.25

While primarily advertised for TWS earbuds, the Infiter IE45Pro eartips can also be used with traditional IEMs. They offer a smooth and balanced sound signature that prioritizes clarity. The Clear version delivers a smooth and non-fatiguing sound profile. However, certain listeners might find that vocals, especially female vocals, can take on a slightly nasal quality. The treble range lacks a bit of sparkle and vibrancy, which can make the sound feel a bit dull or veiled. The soundstage feels somewhat compressed, meaning the instruments may not seem as spacious or separated as with other eartips. Despite the mentioned limitations, IE45Pro Clear offers good value for the price. They provide a decent overall sound experience.

Purchased from INfiter Taobao Store

InFiter TPE Eartips (PT37-TWS)
Bore size: wide bore
Stem length: short
Feel: soft, grippy and sticky
Bass: 3.00
Midrange: 5.00
Treble: 4.25
Soundstage: 5.00
Vocal presence: 5.00

Although these are stated for TWS, they can be used on normal IEMs but with a caveat. This eartip is a fine example of why TWS eartips aren’t so appealing for high-fidelity use. Because of their short stem, many TWS eartips have the tendency to push vocals and upper midrange too forward, making them shouty. Sub-bass, bass and mid-bass take a back seat. Good match for muddy-sounding earphones. Do take note that TPE eartips are dust and dirt magnet. They will deform and lose its shape over time.

Purchased from InFiter Taobao Store.

InFiter TPE Eartips (PW-10)
Bore size: wide bore
Stem length: regular
Feel: soft, grippy and sticky
Bass: 4.00
Midrange: 5.00
Treble: 4.50
Soundstage: 4.00
Vocal presence: 5.00

A leaner-sounding version of Azla SednaEarFit XELASTEC. Bass is less impactful. However, midrange preserves most of the characteristics of XELASTEC. Soundstage seems wider and more open as well. Nonetheless finishing is nowhere close to Azla’s.

Purchased from InFiter Taobao Store.

InFiter TPE Eartips (PW-20)
Bore size: 7mm superwide bore
Stem length: regular
Feel: soft, grippy and sticky
Bass: 4.75
Midrange: 5.00
Treble: 4.25
Soundstage: 4.50
Vocal presence: 5.00

A clearer version of Azla SednaEarFit XELASTEC. You’ll get 70% of XELASTEC performance at a fraction of the cost. Is it worth a try? Sure… But take note these are TPE eartips (just like XELASTEC) thus they are dust and dirt magnet. They will deform and lose its shape over time. Finishing-wise not as beautiful and smooth as Azla’s. Great value for money if you don’t want to pay the XELASTEC price.

Purchased from InFiter Taobao Store

INfiter WS38 for TWS (Clear white)
Bore size: wide with short cap
Stem length: very short
Feel: thin and soft

Bass: 3.00
Midrange: 4.50
Treble: 5.00
Soundstage: 4.50
Vocal presence: 5.00

These eartips are constructed from very thin and soft silicone and unfortunately these contribute to a poor fit. They struggle to stay securely in place and are prone to flipping over during use, compromising both comfort and sound quality. The thin material significantly impacts the sound signature. The overall sound comes across as bright and lacking in body. Bass frequencies are noticeably suppressed, resulting in a weak and underwhelming low-end experience. The lack of “punch” and “noteweight” refers to the absence of impact and definition in the bass notes, leaving the sound overall thin and hollow. Not recommended.

Purchased from INfiter Taobao Store

INfiter WS43 for TWS (Clear blue)
Bore size: wide with short cap
Stem length: very short
Feel: thin and soft

Bass: 3.00
Midrange: 4.50
Treble: 5.00
Soundstage: 4.50
Vocal presence: 5.00

These eartips are identical to the INfiter W38 model but come in a light blue color. While constructed from soft, thin silicone for comfort, this material unfortunately contributes to a poor fit in the ear. They struggle to stay secure and tend to flip out during use, negatively impacting both comfort and sound quality. The thinness of the material also significantly impacts the sound signature. The overall sound becomes bright and lacks body, with noticeably suppressed bass frequencies. Overall, due to the poor fit and compromised sound quality, these eartips are not recommended.

Purchased from INfiter Taobao Store

Intime iReep 01
Bore size: wide (reversed cap)
Stem length: short
Feel: soft and pliable
Bass: 3.75
Midrange: 4.00
Treble: 4.00
Soundstage: 5.00
Vocal presence: 4.00

An incredibly unique eartip that resembles a whiskey barrel with the entire stem fully concealed within the reversed cap, which forms a dome. It is extremely comfortable, isolates and seals very well. Because sound is reflected into the dome, it has an echo (reverb) effect. This presents a wide soundstage with particularly good height and depth. Unfortunately, this echo effect causes vocals, female voices especially, to sound nasally and wheezy. As if the singer is singing with his or her nose pinched. Without a doubt, the iReep 01 is the most unusual eartip in my collection.

Purchased from e*earphone, Japan

J

Jomo Audio ONYX Double Flanges Premium Silicone Eartips (For IEMs)
Bore size: double flange, very wide
Stem length: extremely short
Feel: soft, thin, and springy

Bass: 3.00
Midrange: 4.25
Treble: 5.00
Soundstage: 5.00
Vocal presence: 5.00
Double-flange eartips with wide bores are a rarity. The Acoustune AET06 series is another example of such eartips that I’ve reviewed. In comparison, the ONYX double-flange eartips deliver a brighter, clearer, and more open sound signature. However, they also significantly reduce low and mid-bass frequencies, sacrificing dynamics in the process. While this is ideal for those seeking to reduce bass bloat or muddiness, it makes them less suitable for bright or lean-sounding IEMs. The thin flange material tends to curl upwards when removed from the ears.

Purchased from Let’s Go Audio Online Store, Hong Kong

JVC Spiral Dot (Regular)
Bore size: wide
Stem length: short
Feel: soft and pliable
Bass: 4
Midrange: 4
Treble: 3
Soundstage: 3.5
Vocal presence: 4
For balance sound. Tame harsh earphones
Purchased from Japan through a friend

JVC Spiral Dot SF (Short Flange / Shallow Fit)
Bore size: regular
Stem length: short (shallow fit)
Feel: soft and flexible
Bass: 3.5
Midrange: 5
Treble: 4.5
Soundstage: 4.5
Vocal presence: 4.25
These eartips are meant for true wireless earpieces. These have more bass and vocal presence than SpinFit CP-350 and CP-360. Comparable to Final Type E True Wireless (black) but sound less open and less treble extension.
Purchased from Amazon.jp

JVC Spiral Dot++ (EP-FX10)
Bore size: wide
Stem length: short
Feel: supple and grippy
Bass: 3.5
Midrange: 3.75
Treble: 3
Soundstage: 3.5
Vocal presence: 4
For balance sound. Tames harsh earphones. Cleaner but lesser bass and midrange compared to regular Spiral Dot. Very comfortable for long listening sessions.
Purchased from Amazon Japan

JVC/Victor EP-FX2 (Poor men’s Spiral Dot)
Bore size: wide
Stem length: short
Feel: soft and grippy
Bass: 3.5
Midrange: 4
Treble: 3
Soundstage: 3.5
Vocal presence: 4.25
You get 80% performance of Spiral Dot at 30% of its price. Comfortable for long listening. Good value for money.
Purchased from Amazon Japan

K

KB EAR 10 Silicone Eartips
Bore size: wide
Stem length: short
Feel: soft and flexible
Bass: 3.5
Midrange: 3.75
Treble: 3 5
Soundstage: 3.75
Vocal presence: 4
For balance sound. Tames bass-heavy earphones. Smooth tonality suitable for long listening sessions.Purchased from KB EAR Taobao store

KB EAR A07 Eartips
Bore size: regular
Stem length: regular
Feel: sturdy and firm
Bass: 3.75
Midrange: 5
Treble: 4
Soundstage: 3.5
Vocal presence: 4.25
Suspiciously similar to Acoustune AET07. Heck… It sounds closer to AET07a than AET07. Neutral tonality with emphasis in midrange and top-end sparkle. I find this eartip to have better bass texture, dynamics and vocal presence than SpinFit CP100 and CP145. The A07 is often labeled as “vocal” eartip for most stock tips offering.Purchased from BGVP Taobao storePurchased from KB EAR Taobao store

KB EAR A08 Eartips
Bore size: regular
Stem length: regular
Feel: firm and sturdy
Bass: 4.5
Midrange: 5
Treble: 3.5
Soundstage: 3.5
Vocal presence: 5
Suspiciously similar to Acoustune AET08, this eartip adds thickness to bass and midrange. However, unlike Acoustune AET08, I find it a speck bright. The A08 is often labeled as “bass” eartip for most stock tips offering.
Purchased from KB EAR Taobao store

KB EAR “Columbia” Eartips
Bore size: regular
Stem length: regular
Feel: soft and sturdy
Bass: 4
Midrange: 5
Treble: 3.75
Soundstage: 4
Vocal presence: 4.5
This eartip is worthy of the title “Sony clone”. Sounds virtually identical to Sony EP-EX11M eartip, which my sensitive ears couldn’t tell them apart. For neutral tonality with slight treble roll-off.
Purchased from KB EAR Taobao store

KZ Starline
Bore size: regular
Stem length: regular
Feel: sturdy and firm
Bass: 3.5
Midrange: 3.5
Treble: 4
Soundstage: 3
Vocal presence: 2.75
Purchased from KZ store on Taobao (Mainland China)

These stock KZ eartips come in two versions. The older version was included with KZ ZS3 and KZ ZS5, etc, were no longer available. They are softer and more pliable compare to current ones. Sound-wise, co-blogger Slater prefers the former. They give smoother midrange and cleaner treble. The ones tested here are the current/ new version.

KZ Starline (reverse)
Bore size: wide
Stem length: long
Feel: soft and grippy
Bass: 3.25
Midrange: 3.5
Treble: 5
Soundstage: 4*
Vocal presence: 3
For bright, clear and crisp sound
*soundstage has more depth and height than width
Purchased from KZ store on Taobao (Mainland China)

KZ Whirlwind Silicone Eartips
Bore size: regular
Stem length: regular
Feel: sturdy and firm
Bass: 2.0
Midrange: 4.50
Treble: 4.25
Soundstage: 4.0
Vocal presence: 4.50
Similar to Tennmak Whirlwind, these eartips reduce bass and mid-bass significantly. Projects vocals forward with good presence.
Purchased from KZ Official Store on Taobao

L

LIZER LAB JIJUFIN Earpiece
Bore size: regular
Stem length: not applicable
Feel: sturdy and firm
Bass: 4.00
Midrange: 5.00
Treble: 4.75
Soundstage: 5.00
Vocal presence: 4.75

The most unique and unusual eartips in my entire collection. From the Land of the Rising Sun, LIZER LAB eartips feature a patented metal phase-plug which promise to “reposition” your music to sound as if music is coming from the front, rather than from inside and above your head. LIZER LAB claimed their eartips to give the listener an “out-of-head localization” concert and live performance experience. Is this snake oil or real? Does it works? My conclusion is it depends. The effects on some earphones are prominent while others are not as outstanding.

Nonetheless, vocal is extremely clean. Bass is slightly recessed (compared to conventional silicone eartips such has Final Audio Type E), nonetheless still sounds full and weighty. Treble extension is good. Soundstage and stereo imaging are exceptional. Pairs well with neutral-warm sounding earphones.

LIZER LAB JIJUFIN eartips don’t come cheap. A pair will set you back 3,880 Japanese Yen or around US$28. Nonetheless, it gives the listener a unique experience and definitely a conversation piece among audiophile friends.

Purchased from Amazon Japan

LIZER LAB JIJU-JET Earpiece
Bore size: regular
Stem length: not applicable
Feel: sturdy and firm
Bass: 3.50
Midrange: 5.00
Treble: 4.75
Soundstage: 5.00
Vocal presence: 4.75

The most unique and unusual eartips I have used. From Japan, LIZER LAB eartips feature a patented metal phase-plug which promise to “reposition” your music to sound as if music is coming from the front, rather than from inside and above your head. LIZER LAB advertised their eartips to give the listener an “out-of-head localization” concert and live performance experience. Is this snake oil? Does it works? My conclusion is it depends. The effects on some earphones are prominent, while some are not as outstanding.

Nonetheless, vocal is extremely clean. Bass is suppressed but not rolled-off. Treble extension is good. Soundstage and stereo imaging are the stars of the show. Compared to JIJUFIN, JIJU-JET sounds leaner and crispier. Dynamics and impact are snappier and sharper. Pairs well with dark-sounding earphones.

LIZER LAB JIJU-JET eartips don’t come cheap. A pair will set you back 3,680 Japanese Yen or around US$26. Nonetheless, it will give the listener a unique experience and definitely a conversation piece among audiophile friends.

