The TC01A and TC01C USB adapters were provided by ddHiFi for my analysis…and use. And I thank them for that. You get them from DD Official Store for $8.99 each or $15.99 for the couple.

What? An adapter review? Another one? Does anybody care? Sure, I love adapters, but I never intended to write one about the TC01A and TC01C. When I was asked to analyze the Janus3 earphone, I inquired whether I could try these out. I have purchased quite a few of USB-A to USB-C adapters (in both directions) since Apple changed their USB notebook ports from A to C.

I purchased a few cheepos and a couple of UGREENs. UGREEN is a reliable brand. But there was one problem I could not resolve: getting a tight, stable connection between my Hidizs AP80 Pro-X DAP and the USB-C to USB-A adapter. Most did not work because of the DAP’s leather case, and they also did not fit firmly without. I often had my music interrupted when the connection got loose. Annoying.

On top of that, I am operating amps and headphones with variable 3.5 mm and 4.4 mm sockets and plugs, and also purchased adapters between these two circuits. Relying on cheap no-name adapters from aliexpress caused more harm than good. Independent of sonic issues, some of these did not fit properly and I often had only one channel working.

The TC01A and TC01C are pricey – $16 USD for the pair – but they work. I now get a snug fit on my DAP and the thick leather case ain’t a problem for the connection either. Haptically, they are head and shoulders above their competition. And they are the only ones with gold-plated contacts.

What about the sound? Will probably make no difference. But that’s not really my concern. I want a reliable connection. And it looks good, too.

These are definitely the highest quality USB adapters in my collection.

Sometimes, simple things an make a big difference.

Until next time…keep on listening!

Contact us!

DISCLAIMER

Our generic standard disclaimer.

The post ddHiFi TC01A and TC01C USB Adapters Review appeared first on Music For The Masses.

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

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

At-a-glance Card

Features and description

Externals

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

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

Internals

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Input

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

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

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

Output

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

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

Host power requirements

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

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

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

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

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

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

Volume and gain control

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

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

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

Other features

MQA Rendering

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

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

Firmware

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

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

DragonTail

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

DragonFly Cobalt sound

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

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

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

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

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

Considerations & conclusions

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

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

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

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

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

Our generic standard disclaimer.

The post AudioQuest DragonFly Cobalt Review (2) – Knowledge Is Power appeared first on Music For The Masses.

The Sennheiser IE 900 are a fantastic sounding single-dynamic driver earphones characterized by a neutral-bright, coehesive tonality with a natural timbre an incredible upper extension quality that will please the advanced audiophile for years to come.

The IE 900 are on our Wall of Excellence.

I thank Sennheiser USA for this loaner, which they generously let me use for 4 months. I thank Kazi for the measurements (kazi.squig.link/)

Introduction

I once ended up at the CES show at the Venetian in Las Vegas. This was rather coincidental, and I had been attracted more to the “adult fare” at the same hotel – also coincidentally. Having no tickets for either, I was restricted to the peripheral overflow suites. In one of them played a sophisticated stereo setup…lots of tubes and LEDs, monstrous cables and very large speakers. A huge system. The small crowd was ooh-ing and aah-ing.

Out of the speakers came…choral music by a choir. Very subtle and unspectacular. But it sounded natural and realistic. So much gear, so much investment, for so little result? I was scratching my head…and wrongly so.

What could be better than reproduction as close to the original as possible? We sit in modern concert halls listening to chamber music and symphonies, which never sounds flashier than nature allows. Isn’t that what audiophilia is all about?

I have listened to >$1000 earphones that sounded spectacular but also unrealistic: “perfumed”…and “glassy” to my ears. How good is a resolution beyond natural?

Sennheiser, a company established out of Germany’s ashes in 1945, have always stood for natural sound. My first headphones were the HD 414, today I treasure the HD 600 (introduced in 1997) and the HD 25 (introduced in 1989). Natural sound is obviously never obsolete.

In terms of in-ear monitors, Sennheiser came relatively late out of the starting blocks. They can pride themselves of inventing the earbuds (their famous M-series ), and added their first in-ear monitors parallel to the introduction of the iPhone…which had a very mushy bass.

In terms of technology, the company relies entirely on single-dynamic drivers for reasons of sonic cohesion and minimization of distortion: no BAs, no crossovers used.

Their 2015 Momentum in-ear had a decent V-shaped sound with too much bass and too little vocals for my taste. In 2019, Sennheiser introduced their pro line for musicians, which I analyzed to the hilt. In retrospect, I could only recommend the middle model Sennheiser IE 400 PRO as the best sounding of the lot.

The $350 Sennheiser IE 300, introduced in 2021, was aiming at the “consumer crowd”. At the time, Sennnheiser had experimented more with the sound chamber for improved clarity, which probably was the nucleus of their IE 600 and IE 900 developments, which reached the market in 2021. As a bonbon for the budget conscious, the 2023-introduce $150 Sennheiser IE 200 impress even the most critical listener – and they run circles about the IE 300.

Therefore, if you like the IE 900 (or IE 600) but can’t afford them, get the IE 200.

Specifications Sennheiser IE 900

Physical Things and Usability

I don’t want to be repetitive. You get information on the technical aspect in the above space, on the Sennheiser website, and right here in Alberto’s very thorough IE 900 analysis.

In the box you find:

The precision-milled and anodized aluminium housings follow the company’s IE 200 and (discontinued) IE 300 models, shape wise….and therefore comfort wise. Fit and comfort have highest priority for me, and the small earpieces score 10/10. No need for custom-made shells.

Unfortunately, all these models (and the IE 600 also) have the same silicone eartips which don’t fit my ears at all; I used long-stemmed Azla SednaEarFits (“toilet plungers”) instead, which also produce an excellent isolation. Sennheiser offers custom-made silicone eartips – but in Germany only.

Three cables are included for single-ended 3. 5mm, and balanced (2.5 mm, 4.4 mm) circuits. They are pretty non-descript in their visual appeal but pragmatic. The MMCX connectors are slightly different from the standard ones, you have to be careful when fitting third-party cables.

Tonality and Technicalities

The Sennheiser IE 900’s sonic signature can be characterized as neutral with a tinge of bright, organic, and close to the truth, with realistically rounded corners….meaning, a cello sounds like a cello and a trumpet like a trumpet: the note decay is just right. They excel with complex music (let’s say, by an orchestra) played on naturally amplified instruments (e.g. strings, wind instruments) and are truly is an iem for the purist.

What strikes me first whenever I plug the IE 900 into my ears is the fabulous treble extension and resolution, in a quality I have not experienced in an iem before. I typically don’t care much about treble, but this one is a real treat.

The low end is as it should be imho: nicely enveloping with a VERY deep extension, no mid bass hump, good composition down to the lowest frequencies. Good rumble down there, but not too thick. The bass is impactful and speedy, yet not smearing into the lower midrange. Great separation between them.

Always a good test for bass tightness is Ladi Geisler’s “Knackbass” in early 1960s Bert Kaempfert recordings (marvels of Germany sound engineering). And the IE 900s deliver it as it should be…bass guitars and drums are tight and crisp but without being overwhelming.

Voices are perceived as lean by some in the IE 900, but not to me. Male voices are certainly not fat, also not sharp, but rather realistic, well rounded, nuanced, and three-dimensionally well sculptured. The midrange also comes with great resolution, clarity, and transparency.

Female voices are full and well rounded/articular to my ears, and forward, more forward than in the HD 600 headphones. One of my standards is Stevie Nicks in “Dreams” from the Fleetwood Mac Rumours album.

Treble is one of the IE 900s outstanding features: very well resolving, very accentuated, cymbals come out better on the IE 900 as in all other earphones I have tested. They are in stark contrast to the robotic cymbals in planar-magnetic iems.

Trumpets, strings, electric guitars and pianos in the upper midrange are discreet and unobtrusive, fitting well into the mix.

Soundstage is very wide (“widescreen”) and tall, and somewhat deep, but not s as deep as, let’s say, the Dunu Zen. 3D imaging and microdynamics are excellent, you can really map the musicians on stage in 3D rather accurately.

When it comes to timbre, I cannot think of any Sennheiser headphone or earphone that hasn’t excelled in this respect. The IE 900 deliver music as close to the source as could be. Excellent clarity and transparency contribute to this without the artificial “glassiness” of most BA or hybrid earphones.

Bringing it all together, the IE 900 excel through their cohesion…the whole frequency spectrum is well balanced, nothing it overdone or neglected. Your money goes into realistic natural sonic production: music as is.

In comparison, my beloved Dunu Zen are easier to drive, bassier, therefore also narrower but deeper, stage wise, with a much spicier upper midrange. However their cymbals disappear in a hole compared to the IE 900. The final E5000 are harder to drive, warmer, have fuller male/female vocals, are bassier, but the bass is generally fuzzier (depending on source). They have a narrower stage and lack the IE 900’s treble extension.

The IE 600 are bit harder to drive than the IE 900. They are bassier, punchier, more V-shaped, and therefore more spectacular with a broader mass appeal…but they are also somewhat cruder (particularly in the treble) than the more finely woven and better imaging IE 900. The IE 600 are the exuberant teenager, and the IE 900 the more mature, laid back, older brother.

The Sennheiser IE 200 are harder to drive than the IE 900 with softer notes, a less intimate imags, and without the IE 900’s spectacular treble extension. They are nevertheless overall darn good and produce vocals very well, for example.

Concluding Remarks

The Sennheiser IE 900 are for purists, for listeners who want to enjoy music as close to the truth as possible. They don’t exaggarate and therefore don’t wow on a first listen (apart from the treble), they linger…and keep doing so. The IE 900 are clearly for the advanced listener, who dip deep into rather complex orchestral, vocal, and jazzy music.

The IE 900 may be pricey but they will hold their relevance and therefore value over the years to come. Similar to the HD 600 headphone series before, they are an investment in the future.

Until next time…keep on listening!

The post Sennheiser IE 900 Review (2) – From A Single Mould appeared first on Music For The Masses.

Die Sennheiser IE 900 sind ein fantastisch klingender, dynamischer Kopfhörer, der sich durch eine neutral-helle, zusammenhängende Tonalität mit einem natürlichen Timbre und einer unglaublichen oberen Erweiterungsqualität auszeichnet, die dem erfahrenen Audiophilen für die kommenden Jahre gefallen wird.

Die IE 900 hängen an unserer Wall of Excellence.

Ich danke Sennheiser USA für dieses Leihgerät, das sie mir großzügig für 4 Monate gebent haben. Ich danke Kazi für die Messungen.

Einführung

Ich bin einmal bei der CES-Show im Venetian in Las Vegas gelandet. Das war ziemlich zufällig, und ich war mehr von der “Erwachsenenkost” im selben Hotel angezogen worden – auch zufällig. Da ich auch keine Tickets hatte, war ich auf die peripheren Überlauf-Suiten beschränkt. In einem von ihnen spielte ein ausgeklügeltes Stereo-Setup… viele Röhren und LEDs, monströse Kabel und sehr große Lautsprecher. Ein riesiges System. Die kleine Menge war ooh-ing und aah-ing.

Aus den Lautsprechern kam… Chormusik von einem Chor. Sehr subtil und unspektakulär. Aber es klang natürlich und realistisch. So viel Ausrüstung, so viel Investition, für so wenig Ergebnis? Ich habe mich am Kopf gekratzt… und das zu Unrecht.

Was könnte besser sein, als die Reproduktion so nah wie möglich am Original zu sein? Wir sitzen in modernen Konzertsälen und hören Kammermusik und Symphonien, die nie auffälliger klingen, als es die Natur erlaubt. Ist es nicht das, worum es bei Audiophilie geht?

Ich habe mir >1000-Dollar-Kopfhörer angehört, die spektakulär, aber auch unrealistisch klangen: parfümiert… und “glasig” in meinen Ohren. Wie gut ist eine Auflösung jenseits der Natürlichen?

Sennheiser, ein 1945 aus der Asche Deutschlands gegründetes Unternehmen, hat sich schon immer für natürlichen Klang eingesetzt. Meine ersten Kopfhörer waren die HD 414, heute schätze ich die HD 600 (eingeführt 1997) und die HD 25 (eingeführt 1988/89?). Natürlicher Klang ist offensichtlich nie veraltet.

In Bezug auf In-Ear-Monitore kam Sennheiser relativ spät aus den Startblöcken. Sie können stolz darauf sein, die Ohrhörer (ihre berühmte M-Serie) zu erfinden, und fügten ihre ersten In-Ear-Monitore parallel zur Einführung des iPhone hinzu… das einen sehr matschigen Bass hatte.