Purchased from Amazon Japan

LIZER LAB JIJU-JET2 Earpiece
Bore size: regular
Stem length: not applicable
Feel: sturdy and firm
Bass: 3.50
Midrange: 5.00
Treble: 5.00
Soundstage: 5.00
Vocal presence: 5.00

The most unique and unusual eartips I have seen. From Japan, LIZER LAB eartips feature a patented metal phase-plug which promise to “reposition” your music to sound as if music is coming from the front, rather than from inside and above your head. LIZER LAB advertised their eartips to give the listener an “out-of-head localization” concert and live performance experience. Is this snake oil or real? Does it works? My conclusion is it depends. The effects on some earphones are prominent, while some are not as outstanding.

JIJU-JET2 is the revised version of original JIJU-JET. Vocal projection is brought forward creating a better 3D-effect on human voices. Soundstage has better depth and instruments have more breathing space around them. Similar to its predecessor, bass is suppressed but not rolled-off. Treble extension is excellent. However, I do notice a slight metallic timbre which makes female voices sound a tad cold and steely. Pairs well with dark-sounding earphones.

LIZER LAB JIJU-JET2 eartips don’t come cheap. A pair will set you back 3,780 Japanese Yen or around US$27. Nonetheless, it will give the listener a unique experience and definitely a conversation piece among audiophile friends.

Purchased from Amazon Japan

M

Marunana 七福神 silicone eartips
Bore size: narrow
Stem length: regular
Feel: soft and pliable
Bass: 4.25
Midrange: 5
Treble: 4
Soundstage: 4Vocal presence: 4.25
Marunana eartips is recommended by a friend who discovered it from a native Japanese audio enthusiast. These eartips are surprisingly affordable (880¥ for 12 pairs!). Great midrange texture and vocal presence. My only nitpick is they tend to cloud the mid-bass a little but it adds body to lean earphones.
Purchased from Amazon Japan

Moondrop Spring Tips
Bore size: wide
Stem length: short
Feel: soft with pliable stem
Bass: 2.50
Midrange: 5.0
Treble: 3.75
Soundstage: 3.50
Vocal presence: 5.0
These originally come stock with Moondrop KATO. First impression is how suppressed the bass and mid-bass are, which thins the overall note-weight and body. Midrange is textured with good details. Vocal is forward with very good presence.

Treble has good sparkle and crisp, however it lacks that last bit of extension and airiness. Great match for earphones with too much mid-bass or has bleeding mid-bass. The caps are too soft in my opinion. They flap over every time I remove them from my ears, which is very annoying.
Purchased from Moondrop Taobao Official Store

N

New Bee Olive Replacement Earbud Tips
Bore size: semi-wide
Stem length: regular
Feel: Firm and stiff
Bass: 4.25
Midrange: 5.00
Treble: 4.00
Soundstage: 4.00
Vocal presence: 5.00

These eartips rival most “vocal” eartips I have tried for under US$10. Very good bass punch and dynamics as well. My only gripe is they feel a bit too stiff for my ears.

Purchased from Yongse Taobao Official Store

NF Audio MS42 IEM Silicone Ear Tips
Bore size: regular
Stem length: regular
Feel: firm and supple
Bass: 4.00
Midrange: 4.50
Treble: 3.50
Soundstage: 3.50
Vocal presence: 3.75

These are probably the smoothest eartips I have tried. Its relaxed and delicate sound is neither harsh nor strident. Low-end has good body and punch. Midrange has that silky “tube-like” tonality. Upper-registers are fluid and gentle. Soundstage and imaging are average. Boy… It feels like I am having a head massage every time I listen to these. Very comfortable both in sound and in fitment. Highly recommended!

Purchased from NF Audio Official Taobao Store

Nostalgia Audio Extra Wide Bore XWB Eartips
Bore size: very wide
Stem length: short
Feel: flexible but firm

Bass: 4.00
Midrange: 5.00
Treble: 4.50
Soundstage: 4.50
Vocal presence: 4.00

Hailing from the vibrant city of Hong Kong, Nostalgia Audio is an IEM brand that has quietly carved its niche in the audiophile world. Their XWB eartips mark their debut in the realm of eartips, and let me tell you, these little wonders are a pure delight for any audio enthusiast seeking a touch of extra sparkle in their upper registers without compromising the depth and richness of the low end.

Compared to the Eletech Baroque eartips, the XWB eartips stand out with their sturdier and more substantial cap material, offering a sense of reassurance and durability. And when pitted against the Divinus Velvet eartips, the XWB eartips emerge victorious with their ability to inject a dash of extra zing into the treble, resulting in a livelier and more energetic listening experience.

In a world of eartips, the XWB eartips shine as a star of their own, offering a unique blend of clarity and vibrancy that elevates your music listening experience to new heights. If you’re seeking a touch of extra sparkle without sacrificing the fullness of your sound, the XWB eartips are your perfect companion.

Purchased from Super King (Hong Kong)

Nuarl Block Ear+ Antibacterial Silicon Earpiece
Bore size: wide (5mm)
Stem length: short
Feel: soft and pliable
Bass: 4.00
Midrange: 4.25
Treble: 4.50
Soundstage: 3.75
Vocal presence: 4.25

If you like the comfort of JVC Spiral Dot++, you will enjoy this. A crispier and more sparkly version of Spiral Dot++. Not suitable for bright-sounding earphones. Comes in multiple sizes of Small, Medium-small, Medium, and Large.

Purchased from Amazon Japan

Nuarl Block Ear+ 6 Antibacterial Silicon Earpiece (for 6mm bore)
Bore size: wide (6mm)
Stem length: short
Feel: soft and firm
Bass: 4.25
Midrange: 4.25
Treble: 4.00
Soundstage: 3.50
Vocal presence: 4.00

A firmer version of Nural Block Ear+. Slightly bass-boosted and mid-bass feels more thumpy than Nuarl Block Ear+. Smoother treble and more luscious midrange. Comes in multiple sizes of Small, Medium-small, Medium, and Large.

Purchased from Amazon Japan

Nuarl Block Ear+ 7 Antibacterial Silicon Earpiece (for 7mm bore)
Bore size: wide (7mm)
Stem length: short
Feel: soft and firm
Bass: 4.25
Midrange: 4.50
Treble: 4.00
Soundstage: 3.50
Vocal presence: 4.50

Same as Nural Block Ear+6 but with a 7mm bore diameter. The bigger opening presents a more forward midrange and vocals. Comes in multiple sizes of Small, Medium-small, Medium, and Large.

Purchased from Amazon Japan

O

Openaudio Studio 003 Earfits
Bore size: regular
Stem length: regular
Feel: very soft and rubbery
Bass: 3.00
Midrange: 4.25
Treble: 5.00
Soundstage: 4.00
Vocal presence: 4.50

Do take note that these eartips fit smaller than normal (I am wearing Large instead of my usual Medium). The “003” on the case does remind me of something that is also rubbery and made of latex. Nonetheless, this eartip has a clear and sparkly presentation especially in the upper-mids and treble. Bass and midbass are attenuated. Unsuitable for bright and lean sounding earphones.

Purchased from Openaudio Studio Taobao Store

Ostry OS100 Tuning Eartips (Blue)
Bore size: regular
Stem length: short
Feel: firm and sturdy
Bass: 3.75
Midrange: 5
Treble: 4
Soundstage: 3.25
Vocal presence: 3.5
Sounds 90% identical to SpinFit CP145 but with a touch more bass and narrower soundstage.
Purchased from Ostry Official Store on Taobao (Mainland China)

Ostry OS200 Tuning Eartips (Red)
Bore size: regular
Stem length: short
Feel: firm and sturdy
Bass: 4
Midrange: 5
Treble: 3.25
Soundstage: 3
Vocal presence: 3.5
Similar to Ostry OS100 but with a tad more bass and less crisp in the treble. Quite a balance-sounding eartip. Narrows soundstage.
Purchased from Ostry Official Store on Taobao (Mainland China)

Ostry OS300 Tuning Eartips (Black)
Bore size: regular
Stem length: short
Feel: firm and sturdy
Bass: 5
Midrange: 4.75
Treble: 2.5
Soundstage: 2.5
Vocal presence: 3.5
The most bass-heavy Ostry tuning eartips of all. Also rolls-off treble the most. It adds tightness and punchiness to the overall sound. However, I find them a bit too forward for my taste.
Purchased from Ostry Official Store on Taobao (Mainland China)

Ortofon silicone eartips
Bore size: regular
Stem length: regular
Feel: very soft and pliable
Bass: 2.5
Midrange: 5
Treble: 5
Soundstage: 4.5
Vocal presence: 4.25
For good midrange, best female vocal, tames bass and brightens treble
Purchased from Ortofon direct (Denmark)

P

Penon Audio Liqueur Silicone Eartips (Black)
Bore size: wide
Stem length: regular
Feel: grippy and rubbery

Bass: 4.00
Midrange: 4.50
Treble: 4.50
Soundstage: 4.50
Vocal presence: 4.00

Penon Audio Liqueur eartips stand out from typical TPE options like the SednaEarFit XELASTEC due to their dust and lint resistance. This unique property, stemming from their non-stickiness, makes them a practical choice. The Black version offers a cleaner, clearer, and brighter sound signature compared to the Orange version. However, it sacrifices some punchy bass in favor of increased clarity and transparency.

Purchased from Penon Audio Online Store

Penon Audio Liqueur Silicone Eartips (Orange)
Bore size: regular
Stem length: regular
Feel: grippy and rubbery

Bass: 4.75
Midrange: 4.00
Treble: 4.00
Soundstage: 4.00
Vocal presence: 3.50

Penon Audio Liqueur eartips stand out from typical TPE options like the SednaEarFit XELASTEC due to their dust and lint resistance. This unique property, stemming from their non-stickiness, makes them a practical choice.
In terms of sound presentation, these vibrant orange eartips deliver the most dynamic and punchy performance I’ve encountered thus far. The bass extension, elasticity, and textural detail are truly exceptional, exceeding any other eartips I’ve tried.

However, it’s important to note that vocal clarity and treble extension suffer slightly compared to the Black version of the Liqueur eartips. Despite this, the overall sound remains fun and engaging, making them a compelling option for listeners who prioritize bass impact and energy.

Purchased from Penon Audio Online Store

Pentaconn COREIR Nickel-plated Brass core Eartip (PTM01) 

Bore size: wide 
Stem length: long
Feel: firm, sturdy and gripy

Bass: 3.50
Midrange: 5.00
Treble: 5.00
Soundstage: 3.50
Vocal presence: 4.75

At 3,850 Japanese Yen (US$35) for 2 pairs of eartips, the COREIR is currently the second most expensive eartip in my collection right now (most expensive is the Sony EP-NI1000M). However, is it worth the high-price it is asking for? Personally, I say “no” and here are the reasons… 

I find the COREIR eartip only suitable for certain types of IEM, particularly those with a very warm, very fully low-end and a recessed midrange, such as the Acoustune HS1650.

When used on Harman-tuned IEMs such as the Tanchjim Oxygen, Salnotes Zero or TangZu Wan’er, the COREIR thins midbass, pushes the midrange and vocals a tad too forward to my liking. Also, occasionally it can sound shouty and nasally especially on female vocal tracks. 

Because of its forward presentation, I find the soundstage a bit narrow. Air and separation around the instruments isn’t as spacious  or as defined as I expected.

Comfort-wise, COREIR falls in between Moondrop Spring Tips and Azla SednaEarFit XELASTEC, although not as grippy as the latter. However, because of the brass core, having the correct fit is crucial… More than ordinary silicone eartips in fact. Just like many TPE eartips, these can heat up the inner-ear and cause discomfort. 

I was disappointed to be honest… But some of you may find good use with the COREIR. I know quite a few reviewers like it. 

Purchased from Fujiya-Avic, Japan. 

Q

Queen Lab Hybrid Silicone Memory
Bore size: wide
Stem length: short
Feel: sturdy and very firm
Bass: 3.5
Midrange: 5 
Treble: 4.25
Soundstage: 4
Vocal presence: 4 5
Exceptionally good vocal presentations for hybrid. Tighter bass and clearer midrange compared to Symbio W. My favorite hybrid eartip. 
Purchased from MTMT Audio (Hong Kong)

R

Radius Deep Mount
Bore size: small
Stem length: regular
Feel: sturdy and firm
Bass: 4.25
Midrange: 5
Treble: 5
Soundstage: 4
Vocal presence: 4.5
Just like the company’s slogan – Pure Comes True, Deep Mount is the most transparent of all eartips I have tested. Not suitable if your earphone is already bright.
Purchased from Bic Camera (Osaka, Japan)

Radius Deep Mount Clear (Antibacterial)
Bore size: small
Stem length: regular
Feel: sturdy and gripy

Bass: 4.00
Midrange: 5.00
Treble: 5.00
Soundstage: 4.25
Vocal presence: 4.75

Thank you Jeremy Phua for bringing this eartips to my attention. I didn’t notice Radius came out with a clear version of their ever popular Deep Mount until he mentioned it.

These sound a smidgen cleaner and clearer than the regular black version. Soundstage is a bit better. I could hear more air and separations around the vocals and every instruments.

Regardless of colours, Radius Deep Mount still remain as one of the most transparent eartips I have tested.

Purchased from Amazon.jp

Raptgo Adaptive Ear Tips

Bore size: regular
Stem length: regular
Feel: pliable and firm
Bass: 4.25
Midrange: 5.0
Treble: 4.0
Soundstage: 4.0
Vocal presence: 4.25

These eartips from Raptgo come with pivoting cap design similar to that in SpinFit. They add “round-meatiness” (a.k.a smoothness and body) to the music without clouding the lower-midrange. The vocals are forward but still very pleasant. I would rank its sonic signatures between SpinFit CP-145 and Final Audio Type E eartips. Same as Audiosense S400.

Purchased from Raptgo Official Taobao Store

RHA dual density silicone eartips
Bore size: regular
Stem length: regular
Feel: sturdy and firm
Bass: 3.5
Midrange: 5
Treble: 4.5
Soundstage: 3.75
Vocal presence: 4.5
These eartips enhance details and stereo imaging extremely well. Tighten bass. Projects midrange and treble frequencies more than some eartips. Not recommended for bright earphones.
Purchased from RHA in UK

Rose Technics QT Series Eartips
Bore size: wide
Stem length: short
Feel: soft and pliable
Bass: 4.00
Midrange: 4.00
Treble: 4.50
Soundstage: 3.50
Vocal presence: 4.25

A very typical wide bore eartips. Nothing special or unique I find. It is a very comfortable set of eartips nonetheless.

Purchased from Rose Technics Taobao Official Store

S

Sennheiser Momentum Eartips
Bore size: regular with “sound beam”
Stem length: very short
Feel: soft and flexible
Bass: 4.5
Midrange: 5
Treble: 4.0
Soundstage: 3. 5
Vocal presence: 3.5
This is the stock eartip from Sennheiser Momentum series of earphones. It has a bold, thick and robust sound signature with buttery-smoooth upper-midrange and treble. Can sound overly warm and muddy when used on dark-sound earphones. Clarity, soundstage, imaging, and details are average.
Purchased from Sennheiser Singapore

Simphonio Diamond Earfit
Bore size: wide
Stem length: regular
Feel: soft and flexible
Bass: 2.50
Midrange: 5.0
Treble: 4.50
Soundstage: 5.0
Vocal presence: 5.0
This eartip has rhombus patterns stamped around the cap (or umbrella) thus the name “diamond” Earfit. This eartip bears some resemblance to Moondrop Spring Tip, however Diamond Earfit is a bit shorter height-wise. Vocal is forward with very good presence. Midrange and treble feels more open and livelier than Spring Tips. Just like Spring Tips, Diamond Earfit thins bass and mid-bass, reduces note-weight. Skip if you prefer bassier eartip.
Purchased from RoadRunner Taobao Store

Softears Liquid Silicone Ear TipsBore size: regular
Stem length: regular
Feel: soft and grippy
Bass: 3.0Midrange: 5.0Treble: 4.50Soundstage: 5.0Vocal presence: 5.0
Very pricey eartips from Softears. Appearance and texture feel just like SednaEarfit XELASTEC, although it says “Liquid Silicone”. Frankly, I have no clue what liquid silicone is other than those used in aesthetics surgery.

However, I find these eartips sound very much cleaner, clearer and airier than both XELASTEC and Crystal. Midrange and vocal presentation are outstanding. Softears Liquid Silicone does not have the upper-midrange “ringing” that plagues the original XELASTEC eartips. Unfortunately, these eartips attracts dirt and dust just like XELASTEC, so clean them regularly if you decide to try.
Purchased from Softears Taobao Official Store

SonicMemory Cup Tips
Bore size: cone-shaped, tempered (4mm nozzle end, 5mm bell end)
Stem length: short
Feel: medium soft and pliable
Bass: 3.5
Midrange: 4.25
Treble: 4.25
Soundstage: 4.0
Vocal presence: 3.75
An alternative to Epro Horn-shaped Tips. It has an overall softer yet balanced tonality. Bass not as impactful and robust. Vocals don’t stand out as much. Nonetheless, I do enjoy the “air” it gives to the sound. Also, these eartips present slightly wider soundstage and more spacious than Epro. Comes with antibacterial properties added, which is a good thing if you don’t have sensitive skin.
Purchased from SonicMemory Taobao Official Store

SonicMemory Fungus Tips
Bore size: regular
Stem length: regular
Feel: soft with a sturdy stem
Bass: 4.0
Midrange: 4.0
Treble: 4.0
Soundstage: 3.50
Vocal presence: 3.50
These eartips look like little pink champignon mushrooms thus the name “fungus” tips. A balanced-sounding eartip with emphasis in bass and low-midrange. Vocals sound slightly nasally and laid-back. Treble lacks air and extension. Soundstage is of average width. If you prefer an open and airy sound with wide-staging, do consider its sibling the SonicMemory Cup Tips. Infused with antibacterial properties.
Purchased from SonicMemory Official Store on Taobao

Sony Clear White
Bore size: regular
Stem length: regular
Feel: pliable and soft
Bass: 4.0
Midrange: 5.0
Treble: 3.5
Soundstage: 4.0
Vocal presence: 4.5
I consider the Clear White an improvement over Sony Triple Comfort. This enhances overall clarity and vocal presence without sounding overly bright or harsh. Top-end sounds more airy. Bass texture improved as well. My only gripe is it isn’t as smooth as I would prefer but this is a small trade off in my opinion.
Purchased from Amazon.jp

Sony EP-NI1000M Noise Isolation Earbud Tips

Bore size: regular
Stem length: regular
Feel: spongy and sturdy
Bass: 5.0
Midrange: 4. 5
Treble: 3.75
Soundstage: 4
Vocal presence: 5.0

This is the most expensive eartips in my collection as of October 2021. These tips retail for US$20 A PAIR! Yes, you hear that right… Two Hamiltons for a pair of eartips!

Deemed to be a replacement for Sony Triple Comfort (EP-TC50), these are eartips with an attitude. They sound like silicone but seal and isolate like a good pair of foam tips. Extremely comfortable and stable fit.

Are they better than XELASTEC? All I can say is both are very different. If you are always a “foam person”, the EP-NI1000 sounds more lively and open than, say, Comply or Dekoni.

Heard from a friend that these eartips don’t last long, so it is better to keep them dry and away from heat. Purchased from Amazon, Japan

Sony Spare Earbuds EP-EX10A / EP-EX11

Bore size: regular
Stem length: regular
Feel: soft and sturdy
Bass: 4
Midrange: 5
Treble: 3.75
Soundstage: 4
Vocal presence: 4.5

Neutral tonality with warm mid-bass and slight treble roll-off. Midrange is smooth and laid-back. Ideal choice for bright and lean sounding earphones.
Purchased from ConnectIT (Singapore)

Sony Triple Comfort
Bore size: regular
Stem length: regular
Feel: spongy and sturdy
Bass: 5
Midrange: 4
Treble: 3.25
Soundstage: 4
Vocal presence: 4.25
For similar to Sony Hybrids but with boosted bass
Purchased from Bic Camera (Osaka, Japan)

Sony Hybrid (discontinued)
Bore size: regular
Stem length: regular
Feel: soft and sturdy
Bass: 4
Midrange: 5
Treble: 3.75
Soundstage: 4
Vocal presence: 4.5
For neutral tonality with treble roll-off
Purchased from ConnectIT (Singapore)

SoundMAGIC Silicone Eartips (Bowl-shape)
Bore size: wide
Stem length: short
Feel: firm and supple
Bass: 4.00
Midrange: 4.50
Treble: 4.00
Soundstage: 4.00
Vocal presence: 4.25

These wide-bore eartips unlike many do not introduce and add glare or brightness. They remind me of JVC Spiral Dot but with a slightly more forward vocal presentation and wider staging. Good stuff if you love JVC Spirial Dot but hate its high price.

Purchased from SoundMAGIC Official Taobao Store

SoundMAGIC Silicone Eartips (For Sports)
Bore size: wide
Stem length: short
Feel: firm and supple
Bass: 2.00
Midrange: 5.00
Treble: 5.00
Soundstage: 4.50
Vocal presence: 4.00

Similar to TFZ “Pumpkin”, these eartips are shaped like jack-o’-lanterns. They suppress bass and sub-bass like nobody’s business. Their “enhanced” upper-midrange and treble are the two main reasons why people would buy them. Then again, these look more like Halloween novelty items than proper audio products. The soundstage is open and airy but lacks depth and dimension. Great eartips to sabotage your basshead friend.

Purchased from SoundMAGIC Official Taobao Store

SoundMAGIC Silicone Eartips (Bullet-shape)
Bore size: very narrow
Stem length: short
Feel: firm and supple
Bass: 3.00
Midrange: 3.00
Treble: 3.50
Soundstage: 3.50
Vocal presence: 3.50

Very mediocre eartips. They congest bass and low-midrange so much, making the lower-registers sound murky and blurry. On a positive note, they feel comfortable and seal well in my ears.

Purchased from SoundMAGIC Official Taobao Store

SoundMAGIC Silicone Eartips (Pumpkin-shape)
Bore size: wide
Stem length: regular
Feel: soft and pliable

Bass: 2.00
Midrange: 5.00
Treble: 5.00
Soundstage: 4.50
Vocal presence: 4.50

These pumpkin-shaped eartips dramatically reduce bass and sub-bass frequencies. Their emphasis on upper-midrange and treble frequencies is the primary selling point. While their unique design might suggest a novelty item, they offer a surprisingly open and airy soundstage, though lacking some depth. Overall, their sound transparency is excellent.

Purchased from SoundMAGIC Official Taobao Store

SPEAR Labs nFORM XTR SERIES 500
Bore size: regular
Stem length: regular
Feel: spongy and sturdy
Bass: 4.5
Midrange: 4.5
Treble: 3.25
Soundstage: 3.75
Vocal presence: 4.25
An alternative to Sony Hybrids (EP-TC50M). Compared to the Sony, nFORM has a clearer and tighter bass, with forward midrange. Human voice can sound nasally (a common problem with foam-based eartips). Soundstage is narrow and stereo imaging less distinctive and precise. Nonetheless, nFORM is extremely comfortable for long listening sessions. Suitable for bright and lean sounding earphones.
Purchased from MTMT Audio, Hong Kong

SpinFit CP100
Bore size: regular
Stem length: regular
Feel: soft and flexible
Bass: 3.5
Midrange: 5
Treble: 4
Soundstage: 4
Vocal presence: 3.25
For neutral tonality with emphasis in midrange.
Purchased from Stereo Electronics (Singapore)

SpinFit CP100+
Bore size: regular
Stem length: regular
Feel: soft and flexible
Bass: 3.5
Midrange: 5.0
Treble: 3.75
Soundstage: 4.0
Vocal presence: 3.75
Slight improvement over the original CP-100 especially in the midrange and upper-midrange. However, I feel the top-end is less airy than CP-100. Bass also lacks a bit of punch and dynamics. The “plus” addendum probably comes from the better portrayal of the human voice. True enough, vocals sound slightly more forward and crispier.

Imaging, focusing, instrument and vocal separation definitely improved over its predecessor. Personally, CP-145 is still my most favourite SpinFit.
Purchased from Amazon.sg (Singapore)

SpinFit CP145
Bore size: regular
Stem length: regular
Feel: soft and flexible
Bass: 3.5
Midrange: 5
Treble: 4
Soundstage: 4
Vocal presence: 3.5
For neutral tonality with emphasis in midrange and vocal
Purchased from ConnectIT (Singapore)

SpinFit CP155
Bore size: regular
Stem length: long
Feel: soft and flexible
Bass: 4
Midrange: 5
Treble: 4
Soundstage: 3.5
Vocal presence: 4.25
1 mm longer than CP-100 and CP-145, the additional length and bullet-shaped caps of the CP-155 allow deeper insertion to bring more bass and fuller vocal. 
Purchased from ConnectIT (Singapore)

SpinFit CP220
Bore size: regular
Stem length: regular (double flange)
Feel: sturdy and firm
Bass: 4
Midrange: 5
Treble: 4.5
Soundstage: 4
Vocal presence: 4
For neutral tonality with emphasis in bass, midrange and vocal. For clarity and bigger soundstage, choose CP-240.
Purchased from ConnectIT (Singapore)

SpinFit CP240
Bore size: regular
Stem length: regular (double flange)
Feel: soft and sturdy
Bass: 3.75
Midrange: 5
Treble: 5
Soundstage: 4.5
Vocal presence: 4
Exceptional clarity with good treble extension. Soundstage is one of the biggest I have heard. Vocal presentation is forward. Can get sibilant when matched with bright earphones.
Purchased from Stereo Electronics (Singapore)

SpinFit CP350
Bore size: regular
Stem length: short (shallow fit)
Feel: soft and flexible
Bass: 2.0
Midrange: 5
Treble: 5
Soundstage: 4
Vocal presence: 3.5
These eartips are originally meant for TWS wireless earpieces but a friend of mine suggested they are very good at cutting down bass and midbass. Indeed, these are the “Diffuse Field Target-equivalent” of eartips. They clean up the bass.