Ihr 2015 Momentum In-Ear hatte einen anständigen V-förmigen Sound mit zu viel Bass und zu wenig Gesang für meinen Geschmack. Im Jahr 2019 stellte Sennheiser seine Pro-Linie für Musiker vor, die ich bis zum Anschlag analysiert habe. Im Nachhinein konnte ich das mittlere Modell Sennheiser IE 400 PRO nur als den besten Klang der Menge empfehlen.

Der 350-Dollar- Sennheiser IE 300, der 2021 eingeführt wurde, zielte auf die “Verbrauchermenge” ab. Zu der Zeit hatte Sennnheiser mehr mit der Schallkammer für eine verbesserte Klarheit experimentiert, die wahrscheinlich der Kern ihrer Entwicklungen IE 600 und IE 900 war, die 2021 auf den Markt kamen. 

Als Bonbon für die budgetbewusste beeindruckt der 2023 eingeführte 150 $ Sennheiser IE 200 selbst den kritischsten Zuhörer – und sie führen Kreise über den IE 300.

Wenn Sie also die IE 900 (oder IE 600) mögen, sie sich aber nicht leisten können, holen Sie sich die IE 200.

Physische Dinge und Benutzerfreundlichkeit

Ich möchte mich nicht wiederholen. Informationen zum technischen Aspekt erhalten Sie im obigen Bereich, auf der Sennheiser-Website und genau hier in Albertos sehr gründlicher IE 900-Analyse.

In der Box finden Sie:

Die präzisionsgefrästen und eloxierten Aluminiumgehäuse folgen den Modellen IE 200 und (abgesetzt) IE 300 des Unternehmens, formtechnisch … und damit komfortmäßig. Passform und Komfort haben für mich höchste Priorität, und die kleinen Ohrhörer punkten 10/10. Keine Notwendigkeit für maßgeschneiderte Muscheln.

Leider haben alle diese Modelle (und auch der IE 600) die gleichen Silikon-Ohrstöpsel, die überhaupt nicht zu meinen Ohren passen; ich habe stattdessen langgestiemte Azla SednaEarFits (“Toilettenkolben”) verwendet, die auch eine ausgezeichnete Isolierung erzeugen. Sennheiser bietet maßgeschneiderte Silikon-Ohrstöpsel an – aber nur in Deutschland.

Drei Kabel sind für einzelnde 3,5 mm und ausgeglichene (2,5 mm, 4,4 mm) Schaltkreise enthalten. Sie sind ziemlich unscheinbar in ihrer visuellen Anziehungskraft, aber pragmatisch. Die MMCX-Anschlüsse unterscheiden sich geringfügig von den Standardanschlüssen, Sie müssen beim Anbringen von Kabeln von Drittanbietern vorsichtig sein.

Tonalität und technische Details

Die Klangsignatur des Sennheiser IE 900 kann als neutral mit einem Hint von hell, organisch und nah an der Wahrheit charakterisiert werden, mit realistisch abgerundeten Ecken….das bedeutet, ein Cello klingt wie ein Cello und eine Trompete wie eine Trompete: Der Notenausklang ist genau richtig. Sie zeichnen sich durch komplexe Musik (sagen wir, von einem Orchester) aus, die auf natürlich verstärkten Instrumenten (z.B. Streicher, Blasinstrumente) gespielt wird, und sind wirklich ein Iem für die Puristen.

Was mir zuerst auffällt, wenn ich den IE 900 in meine Ohren stecke, ist die fabelhafte Hocherweiterung und Auflösung, in einer Qualität, die ich noch nie in einem Iem erlebt habe. Normalerweise kümmere ich mich nicht viel um die Dress, aber dieser ist ein echter Leckerbissen.

Das niedrige Ende ist so, wie es sein sollte: schön umhüllend mit einer SEHR tiefen Verlängerung, kein Mittelbass-Humpfel, gute Komposition bis hin zu den niedrigsten Frequenzen. Gutes Rumpeln da unten, aber nicht zu dick. Der Bass ist wirkungsvoll und schnell, schmiert sich aber nicht in die untere Mitte. Große Trennung zwischen ihnen.

Immer ein guter Test für die Bassdichtheit ist Ladi Geislers “Knackbass” in den frühen 1960er Jahren Bert Kaempfert Aufnahmen (Wunder von Deutschland Sound Engineering). Und die IE 900s liefern es so, wie es sein sollte… Bassgitarren und Schlagzeug sind eng und knackig, aber ohne überwältigend zu sein.

Stimmen werden von einigen im IE 900 als schlank wahrgenommen, aber nicht für mich. Männliche Stimmen sind sicherlich nicht fett, auch nicht scharf, sondern eher realistisch, gut abgerundet, nuanciert und dreidimensional gut skulpturiert. Der Mittelklasse kommt auch mit großer Auflösung, Klarheit und Transparenz.

Weibliche Stimmen sind voll und gut abgerundet/artikulal zu meinen Ohren und nach vorne, mehr nach vorne als in den HD 600-Kopfhörern. Einer meiner Standards ist Stevie Nicks in “Dreams” aus dem Fleetwood Mac Rumours Album.

Treble ist eine der herausragenden Funktionen der IE 900: sehr gut lösende, sehr akzentuierte Becken kommen auf dem IE 900 besser heraus wie bei allen anderen Kopfhörern, die ich getestet habe. Sie stehen in krassem Gegensatz zu den Roboterbecken in planar-magnetischen Iems.

Trompeten, Streicher, E-Gitarren und Klaviere in der oberen Mitte sind diskret und unaufdringlich und passen gut in den Mix.

Die Klangbühne ist sehr breit (“Widescreen”) und groß und etwas tief, aber nicht so tief wie, sagen wir, das Dunu Zen. 3D-Bildgebung und Mikrodynamik sind ausgezeichnet, man kann die Musiker auf der Bühne wirklich ziemlich genau in 3D abbilden.

Wenn es um das Timbre geht, kann ich mir keinen Sennheiser-Kopfhörer oder -Kopfhörer vorstellen, der sich in dieser Hinsicht nicht ausgezeichnet hat. Der IE 900 liefert Musik so nah an der Quelle, wie sie sein könnte. Ausgezeichnete Klarheit und Transparenz tragen dazu bei, ohne die künstliche “Glasigkeit” der meisten BA- oder Hybrid-Ohrhörer.

Wenn man alles zusammenbringt, zeichnet sich der IE 900 durch seinen Zusammenhalt aus… das gesamte Frequenzspektrum ist gut ausbalanciert, nichts, was es übertrieben oder vernachlässigt. Ihr Geld fließt in realistische natürliche Klangproduktion: Musik, wie sie ist.

Im Vergleich dazu sind meine geliebten Dunu Zen leichter anzutreiben…mit mehr Bass, daher auch schmaler, aber tiefer, stufenmäßig, mit einem viel schärferen oberen Mittelbereich. Ihre Becken verschwinden jedoch im Vergleich zum IE 900 in einem Loch. Die letzten E5000 sind schwieriger zu fahren, wärmer, haben einen volleren männlichen/weiblichen Gesang, sind Bassiser, aber der Bass ist im Allgemeinen fuzzier (je nach Quelle). Sie haben eine schmalere Stufe und es fehlt die Doppelverlängerung des IE 900.

Der IE 600 lassen sich etwas schwieriger antreiben als der IE 900. Sie sind bassigzer, druckvoller, V-förmiger und daher spektakulärer mit einer breiteren Massenanziehungskraft… aber sie sind auch etwas grober (insbesondere in den Höhen) als die feiner gewebte und bessere Bildgebung IE 900. Der IE 600 ist der überschwängliche Teenager und der IE 900 der reifere, entspanntere, ältere Bruder.

Der Sennheiser IE 200 ist schwieriger zu treiben als der IE 900 mit weicheren Noten, weniger intimen Bildern und ohne die spektakuläre Doppelverlängerung des IE 900. Sie sind dennoch insgesamt verdammt gut und produzieren zum Beispiel den Gesang sehr gut.

Abschließende Bemerkungen

Die Sennheiser IE 900 sind für Puristen, für Zuhörer, die Musik so nah wie möglich an der Wahrheit genießen wollen. Sie übertreiben nicht und begeistern daher nicht beim ersten Hören (abgesont der Doppel), sie verweilen … und tun es weiter. Die IE 900 sind eindeutig für den fortgeschrittenen Zuhörer, der tief in ziemlich komplexe Orchester-, Gesangs- und Jazzmusik eintaucht.

Der IE 900 mag teuer sein, aber er wird seine Relevanz und damit seinen Wert in den kommenden Jahren behalten. Ähnlich wie bei der vorherigen HD 600-Kopfhörerserie sind sie eine Investition in die Zukunft.

Bis zum nächsten Mal…keep on listening!

The post Sennheiser IE 900 Rezension – Aus Einem Guss appeared first on Music For The Masses.

I can anticipate I had a very big pleasure in the encounter, and I hope I’ll be able to properly convey my take on the many pluses and few minuses of this set, together with some comparison hints with their lower cost (but not lower quality) sisters IE600 and more.

IE900 currently sell in Europe for € 1499.00 including VAT. Main official product page, with direct purchase possibility here.

At-a-glance Card

Full Device Card

Test setup and preliminary notes

Sources: Questyle QP1R, QP2R, M15, CMA-400i / Lotoo Paw Gold Touch + Cayin C9 / Sony WM-1A / E1DA 9038D, 9038SG3 – INAIRS AIR1 foam and/or JVC SpiralDot silicon tips – Stock cable – lossless 16-24/44.1-192 FLAC + DSD 64/128/256 tracks.

Signature analysis

Tonality

IE900’s general tonality is bright-neutral. The timbre is slightly lean, especially in the mids, and you can tell from the very first audition that this is a product aimed at rendering trebles in the most organic, detailed, engaging at the same time non-distorting way as possible, while in the process never leaving bass less attended to. And – boy! – if they succeeded at this!

From a more tech-involved angle standpoint, what I also very interesting to note is that they chose not to closely follow, let alone chase, any most en vague target curves out there… More on this, maybe, much later on.

Sub-Bass

One of Sennheiser’s 7mm dynamic driver’s qualities – perhaps not the most important one, but the most readily apparent to me for sure – is its extension capabilities, something very hardly heard before on IEMs, at least from my modest hobbyist’s ears.

As a direct consequence of that bass reaches as deeeep as you can possibly hear. You can safely bet the limiting factor in this case is more your hearing than anything else.

In terms of volume some elevation is present, but a modest one at that. IE900 definitely are not made to satisfy so-called bassheads, not even “educated” ones. Even for the tastes of die hard acoustic jazz lovers like me, there are times when I concede to the pulsion to adding a +3dB low shelf at 50 Hz, but that’s really occasional: in most situations IE900 sub bass is just perfect for my (quite specialised – mind you!) library.

I’ll reach even further, actually, and I would say that although not so high in elevation it’s presence is anyhow so consistent and predictable that the net effect is similar to adding a subwoofer to your nearfield setup, keeping it at a modest sound pressure level, just for “background support”, so to say.

Mid Bass

IE900’s mid bass is fast, even sculpted, yet fully textured and very expressive, emotional. This is one of the sets that renders Andrew Cyrille’s kick drum with the highest level of realism I ever auditioned.

This weren’t enough IE900, and very particularly its bass line, scale incredibly well with amping power and quality.

While in general IE900’s sensitivity is not low, so as to make them driveable to already outstanding results by relatively modest powered mobile sources, you will be totally astonished by the difference – emerging particularly in the bass section – when driving them from high quality, much higher specced amp sources.

One inter alia: Cayin C9, which I happen to have access to. Mid bass and low bass notes come up in body, viscerality and slam in a totally surprising way. It all sounds (pun intended) as if you’re sitting in a mixing studios listening to on those high end monitors hanging in there. Really, really, REALLY significant. Oh and by the way: even in such “exalted” situation, mid bass never, ever takes over on the low mids…!

Mids

Mids feel slightly recessed, if nothing else because the other parts around them (bass, and most of all high mids and trebles) come across with even bolder personality, so to say.

On the other hand their general timbre is very good if a bit lean especially in the high part, yet feels spot-on in most if not really all cases for my library.

The passage from middle to high mids easily reminds me what happens on Final’s A3000 – another, much lower tier, single-DD set featuring a remarkable (within its price class) quality single dynamic driver. And, another virtuous example of totally surprising results based on a not so common, off-choir even, tuning curve.

The passage is very smooth, of course consequence of the one driver employed, and also of the sensible taming applied to the 2-4Khz region which, thanks to driver elasticity (and, in IE900’s case, of who knows what other aspects liaised to the triple resonance chamber milled into their housings – more on this below), does not translate into overly tamed feedback in that region, oppositely it delivers a very lively, detailed while unoffensive experience.