Reduces mid-bass bloat or muddiness. Upper-midrange is sparkly and treble extension is one of the best I have heard among universal eartips. Vocal is forward with good clarity. NOTE: SpinFit CP-350 has a very shallow fit. Make sure the earphone nozzle length is at least 5mm in order to fit securely.
Purchased from Stereo Electronics (Singapore)

SpinFit CP360
Bore size: regular
Stem length: short
Feel: soft and flexible
Bass: 3.0
Midrange: 5
Treble: 4.75
Soundstage: 4
Vocal presence’ 5
These eartips are meant for true wireless earpieces. If you find SpinFit CP-350 too short, this one fits between regular CP-145 and CP-350. Bass and low-mids are stronger than CP-350. Vocal is forward with good clarity.
Purchased from ConnectIT (Singapore)

SpinFit CP500
Bore size: regular
Stem length: regular
Feel: soft and flexible
Bass: 4.25
Midrange: 5
Treble: 4
Soundstage: 4
Vocal presence: 4.0
A lesser known SpinFit model. CP-500 gives tighter, punchier bass, better vocal presentation than the popular (and common) CP-100 and CP-145. May add sibilance and harshness to bright-sounding earphonesPurchased from MTMT Audio (Hong Kong)

SpinFit OMNI
Bore size: tampered, narrow to wide
Stem length: regular, with dual layered core design
Feel: soft and flexible
Bass: 3.50
Midrange: 5.00
Treble: 4.50
Soundstage: 4.25
Vocal presence: 5.00
SpinFit OMNI is the direct successor to the CP-360, with a longer nozzle stem and the distinction of being the first SpinFit product to offer “in-between” sizes, which are common among eartip brands such as JVC Spiral Dot and Azla SednaEarFit.

Compared to the CP-360, the OMNI delivers a thumpier bass response with heavier note weight, forward vocals with good clarity, and treble extension that is slightly less pronounced.

Compared to the W1, the OMNI has a shallower fit and does not provide as good of an ear seal. The low end of the W1 is also more substantial. However, the OMNI offers better vocal clarity, cleaner and crispier highs, and a slightly deeper soundstage.

TAKE NOTE: OMNI will not fit nozzle diameter larger than 5.5mm.

Purchased from Amazon (Singapore)

SpinFit W1
Bore size: regular
Stem length: regular
Feel: soft and grippy

Bass: 3.75
Midrange: 5.0
Treble: 4.50
Soundstage: 4.75
Vocal presence: 4.50

The SpinFit W1 is probably the most anticipated silicone eartip release from the Taiwanese company in recent years, and they certainly deliver. If you like Azla SednaEarFit XELASTEC but dislike its “dust magnet” and tacky properties, SpinFit has answered your prayers with the W1. A hybrid between XELASTEC and Moondrop Spring Tips, SpinFit W1 gives superb clarity, improves soundstage and stereo imaging and cleans up bass and mid-bass. However, I find it unsuitable for bright or harsh-sounding earphones. May exaggerates metallic timbre if and when implemented incorrectly.

Purchased from Amazon US.

Symbio Orange Peel
Bore size: regular
Stem length: short
Feel: sturdy and very firm
Bass: 4
Midrange: 3
Treble: 4.25
Soundstage: 4.25
Vocal presence: 3.5
Good midrange. Punchier bass, better treble extension and more open-sounding compare to Symbio W.
Purchased from Symbio direct (Hungary)

Symbio W
Bore size: regular
Stem length: short
Feel: sturdy and very firm
Bass: 3.25
Midrange: 4.75
Treble: 3 75
Soundstage: 4
Vocal presence: 3.5
For good midrange, slight treble roll-off
Purchased from Symbio direct (Hungary)

Symbio Eartips Wa
Bore size: regular
Stem length: short
Feel: sturdy and firm
Bass: 3.25
Midrange: 4.75
Treble: 3 75
Soundstage: 4.00
Vocal presence: 3.50

This is Symbio W with a softer stem. Because of this, I feel that Symbio Wa doesn’t put as much pressure in the ear can thus slightly more comfortable than other oranges. Sonic-wise, both are similar.

Purchased from Symbio direct (Hungary)

Symbio Eartips Wn
Bore size: regular
Stem length: short
Feel: sturdy and very firm
Bass: 3.25
Midrange: 4.75
Treble: 4.00
Soundstage: 4.00
Vocal presence: 3.75

Barely 1mm taller than Symbio W, the Wn sounds a bit more vocal forward otherwise it is identical to the W in every aspect.

Purchased from Symbio direct (Hungary)

T

Tanchjim T-APB Air Pressure Balance Silicone Eartips T300T (Treble Enhancing)
Bore size: wide
Stem length: regular
Feel: sturdy and firm
Bass: 4.5
Midrange: 4.5
Treble: 4.5 
Soundstage: 3.75
Vocal presence: 4What’s is T-APB? Simply put it, a hexagonal-shaped internal wall of the nozzle that Tanchjim claims “enhance the comfortness (is there such a word?) by evenly balancing the air pressure inside the ear canal, thus to prevent swelling of the ear canal caused by prolonged use of earphone”

… Marketing aside, the T300T (Treble Enhancing) eartip does pushes some high frequency through but it causes the entire bass spectrum and low-mids to “muddle up”, resulting in a loss of texture and low-end details. Does not go well with “thick-sounding” IEMs but good match for leaner-sounding ones BUT be very careful as it might brighten sound too much. 
Purchased from Hifigo

Tanchjim T-APB Air Pressure Balance Silicone Eartips T300B (Bass Enhancing)
Bore size: regular
Stem length: regular
Feel: sturdy and firm
Bass: 4.0
Midrange: 4.5
Treble: 4
Soundstage: 4
Vocal presence: 3.75What’s is T-APB? Simply put it, a hexagonal-shaped internal wall of the nozzle that Tanchjim claims “enhance the comfortness (is there such a word?) by evenly balancing the air pressure inside the ear canal, thus to prevent swelling of the ear canal caused by prolonged use of earphone”

… Marketing aside, the T300T (Treble Enhancing) eartip is surprisingly neutral despite the “Treble Enhancing” name tag. I find the vocal slightly laid-back and lower-mids a tad muffled. Otherwise, a good choice for IEMs with diffused-field tuning, such as those from Tanchjim and Moondrop.
Purchased from Hifigo

TangZu Tang Sancai (唐三彩) Advanced Eartips (Wide Bore)

Bore size: extra wide
Stem length: regular
Feel: firm and pliable

Bass: 3.75
Midrange: 5.00
Treble: 4.50
Soundstage: 4.75
Vocal presence: 4.50

Tang Sancai (唐三彩), known as “Tang Dynasty three-color ware,” refers to a type of glazed ceramic pottery that originated in China during the Tang Dynasty (618-907 AD). The term “Sancai” (三彩) translates to “three colors” in Chinese, which refers to the typical color palette used in this type of pottery. Characterized by its distinctive tricolor glaze, Tang Sancai pottery consists of a combination of yellow, green, blue, and white colors, which explains why these eartips come in yellow (Small), green (Medium), and blue (Large).

These eartips are upper midrange forward with a sense of clarity and space, without sacrificing tonal weight. I prefer this to Tang Sancai balanced eartips. Compared to my reference – the SpinFit CP-145, Tang Sancai wide bore sounds cleaner, clearer and has more texture. Treble extension is much better, providing more space around the instruments.

Compared to the crowd favorite – TRI Clarion, Tang Sancai wide bore sounds less open and not as crisp. Soundstage is a tinge narrower as well. However, it has a heavier note weight than Clarion.

The final comparison is with Moondrop Spring Tips. Here is where both eartips share more similarities. Both eartips are upper-mid forward but Tang Sancai wide bore sounds a tad smoother and less sibilant. It also seals better in my ears but fit is subjective.

Do take note that my audiophile buddy broke one of his Tang Sancai wide bore eartips while trying them the first time. Be very careful when swapping tips.

Purchased from Angelears AliExpress Store.

TangZu Tang Sancai (唐三彩) Advanced Eartips (Balanced)

Bore size: wide
Stem length: regular
Feel: firm and pliable
Bass: 4.50
Midrange: 5.00
Treble: 4.00
Soundstage: 3.50
Vocal presence: 4.50

Tang Sancai (唐三彩), known as “Tang Dynasty three-color ware,” refers to a type of glazed ceramic pottery that originated in China during the Tang Dynasty (618-907 AD). The term “Sancai” (三彩) translates to “three colors” in Chinese, which refers to the typical color palette used in this type of pottery. Characterized by its distinctive tricolor glaze, Tang Sancai pottery consists of a combination of yellow, green, blue, and white colors, which explains why these eartips come in yellow (Small), green (Medium), and blue (Large).

These eartips are vocal forward, full-bodied, and bass-heavy, with an average soundstage projection and a slight top-end congestion. Compared to my usual reference, the SpinFit CP-145, Tang Sancai sounds bassier, more robust, and fuller. Vocals are pushed forward with a bit of nasal undertone, especially on husky female vocals, such as Patricia Barber. Treble extension is much better on the CP-145, providing more space for instruments to breathe.

When compared to Acoustune AET07 and its 07 variants, both eartips become more similar. However, to my ears, AET07 sounds cleaner and clearer. On the other hand, Tang Sancai sounds bolder, with thumpier bass and smoother overall sound.

The last comparison is with Final Audio Type-E. To me, Final Type-E is like a glass of smooth, rich, and creamy oak-aged whiskey. Tang Sancai’s full-bodied presentation can’t match Type-E’s. However, Tang Sancai excels in vocal projection, has slightly better treble extension, and delivers a snappier mid-bass thump. In terms of soundstage, Final Type-E is better but not by much.

Purchased from Angelears AliExpress Store.

Tennmak Whirlwind
Bore size: regular
Stem length: regular
Feel: sturdy and firm
Bass: 2
Midrange: 4.5
Treble: 4.25
Soundstage: 4
Vocal presence: 4.5
Reduces bass and mid-bass significantly. Let vocal shines through.
Purchased from Tennmak Store on AliExpress

TFZ “Pumpkin” Silicone Ear Tips
Bore size: wide
Stem length: regular
Feel: soft and pliable
Bass: 2.00
Midrange: 5.00
Treble: 5.00
Soundstage: 4.50
Vocal presence: 4.50

Shaped like a white pumpkin, these eartips suppress bass and sub-bass like nobody’s business. Their “enhanced” upper-midrange and treble are the two main reasons why people would buy them. Then again, these look more like Halloween novelty items than proper audio products. Soundstage is open and airy but lacks depth. Overall, sound transparency is surprisingly good. Great eartips to sabotage your basshead friend.

Purchased from TFZ Taobao Official Store

TRI Clarion
Bore size: wide
Stem length: regular
Feel: soft and pliable
Bass: 3.00
Midrange: 4.50
Treble: 5.00
Soundstage: 5.00
Vocal presence: 5.00

These are probably the most sibilant eartips I have tested so far thus avoid using them on earphones that sound bright and tizzy. These eartips reduce mid-bass and sub-bass to the point whereby there is very little bass rumble. Vocals are pushed forward. Of all the traits, what impresses me most is the huge soundstage they project.

Purchased from KB EAR / TRI AliExpress Official Store

TRN Silicone Eartips
Bore size: regular
Stem length: regular
Feel: flexible with firm stem
Bass: 3.5
Midrange: 3.25
Treble: 3.0
Soundstage: 2.50
Vocal presence: 3.0
Listening to these eartips is like having a thick veil covers the entire frequency spectrum. They simply muffle sound! Bass is clumpy, lacks texture and details. Midrange and upper-registers cover by a layer of haze. Vocal is lackluster and lifeless. Staging is flat and narrow. Imagining is fuzzy. One of the worst eartips I have tested so far.
Purchased from TRN Official Store on AliExpress

TRN T-Ear Tips

Bore size: regular
Stem length: very short
Feel: soft and pliable
Bass: 3.75
Midrange: 4.50
Treble: 4.50
Soundstage: 4.75
Vocal presence: 5.00

These onion-shaped eartips fit smaller and shorter than, say, SpinFit. Overall tonality is upper-midrange and treble emphasis, with a hint of boosted bass. Vocal presence is good but forward and sibilant, so be careful when pairing with bright-sounding IEMs. Soundstage is spacious with good depth and height.

Review sample from TRN.

U

Unique Melody Liquid Silicone Ear Tips (Standard)
Bore size: wide bore
Stem length: extremely short
Feel: soft and grippy
Bass: 3.00
Midrange: 5.00
Treble: 5.00
Soundstage: 5.00
Vocal presence: 5.00

Made of the same transparent liquid silicone material as Softears UC eartips but at a lower cost. I find these tulip-shaped eartips sound clean, clear and airy. Midrange, vocal presentation, and soundstage are outstanding. Bass and mid-bass are on the lean side. Unfortunately, these eartips attract dirt and dust, so clean them regularly if you use them frequently.

WARNING: Due to its EXTREMELY short stem, DO NOT use earphones with short nozzle.

Purchased from Unique Melody Official Store

Unique Melody Liquid Silicone Ear Tips (Vented)
Bore size: wide bore
Stem length: extremely short
Feel: soft and grippy
Bass: 0.00
Midrange: 5.00
Treble: 5.00
Soundstage: 5.00
Vocal presence: 5.00 (SHOUTY!!!)

It isn’t a typo error. The bass score is 0.00, meaning ZERO bass. Vented means no seal. Without a good ear-seal, bass disappears. There is no noise isolation as well. Other than vent holes on the cap, it is the same eartip as standard Unique Melody Liquid Silicone Ear Tips with SHOUTY upper registers!

WARNING: Due to its EXTREMELY short stem, DO NOT use earphones with short nozzle.

Purchased from Unique Melody Official Store

Whizzer Easytips ET100 (natural)

Bore size: regular
Stem length: regular
Feel: soft and firm
Bass: 3.75
Midrange: 4.0
Treble: 4.0
Soundstage: 4.5
Vocal presence: 3.5

W

A very interesting eartip that looks like a toilet plunger. The shape may be odd but the sound isn’t. Balanced, clean and clear tonality that is neither too bright nor too bassy. Seals and isolates well too.
Purchased from OperaFactory Taobao Official Store

Whizzer Easytips SS20 (soundstage)

Bore size: wide
Stem length: regular
Feel: soft and pliable
Bass: 3.5
Midrange: 4.25
Treble: 4.25
Soundstage: 5.0
Vocal presence: 3.5

As the title implies, this eartip improves soundstage, and this isn’t a gimmick. It really adds dimension to sound, giving it a more spacious presentation.
Purchased from OperaFactory Taobao Official Store

Whizzer Easytips VC20 (vocal)

Bore size: regular
Stem length: regular
Feel: soft and firm
Bass: 4.0
Midrange: 3.75
Treble: 4.0
Soundstage: 2.5
Vocal presence: 2.5

Not very good. This eartip clouds midrange and boosts low-mid a bit too much for my taste. Resolution is poor as well. Everything just sounds stuffy and dull. Perfect for bright-sounding IEMs though.
Purchased from OperaFactory Taobao Official Store

Z

ZhuAudio (竹林鸟) Bamboo Rhyme (竹韵) Latex Bamboo Tips
Bore size: wide
Stem length: regular
Feel: plush and grippy
Bass: 4.00
Midrange: 5.00
Treble: 5.00
Soundstage: 4.75
Vocal presence: 5.00

These latex eartips remind me of FEAULLE H570 latex eartips but cost a fraction less and come in 3 size-pairs per box. Overall tonality is bright and lively. Bass is girthier than H570 with a good thump. Vocals are sibilant but give particularly good enunciation. Stage and imaging are quite good. Resolves nuances very well. Fit and comfort are good. These don’t feel sticky or attract dust like Azla SednaEarFit XELASTEC.

Purchased from ZhuAudio Taobao Store.

Z Reviews Render Eartips
Bore size: wide
Stem length: short
Feel: soft and spongy

Bass: 4.75
Midrange: 4.00
Treble: 4.00
Soundstage: 4.00
Vocal presence: 4.50

Zeo’s Render hybrid eartips offer a compelling combination of comfort and exceptional isolation, surpassing the softness of Symbio W tips. Their bass performance takes center stage, delivering a punchy and satisfying low-end without the mid-bass bloat common in many foam eartips. In terms of sound signature, they closely resemble the very expensive Sony EP-N1000M, albeit with a slight compromise in upper-midrange clarity. Compared to Zeo’s other favorite, the Dekoni Bulletz foam tips, the Render eartips offer a significant boost in clarity, vocal presence, and bass impact.

Purchased from HiFiGo Online Store.

Contact us!

RELATED…

The Iconic AZLA SednaEarfit Silicon Tips – Is Their Price Justified? by Jürgen Kraus (2019-12-22)

Announcing The Premium Eartips Project by Jürgen Kraus (2019-10-01)

The Flip Tip: Creating Big Widebore Tips From Reversing Starlines by Slater (2019-09-16)

The post Tweaking Tips – A Simplified Guide To IEM Silicone Eartips UPDATED 2024-03-30 appeared first on Music For The Masses.

We pursue a different approach and have “built” this “Wall of Excellence” brick by brick to list portable audio gear of all types that has been doing a great job for us. And “us” means eight authors. Reconciling such a large number of informed opinions means rigorous and effective filtering. Our selections are therefore relatively safe. We do not compare on our WoE and therefore do not rank. If is’s on it’s on.

This is not a shopping list either and we will not accept requests for additions from third parties. Our wall is strictly personal. Info on all contributors is appended below.

It should be noted that we cannot know every product and therefore our list has holes. But we always strive to keep these as small as possible.

Please bookmark our dynamic Wall of Excellence and keep checking back as it will always be work in progress. You find it easily in the top toolbar.

Now it is time to dip in. Please enjoy yourself.

And don’t forget: If it ain’t here, WE don’t want it :). Check out your eight “bricklayers” below.

Until next time…keep on listening!

Contact us!

The post Introducing Our Wall Of Excellence appeared first on Music For The Masses.

Executive Summary

Not all (premium) dongles are equal – and not all are equally useful for the consumer. A real dilemma. This note discusses the applicability of the different kinds for everybody’s unique needs.

Introduction

There have been hot discussions of dongles (battery-less, source-driven DAC/amps) lately. Two principal endmembers exist, the AudioQuest DragonFly type that minimizes current draw, and the Luxury & Precision W2 type, that draws multiple times the DragonFly’s current, but maximizes power output.

All dongles have their small form factor in common, which is aiming for portable use. Computer applications are not considered in this article (there are additional choices), neither are sound qualities of the individual models, and we focus on the more upscale models.

Technical Aspects

I had already discussed the limitations of low-current-draw dongles in detail in this article.

Co-blogger Alberto Pittaluga writes: price aside, it technically boils down to…little power/current draw = limited output power & quality. 

So pick your poison:

a) If low power/battery preservation is your top priority (i.e.: don’t want to buy a different phone, want minuscule size, etc. —> you have to accept sound and/or pairing compromises)

b) If output power/quality is your top priority (“need” to drive cans, low sensitivity IEMs, planars, etc.) you need phones with bigger batteries.

Both together is *not* (technically) possible, whatever marketing says. And – let’s face it, any device that is limited by its small form factor and without a battery can only be a compromise.

Little current draw/power = limited output power/quality but longer battery life

Which User Type are You?

The participants in the discussion come from three principal groups and therefore from different angles: Android users, iPhone users, and DAP users. All phone users use dongles to improve their device’s sound quality and/or to run iems/headphones not driven by the integrated audio circuits or the basic stock dongles.

iPhone Users

These have the least choice as iPhones throttle current consumption to 100 mA. They are limited to low-current dongles of the DragonFly type. They are also restricted in their pairings but get lots of use between charges.

Android Users

These phones have typically no current-draw limitations and host large batteries as big as 5000 mAh. They can therefore operate the W2-type dongles, too. And whereas these W2-types are the most powerful dongles, they still do not drive power-hungry headphones perfectly well, according to Headphonesty. The price to pay is much higher battery consumption.

DAP Users (downgrading to phone)

Whereas dongles are upgrades for all phone users, they are damage limitation for the sonically indulged DAP crowd. Some people sold their DAPs to go with the powerful W2-type dongle which comes sonically closest to their DAP.

Concluding Remarks

Since no dongle does everything we want, it comes down to need of what it should do for us, depending on our perspective. And all the points of the different user groups are valid. But what works for the goose may not work for the gander in this case, for technical reasons.

The consumer has choices: some want small and powerful, some small and low current, others don’t mind strapping an internally powered monster to their phone, and the rest wants DAPs. Before buying, we may want to define our requirements in order to get full enjoyment out of our new device.

Until next time…keep on listening!

Contact us!

Disclaimer

This article is a summary of discussions with co-bloggers Kazi Muhbab Mutakabbir, Alberto Pittaluga, and members of our marvellous Facebook Group https://www.facebook.com/groups/audioreviews.

Our generic standard disclaimer.

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

The post The #1Dongle Dilemma – Power Vs. Compatiblity appeared first on Music For The Masses.

What Is…

“Dongle” is the casual term for a tiny portable USB DAC/amp that is sourced by its host device (phone/tablet, dap, computer). It is derived from software keys of this kind of shape.

Early Steps

The idea of a small, portable DAC/amp in the shape of a USB “thumb drive” goes back to a conversation between some industry reps and consulting audio engineer Gordon Rankin at the Rocky Mountain Audio Fest 2010. Gordon had been designing DACs since the early 2000s and had lots of experience with asynchronous code, needed to minimize timing errors (“jitter”) that compromise an USB-audio signal. You find details of the dongle inception in my AudioQuest Dragonfly Red review.

The device was designed for larger headphones and with iPhone portability in mind – but iPhone limits the current draw to 100 mA to protect battery life. One of the challenges was therefore to minimize current draw, which, unfortunately, limits performance as we will see below.

In 2015, Apogee released their famous “Groove“, a very powerful and large device that draws 340 mA, and it has an output impedance of 20 Ω. This is not a dongle sensu stricto as it only works with computers and mainly with high-impedance headphones (with some exceptions).

It took until 2016 until the first USB devices had a current draw small enough to work with iPhone: AudioQuest’s DragonFly Black v.1.5 and DragonFly Red. Timing was right as Apple removed the headphone jack in the same year, as of iPhone 7. And most Android phones followed suit.

Apple offers a decent low-priced dongle of their own that is good value but is limited in power. My review of the “Apple Audio Adapter” is one of the evergreens of our blog.

The DragonFlys have an output impedance of <1 Ω, which makes them work well with headphones and iems alike. They do not have any physical controls and are operated through their host devices.

DragonFlys Black and Red still lead the pack in terms of low-current drain (if exempting the Apple Audio Adapter). You find drain comparisons between some models here.

Most dongles need a Windows driver, but all of them are plug’n’play with phones , tablets, and Apple computers.

From Thumb Drive to Dongle

The very first external iPhone DAC/amp, the Apple Audio Adapter, was physically a true dongle, and a seamless headphone/earphone cable extension.

The first non-Apple devices (the AudioQuest DragonFlys) had/have a USB-A plug and resemble a thumb drive. The USB-A pug works seamlessly with the Apple camera adapter and any computer. Android phones had no preference with developers as they had no standardized socket at the time and still do not produce music bit perfect (they resample a 44.1 kHz signal to 48 kHz).

Most of the Android devices had micro-USB ports until the USB-C port (finalized in 2014) was slowly spreading starting in 2015. Today, there are more than 100 dongles on the market, most of them featuring a USB-C port. And so do the latest Macs.

DAC/amp and music/power source are connected by a short USB-C to USB-C cable, most of them coming with an additional USB-A adapter. None of these has a USB-C plug, probably for the purpose of stability (the USB-C plug could break off easily). But the need for this additional cable turned the original thumb-drive into a true “dongle”.

Some devices have a fixed USB-C cable, and iPhone users are horrified by the snakes they produce when connected to the Apple camera adapter. Third-party USB-C to lightning cables may come in handy, but their MFI chip draws “healthy” additional current.

Technology – What makes a Dongle’s Sound?

There are many variables that contribute to the sound, such as the dac implementation which includes software coding and filtering, the analog output stage, and the amp design and implementation.

Therefore, same dac chip does not mean same sound in different devices. In my case, The Khadas Tone2 Pro, EarMen TR-amp, Hizids S9 Pro, Shanling UA2, and DragonFly Cobalt feature the ESS ES9038Q2M dac chip – and they do not sound even remotely close.