As I mentioned before, if one remark the high mids segment calls for is some relative leanness to the notes. I feel some “butter” missing on central piano octaves, and on female vocals, to match my personal perfection. I’m not of course expecting to find the same focus on that region here that you can get from specialised sets like Final F7200 to just name one, yet as I said just a tad more of lipids would have rendered the dish even more flavoury.

Male Vocals

IE900 render baritones and bass humans with organicity and authority, and tenors, too, with just a bit of relative leanness commencing to appear on their higher registers.

Female Vocals

Female vocals are well presented, textured, clean and quite engaging. As mentioned above, they do lack a bit of body to their central notes to be astonishing.

Highs

These, together with some of the technicalities, are evidently the stars of the show on IE900.

The result is so outstanding that you can bet this must be the consequence of something really special the developers had to put in to get there: energy, expression, body, details and air, all together, while never scanting into sibilance, shoutyness let alone zinging.

A wonderful litmus paper test for this is Lee Morgan’s trumpet phrasings from 1 up to to 2 minutes into Art Blakey’s & The Messenger’s monumental 1958 Moanin’ take, from the homonymous album. Morgan instrument’s sound is full bodied yet perfectly textured, but most of all powerful yet not piercing, and far from splashy or shouty.

Such result does vary a bit in accuracy depending on eartips selection (more on this below).

Incidentally, I could only hear one other set doing better to date, but it did so only on this very particular aspect and failed in others in comparison to IE900, bass being first: a German-made multidriver unit. Oh and that’s priced 3X over our today’s reference .

Technicalities

Soundstage

IE900 stage projection is probably the widest I ever heard in an IEM, and while I think about that I would also put all closed-back overears I heard in, for good measure. There’s significant height and good depth, too !

This is another situation where IE900’s huge treble extension shows its good deeds: as many know of course we can hear sounds up to 16Khz (well… when young! ) but frequencies above such mark are not useless at all, as they contribute carrying information about the time it takes for sound to come back (or not come back) from the “walls around the room” – thereby helping on “drawing the stage”.

This is of course only evident when the source digital material does contain such higher frequency information, and the DAC is indeed capable of reconstructing it – which is luckily the case for much of my library, and a few of my sources .

Imaging

Macrodynamics are extremely precise, positioning cues are spot on at all times, along all 3 axes.

Details

Detail retrieval from the high mids and especially from the treble is nothing short than superb, twice as much if again we remember we are in presence of a single DD set.

I like to believe this is one consequence of those Sennheiser’s claimed designs efforts focused on sound modelling obtained via those cavities inside the housings (more on this below).

Let me add that, as an old western-economy industry bear myself, I also like to think that in addition to the positivity on the obtained result this way of proceeding is also much less prone to be “easily replied” by of some of those chifi usual suspects – building practical reproduction hurdles into one’s physical product arguably representing an even more effective method, supplemental to “mere” legal patenting, to better protect one’s industrial invention efforts in our globalised world lacking cohesive governance.

Instrument separation

Layering and instrument separation is another field where IE900 surely excel, once again especially so when considering we are talking about a single driver set.

Even on busiest (acoustic) tracks you never get a sense of congestion or mixture between voicings coming from the same spot on the stage, and the sense of depth is always granted. At times, it seems as if IE900 are able to render virtually infinite layers, such is their capability in keeping overlapping but heterogenous sounds apart from one another.

I could only hear one other IEM set till now able – on equal source gear and tracks, of course – to present me with a superior readability on low volume and/or background sounds, and that’s Softears Turii – which other technicalities, and the tonality before them, are however quite different from IE900’s so I wouldn’t easily cast a better/worse score between the two, frankly.

Driveability

As en passant I previously mentioned, IE900 are quite easy to drive exploiting the power of so many at least decent mobile sources on the mainstream market, most dongles included. Their 123dB/V (corresponding to approx 105dB/mW) at 18 ohm are not a huge requirement in facts, and that’s surely a big plus in terms of crowd accessibility.

On the other hand, IE900’s note body will dramatically improve when the source happens to have the guts to push up on current delivery, this with particular regards to mid bass and mid tones.

While listening to IE900 directly paired to a Lotoo Paw Gold Touch DAP is already a lushy treat – for many reasons, first and foremost LPGT’s quite special proweness on subtle microdynamics reconstruction – you should wait until you’ll hear what you get having LPGT’s output pass through a further amplification stage, e.g. a Cayin C9 mobile set: then you’ll be in for a strong experience … .

Such situation can, and should, be reported both as a pro and as a (relative) limitation of the set.

Physicals

Build

I suspect not to be the only one whose first eye-impression when shown a pair of IE900 has been something like: “inconspicuous”.

Actually handling them such impression – well, at least my impression – changed radically: IE900’s housing are in facts CNC-milled off a solid piece of aluminium, which incidentally is a wonderful material I happen to know the positive properties of due to my professional involvement with it, on a completely different market.

Long story short, IE900’s housings are at the same time extremely solid and sturdy, and very lightweight.

I also do approve the choice for those thin engraving lines on the outside, which – if anything on the aesthetical level – result in a pleasant, if a bit mitteleuropean-industry-flavoured, “unglossy” finish style, and avoid overexposure to fingerprinting.

On the solidity and shock resistance there’s no question: a solid piece of aluminium gives more than the required warranties for this use case. I’m ready to bet that trampling over these ones (with their cable removed) with a car would leave them a bit dirty, but in shape.

Apart from all this, what is surely most interesting is what cannot be appreciated from the outside, and that is the internal shaping given to the housings – always by CNC-milling them – and the specially developed ultrawide range-capable 7mm dynamic driver.

The DD is responsible for offering coverage for an exceptionally wide range of frequencies for a single driver: from 5 to 48KHz.

That being not enough, taken alone, to deliver the wanted sonic result, tonality shaping is carried out by way of tree small resonator chambers, i.e. appropriate “carvings” milled into the very piece of solid AL making the housings, in-between the driver and the nozzle. Furthermore, some specialty shaping and internal surfaces finishing is put in there, to take care of smoothening excessive treble energy – and I must say with excellent results, based on my audition (see above).

Fit

Kudos to Sennheiser also for the just incredibly effective ergonomics they conceived for the shape of their IE series, which includes IE900 of course.

Even if for some reason you wouldn’t tell when seeing that somehow uncommon form for the first time, it takes seconds after wearing (any of) them the first time to vibrantly love them, and the one(s) who designed them.

On the flip – read negative – side two things are worth noting.

One: in some cases – me included – the main housing body may be a (decisive) tad too lean to match those magical proportions which fill your outer ear just enough to gain perfectly stable positioning while never feel like a swollen bean is nagging at you from out there.

It’s of course then evident that you can’t possibly design a one-size solid structure that’s so precisely fitting into everybody’s body, no matter human diversity. And in doubt, of course you’ll have to do it smaller vs bigger ! So this ain’t defect of course, yet it’s definitely an issue to manage, when it arises.

Two: again, in my case, the supply of stock tips (both silicon and foam) for one reason or the other falls short of being adequate.

Stock silicon tips have a very soft umbrella, 100% studied to get the best intended sound out of the IE900. Too bad that on the “mechanical” front it happens that, housings being too lean to stay put in my concha’s, I instinctually tend to regain firmness by pushing them deeper in. When that happens silicon tips’ umbrellas fold on themselves, totally losing the seal.

Sadly, the problem about stock tips falling short of properly fitting my canals (left one in particular) affects foamies too! Again, I suspect that’s liaised with me needing to get a higher stability by pushing shells deeper in, thereby reaching a wider segment of my ear canal, which those foamies can’t adequately fill up, not even the supplied L size.

I shared this issue with Sennheiser, and the answer has been enlightening for the sake of clarifying the origins of this situation.

First and foremost, in Sennheiser’s design intention IE900 tips should ideally “feel as if they disappear” in the ear canal, precisely the opposite of the sensation you get from bullet style IEMs, and/or triple-flanged eartips. Hence, the thinner umbrella the better, of course.

Flipping the coin, however, superlight tips intended for such precise aim will not be the best choice if for whatever reason a user prefers, or needs, to achieve a deeper fit.

I do confirm all : if – disregarding stability for a moment – I wear IE900 in a shallower position, indeed their stock silicon tips do keep the seal, and they deliver a very pleasant “feathery” sensation, or even virtually no sensation at all – as per intention.

And by the way, were it possible and handy for me, I would actually prefer such shallow fit, not being myself a die-hard fan of deep insertion – even when I use bullet-shape IEMs (which nevertheless – Sennheiser friends will forgive me – I don’t find so devilish counter-ergonomic as they reckon).

Be as it may, this finally reveals what the entire real problem is in my case: housings’ stability.

Again, in Sennheiser’s design intention, in cases like mine where the person’s ear structure is a bit too big and can’t grab the housings firm by itself, that’s where those easy-shape earhook sheaths installed on the cable (more on them below, under “Cable”) should do the trick, mechanically retrofitting the set so to say, and delivering the required stability.

So that is precisely where the game fails in my case (and not my one only).

No, to me those shapeable earhooks are super-comfortable, but not resilient enough to compensate for the housings’ eventual wobbling. That’s why I can’t personally “afford” a shallow fit, and rest comes with it.

Curtain fall ? Nevah !

First possible workaround: browsing the internet I found some sort of third party “gel outfits” – of course made some place in China. I call them “gloves”: imagine little-finger sized equivalents to a silicon smartphone back-cover. Or, similar to those winged rings you fit onto TWS drivers to help them stay firm in place. Something like this, but there are others around too.

I tried a friend’s ones and indeed those perfectly fit IE900’s housings, granting them that small body size increment that results into fitting my ear in a perfectly stable and comfortable way. And then, yes!, I can afford shallower fit and the whole stock tips game works as per design in my case too.

Alternative workaround: use third party tips .

Well as you can imagine I would have gone through the long tips exploration session anyhow, but in this case it was let’s say double motivated.

This article is getting already lengthy and I don’t believe that adding further smalltalk to it would make it better so my eighteen readers will I hope understand if I won’t indulge in the full report here about how I found each of the probably 15 different tip models I tried.

Suffice it to say that in the end I’m torn between two options, featuring some differences : INAIRS AIR1 foams, and JVC SpiralDot silicons.

INAIRS offer a firmer fit sensation, and their M size actually well fills my external ear canal up, thereby effectively contributing to hold those slim housings firm(er) in place for me. They also grant me better passive isolation, and a sort of delicate “softening” to some note edges (which, in itself, is not always a welcome addition).

SpiralDots feature stiffer silicon umbrellas compared to stock tips but won’t go as far as mechanically compensating housings movements, so their adoption does require either a deeper fit, or those “gel gloves” I mentioned before. The good news is that they are sturdy enough not to lose the seal when pushed deeper. Their wide bore positively contributes to IE900’s already good bass, and they yield a more crystalline timbre compared to foams.

Runnerup silicon options worth mentioning are Radius Deepmount – even better than Spiraldot on bass definition and speed, but tend to turn trebles a bit too hot – and Final E (strictly CLEAR version – black and other-coloured ones making low bass a bit “hazy”) – which deliver more body in the mids but lose some detail and precision in the treble and bass.

Last but absolutely not least, Sennheiser and their mother company being deeply involved with medical grade hearing aids and technologies, a custom eartips production service is made available – sadly only to German residents for now though .

It’s called Custom Comfort Tips. The rationale seems very simple in its complexity: by realising an elongated silicon tip, custom shaped following your own ear canal shape and size on one end, and perfectly slapping onto the IEM’s nozzles and neighbouring shell part on the other, you get extremely close to eliminate that personal fit variation that makes each one’s sound experience with that particular driver too much “potentially different” from its intended goal.

The program is also very well streamlined in terms of enduser fruition. It’s all centrally managed by Sennheiser, you don’t have to “look for” anything your own: place the order centrally, geoloc the supporting audiologist shop nearest to your location from a link on Sennheiser’s site, take an appointment and have your canals measured there (their service is part of the price paid to Sennheiser), wait for a few days and receive your tips at home.

The very same tips can be swapped onto IE900, IE600 and IE200. The tips’ fee is currently included with the price of an IE900 package, and a discount is offered to IE600 owners.

Those friends (lucky bastards individuals) who, residing in Germany, already could get their custom tips confirm they are indeed absolute game changers. The rest of us need to come to terms with a impatient wait .

Comfort

IE900’s shape is designed for very easy and natural fit and this immediately traduces into supreme comfort even for very protracted period of time.