So it does not surprise that some high-end dacs and some budget dongles have the same dac chip, which are a relatively cheap ingredient. Some high-end manufacturers therefore do not disclose the dac-chip used in their specifications.

Characteristic Chip Sound?

Since buyers cannot audition dongles in most cases, many buying decisions are based on chip brand and model. Descriptions of characteristic sonic signatures based on chips by certain manufacturers echo through the blogosphere. Co-audioreviewer KopiOkaya summarizes them for us:

1. ESS Sabre (US/China) – neutral to neutral-cool, analytical, detailed, fast punchy bass, great dynamics, impressive soundstage and separation. Modern sound. “ESS glare”.

2. AKM (Japan) – neutral to neutral-warm, vocal-centric, laid-back/mellow, bodied. Can sound forward on some models. Some dislike the “AKM Velvet Sound” claiming that it sounds flat and lifeless. Modern sound with a classic twist.

3. Burr Brown/Texas Instruments (US): Natural tone with very good music texture. Generally sound neutral to neutral-warm. Their earlier multibit models (for example: PCM1704UK, PCM63P, etc.) sound extremely musical and dynamic at the same time. Can sound forward with average soundstage on some models. Traditional analog “solid-state” sound.

4. Cirrus-Logic/Wolfson (US/India/UK) – A staple of Apple products since their first generation iPod. Natural tone with warmth and body. Vocal-centric with good dynamics and music texture. Earlier Wolfson DACs can sound wooly and lacks resolution. Traditional analog “tube” sound.

As KopiOkaya points out to me, this does not consider the jitter-reduction and error-correction clock, LPF/IV stages, and power supply.

DragonFly creator (and therefore “dongle inventor”) Gordon Rankin told me that these four points are “totally off“, and “you could not classify these brands that way. There is too many factors to pigeon hole a sound for any DAC: power, filters, analog design, digital design, software etc.”. And that’s what I experienced with my devices featuring the ESS ES9038Q2M dac chip.

According to Gordon, “the difference [for example] between DragonFly Red and Cobalt is more than the dac chip. Power, filtering and new controller make up a big part of the difference in sound. More so than the dac chip itself“.

So, maybe the four points above apply to poorly implement dac chips?

Technical Limitations and Realistic Expectations

The dongle DAC/amps are limited by their (portable) source – and by Ohm’s law. Transducers are moved by current. Such devices that are optimized for low current drain/little battery consumption do not work well with low impedance/low sensitivity iems/headphones, as such require a lot of current.

Dongles optimized for low-current draw lack certain features: for example high-speed USB and balanced circuits that would add to the current draw.

If the required current cannot be provided, the iems/headphones start distorting, which first becomes evident at the low end as it needs the most current. The right pairing is therefore important and I am surprised that some experienced testers ignore this.

It’s the current, stupid (and not the power)!

Such dongles that draw lots of current from the host device may provide more amplification power and less distortion (and balanced outputs etc.), but they will drain your phone’s battery in no time – or don’t work with some phones at all.

Examples of popular powerful dongles are the Shanling UA2 and Hidizs S9 Pro, that consume twice as much battery as the DragonFly Red – which defies the idea of portability. You find a power drain comparison between selected models here.

The real current hogs are limited to operation with a computer, but what is the point of a small form factor for stationary use?

Not every small device is portable!

Decoding Acrobatics

Most dongles decode MQA, which is apparently a useless format. And even the cheaper models manage sample rates up to PCM 32-bit 384 kHz and DSD128 (DoP), as offered by some streaming services.

This may be interesting for $$$$ desktop DAC/amps, but why does anybody need such sample rates in a $50-100 device with limited sound quality to begin with – while forking out that monthly subscription fee? Sounds like a “gimmick” to me.

Most renowned reviewers such as Steve Guttenberg are perfectly happy with CD quality, even on their $$$$ devices. Works for me, too.

Rigour in Dongle Evaluations

Dongles underlie the same standard evaluation criteria as self-powered DAC/amps when it comes to sound quality, but there are some special considerations adherent to their lack of battery. As they were designed to drive headphones from smartphones on the go, portability is the main criterium. And portability is defined by size/weight and synergy with the host device. Not every small device is portable.

There are compromises between:

• small size and performance
• source’s battery consumption and dongle performance

The small form factor limits the size of the logic board and therefore the space for electrical components – which requires shortcuts that take away from performance (but add to the price).

The other compromise comes from the aforementioned current limitation that restricts technical features, amplification power, and headphone pairing.

Such devices that are not designed with energy conservation (and hence portability) in mind do not work well or not at all with phones. They are not (very) portable and essentially restricted to computers.

In this case, their small form factor is pointless and even disadvantageous, as these dongles have to stand comparison with self-powered, larger DAC/amps that offer better performance at similar prices – and therefore better value.

Since dongles have limited power, much of their value lies in the sound quality.

In summary, when evaluating dongles, the analyst must have a good understanding of what these devices are supposed to do and how they achieve it.

Consumer Choices

As elaborated on above, the user has choices: either low-battery drain or high power and additional features – but not both. Many popular powerful dongles with lots of features are rather useless with a phone, and many low-current dongles are problematic with current-hungry transducers.

The choice is yours, but my dongles have to be as portable as possible.

Concluding Remarks

OK, “1001 Facts” may be an exaggeration, but now you probably have a better idea what dongles are about. I personally use a phone with dongle as I do not want to carry a dap, and because the small DAC/amp can be swapped between my current and future devices.

Over time, my dongles may have a higher life expectancy than my phone and also battery-operated DAC-amps such as the hip-dac or ifi Nano BL.

Until next time…keep on listening!

Contact us!

Disclaimer

My knowledge of these devices benefitted greatly from discussions with the USB-audio pioneer Gordon Rankin of Wavelength Audio Ltd., co-bloggers Alberto Pittaluga & KopiOkaya & Kazi Mahbub Mutakabbir & Biodegraded, and Chiqui Vásquez from hiendportable.com. AudioQuest’s Stephen Mejias provided the historical details. I thank them all.

Our generic standard disclaimer.

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

The post 1001 Critical Facts About Dongles (Source-Powered Portable DAC/Amps) appeared first on Music For The Masses.

Nozzle mesh screens sometimes look like a decorative piece or something just to keep the ear juice out. They can create problems though when they wick up too much moisture or modders decide to remove them completely. Below you can see up close images of various nozzle mesh screens serving a vital function – to dampen unwanted resonances. The screen openings themselves (number of holes + diameter of holes) can also factor into the tuning of the earphone, but this was not included as part of this investigation. Below are samples of certain earphones where nozzle screens were discussed in more than passing on certain forums, as well as a popular modder tool otherwise known by the name of micropore tape or paper tape.

KZ ZS3

It was quite the rage to remove these screens and I see why. Mine was actually two plastic screens stuck together. Was this a mistake or on purpose?

SONY MH755

Reviewed here. Modders like to remove the foam plug, but do not remove the black mesh screen. It tames the peaks at 2.8kHz and 5.3khz giving it almost a textbook Harman curve. Very much important noted by certain modders like Slater.

BQEYZ SPRING 1

Our takes on the Spring 1 here. Modders claimed by removing the screen it would get rid of the woolly bass. I removed mine and the quality of the bass did not change, but treble peaks were turned up giving the illusion of improved bass. The bass was just masked by the extra treble punch. Again, I do not recommend removing unless there wasn’t enough upper midrange in the stock tuning. I have heard that other BQEYZ models employ tuning filters directly on the BA units, so this might explain why the screen only has a minor impact.

MOONDROP KANAS PRO

We covered the KPE exhaustively here. Notorious for clogging with moisture in high humidity areas or sweaty ears, Moondrop eventually started selling replacement nozzle screens and included them in subsequent models like the Starfield. They have an interesting arrangement of a small rectangular area with extra damping coverage. Similar to using a partial piece of micropore tape. Again removing it introduces peakiness. Not recommended.

MICROPORE TAPE (3M NEXCARE PAPER TAPE)

Micropore tape has a very irregular pattern. Not much to say about it other than it doesn’t seem to target any specific frequency. All the other filters are uniform and tend to dampen certain frequencies. Useful as a butter knife, not a scalpel.

SUMMARY

So personally, I do not recommend removing nozzle mesh screens unless planning to replace or mod with something else. There might be exceptions such as pure balanced armature IEM’s that utilize resistance damper filter plugs on the end of the balanced armature itself. Therefore the nozzle screen is not like putting a screen door on a submarine, most appear to be used as resistive dampers to tame the frequency response. I’m not suggesting it is wrong to remove the filters, but be aware of the consequences. If there are other earphone modding materials you would like to see up close and personal, leave a comment below or feel free to get in touch with us and we will see what we can do to expand this article.

Contact us!

DISCLAIMER

Sometimes I stare blankly at walls.

Our generic standard disclaimer.

About my measurements.

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

The post Nozzle Screen Filter Impact on Frequency Response appeared first on Music For The Masses.

A note on Beryllium drivers in earphones.

The upcoming US Presidential Election, the ongoing COVID-19 pandemic and the frequent AliExpress packages delay aside, 2020 is a great year for the audiophile community. The technology of beryllium diaphragm is currently in its matured state. Several headphone manufacturers have re-ignited the interest in the material by bringing more affordable beryllium driver-based products to the masses. Beryllium is renowned for its low density, high tensile strength and high flexural rigidity – an ideal material for transducers. This article will explore beryllium as a high performance material in audio applications.

Beryllium is a material with the symbol Be and its atomic number is 4 on the Periodic Table of the Elements, atomic weight 9.012182, is the lightest alkaline earth metal. As a free element, it is a steel-grey, strong, lightweight metal; lighter than commonly used aluminum and titanium, and its strength is 4 times that of steel. An indispensable and precious material with applications ranging from x-ray tubes to scientific instruments and precision components. It is also widely-used extensively in aerospace, telecommunications and metallurgical industries.

Beryllium has a reputation for being brittle. At room temperature, beryllium is inherently a “hard” metal with closely-packed hexagonal crystal structure. However, the level of brittleness is process related. There are two processes that are currently used to manufacture beryllium transducers – Physical Vapor Deposition (PVD) and Powder Metallurgy (Powdered Metal).

Beryllium has exceptional stiffness of a Young’s modulus 287 GPA. The modulus of elasticity of beryllium is approximately 50% greater than that of steel. The combination of its stiffness and a relatively low density results in an unusually fast sound conduction speed in beryllium at about 12.6km/s under ambient conditions.

The advantages  of beryllium as a diaphragm material have long been acknowledged. Its exceptionally high stiffness-to-mass ratio is far beyond that of polymer or carbon-based materials, allowing beryllium to deliver even tighter, faster and cleaner bass response. A midrange that is natural-sounding, fuller with exceptional details and texture. With the rigidity and elasticity of beryllium, the treble can be extend even further without harshness or grain, resulting in a transparent, crisp sound that is comfortable for long listening sessions.

A diaphragm, for example, should move in a perfect pistonic motion (like a piston), with all points moving in uniform and only in the desired direction. Breakup occurs when the forces acting upon the diaphragm overpower its structural integrity and different points on the surface begin moving in different times relative to one another. Because beryllium is extremely light and stiff, it does a better job of maintaining its structural integrity under load, avoiding breakups when compared to conventional diaphragm materials. Beryllium stays pistonic throughout the same frequency range which tracks signal more accurately when an equalisation is applied. Thus making it more responsive to tone adjustments.

Even more critical, however, is the efficiency at which sound travels through beryllium. This is important because the frequency at which the first breakup occurs in any metal, is analogous to the speed of sound through that metal. The speed of sound through beryllium is nearly 2.5 times faster than that of aluminum or titanium. This means the first breakup will occur at a much higher frequency – well outside the audible range in most cases. What is more, when breakup does occur, beryllium’s greater stiffness ultimately reduces the amplitude of those breakups, resulting in very low harmonic distortion.

High frequency breakups cause rough and “peaky” frequency response that typically resulting in a long decay in the time domain (also referred to as ringing). This effect is particularly evident in the top octave response and decay differences between the smooth, fast-decaying beryllium driver and the peaky, long-ringing ribbed titanium driver.

Over the years, companies such as Focal, Periodic Audio, Dunu, Campfire Audio, Final Audio and Master & Dynamic, etc, have offered beryllium-based headphones. Despite its many benefits, beryllium has never been adopted as widely as polymer or carbon-based drivers, and has mostly been relegated to esoteric head-fi components. This is due largely to expense and complexity, since beryllium is rarer and traditionally more difficult to isolate and refine. But modern day refining and manufacturing techniques are reducing the cost of beryllium, while at the same time further enhancing its performance and reliability.

With recent launches such as Dunu Luna and Final Audio A8000, as well as the-soon-to-release KBEAR BElieve, audiophiles will have more choices for affordable beryllium-based earphones. Indeed, 2020 is a year to rejoice! 

References

Article & Graphics:

Adams, Michael., & Berger, Ken. (2012). Growing The Loudspeaker Ecosystem: A discussion of the use of beryllium in transducers. Live Sound International, 56-60. www.ProSoundWeb.com

Other sources:

D.W., Jr., and Burke, J.E. (Editors) (1955), The Metal Beryllium, The American Society of Metals.

Hausner, H.H. (Editor) (1965), Beryllium – Its Metallurgy and Properties, University of California Press.

Schetky, L. M. and Johnson, H.A. (Editors) (1966), Beryllium Technology, Vol. I and II, Gordon and Beach Science Publishers, Inc.

Hausner, H.H. (Editor) (1967), The Beryllium Metals Handbook, General Astrometals Corporation (1967).

The post Believing in Beryllium – A Sound Belief appeared first on Music For The Masses.

This subject came to me one day when I was replying Sunil’s comment on “Tuning The KBEAR Diamond – A Killer Earphone Ready To Go!” on Audioreviews.org. What set me thinking was the fact that many audiophiles are still vastly unfamiliar with Chi-Fi (China Hifi) tuning. Why are Chi-Fi earphones tuned in a certain way? Is there anything a tuner could do to tweak the sound to suit the western ears more? Without going too technical, I will try my best to explain the rationale behind them.

First of all, we must understand the cultural differences. You see, the term “audiophile” or fever enthusiast (“发烧友” in Chinese) did not exist until the end of last millennium. Before that, most Mainlanders were still very poor. Many were labourers, factory workers, miners and farmers, etc. High-fidelity audio enjoyment was the last thing in their minds. Trying to make ends meet in their livelihoods was top priority. Even if the Mainlanders have access to a decent piece of audio equipment, it would cost them an arm and leg, or worst – got thrown into jail. You see, the equipment acquired were probably smuggled from Hong Kong, costing 4 to 5 times its original retail price in the former British colony. Only the very wealthy land-owners, factory-owners, traders, merchants and high government officials could afford such luxury and avoid prosecution.

So, what has this got to do with Chi-Fi tuning? Plenty! You see, most Mainlanders who grew up in that era had never experienced or heard a decent-sounding piece of audio equipment. Foreign Hi-Fi gears were extremely rare. Their domestic “HiFi” products were still largely based on circuitry cloned from well-known foreign brands (such as vintage Western Electric, RCA, Telefunken, Marantz, etc), using inferior components that were poorly implemented and heavily compromised (off-specs).

Loudspeakers from those days were based on front-loaded horn designs, using horn transducers dated back to the 50s and 70s (yes, many of those horn speakers were previously used in public address systems or emergency warning systems). Folks who have experienced or have used horn speakers in the past can relate their blaring sound to Chi-Fi tuning (both eerily similar).

Besides equipment, one of the most obvious reason is recorded music. Mainland China then did not have access to music from other Chinese-speaking territories such as Hong Kong or Taiwan. In fact, many songs were banned because the lyrics were deemed inappropriate to the communist doctrine and ideology. If you have ever heard Mainland Chinese recordings dated back 30-40 years ago, they were shouty, harsh and ear-piercing (plenty examples on YouTube). Why such tonality? The idea is high-pitched sound brings attention and awareness effectively. Imagine the loud shriek from your wife, girlfriend, sister or mother, etc, trying to capture your attention.

Today, the age demographics of many Chi-Fi bosses are in their late 20s, early 30s. Owners of KZ and Yinyoo are in their early 30s. Owner of TRN in his late 20s. That means these folks had their childhood in the 1980s and 1990s, which matches our earlier observations perfectly. They grew up listening to equipment that was less than optimum, with sound that resembles those playing from front-loaded horn loudspeakers. Many of them cannot relate to warm and mellow tones. In fact, they consider such tonality muddy and lacks clarity.

As a tuner for Chi-Fi earphone manufacturers, I often encounter difficulties and frustrations trying to convince their management and engineers to accept a certain tone or sound characteristics. They are judging my tuning based on their own experiences of how “good sound” should be represented. They cannot understand why “blurry and unclear” (in their own vocabulary – “模糊不清”) sound would appeal to the westerners. For earphones that are both sold domestically and exported, I have to tune for both the Mainland and western consumers. Therefore it isn’t easy striking a balance between the two audiences.

Do take note that Chi-Fi earphone manufacturers will ALWAYS place top priority on domestic and territories sales (which includes Hong Kong and Taiwan). Next comes Japan, Korea, Russia and Southeast Asia. North America and Europe are at the bottom of their priority list. Ironically, both western markets have the most influence on the buying decisions of many earphone enthusiasts around the world. Trying to convince Chi-Fi manufacturers to accept tuning that suits the western ears is never an easy task. Often times they will partially tweak or simply proceed with their own tuning preferences without acknowledging the tuner.

Can tuners do anything to change or improve the situation? Frankly no… Their management and engineers have the ultimate say to how their earphones should sound. Do tuners care? Yes, of course we care. Imagine tuners as teachers. When students don’t do well in their exams, it upsets the teachers. Same sentiment…

Back to Sunil’s comment. He wrote – “It is only the good ear that is able to catch good audio quality and it does not depend on whether it is western or eastern…” – I have to disagree. I am sure these Chi-Fi manufacturers have exceptional “ears”, but whether their “ears” could agree with western interpretation of “good sound” is another chapter. What constitute as “good sound” is subjected to cultural background, individual upbringing and personal experience. As tuners, we can only try our best bring out the best from the available drivers to make them sound as appealing to every human ears as possible, regardless of race, culture or locality.

On a positive note, I have personally witnessed tremendous improvement in the tuning of many Chi-Fi products (not just earphones) in the past 2-3 years. This is due to an increased wealth among middle-class Mainlanders, thus more of them are exposed to top-tier, high-quality foreign brand audio products. Slowly but gradually, they have got the opportunity to experience audio gears from around the world. This makes it a bit easier for tuners to convince Chi-Fi manufacturers to accept western tuning. As a result, more Chi-Fi products suitable for western ears are released (such as BLON, Tanchjim, Moondrop, Fearless and Tansio Mirai, etc). This is an ongoing trend I have observed. Expect more exciting Chi-Fi products in 2020 and beyond! 

Further Reading

Our Year 2019 In Review

Our Favourite Earphones of 2019

Tuning The KBEAR Diamond

The Principles Of Reversible Modding

The post Chi-Fi Tuning – Why It Sounds So Damn Piercing To Western Ears? appeared first on Music For The Masses.

KopiOkaya (more) and I (less) recently started helping manufacturers Blon and KBEAR with tuning earphones (we reported) – for free. This came from cumulative frustration with purchases and review units of models that did not appeal to the western ear (including KopiOkaya’s). The idea was to help with generating a product that is universally liked and that works right out of the box, at an attractive price.

Our first project was the KBEAR Diamond (name suggested by co-blogger and Head-Fier Slater). It sports a “Diamond-Like Carbon” (DLC) coated dynamic driver, one that reacts very sensibly to the smallest changes. Not an easy task keeping balance across the frequency spectrum. Therefore, much of the tuning was done by applying different filters. One thing we recognized right away was the potential of this earphone.

What the heck is a DLC coated driver?

KopiOkaya and I received two Betas, we listened, measured, and communicated via Facebook Messenger, often both testing simultaneously. This was not always easy, considering the 15 hour time difference between Singapore and Calgary.

You may wonder why we did not choose a FR that plots between red and blue. I would have preferred this but the tuning filters did not allow it.

The first iteration (green) was too bassy, the second (red) was not bassy enough (that is: good for jazz, classical, but not “fun” enough for most other genres). In no case was the cable particularly attractive. We also had to pick our own eartips and recommend them to the manufacturer. We wanted to make sure this iem works right away and that no upgrades are required.

One of the last steps was deciding on the cable entirely based on sound!!! I am not a believer in cable sound differences (you know they cannot be measured) but HOW WRONG I WAS. We had two cables available, the pink OCC (Ohno Continuous Cast) cable in the title photo above and the grey OFC (oxygen-free copper) cable (see below).

What the heck is Ohno Continuous Cast?

The KBEAR Diamond’s sound with the pink OCC cable was disappointing to both of us: way too bassy, which congested the low end. Also too punchy. No, that can’t have been it. KopiOkaya and I were equally horrified…such a poor result after all this work?

Plugging in the grey 8-core OFC cable created a totally different and much more balanced, more appealing sound. Smoother and more homogeneous throughout the frequency spectrum with a way more articulate bass. Done! Bingo! And it is obvious that, if the sound with one cable is perceived as awful but attractive with another, that there MUST be a difference. The KBEAR Diamond is obviously sensitive to such cable differences and is therefore a good object for testing your cables with. The culprit cannot be the impedance profile, which is usually flat in a single DD so that cables with different impedances would still result in the same frequency response. Beats me why these differences.

We also decided on a quality leather case to complete the package, and not a soft baggie or a pleather case. This earphone is worth it. In the end, we are very happy with the result: a well-built, great sounding earphone with good accessories at an attractive price. Let’s see how it will be received by both consumers and reviewers. Not sure whether I will write a full review of the final product or just a detailed characterization. We also hope our contribution will inspire other manufacturers to follow suit and put more emphasis on the small details that usually make the big difference.

The KBEAR Diamond has been available since 15 December 2019, initially limited to 500 pairs, at ca. $79. KopiOkaya and I will not receive any compensation for our work. After all it is our hobby. And on to the next project…

Keep on listening!

The post Tuning The KBEAR Diamond – A Killer Earphone Ready To Go! appeared first on Music For The Masses.

Reading time: approx 10 minutes] 

With recent introduction of Diamond-Like Carbon (DLC) and Carbon Nanotube (CNT) coatings to earphones and in-ear monitors, such as Campfire Audio Solaris, Moondrop KXXS, Tanchjim Oxygen, iBasso IT01S and BLON BL-03, etc, we are witnessing an on-going “carbon war” to capture consumers’ attention. So, what is carbon-coated transducer? Let me walk you through this art and science.

Today, many earphones manufacturers promote their products equipped with carbon-coated transducers, some claiming the use of proprietary “black magic” drivers as a core selling point. So what is the impact of carbon-coated drivers on the sound?

First of all… what is a transducer? 

If you can remember your high school physics lessons, you probably vaguely recall how a moving-coil loudspeaker works. An earphone driver shares the same working principles as a loudspeaker. The structure may be different but operation-wise, both are identical. Both need to input an analog signal. Electrical signal passes through a magnet to drive a coil, which in turn vibrate the diaphragm to produce sound. 

What is a good diaphragm?

Before we look at materials, let’s understand how a diaphragm directly affects the sound. An ideal earphone diaphragm should have relatively low mass and good rigidity. In addition, it must have good damping properties to absorb the unnecessary flutter generated by the diaphragm during vibration.

Unfortunately, low mass and rigid do not always occur simultaneously. Earphones manufacturers and designers have to take into account these two requirements as much as possible. Manufacturers will start with two ideas: the mechanical design of the diaphragm and material properties of the diaphragm.

Many diaphragms are reinforced with “ribs” around the circumference to increase its rigidity. Different rib design and shape of the dome affect sound. Development of high-performance transducers require a lot of testing, mathematical models, assembly pairing, etc, which inevitably increases the cost of the driver.

The current development in moving coil transducer technology has entered a bottleneck that forces manufacturers to experiment with various materials. Different material gives different performances and sound signatures. Materials range from plant-base pulps, animal skins, polymers, alloys to composites. For example, earlier versions of Apple EarPods adopted wool-infused paper cone and polymer composite diaphragm. Generally, paper diaphragm offers low cost options and gives reasonable midrange to low frequency responses. However its disadvantages in rigidity and weight, which limits its performance, also means that paper is rarely used in higher tier earphone models. Today, the most common diaphragm material is polyethylene terephthalate (PET), a kind of polymer film.

With the advancement in material sciences and production methodology, medium and high-end earphones often use composite diaphragms. Such diaphragms usually consist of at least with two materials. For example, PET for low frequency rumble and titanium for high frequency transient and detail. In some cases, the diaphragm is made entirely of alloy. Such is known as “metal diaphragm”. Examples are titanium and beryllium, which have excellent weight to strength ratio but are costly. Besides titanium and beryllium, carbon materials such as graphene, CNT and DLC has gradually emerged. Such materials have a much higher stiffness than metal. For example, DLC has a Young’s modulus 1050 GPa compared to 287 GPa for beryllium.

Come, Meet the “Carbon Family”… Due to the “deformable” nature of carbon atoms, different substances will be formed under different atomic structures, such as graphene, CNT and DLC – all of which are allotropes of carbon (structurally different forms of the same element). 