In case the housing turns out to be a bit too “slim” for one’s ears (like in my case) there’s a chance the consequent instability may be somewhat fastidious. Longer story above about the origins of this. Consequences: compensating instability by reaching down for a deeper fit may turn out to be a bit uncomfy in medium/long sessions; adopting “gel gloves” of appropriate thickness may be the best way to go.

Isolation

When perfectly fitting, IE900 offer good levels of passive isolation – even more if equipped with foam tips.

In “fat concha” situations like my case, the same result is quite easily obtained by outfitting the housings with with “gel gloves” or such (see above).

Cable

It’s certainly pleasing – if after all in line with expectations vis-a-vis the package price, one may say – to find 3 different cables inside the box, each with a different hard-wired termination: single ended 3.5mm, and balanced 2.5 and 4.4mm, covering I would say 99.9% of possible needs.

Also, the freely mouldable TPU sheath applied towards to cables housing’s end allows you to shape them into the most precisely matching and comfortable earhooks you can get, exactly following your ear root line.

It’s the first time I encounter this offering, and it’s a very welcome feat – even if, as reported under “Fit” here above, it does not get as far as solving the problem of housings being too lean for my particular outer ears.

On another important note: Sennheiser’s IE-line MMCX connectors are not “everyday MMCX” fixings in reality. So be prepared: hardly any of your (my!) existing MMCX cables will fit, or safely fit .

Sennheiser’s MMCX implementation (in some documents tagged as “MMCX Fidelity+”) is indeed proprietary. Looking closely, the male connector coming off the tip of the cable has an additional “lip” compared to ordinary MMCX plugs. Such lip, plus a deeper, and more deeply recessed female connector, are responsible for significantly improving on connection firmness.

All good so far, the less good news however being the following two.

One I already mentioned: 99% chances are that you won’t be able to pair your IE900 with any loved individual off your thick existing herd of however good – and expensive! – MMCX cables.

The other is safely identifying the genuinely licensed (!) third parties, which would therefore be in condition to supply reliably compatible cables. Fact: between a few friends of mine and myself we experienced a few 3rd party cables sold as IE900-compatible, most of which turned into wobbly, unreliable connections. Tread lightly when shopping for cables here!!

Specifications (declared)

Comparisons

Sennheiser IE600 (€ 799,00 – currently on sale for € 549,00)

Even if very similar aesthetically, and equally based on a single dynamic driver, IE600 and IE900 are quite different at the technological level from one another.

Sennheiser confirmed to me that the dynamic driver inside IE600 is a different variation (although part of the same main project) from that adopted for IE900. The same applies for the driver inside IE200, by the way.

In addition to that, housings’ builds and their internals are also quite different.

Unlike IE900’s earpieces – CNC-milled from a solid piece of aluminium and featured with 3 specially designed resonance chambers inside – IE600’s housings are 3D-printed from a special zirconium alloy by Heraeus Amloy Tech, and featured with two sets of 2 internal chambers. Such structure internal to IE600 (D2CA: Dual 2-Chamber Absorbers) focuses on treating overlapping notes coming for different instruments at the same time, helping on dramatically improving they separation, and layering.

With all this said, the sound experience offered by IE600 is for some respects similar, for others quite different from that granted by IE900.

Similarities stay in rendering clarity, and in outstanding layering and separation proweness.

The main difference is in the tonality : unlike IE900, IE600 are quite evidently V-shaped, although maybe a “wide V” at that. A more mainstream indulging tuning choice if you wish, vs IE900’s off the choir one.

Bass is equivalently speedy on IE600 and IE900, but on IE600 it is much more evident, elevated, and I refer to mid bass and even more to sub bass here. In spite of such higher elevation, bass is still perfectly readable at all times, very well textured, and stays consistently separated from low and central mids – as it definitely should – in IE600 no less than in IE900.

Another part where the two sets diverge is in the high mids, and – I would say al least in part consequently – in their treble.

IE600’s 2-4K frequencies are way more forward and pulpy, with this bringing guitars and female vocals the “butter” which is a bit left behind on IE900. However an important taming is imposed on 6KHz on IE600, I assume to avoid that their composite output would scant into shouty and/or fatiguing. As a consequence, treble detail retrieval and overall “airiness” is quite obviously less on IE600 vs IE900.

Quitting all this tech talk : choose IE600 for prog rock, hard rock, electronic music and general purpose, while – money not being a hurdle – go blind-eyed with IE900 for acoustic jazz and most of all classical music.

Such separated applicative indications, paired with ultimately equivalent proweness in doing, each one, what they are designed to do, calls for refraining from positioning IE600 and IE900 one on a higher step vs the other, and I rather recommend them as different tools to reach different pleasures, so indeed complementary to each other.

Campfire Andromeda 2020 (discontinued, was € 1099,00)

I feel this is a quite interesting comparison not only due to the reputation Campfire Audio as a manufacturer, and the various iterations of their Andromeda set deservedly conquered over time, but especially vis-a-vis the under many respects opposite design philosophies behind Andromeda and IE900.

As everybody may remember, Andromeda are a full-BA multidriver sets, vs IE900 single-DD choice.

As a further testimony to the successful results obtained by Sennheiser on their sole dynamic driver, I would readily note that if one of the two sets may be found to deliver a tad less bilateral extension that is… Andromeda. Differences on this are small, however.

Other aspects which are very similar between Andromeda and IE900 include treble detailing, and the tuning choice to keep their 2-4KHz regions tamed down to help deliver a smooth, unshouty yet energetic overall highmid+treble section, which is indeed the case on both sets, and probable the key reasons why treble is equally delicious – beyond within some differences – in either situation.

Other similarities, or real equivalences are about stage size and three-dimensionality, with Andromeda being probably a tad deeper but less high and wide, and about layering and separation.

Tonalities are instead quite different: Andromeda is obviously warmer, consequence of some more power impressed onto 2-400Hz and some taken off from 1-2Khz. IE900 offer more airiness up above, not much resulting in terms of better clarity but rather in terms of a more realistic spatial sensation.

The most obvious differences however stay on bass note body and microdynamics: Sennheiser’s model attains to a higher level altogether, especially on the latter part – IE900 microdynamics are a very thick step above Andromeda.

As for driveability Andromeda require much less power to shine at its full potential, but conversely they require so little of that, and at such a low impedance, that many if not most sources will make them hiss, and that will of course be audible through quiet musical passages.

Beware of counterfeiting !

It is sadly worth noting that 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.

I happen to have access to a fake IE900 sample, which I could therefore compare with the 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, roughly in the same ballpark as the genuine one – and that’s saying something. In terms of bass definition, note body and microdynamics, however, genuine IE900 are just straight better.

Visual counterfaiting 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 might 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 a 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 .

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.

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 grains of salt (always better than one) – a good idea is to have the seller send a picture showing the unit serial number in advance, and get in contact with Sennheiser Consumer Hearing support services: they will check if the number is reported as legit.

Considerations & conclusions

I tried to outline the multiple reasons why I believe IE900 are a beyond-outstanding product, particularly suitable for classical, and acoustic music in general, and I feel like adding some considerations at a more general level here.

What is seems from the outside is that Sennheiser did this by going back to the design board, and restart from assessing the wanted target, asking themselves how to reach it – “reinventing the wheel” if need be, and/or using more “usual” parts and competences, purging their minds from “assumed-well-established existing solutions” bias in advance.

Of course I have no real clue about their internal processes and how the real story went, but if it were a plot for a movie about an industrial success story, it might probably go as follows.

IE900’s dynamic driver itself is proprietary, made to deliver a sensibly wider range extension compared to other high quality dynamic drivers on the market. Why? Because multidrivers do struggle with tonal coherence – all of them – and, let’s face it, for good reasons too. On the other hand, existing single drivers are all “short blankets”, so to say.

So point #1 : let’s design a “wiiiiiide blanket” driver. Period. Then we see the rest.

Oh by the way: let’s do it without employing marketing-buzzword-level raw materials.

IE900’s is in the end a plastic membrane driver – such an “obsolete sounding” technology, inn’it? – yet it loops dozens of circles around others made of “newer materials”. Guess why?… .

I must say I feel empathic on these topics as they can’t fail reminding me that within the infinitely more modest scope of the small industrial company I currently serve in as a marketing and sales manager I often listen to my agents recursively pointing at certain innovative-name-sounding products from the competition. Transeat. Back to our plot.

Once you have an eXtra Wide Range transducer, you are still supposed to shape its sound to manage its behaviour, avoid excesses, and bend its tonality to a specific wanted target sound. This is usually done by a mix of shaping IEM shells, adding vents, filters, foams, meshes etc.

As for us: we will primarily “shape the shells” – and good luck to those who will try to precisely copy them.

Inside IEx00 housings there are milled or built (depending on the specific model’s production process) micrometrically formed spaces (“chambers”). They even got as far as studying how wrinkled their internal surfaces need to be to get the right wanted effect on sound waves passing by.

I can only remotely fathom the complexity of such a research, and the level of competences, skills, tools and budgets (!) you need to put on the table to even commence spinning such a project up. Well they did it – and succeeded.

Last but not least: once you have those grand IEMs done, based on a superbly extended driver, and tuned to consistently output the exact wanted timbre and tonality onto… lab measuring equipment (!) how about maximising the chance the same or at least a very similar result is actually appreciated by anybody’s ears – which sadly (for engineers, and luckily for philosophers) are all “guaranteed different” from the most advanced acoustic coupler mockups employed at the lab ?

Yes, you can try closing the gap by filling the commercial package with countless alternative eartips, or…

Our mother company is a leading multinational involved in hearing aids and acoustic implantations. Let’s roll out a custom eartips program!

I presume this very long stream of considerations, and their fictionalized dressings, can be summarised as follows: the old saying “when the game gets tough, the tough get playing” is of course in general an abstraction – it does take for the tough to actually be willing to get playing ! But when they do… .

Sennheiser for decades did deliver undisputed top-class headphone models (do we need to remember that HD600 originally came out in 1997?) yet they flew much lower in the rankings of IEM proposals until recently.

With their IE900 / IE600 / IE200 program they took a wholly-renovated approach to the segment, and results do show.

These 3 models lead their corresponding price brackets, and debating whether they deserve #1, #2 or #3 entry in their specific subclasses is surely very important for Sennheiser’s product marketing, their numbers etc, but for us, the users, it’s now probably just funny, loud coffee bar discussions. IE200, IE600 and IE900 are, all of them, absolute winners, and each one can easily be taken as the sole IEM one may want to own given that budget and/or that musical preference.

IE900 are light years far from being yet-another high quality high priced single DD IEMs. They can and should be narrated as a successful reinvention of the entire IEM experience, instanced onto the specific preferences of classical and other acoustic music lovers.

Sennheiser created a monumental product with IE900, and while its price tag is no doubt demanding, not a cent of it lacks justification in the multifaceted quality it offers.

IE900 is dutifully tagged on our Wall of Excellence.

Our generic standard disclaimer.

The post Sennheiser IE900 Review (1) – Classical Reinvented appeared first on Music For The Masses.

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

INTRODUCTION

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

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

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

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

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

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

PHYSICAL THINGS AND USABILITY

PACKAGING AND ACCESSORIES

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

BUILD QUALITY

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

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

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

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

HANDLING

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

QUESTYLE M15 INTERNALS

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

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

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

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

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

TONALITY AND TECHNICALITIES

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

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

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

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

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

PAIRING NOTES

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

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

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

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

SELECT COMPARISONS

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

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

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

CONCLUDING REMARKS

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

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

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

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

MY VERDICT

4.5/5
THE dongle to beat.

Contact us!

DISCLAIMER

Get it from Questyle Shop.

Our generic standard disclaimer.

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

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

The $150 Sennheiser IE 200 is a well tuned, great sounding single DD with a perfect timbre that beats even some of its more expensive siblings. Now on our Wall of Excellence.

The Sennheiser IE 200 was provided by their US distributor upon my request. And I thank them for that.

Introduction

Sennheiser have been known to us mainly for their headphones. Their HD 25 have been in production since 1988, and their HD 600 (my go-tos) since 1997. The company, established in 1945, obviously knows what they are doing. And although they are from Germany, Asia is their biggest market. Sennheiser is some kind of a status symbol there, like Mercedes or BMW.

But when it comes to earphones, they may have been a bit slow. Sennheiser may have invented the earbuds, which may have prevented them from catching on to the earphone market fast. Their early models had a thick and fuzzy bass tied to a classic V-shape, like the CX 300B MKII or the Momentum In Ear.

This changed somewhat in 2019 with the release of the Pro series, designed for musicians: the $99 IE 40 Pro, $349 IE 400 Pro, and $599 IE 500 Pro. Strangely enough, the IE 400 Pro sounded the best of the lot. The $300 IE 300 followed a year later, which featured a new shell design with new silicon eartips. The difference between all these models is discussed here.