Invented in the early 1970s, Diamond-Like Carbon, or DLC, is a hydrogen-containing amorphous carbon material. Its atomic structure is between H (hydrogen atom) and SP3 (diamond). As the name suggests, its properties are similar to natural diamonds, which includes extreme hardness, high corrosion and wear resistant, and very low friction.

The ultra-low mass of DLC-coated diaphragm achieves a perfect balance between acoustic velocity and internal resistance. Its high sensitivity gives excellent transient response for precise sound reproduction. Transducers using DLC-coated diaphragm are characterised by distinctively clear tonality that is crisp and transparent, especially in the midrange and treble regions. Details clearly defined. Bass transients and attacks are fast and precise. Distortion is vastly minimised.

Compared to other member of the “Carbon Family”, DLC is more difficult to process. The traditional approach requires a high temperature, high pressure environment, which resulted in very high energy consumption. Fortunately, the production of DLC has gone “green” in recent years. Companies such as DB Digital Technology Co., Ltd in Dongguan (parent company of BLON) uses low-energy production methods and much simplified manufacturing procedures, production capacity of DLC has improved by 3~4 times. More importantly, the reliability of DLC-coated diaphragm has improved as well. In addition to their BLON line of earphones, DB Digital Technology has been supplying DLC-coated transducers to several domestic and international earphone manufacturers under various brand names.

With decreasing production costs and increasing quality, DLC has become the ideal coating material for earphones manufacturers in the last decade. This “wonder” material has even captured the attention of Grammy award-winning recording engineer/music producer Luca Bignardi, who set the tone for some of the earlier DLC-coated earphones. Therefore good material still has to couple with good tuning to produce exceptional sound in earphones.

In the past two months, Jürgen and I have been working closely with KBEAR and BLON to co-tune two highly-anticipated earphone models – one uses DLC-coated driver, another based on CNT-coated driver. Both earphones are tuned to suit “western ears”. So far, we are progressing well with early-betas sounded extremely promising. We hope to bring music artistry to the next level, offering fellow audiophiles the best possible audio experience and enjoyment by adopting this truly advanced driver technology – thus fulfilling the perfect marriage of art and science.  

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

The post Lucy In The Sky With Diamonds – The Euphoric Effects Of Carbon-Based Drivers appeared first on Music For The Masses.

Purpose: this cookbook aims to clarify and streamline the information in REW’s original help file in order to save time and frustration with the setup…and the measuring process.

This is work in progress, don’t expect it to be perfect right away. If there is something wrong, please point it out to us. We are also happy to help: if something has not been explained properly and you are hanging, feel free to send Jürgen an email asking for clarification.

The original REW help index (read as often as possible): https://www.roomeqwizard.com/help/help_en-GB/html/

What you need: 

1. A computer with external speaker(s).
2. The REW software (free download: https://www.roomeqwizard.com).
3. A USB microphone OR a calibrated measurement microphone (like this Dayton imm-6).
4. If you don’t have a USB microphone but the second kind (“Dayton”), you need an USB audio adapter such as this one between the mic and the computer’s usb. Port. It is technically an ADC (Analog Digital Converter).
5. A TRS to TRRS adapter   for connecting Dayton with usb audio adapter.
6. An external dac/amp with volume control connected to another one of your computer’s usb ports (I use the Schiit Fulla or Audioquest Dragonfly with a volume-wheel added, but could also use the Shanling M0, for example).
7. A sound meter like this one…there may be phone apps, too.
8. A 3.5 mm male-to-male audio cable.
9. A coupler.

Here the specs of our coupler:

Disclaimer: The measuring coupler is two pieces of plastic tubing on the end of a Dayton iMM-6 microphone. No compensation or smoothing is applied. Our measurements should not be directly compared to other measurements except those done on the same device. 

• Inner tube: 10 mm long clear vinyl water pipe tubing, 5/16″ inside diameter, 7/16″ outside diameter
• Outer tube: 20 mm long PVC pipe, 7/16″ inside diameter, 1/2″ outside diameter
• Slide 5 mm of inner tube over end of Dayton IMM-6 mic (it helps to mark the tube at the correct position)
• Slide 5 mm of outer tube over end of inner tube.
• The internal volume of this ‘stepped’ coupler is 1.68 cc. ‘Medium’ tip sizes fit best.

You get the coupler ingredients from your local hardware store.

We typically insert the tips until the ends of the skirts are flush with the end of the coupler. This results in variable nozzle insertion depths with different tip/nozzle combinations – and therefore different driver-to-mic distances and remaining internal coupler volumes.  It is intended to mimic the effects of shallow- or deep-fitting IEM designs.

This is Our Setup Workflow:

1. Setting up preferences

2. Soundcard calibration, step I:  calibrating REW’s internal SPL  (SoundPressureLevel) 

3. Soundcard calibration, step II:  calibrating dac/amp and usb audio adapter 

If you purchase a USB microphone, you can skip steps 2 and 3. And that’s all, folks…always good to get the big picture right away. So let’s start with the preferences…

1. Setting up preferences

This is easy. You just copy the settings provided. Biodegraded has extracted them from discussion forums. And they work.

When you open the “Preference” panel you see the following tabs.

Only the two underlined tabs “Soundcard” and “Analysis” need to be modified by you – the other five tabs remain untouched.

This is the Soundcard preference panel. All you have to do is inputting the numbers and input/output devices seen in this screenshot. The input volume should be 0.9. “Output device” is whatever dac/amp you have plugged in, and “input device” is whatever your computer calls the USB audio adapter. 

This is the Analysis preference panel. Just fill in these settings into your own window.

Note: the greyed-out Control output mixer/volume should be set at 0.500. We had some initial problems doing that.

And we are done with the Preference setup – close the pane. Wasn’t all that bad, was it?

But hey, why did we ignore the mic/meter tab? After all, our Dayton mic comes with a calibration file…shouldn’ we input it there? Well, no, apparently the measurement results are better without the calibration file.

2.Soundcard calibration, step I (of II):  calibrating REW’s internal SPL (SoundPressureLevel) 

https://www.roomeqwizard.com/help/help_en-GB/html/inputcal.html – top

Hardware setup:

Input: microphone -> TRS to TRRS adapter ->USB audio adapter -> computer’s usb port

Output: computer’s headphone jack and external speaker

The idea of this step is to tell the internal SPL what 85 dBs in real life is. For this, we need an external sound source. An 85 dB sound from the computer’s loudspeakers is recorded by the (in our case) Dayton imm-6 microphone. 85 dB is an arbitrary number that has proven to work well for measurements. The sound is generated with the REW software and output to an external speaker via the headphone jack and recorded by the microphone. When you hold your hand held sound meterside-by-side with the microphone, you can adjust the volume of the sound so that both sound meter and microphone record the desired 85 dB. 

1. After having connected all devices, open the SPLin REW. Select “Calibrate” and choose Signal Source “Use an external signal”. 

2. Next, select “Generator” to produce the sound.  Make sure, you got the right settings:

RMS level: -3.0

1000 Hz sine wave

Speaker: can be left or right, doesn’t matter

3.Now run the sine wave and adjust the volume on your amplifier (Fulla or whatever) until you measure 85 dB with the hand held sound meter. Place the microphone at the location where the sound meter reads 85 dB, adjust the internal SPL to 85 dB,  and then push “Calibrate” on the SPL meter windowto use external signal. 

Done! Now we have calibrated the internal SPL as part of the soundcard calibration. And you never will have to do this again for this hardware.

3.Soundcard calibration, step II (of II):  calibrating dac/amp and usb audio adapter

Hardware Loop:

First USB port (output) -> dac/amp à3.5 mm audio cable -> usb audio adapter -> second computer USB port (input)

We don’t need the TRS to TRRS adapter for this step.

This step produces a calibration file to be used in your soundcard preferences. For this we need an internal sound source. This calibration file is specific for this hardware arrangement and can be used each time you perform measurement. If you decide, for example, to use another amp/dac, you will have to create another calibration file.

1. Carefully double-check your soundcard preferences.

This is the same screenshot as the first one above.

There is a “Calibrate” and a “Make Cal” button in the Soundcard preference pane. What is the difference? 

The ”Calibration” is used first to apply the calibration file to the soundcard. “Make Cal” is the important one — used thereafter to create our calibration file. It is essentially the “save to file” button.

There is also a “Calibrate” button in the SPL window. NEVER EVER touch this one again  as you erase your microphone calibration of step 1.

And so it goes: Open Generator and SPL: produce a sine wave with the same settings as before:

RMS level: -6.0

1000 Hz sine wave

Press the “Calibrate” button in the sound preference pane and follow the steps that come up in the help window at the bottom. Choose -6 dB in the generator.

Adjust the volume of the dac/amp so that the SPL meter shows 85 dB (you remember that number from before). Let it run.

At one point, an automatic measurement will start and create a graph called “Soundcard”.

Push the “Make Cal” button in the soundcard, preference pane to save this curve to a file. At one point you will have to name this newly generated file. Give it a sensible name such as “amp name and audio adapter name”. For example, one of my calibration files is called “Audioquest Dragonfly and Trond.cal”. 

Congratulations, your soundcard is now calibrated and will never have to be recalibrated again for this hardware setup.

And if you exchange your Dayton microphone for another one, you will also NOT have to recalibrate the SPL meter again – as the error of any specimen of this model has more variation than our calibration error.

And now some window dressing…fine-tune your display window that will host your frequency response curves. 

Set axis limits for your coordinated system to 50 to105 [dB] and 20 to 20000 [Hz]: 

And done. Now we can focus on the measurements.

Performing Measurements

After performing the SPL and ‘soundcard’ calibrations described above (including loading your newly generated hardware calibration file in the soundcard preference pane: see image below), you’re ready to make some measurements. Because different headphones have different sensitivities, you’ll need to play with the volume on your output device (amp) to get the same level (85 dB SPL at 1 kHz) for each headphone being investigated. To do this:

1) Put the headphone/earphone on/in your microphone measurement coupler (e.g., our highly sophisticated plastic double-tube) and connect it to your output device (amp).
2) Open the Generator and adjust it to RMS Level dBFS -3; choose Sine Wave & 1000 Hz for the inputs and Speaker, L or R (corresponding to whichever ‘phone you’re measuring); and hit the ‘play’ button. 
3) Open the SPL Meter, hit the big red ‘record’ button, and adjust the volume on your amp until the dB screen reads 85.0.
4) DO NOT HIT THE ‘CALIBRATE’ BUTTON on the SPL Meter, or you’ll ruin all the good work you did in calibration step 1 above and will have to repeat it. Exit the SPL Meter and Generator.

Note that a common standard for headphone measurements is 90 dB at 1 kHz rather than 85 dB. We use the latter because we find with our setup that peaks in the frequency response (commonly the ones around 3kHz) any higher can result in clipping (overloading of the input), leading to the FR curve at the offending frequency being blunted or flattened (and the sound being distorted). Occasionally (e.g. with ‘Chifi chainsaws’) this also happens at 85 db. REW will warn you if it does. If so, use a lower level (e.g. 80 dB) at step 3 and try again. If you still get clipping at 80 we suggest there’s no need for any more measurements and recommend throwing the offending earphones away or using them to punish evil children rather than putting them in your own ears.

Result: the graphs of all measured earphones must intersect at 85 dB at 1 kHz.

Epilogue: Tips, Tricks, Techniques, Troubleshooting, and Pitfalls

Use the right tips correctly

1. Use medium-sized tips for this particular coupler.
2. Always use the same tips for your measurements. There is also room for measuring with the supplied tips. Compare the results of the two.
3. If measuring with narrow-bore and wide-bore tips, superimpose the graphs and record the differences. Try to find the general trend.
4. Before inserting, add a THIN layer of spit on the rubber to achieve better seal (slide works for ear canals).
5. Annotate your file with the tips used and other technical particularities.
6. Superimpose graphs of the earphones you compare: it is a very effective visualization.

What if your graphs lack bass?

1. If your measured graph turns out lacking bass, you may have inserted the rubber tip to deep into the coupler or the tips are too large.
2. Likewise, your tips are too small.

How to strive for precision between R and L earpieces

Precision is a measure of reproducibility.

1. I always measure the left earpiece first, then leave the amp volume unaltered, and insert the right earpiece into the coupler for the next measurement.
2. I alternate between left and right earpiece several times to make sure the measurements can be reproduced.

Why are my peaks clipped?

…because I measured above 85 dB at 1 kHz.

Why do I get this huge channel imbalance whereby both curves are parallel along the entire spectrum?

That’s a channel imbalance in your amplifier. Get another amp but don’t forget to create another calibration file for it (=repeat step II above).

Why do others get a different looking frequency graph for the same earphone?

1. They use a different coupler.
2. They use different software and/or settings.

The post Calibrating and Using a DIY Rig for Measuring Frequency Responses appeared first on Music For The Masses.