Sennheiser maintained the IE 300’s shell shape for their recent super premium models IE 600 and IE 900, but also for the $150 IE 200.

TL;DR: the Sennheiser IE 200 are the company’s best sounding iems below the IE 600 and IE 900 – they run circles around their more expensive Pro series. The company finally got some affordable in-ears 100% right.

Specifications Sennheiser IE 200

Physical Things and Usability

In the box are the earpieces, a cable with 3.5 mm plug, 2 sets of eartips (S/M/L), a storage pouch and the paperwork. The IE 200’s earpieces have the same dimensions and other physical properties as the IE 300’s: they are inconspicuous, haptic wise, although Sennheiser certainly know their polycarbonates. The shells are small and light, you can even wear them in bed, and they are very comfortable.

What also contributes to comfort and fit are the shapeable earhooks…they don’t feature that kind of memory wire that cuts the circulation in your ears off. There are only two iems outside the Sennheiser family I have auditioned (out of >500) that are similarly small and comfortable: the discontinued Brainwavz B200 and Beyerdynamic Soul Byrd.

The cable is fairly basic: let’s say, it works. It tangles up easily and once it has, you are in for some fun. From my conversations with the company, Sennheiser appear to have never cared about fancy looking cables, they are all about pragmatism. Fitting a third-party cable is difficult as the MMCX sockets are recessed. I could not find a single “upgrade” cable in my stash that fits, not even that from the IE 500 Pro would do.

Just like in the IE 300, Sennheiser changed their standard silicone eartips to a kind that doesn’t provide seal for many users, including myself. I therefore once again deployed the SpinFit CP100 tips, which work extremely well with the IE 200 (and my ears).

Tonality and Technicalities

Reviewers typically subdivide the sonic characteristics of a device into “lows, mids, and highs”, then elaborate on the soundstage, in order to lose the reader in comparisons with other recent models. A useful synthesis is too frequently missing and the reader is scratching their head, wondering how the product actually sounds overall, whether it justifies its price, and what’s missing to a true stellar premium product.

Some never care about usability at all. What good is great sound when these little rascals are uncomfortable in our ears?

The Sennheiser IE 200 make the case for a holistic approach…before going into details: they are perfectly tuned iems with a perfect timbre that only fall short of super premium iems by their lack of super headroom, super staging, and they have possibly a somewhat too dry of a sound. The sonic quality difference is probably mostly in the shells’ cavity and not the driver.

Nevertheless, this model is so good that I have used almost no other iem in the last weeks. I could stop here. But, what makes the perfect tuning? After all, even an experienced company such as Sennheiser had failed to produce a decent sounding set of affordable in-ears for the longest time.

Well…comes a young acoustician by the name of Anders Hed and changes it all. And the IE 200 are only his first effort.

What makes the tuning of the IE 200 special? Alone from the graph you can guess the fluidity and smoothness of the sound, considering timbre has never been an issue for Sennheiser. They don’t use balanced armature drivers because of potential crossover issues.

Bass is rather subtle with a natural decay, mids are in the foreground with good note definition and decent (but not optimal) note weight. At the high end, that tizziness in the uppermost registers of the IE 300 is gone, the treble is sweet.

Where the IE 200 falls off the super-premium wagon is a comparatively shallow staging (wide, not deep) and a lack of sheen. But all of this is more than compensated for by the aforementioned fluidity, which makes for an irresistible listening experience. A great rare example of a very enjoyable product independent of price.

IE 200 and IE 300 share the same driver (as far as I know), but the tuning obviously makes the difference.

The IE 200 does not have the lower midrange congestion and treble spike of the IE 300 or the veil of earlier models such as the IE 500 Pro. It is a transparent sounding, well resolving iem with a great timbre.

Remains the question which of my iems are better? Only two, the discontinued $700 Dunu Zen, and the $650 LETSHUOER EJ07M. The Zen have more depth and more sparkle (but also an upper midrange glare), and better microdynamics and micro detail, and the EJ07M is a better resolving jack of all trades. But the IE 200 are smaller and lighter, and therefore more comfortable.

Concluding Remarks

The Sennheiser IE 200 may be the company’s answer to mid-price ChiFi, considering Asia is their biggest market. And boy did they get it right this time. There is no competition for the IE 200 in their class, sonically and comfort wise. Period! They are earphones for real music lovers and one of the most impressive iems I have auditioned in a long time.

Sennheiser shows that tuning by trained professionals pays off. They know what they are doing (I am repeating myself). No need to replace the IE 200 with an update next year…which also builds and/or retains customer confidence.

Gut gemacht! Sehr gut sogar! Wall of Excellence! Done!

Until next time…keep on listening!

The post Sennheiser IE 200 Review – Back On Top appeared first on Music For The Masses.

9038SG3 is E1DA’s latest iteration of the 9038S model, which over time went through 3 generations – this being G3 in facts. The 9038S project, like PowerDAC, have always been designed around a balance-ended-only option. In conjunction with this third iteration of the 9038S project, howeverer, following quite a substantial flow of user requests E1DA decided to develop a single-ended (only) version, which is precisely what 9038D is.

9038SG3 can be purchased from E1DA’s AE shop, or directly from E1DA via paypal, for approx $105. 9038D has a regular price identical to 9038SG3 but it is currently not available: E1DA suspended production due to the excessive increase in chip costs – they rate that the higher price at which they would be forced to sell it would be unfair.

At-a-glance Card

A word on the manufacturer, and a few on this article

E1DA is a microscopical company. Indeed, a small family run business. The founder and key engineer in there is a Russia born guy now living in China called Ivan Khlyupin. He is an audio enthusiast, and an electrical engineer. Ivan is in charge of all hardware invention / designing, and his elder son takes care of relevant software development. The rest is chinese-cost and sadly chinese-quality contract manufacturing, which is why Ivan (literally) technically assesses and calibrates each sample one by one while or after assembly. Purest artisan’s pride DNA – which is probably why being Italian I feel a sort of natural empathy for the guy.

Their first project was the PowerDAC and it stemmed from a personal need: a low cost, powerful enough dac-amp to drive a pair of badass planar headphones. There wasn’t one on the market affordable and good enough at the same time, so Ivan DIY’d one. And then made it into a 50$ small-scale-industrialised marketable produt.

I’ve been following them for a while now and I own all their current “dongle” models (9038D, 9038SG3 and PowerDAC 2.1) which I of course purchased as a regular nameless customer.

As you will read here, and on a subsequent piece of mine dedicated to PowerDAC, E1DA’s products can easily be recognised as pure audio engineering competence concentrated into tiny, affordable little boxes. In a world overflooded by cheap and even not so cheap “meh-level” stuff, they feel relaxing like sea breeze.

Given their “vertical” technical nature, if there’s one thing E1DA lacks is vulgar-level communication. They do all they can to be super easily reachable via their Discord channel, and they are very responsive. Yet their documents, and their typical answers, are all very technical, with little to no concession to readability let alone accessibility for least competent laymen.

As a consequence high chances are their products get known, let alone “understood” and appreciated, only by already semi-skilled users at the very least. Take myself for one – I got onto them by pure chance and it took me quite some time to dig into some of the aspects of their stuff, and until now I even feel I only got part of that done.

So these are the main reasons why instead of a 4 – 5 pages small article this time I wrote an essay probably 10X longer. And I might even decide to update it in the future

Note: E1DA is to be pronounced “E one DAH”, following the sounds of the words “Ivan” and “Da” (“Yes” in Russian)

Features and description

Externals

The two devices are contained inside the same housing, a sandblasted anodized CNC-machined aluminium case, with marketing graphics (logo) and other data laser-marked in white on the black background.

Size is 48 x 22 x 9mm, weight is approx. 10-12g for either model. Simply put, either device is very small and lightweight which of course greatly facilitates it being used as a dac-amp external upgrade to any mobile device (phone, tablet, dap) which is capable of digital audio output through its USB port.

The housings’ sole apertures are the phone out on one of its small ends, and a USB-C port on the opposite end. Next to the USB-C port there’s also a tiny hole. No other elements, no buttons, no display.

Both 9038D and 9038SG3 are sold in a minimalistic small carton box, containing only the device itself (well protected). No cables / adapters are bundled. USB-C, Lightning and/or Y-USB-C cables can however be separately ordered from E1DA if needed. And they are needed. See more below in particular about appropriate Lightning cables.

Internals

9038SG3 and 9038D have very similar internal structures.

Both carry the same Comtrue USB bridge, featuring hw volume (actionable in .5dB increments) and furtherly tweaked with custom software.

Both devices’ heart is a ESS 9038Q2M DAC chip (spec sheet here) featuring current mode amplification, outstanding built-in jitter removal, and a host of user-configurable parameters including Master Clock frequency selection, FIR filter selection and customisable THD compensation coefficients (much more on this later).

Both devices have an amplification stage after the DAC but the two opamps are different on the two models. The internal power filtering also is somewhat different.

9038SG3 features an Analog Devices AD8397 (spec sheet here) opamp offering balanced end only output connectivity.

9038SG3’s internal power rail filtering structure is based on resistors and capacitors. Three different versions of 9038SG3 have been released over time. The earliest version adopted Yageo brand resistors + 2000µF capacitors. Such was a quite early version and according to E1DA shipped until a good 2 years ago.

Since then, 9038SG3 have been and still are equipped with Susumu brand (higher quality) resistors + either 2000µF or 3000µF capacitors. The higher the capacitance, the more efficient the power filtering.

9038SG3 SKU# did not change as internal equipment evolved over time. To tell which version a given unit is look at the product name engraved in white on 9038SG3’ housing: an underlined “3” (like this: “#9038SG3”) indicates a Susumu-equipped model. Looking at a Susumu 9038SG3’s housing, two or three white squares are engraved on the back side (opposed to the E1DA logo one): two squares mean 2000µF capacitance, three squares mean 3000µF.

For curiosity: the “squares” refer to the physical capacitors adopted inside. Two squares = 2 capacitors, three squares = 3 capacitors. By opening the enclosure (don’t! as you would have to reglue it later) they can easily be recognised as three lined-up orange “thingies” soldered on there.

9038D carries instead a TI OPA1622 opamp (spec sheet here) offering single ended only connectivity.

9038D also carries Susumu brand resistors, complemented with 4000µF total capacitance.

Input

Both 9038SG3 and 9038D only offer a single digital input, via a USB-C port (fully USB-2 protocol compatible).

Both carrying the same internal USB bridge and DAC chips, both support the very same digital input specs which are:

• PCM up to 32bit / 384Khz (requires ASIO drivers on Windows, otherwise limited to 24bit / 192KHz)
• DSD up to 256 (again requires ASIO drivers on Windows, otherwise no direct DSD support available)

No drivers needed for full features availability on all other major supported OS. I know of very few other “dongles” supporting DSD256 on Android.

Next to the USB-C connector, on both 9038D and 9038SG3 there’s a tiny LED. Its lighting behaviour has the following meanings (identical on both models):

Power draw

When connected to a USB host 9038D will absorb approx. 435mW (87mA) even when not playing back. Consumption while playing will be even higher of course, from approx. 500 to 585 mW (100-117mA) when receiving a PCM stream (from 44.1 to 192Khz resolution respectively), and from approx. 500 to 670mW (100-134mA) when receiving a DSD-64 to DSD-256 direct stream.

These figures are low, and even incredibly low when we consider the output this little kid is able to provide (see subsequent chapter).

Both models have an automatic Standby function, which can be enable/disabled by the user and is enabled by default out of the box. Thanks to such feature both 9038SG3 and 9038D will go into “Low Power Consumption” mode if they don’t receive any data from the host for 60 seconds – so when they are “on but doing nothing” so to say – and they will automatically wake back up when a new stream will start flowing again. Power absorption in such condition is circa 50% of the minimum required on quiesced playback status, so around 205-210mW.

I’ll provide more details much down below on how to enable/disable the Standby & Mute functions, and some caveats.

Considering the huge power especially 9038SG3 is able to deliver on mid, low and extralow (see below) the above figures are impressively low. Just a bit more than 600mW (only 120mA!) when decoding DSD256 and at high volume seems like a joke.

9038SG3 and 9038D are by far fully USB2 compliant, so no problem with any Android phone and if the phone has a relatively modern battery (3-4000mAh or more) 9038D / 9038SG3 will not meaningfully jeopardise battery duration.

They can be used on quite a few iPhone models too but choosing the Lightning cable that make it happen may be tricky. See much down below a dedicated chapter to this issue.

I thought about inserting a digression at this point regarding power demand on so-called “dongles” (like 9038SG3 and 9038D) and some considerations stemming from there, but my notes soon developed into something deserving a separate take. So please be patient, I’ll be issuing a standalone article on this ReallySoonNow.

Output

As mentioned above, 9038SG3 and 9038D carry a different amplifier module, which is the most significant difference between the two models.

9038D has one 3.5mm single-ended output port, which supports connection to earphone/headphones of any impedance and technology, and also connection to the single-ended input of an Amplifier device.

9038SG3 has one 2.5mm balanced-ended output port, which exclusively supports connection to earphone/headphones of any impedance provided they have a balanced-ended termination. Connecting Amplifier devices to 9038SG3 is not supported, not even via such Amplifiers’ balanced ended input ports – failure to comply to such exclusion will most surely physically damage the device.

9038SG3 features very significant output power:

• >600mW@10,3Ω
• >550mW@16Ω
• >340mW@32Ω
• And 3.3Vrms @0dB vs high impedance loads

9038D output power is also quite interesting albeit definitely lower:

• 120mW@16Ω
• 180mW@32Ω
• 200mW@40Ω
• And 2.75Vrms @0dB vs high impedance loads 

Both offer extremely low output impedance, around 0,1Ω.

All figures come from E1DA, and correspond to measurements conducted at room temperature, and at 1% THD+N

Sound and performance

I’m going to report about 9038SG3 first, then I will more easily cover 9038D in terms of differences from that.

In its stock calibration situation, so Out Of The Box as they say, 9038SG3 is easily one of the cleanest, most detailed and fast (short transients) dongle I ever auditioned. Indeed, from the sound structure standpoint it rivals much higher class devices.

Notes are exceptionally well separated and clean, while on the flip side they come accross somewhat lean, and this contributes to a general feeling of “scarce musicality” and “excess in detail” if that even makes sense of course.

Leveraging on its internal harmonics compensation generator via the Tweak9038 app, 9038SG3’s “presentation” can be altered to be made a bit “more musical”, “warmer”, even “tubey”. Sure, it takes some will on experimenting of course but possibilities are there. The effect however is not that of flipping the whole presentation into a dark/warm one. See much more on this below.

9038SG3 also has nice spatial rendering – “soundstage” as we call it is definitely OK. Not the level at which a Groove renders depth and height on highres (>96KHz) streams, but that’s related to Groove’s FR being uncommonly flat much beyond 20KHz more than anything else (see here for the full story). Barred that, 9038SG3 has nothing to envy to any other dongle I auditioned, at any price, on this respect.

9038SG3’s lack of sound coloration is obvious, but that’s possibly the second most outstanding feature I noticed right away – the first being the very high amount of power (current) this little box is able to deliver onto low impedance, low sensitivity drivers.

Give or take 9038SG3 delivers 550-600mW into 14 and even 10Ω loads: a sort of mini nuclear plant, perfectly capable to “move” deep insensitive drivers e.g. Final E5000 (14Ω 93dB), RHA CL2 (15Ω 89dB), Hifiman HE400S (22Ω 98dB) and pretty much any low impedance planar IEM you can think of, and with some plenty of room to spare.

As load impedance goes up 9038SG3 stays an uncommonly powerful thingie but starts to show its ropes of course (hey it’s an effing dongle…). For example SRH1840 (65Ω 96dB) are still kinda no problem, but Hifiman HE560 (45Ω 90dB) are no-no.

Lastly, 9038SG3 max voltage swing on high impedance drivers (3.3V) makes it more than decently fit to drive the likes of Sennheiser HD600 (300Ω 102dB/V = 96,7dB/mW) – on which the “tube emulation” is worth a spin, maybe even two… – see below how.

Once all the above is clear, describing 9038D is relatively simple: it’s virtually identical in tonality, timbre, cleanness and technicalities, but delivers way less current on the low loads end, and also more modest voltage swing vs high impedances.

On the former part I guess I can call this yet another example of how a “balanced” scheme is not a requirement to the purpose of outstanding quality on sound output. This consideration apart, 9038D like 9038SG3 sounds magnificently well, and it can be tweaked and changed exactly like its sibling so it’s up to each one to leave it “more analythical” as in its OOB tuning, or a bit “more musical”.

The latter part reflects into a quite different applicative span for 9038D compared to 9038SG3.

While 9038D can still properly drive the likes of Tanchjim Oxygen (32Ω 110dB/Vrms=95,5dB/mW) or Final A3000 (18Ω 98dB) or the recently hyped 7Hz Timeless (14.8Ω 104dB), other drivers like Final E5000, SRH1840 or other more seriously harder to drive planars are at various degrees not ideal, or not viable altogether pairs.

Similarly although less seriously on the higher impedance end: 2.75V are OK to make HD600 sing, but there won’t be much room to compensate in case of low-level recorded tracks and/or level-punishing EQ schemes.

Very succintly put: 9038SG3 delivers incredibly clean sound and very good technicalities and so much power that it can act as a one-stop-source for all IEMs on the market bar none, and most Headphones too, bar high demand planars only. 9038D offers the same sound qualities, can drive “most” IEMs and a few Headphones from of a single ended connection so without requiring cable swapping.

Before I forget: 9038D is virtually immune from hissing when paired to oversensitive loads (Campfire Andromeda, Penon Volt…). 9038SG3 does hiss a bit on the same drivers.

And lastly: as quickly mentioned above and explained in better detail down below, 9038D can be used as a pure DAC connected to a downstream amplifier. Given its outstanding sound profile and its ease of integration on pretty much any host OS, such application might be something to seriously look into, in spite of its external “superpocketable dongle” format.

Comparisons

Hidizs S9 Pro ($119,00)

An educational case insofar as we are talking about almost identical-priced devices, and based on the very same DAC chip (ESS 9038Q2M).

First of all, both 9038D and 9038SG3 sound simply obviously better than S9 Pro. Their presentation is much more linear, clean and detailed compared to S9 Pro’s balanced output. S9 Pro’s high mids very easily tend to “overdo”, and the treble end lacks some air in comparison. S9 Pro also lacks any form of tweakability. S9 Pro’s single ended output is almost unaudible to me quality wise.

On the power delivery standpoint, 9038D’s output is marginally more powerful than S9 Pro’s balanced ended out, and more than twice its single ended one. 9038SG3 is roughly 50% more powerful than S9 Pro at 32Ω, and even most importantly S9 Pro runs into a serious current shortage from right around 16Ω on down, while 9038SG3 still provides something like 600mW vs 10Ω loads. In practice: 9038SG3 easily drives E5000 and planar IEMs, S9 Pro can’t even start trying doing that, or doing that at a comparable level.

Simply and perhaps a bit unforgivingly put: S9 Pro is a toy compared to 9038SG3, and less desireable (although by a smaller margin) even compared to 9038D.

Cayin RU6 ($250)

As you’ll read on my separate take on RU6 (due Soon^tm), in less than a million words RU6 has in its unique timbre its main if not sole reason to be. Its internal R2R technology implementation delivers in facts an audibly different nuance to notes, and that is likely the reason for the ticket price for the curious modest-budgeted audiophile.

The rest is unimpressive at best, often underwhelming. The R2R timbre is audible on NOS mode only – which sadly requires high-res (>= 96KHz) digital tracks to be fed from the outside, as its noise, distortion and FR rolloff on Redbook material is nearly comical – which is even a worse pity if we consider that amongst all that noise one can hear above decent imaging and note body. That’s probably why many say RU6 should exclusively be used on OS mode where reconstruction of 44.1KHz becomes decent-ish, with an at least reasonable sense of space, and much less audible noise. Sadly, the OS circuitry is deltasigma based which defeats most if not all the purpose in this case.

Be as it may, RU6 never comes even close to 9038SG3 / 9038D in terms of clarity, cleanness and detail retrieval.

Power wise the situation is similar to S9 Pro: RU6 is a quite modest-powered device, delivering “just” 213mW@32Ω on BE (similar to 9038D on its single ended, and much less than 9038SG3), slightly more than half on SE, and most importantly dropping quickly below 16Ω so in this case, again: nothing special on E5000, and forget cheecky planar IEMs, etc – unlike what is fully allowed by 9038SG3.

Unlike S9 Pro, RU6’s relatively modest output power at least comes with modest host power requirements – that’s a quite important note. Together with the fact that all the above is attached to a 2X price tag.

IFi GO Bar ($329 / €329)

Also Soon^tm you’ll read my full article on GO Bar. In the meanwhile…

The first big difference with 9038SG3 / 9038D is in the price of course: almost 3 times as much. Better be something serious in there doesn’t it.

Another thing is power. GO Bar is powerful on high and medium impedance loads. It swings a whopping 7.2V into 600Ω (more than twice 9038SG3), and 475mW into 32Ω (40% more than 9038SG3).

Sadly, it hits against a wall of current limitation (circa 120mA) as impedance goes down. As a consequence GO Bar (balanced out) drives Final E5000 (14Ω 93dB) with good athleticism, although with less headroom compared to 9038SG3, but it won’t properly drive the likes of RHA CL2, which are instead perfectly managed by 9038SG3.

Probably due to its performances on higher impedances, or to lesser efficiency, or both, GO Bar, unlike 9038SG3 or 9038D, is a power w**re. It absorbs up to 4W while working, which is 800mA – so it is not USB2 compliant and by far so. Not all Android phones will drive it to its full power then: a laptop is required, or a battery in parallel with a phone. Oppositely, 9038SG3 and 9038D are very modest in terms of power needs vs their output power capabilities, and fully USB2 compliant.

One more thing is features. GO Bar misses the harmonic compensation and masterclock customisation infrastructure available on 9038SG3, and that’s not small stuff, and offers only 4 different FIR filters to choose from instead of 7. On the flip side GO Bar covers the user with features one nicer and/or sexyer than the other, all of which are totally missing on 9038D and 9038SG3: XBass and XSpace analog-domain effects, selectable low/high gain, integrated IEMatch, high quality integrated power filtering, and (for Tidal’s aficionados) MQA full decoding.

So in the end yes, GO Bar does give quite something more than 9038SG3 in return for that higher purchase price and a much higher host power need. I see 9038SG3 as a device delivering similar or better sound quality, and similar to much higher output power onto IEMs compared to GO Bar, in a nofrill package and for a fraction of GO Bar’s price.

Apogee Groove ($220)

As extensively reported on my piece about it, Apogee Groove is an oddball. A badass of an oddball if you wish, but still an uncommon device, with the pros and cons one may after all expect from oddity.

Groove’s output stage is based on proprietary technology and does not support crossover filters or similar circuitry, and all too often it also powers Balanced Architecture drivers (even single-driver models) very quirkily. To cut it short, Groove is mainly if not solely intended for Dynamic Drivers, which is of course an apriori fact to seriously consider when looking instead for a “universal application” DAC/AMP dongle.

That said, Groove swings 5V into 300Ω and 600Ω impedance cans, making it obviously more energetic compared to 9038SG3 and of course 9038D too, and to all other dongles on the market with the sole exception of iFi’s GO Bar.

On the opposite end Groove delivers less current than 9038SG3 which is why it can power Final E5000 (14Ω 93dB) well, but falls dramatically short when applied to RHA CL2, which 9038SG3 eats for breakfast instead. Always from the current delivery on mid/low impedance loads standpoint, Groove is OK-ish on SRH1840 (on the limit, let’s say), while 9038SG3 dances them around more “brilliantly”, and with much more headroom for sure.

Like 9038D, and unlike 9038SG3, Groove can be exploited as a DAC connected to a downstream amplifier.

Groove requires nearly 3 times the current 9038SG3 or 9038D do from their host, which is still USB2 compliant but a huge point to consider nevertheless.

Power profiles aside, Groove and 9038SG3 are very different in terms of sound presentation. Groove is way superior in terms of macro-dynamics (imaging) and even more so in terms of spatial drawing: I hardly can name a single mobile DAC device better than Groove on this.

On the other hand 9038SG3 is obviously less colored and has better subtlety on detail retrieval. Flipping the coin, Groove is gorgeously more “musical” than 9038SG3 and you won’t change the latter anywhere near the former via TCC tweakings.

In less than a million words: where applicable and therefore apriori comparable, Groove is more musical and sexyer, 9038SG3 is more technical, cleaner, sharper. Groove is more powerful on Sennheiser cans, 9038SG3 is way stronger on planar IEMs. I’m so happy I own both, and I would again buy both as these two together cover all possible needs south of a much higher end (and priced) DAP or battery-powered DAC-AMP.

Tweak9038

E1DA developed a companion Android app for their 9038SG3 and 9038D dongles. It’s called Tweak9038.

The purpose of the app is giving the user access to most if not all customisable parameters offered by the ESS 9038Q2M chip, and it indeed succeeds in doing it reliably and quite easily too. The down side is that those parameters are quite technical stuff, and customising them to “make sound better” requires knowing what one’s doing – no worries though, you can’t damage anything if you do it wrong.

There are some limitations to the app, including:

• It only works on Android OS, and they are not planning to port it anywhere else. It anyhow technically might never work on iOS due to Apple limitations.
• It only communicates with 9038SG3 / 9038D via USB.

So the device must be plugged into the Android device where the app is via a USB cable, and only then the dongle configuration can be accessed, seen and changed. The modified configuration can be saved into the dongle’s own non volatile memory, and it will stay there even when the device is plugged onto a totally different device, even if not carrying the Tweak9038 app, and/or if not even Android-based.

Some may consider the app cost (10$) also a limitation. They are wrong. This app is totally brilliant, and adds a lot to 9038SG3 and 9038D’s value and to their uniqueness, as I’ll explain in a bit.  It’s actually very cheap for all it offers and how accurately and reliably it works. If you have some strange problem with “expensive apps” (expensive? 10$? Well, ok…) just mentally add 10$ to the price you pay for the 9038SG3 or 9038D and you won’t fail noticing they will stay two incredibly inexpensive dongles in light of the over-amazing quality they offer.

So quit whyning already, and buy the bloody app to support its developers

As I mentioned above, Tweak9038 exclusively supports 9038D and 9038SG3. It does not support 9038SG2 or earlier. 9038SG3 is anyhow quite significantly better than 9038SG2, and still affordable enough that if I were a 9038SG2 owner I would not think twice about buying a 9038SG3 as an upgrade.

Enough foreword. In summary, Tweak9038 allows to:

• Customise the Minimum, Maximum and Default levels of the device’s hardware volume scale.
• Generate harmonic distortion (yes, you read well), and even do that diversely following playback volume.
• Customise the DAC’s clock frequency, and apply different values automatically based on the track sample rate.
• Select amongst different available reconstruction filters, and again choose different ones automatically depending on the track sample rate
• Enable/disable Standby and Mute options
• Save “sets” of all the above parameters under user-defined names, and recall + apply them to the device whenever liked.
• Lastly, scratch everything off just in case you need to return to the exact configuration and calibration that very device had when leaving the factory.

While some of these features may seem easy, others are quite obscure or at least they were to me. After some extensive use and a lot of curiosity applied, I must say this has been dual fun me: once because these tweaks resulted in amazing sound output, and twice because they gave me the occasion to study their rationales in deeper depth then I ever did in the past – which of course now helps me put other devices in a much more realistic and technically more correct perspective.

Here below I will go through most of the “stuff” I experimented and sometimes learnt. YMMV of course: if for you all this is already bread and butter well, just jump through .

A special mention is deserved by E1DA’s support team, which is easily reachable via their Discord channel, and always available to provide competent and precise input.

Volume scale calibration

Out of the box, 9038SG3 / 9038D hardware volume is set to go from -127.5dB to 0dB, with the default value set to 0dB.

Hardware volume values are to be intended as “attenuation” values. So 0dB means “no attenuation”, that is, “leave the amp output fully undampened”, aka “go ahead, kill my ears!”. Oppositely, -127.5dB means “drop the output volume down by 127.5dB” which is a huge dampening. It equates to “shut the F up!”.

The Default volume value is the value the device will set the volume at whenever it is turned on. Given it’s a battery-less device, it will turn off every time it is disconnected from a host, and on when it is reconnected back. Default volume set to 0dB means: whenever you turn the dongle up set the volume to “full unbridled sound out”. Sounds scary doesn’t it. And yes, it is scary.  

Until now I talked about the dongle’s “internal” (“hardware”) volume values, but we don’t normally “directly see” those values. What we most often see is a volume slider on our music player software, or even on the Operating System of the machine the dongle is connected to. Such slider is usually labelled as going from “zero” (meaning “zero volume”, 0%, or “silent”) to “100” (or “100%”, “full volume”, “full loudness”).

If our music player app’s volume slider is “linked” to 9038’s internal hardware volume (and it usually is – either automatically or by manually switching it on as you can do on most sw player’s settings) then out of the box the music player’s “zero” volume maps into 9038’s  -127.5dB attenuation, and on the opposite end the music player’s “100” volume maps into 0dB attenuation. And the “default volume position” at power-up will be “full volume” position, or, the music player’s latest used volume position (depends on the situation).

Twea9038 app allows for customising all 3 of these default hardware volume settings. But why should you?

Well first of all: the default volume level. It is much, much safer if we set it low, instead of high, let alone “full up” (i.e. “0dB”). This is simply because sooner or later we risk to forget to bring the volume down before hitting “play”, and doing this with the default volume level set too high blasts so loud sound into our ears that we can (seriously!) be permanently harmed.

Secondly: the lower end value. -127.5dB is such a huge attenuation value that unless we plug an extremely oversensitive driver in, starting from “volume full down” will require moving the volume slider a lot before getting some decent sound pressure (“loudness”) out.

First impression in such case might be that 9038S has very weak amplification (“hell… I need to bring it to 80% to get some loudness even on these simple IEMs…!”). But that’s not the case. Moving the volume slider further up the sound pressure will raise very strongly, up to deafening levels.

The real problem is that the “Min” (starting) value is way too low for practical purposes. Setting the minimum hw volume value to a more convenient setting “fixes” this. Which setting is exactly recommendable depends on the impedance and the sensitivity of the actual drivers we “usually” pair 9038 with. For my sets I found that a value of -80dB is OK.

Lastly, let’s consider the upper end value of the scale.

9038SG3, especially, is powerful. Quite seriously powerful I mean, as it can swing 3.3Vrms into a high impedance driver, or – on the flip side – push up to half watt (!) into a 16Ω load.

The downside of all such power is that (again) a wrong move with the music player’s volume control can deafen the user for good, especially if this happens while using IEMs or Headphones which are not “impossible” to drive for 9038SG3, which is like… 95% of the existing ones (and 100% of those in my possession).

Setting the upper end of the hw volume scale to a value lower than 0dB is a safeguard in such sense. Once set at (say) -10dB, this means that when (willingly or by mistake) music player’s volume is slammed to “full up” 9038SG3 won’t release all its possible power onto the drivers, bit quite a bit less.

Similarly to the bottom end value case, the “right” (“most practical”) value to choose for the upper volume end largely depends on which earphones / headphones are part of one’s rotation. If most drivers are very sensitive stuff like Campfire Andromeda, Penon Volt or the like, a pretty low value is recommended! Oppositely, if drivers at hand are hard to drive planars, or insensitive and/or high impedance DD’s, it may be best to leave the value near 0dB, or just below that.

Besides writing values into Tweak9038’s GUI, there’s also another “hidden way” to adjust the Maximum hardware volume boundary by “fiddling” in special ways with the host OS volume slider. This works on multiple different hosts (MacOS, Windows or Linux, and Android – in such last case UAPP is required).

Here’s the scoop:

Bring the host volume slider to 0% (so “all the way down”), and then quickly raise volume + bring it back down to zero% + raise volume again. The “gesture” is like “pulling the volume slider up from zero and quickly slamming it back down, then bouncing back a bit”. The “bounce up” should not exceed 50% of the totale volume slider run space. Do this “bounce” trick 3 times in a row and this will result in a -30dB Max Volume value being instantly set. A sort of quick way to impose a hard “volume limiter”, if you wish.

Bring the host volume slider to 100% (so “all the way up”), and then quickly lower volume + bring it back to 100% + lower  volume again. The gesture is specular to the previous one, it’s like “pulling the volume slider down from 100% and quickly slamming it back up, then bouncing back down a bit”. Same caveat as before: the “bounce down” should be less than 50% of the total volume slider run space. Do this 3 times, and Max Volume value will increase by 3dB. Do this another 3 times and it will increase another 3dB, so 6dB in total. And so on.

I don’t know if you agree but I find this so brilliant…

I have two minor negative points to mention, too.

One: even if a front end music player app directly controls 9038SG3 / 9038D’s hardware volume, it has however no way to know its absolute Min and Max values as they are set inside the dongles by the Tweak9038 app. So for example it did happen to me to spend some sweet time wondering (while swearing) why the heck my 9038SG3 could not make a certain IEM sound really loud even at “full volume” (on the player), only to remember much later that I had set the Max hw volume value to a low level myself.

Two: someone may feel more comfortable if the GUI mentioned volume values in Vrms units in addition to dB units. This would be easy to implement as there is a precise formula linking the two, and someone did already put this in the wishes box to E1DA, so I trust it will eventually happen. Until then, we can calculate them manually as follows : 

Output voltage [Vrms] = FullScale voltage [Vrms] * 10 ^ (Attenuation [dB] / 20)

So for example an attenuation of -10dB results in:

• (For 9038D)       2.75 Vrms * 10^ (-10dB/20) = 0,87 Vrms full scale voltage
• (For 9038SG3)   3.33 Vrms * 10^ (-10dB/20) = 1,04 Vrms full scale voltage

A “distortion generator” – to help reduce distortion

Sounds like a paradox doesn’t it.

As there ain’t such thing as a “perfect” device, of course there is no such thing as a “totally non-distorting” DAC/AMP. Alternatively said, our audio gear’s THD will always be >0.  

Audio equipment engineering and manufacturing of course includes keeping distortion as low as possible, for as low industrial cost as possible of course.

There are structural (I like to call them “static”) causes for harmonic distortion: the quality of the electronics, the cleanness of its implementation, etc. A badly engineered device based on crappy components will produce distortion under any operative conditions; under the very same operative conditions, a better engineered device based on higher quality components will produce lower distortion.

Then, there are those which I call the “dynamic” causes. Operative temperature, for example, is a factor: electronics do change their behaviour with temperature, and that makes a difference in their audio behaviour. EMI/RFI interference even more so. And load: depending on the impedance of the connected headphones the source device will “behave” a bit differently and will generate different distortion patterns – in very general terms, distortion goes up as impedance goes down. Even volume: the same amp will distort less when operated at mid-volume, more when pushed at the top of its capabilities. Etc.

So not only the most skilled manufacturer in the world will be unable to deliver a zero-THD device, but even their best device will have an always somewhat variable THD, as some of that THD depends on how that device is being “actually used”.

Is there a way to cope with such distortion depending on usage conditions? Well… in part, yes.

If we know which parasite harmonics is the device generating under certain usage conditions (e.g., when a given headphone is connected), then we can create some harmonics ourselves which are “equal-but-opposite” compared to the unwanted ones, thus effectively “cancel them out”.

The ESS 9038Q2M chip does have a sort of built-in harmonics (compensation) generator, and indeed that’s what E1DA exploits to first of all calibrate each and every 9038D or 9038SG3 unit prior to shipping.

By design 9038SG3 and 9038D aim at a THD of -125dB as a target value. A value of THD = -125dB is considered ideal, -124dB is considered “standard”, and -123dB is the threshold below which that very unit will be sold as b-stock.

Given what we just noted, we wonder: under which effective usage conditions are such THD values verified?

E1DA reports: they calibrate and measure their 9038SG3/9038D devices with a 32Ω load, and at an operative temperature of 25°C. Then they observe the (unwanted) harmonics during playback of a reference signal while going from min to max volume, and they set compensation values into the the ESS 9038Q2M chip harmonics generator to cancel them out.

Such compensation values are finally burnt into the device’s firmware before shipping. No matter how hard we subsequently mess with the harmonics generator for experimenting etc (see below), we can always go back to E1DA’s original “factory values” by tapping on Restore Factory Settings on the Tweak9038 app.

During real life use we will of course plug all sorts of different impedance drivers into our 9038SG3 or 9038D dongles. When their impedance will be significantly different from 32ohm those factory-pre-set compensation values will be less effective to the purpose. What can we do then?

One: experiment “by ear”.

Simply reach out for the Tweak9038 app and modify the values on the “THD panel”. Doing this while playing music, the result is hearable in real time. So anyone can judge by oneself if the change is adding or removing distortion, and by how much.

As distortion often also depends on the volume at which the device is being made to work, the Tweak9038 app allows to define 3 sub-ranges of the entire volume range. Range 1 goes from -127.5dB to Low Threshold (blue-green), Range 2 from Low Threshold to High Threshold (orange), and Range 3 from High Threshold to 0dB.

Threshold values can be freely modified. To set them either drag the bullets atop their vertical bars, or tap their values (the blue-green and orange figures atop the bar) and directly key the new number in.

Once Ranges are defined, tap on each of the 3 “THD Edit” buttons, at the top, and enter harmonic correction value for each of those Ranges.

It is possible to generate even (2^nd) and odd (3^rd) harmonic values. Each value must be entered in dB, and by ticking the Invert flag we flip the harmonic’s phase.

Similarly to how it works for the Thresholds, harmonic values can be input either by dragging un/down the 2 orange bullet atop the animated “graph spikes” at the centre of the screen, or by tapping on the number values within the frame on the upper-right.

Suppose we don’t want to take volume variations too much into account: how do we define a “flat” correction, all equal for the entire volume range?

There’s 2 ways to do that: either input the exact same values into “THD Edit” for all three ranges, or define Threshold values such that… only Range 3 is effectively ever active (i.e.: set both Low and High Threshold to -127.5dB), and input correction values only under Range 3’s THD Edit space.

Two: go the engineeristic way

As I very briefly mentioned above, THD is typically inversely proportional to load impedance. Which means that E1DA’s factory calibration, centered upon a 32Ω load, will deliver ideal results for 32Ω but results will still be much more than decent at higher impedances; viceversa it will “need some help” – so to say – when pairing 9038SG3 or 9038D with sub-16Ω IEMs.

To find out as accurately as possible which new values optimise a 9038SG3 (or 9038D) when paired with a specific earphone / headphone, some equipment, and following a similar procedure, to what E1DA uses and does in-house to pre-calibrate 9038S3G and 9038D will be required.

And guess what: E1DA develops and sells such equipment. It’s called Cosmos, and does exactly that (and much more). Here is the link to the description – I will not go in more detail here, this article is already long enough isn’t it.

A “distortion generator” – to actually add some distortion

We do all we can to get distortion-free DACs. We even calibrate them in respects to our headphones, one by one, to compensate for load-dependent distortion… why the hell would we want to “add” distortion???

As I mentioned above, 9038D and 9038SG3 come with whopping -125dB (or so) THD which is a monumentally good value for such a device and especially price class. 

And in facts they do sound… clean. Holy cow they really do! 

Tell you what: maybe a tad too much ?

E1DA 9038SG3 and 9038D’s harmonics generator can (incredibly in a sense, but really) help also for this case. By fiddling with the THD compensation values we can “add some colour” to sound, making it “more musical” in a sense.

There’s even a way to simulate the voicing of a tube amp – that’s mainly about playing with the 2^nd harmonic. The Tweak9038 app even offers “tube emulation” presets, those are labelled “SE” – there’s one for 9038D one for 9038SG3 – all it takes is loading them, and they can be furtherly tweaked of course.

When on your quest for more colored sound you may also want to remember that

• the lower the MCLK, the lower the DR (more on this below)
• linear filters often tend to make notes less sharp (more on this below, too)

Playing with 9038SG3 / 9038D’s sound tweaking gauges is just amazing This video (by E1DA) shows a live demo of the game.

Setting a custom clock frequency

Tweak9038 allows to set the ESS 9038Q2M chip’s Master Clock frequency at 3 different values: 12.5Mhz, 25MHz or 50MHz.

A higher clock frequency lowers the noise floor, produces better note definition, sharper attack, better space reconstruction, but generates more high order harmonics (higher distortion).

Lower clock frequency is the opposite: less distortion, a bit higher noise floor, softer note contours, more “intimate” stage.

To give an idea, 12Mhz has lower THD vs 25MHz but is 1-1.5dB(A) worse in terms of SNR/DR.

The effect is indeed quite apparent especially if you have a trained audio ear already. If you are not particularly ahead in your critical listening experience, try “extremising” the values: slam all THD compensation to zero, set clock to 50MHz, and chose a minimum phase filter – you should hear all notes definitely more “sculpted”.

By the way, the fact that Tweak9038’s “Tube emulation preset” profiles are only defined at 12Mhz frequency is indeed consistent with the above: music comes across softer (not fuzzier of course, definition is still there), less “carved in stone”. Like tubes do.

Similarly to the other areas of intervention, for MCLK selection too Tweak9038 app allows to pre-set which clock value to use depending on the track’s sampling rate, and save the full association table under a custom named preset file, which one can load and apply at leisure.

For my taste, lower clock speeds are a better compromise on lower sample rates – and higher clock speeds “fit” (my tastes) better on higher sample rates.

Reconstruction filters: why we need them, and why Tweak9038 is cool

Takes as it should be, deeply understanding reconstruction filters would require a treaty on signal processing. If you are technically inclined an elementary starting point might actually be this Wikipedia page.

The ESS 9038Q2M chip adopted inside 9038SG3 and 9038D offer 7 different reconstruction filters (Linear Phase Slow and Fast, Minimum Phase Slow and Fast, Apodizing, Brick Wall and Corrected Minimum Phase) + 1 “ESS-Reserved” filter.

Assuming you read the above, or you know from before and even better than me, Linear Phase Slow and Fast, and Minimum Phase Slow and Fast filters don’t need much presentation I guess.

Brick Wall and Apodizing are variations of a Fast Linear filter. Corrected Minimum Phase is a not-very-slow Min Phase filter. The R (ESS-reserved) is similar to the Apodizing, but with less ripple.

Linear Phase Fast Filter

Linear Phase Slow Filter

Minimum Phase Fast Filter

Minimum Phase Slow Filter

Apodizing Fast Filter

Hybrid Fast Filter

Brick Wall (fast) Filter

9038SG3 and 9038D allow the user to freely select their preferred filter – which happens via the Tweak9038 app of course. Not so many other dongles offer the same possibilities (at any price, by the way).

Veeery widely said, I personally tend to apply Min Phase Slow to >=88.2KHz tracks, and Min Phase Fast to Redbook tracks.

What I find absolutely brilliant, and unique, here is that the Tweak9038 app makes it possible to map which filter is to be used based on the sampling rate of the incoming digital file.

So I can set things up such that (e.g.) on all tracks < 88.2Khz a Min Phase Fast is automatically used, while the DAC automatically switches onto a Min Phase Slow filter when resolution goes above 96Khz. Or whatever other pairing you might instead find best for your ears

Standby and Mute

9038SG3 and 9038D have built-in automatic Standby and Mute functions.

Standby will set the device in Power Saving mode if it does not receive data from the host for 1 minute. This is of course very nice to reduce power consumption when you are not actively listening to music. Power Saving mode reduces consumption by 50%.

Mute will also turn DAC output off while the device is in Power Saving mode.

There is a single drawback in leaving Standby and Mute working their automatic way: when 9038 starts back receiving again data from the host while in Power Saving mode it may induce annoying and sometimes quite loud “pops” on the drivers. The more annoying and lower the higher the drivers’ sensitivity.

Standby and Mute can be turned “off” by accessing Tweak9038 Settings panel, and just tap to remove the flags on the two options.

Settings persistence and “Presets” management

This part may seem a bit confusing at first, at least it was for me. Let me try to make it simple and straight.

The Tweak9038 app makes all of the above illustrated 9038SG3 and 9038D parameters visible to the user, and allows the user to change them.

As soon as you plug either 9038D or 9038SG3 into the Android device running Tweak9038, its currently active parameters are read-in, and shown by the Tweak9038 app.

Whenever any change is made to one of the parameters shown by the Tweak9038 app while the dongle is connected, such new value is instantly saved onto the connected 9038SG3 / 9038D non-volatile internal memory.

Due to such non-volatility, all values will persist even after unplugging the dongle from the Android device running Tweak9038, and after plugging it onto a totally different device, regardless of such device’s OS.

So again: Tweak9038 shows the values which are written “inside the dongle”, and allows the user to “prepare”, “tune” his 9038SG3 / 9038D how he prefers, save the values back into the dongle, and use it, so tuned, wherever he wants, without ever needing the Tweak9038 app once again.

Clear till now? Good.

In addition to the above, Tweak9038 allows for saving “full sets” of such parameters. Such sets are however saved onto the Android device hosting Tweak9038.  You do that by tapping on the Save frame, on the main app screen, and then giving the preset a name.

Again: Presets are not saved onto 9038SG3 / 9038D. They are kept local to the Tweak9038 app.

Existing Presets can be accessed by tapping on the Preset frame, on the main app screen. Once there, Presets will be found under 2 different categories – accessible by tapping on the first 2 buttons atop: User are those previously saved by yourself, and Official are those supplied by E1DA.

After tapping on a User Preset, it’s possible to SET, EXPORT or DELETE it.

By tapping on “SET”, the Preset’s values are written all together and all at once onto the dongle’s non-volatile memory, and saved. Exactly the same as if they were input one by one by hand.

User Presets can be Exported. Which is meaningful as Presets can also be later Imported – for instance in case a friend wants to pass us one of his sets, or to acquire a special Preset developed by E1DA which is not included inside the standard Tweak9038 app distribution set.

Official Presets cannot be Exported (no need to) nor Deleted (so you can’t mess up). Therefore, when tapping on an Official Preset the system just asks for confirmation before applying its values, and that’s it.

One last note: whenever a Preset is saved into Tweak9038’s workspace, all of the configuration values of the currently connected dongle are automatically saved onto the named file, including Min, Current and Max Volume figures. But, when a Preset is recalled from storage, and “SET” (applied) onto the currently connected dongle, the system asks wether Volume parameters need to be also Set, or those need to be left at their current “live” values.

Other stuff

Using 9038D with an external Amp

It is possible to exploit 9038D’s 3.5mm single ended phone out as a preamp out, and connect it to a downstream Amplifier. It’s quite logical to assume that, very likely if not always, 9038D will be connected to a desktop transport of sort for this application – like a Windows or Linux machine.

To get best results it is recommended to use the Tweak9038 app (see above) to:

• Apply appropriate THD compensation values
• Disable Mute and Standby
• Set Max Volume to -3dB (this way Max Vout will be 2 Vrms – this is only required if this is the max allowed input value for our Amp)

It is optionally possible to save a Preset for this, especially in case one plans to dedicate 9038D to this application only occasionally, and needs therefore an easy way to switch back and forth between these settings and others more appropriate for mobile use paired with headphone or IEMs.

All easy.

Sole doubt is: how do I devine the “appropriate THD compensation values” to apply when 9038D’s load is represented by the amp? No worries.

The 9038D has a nice matte-finished black metal housing. I would call the front side the one with the E1DA white logo engraved on, of course. Let’s flip it to the back side. Near the end corresponding to the USB-C plug there are some other minuscule-font-size engravings. On my unit I read:

Calibrated unit:
DR 124.7 / 125.4
TCC  2 / -70

I already mentioned far above that E1DA calibrates each and every unit upon manufacturing. These figures actually regard my own unit (so will in general be different from anybody else’s unit).

DR refers to my unit’s Dynamic Range, and the two figures refer to the left and right channel respectively.and mean:

Dynamic Range : 124.7 dB LEFT / 125.4 RIGHT

THD Compensation Coefficients: 2  /  -70

TCC stands for THD Compensation Coefficients, and that’s what we are looking for now, as those figures are what’s needed on my very unit to minimise distortion on “No Load Condition”.

As I explained above, THD changes based on various dynamic situations, one of which is the impedance of what gets connected to 9038D’s output (the “load”).

So here E1DA is telling me what’s the compensation to apply when I connect my 9038D to… nothing ?!? Well let’s dig better into this technical wordage.

Connecting “nothing” to the output can be said in a more electrical-engineering-friendly way as “connecting to an open circuit”.

When voltage is applied to an “open circuit”, no current will pass through. “Of course… there is not even the effing wire!!”. Well… (again) an electrical engineer would rather say that there is a “wire”… with an infinite resistance (!).  

And finally, amplifiers have very high Input Impedances. Not “infinitely” high, but “very” high nonetheless.

Now let’s connect the dots: those TCC values reported on the back of 9038D’s enclosure are the settings needed to minimise distortion when nothing is connected to 9038D’s output, i.e., when something with infinite resistance is connected there. So, they are a good approximation of the figures needed to minimise distortion when something with a very high – albeit finite – resistance is connected. Like an Amplifier, for example

How do I do that? Of course via the Tweak9038 app. Reach for the THD panel. Set both Low and High Threshold to -127.5dB. This way only Range 3 will ever be “active”. Open Range 3 panel and (in my specific case) set 2^nd harmonic to 2dB, and 3^rd harmonic to 70dB, while also ticking (only) 3^rd harmonics Invert checkbox to reflect the “-” sign.

Should I plan to use 9038D as a “fixed volume” DAC, and only regulate volume on the downstream connected Amp, I would also want to set its Min Volume = Current Volume = Max Volume to -3dB, this way effectively forcing the device to always output 2Vrms flat.

MasterClock and Filter selection panels have nothing to do with the output connection, so I will leave my usual settings map in there.

And finally, I will save the whole thing under a User Preset called e.g. “9038D Dac”.

Heck! This way I overwrote my 9038D’s factory-imposed THD settings, those offering the least distortion when using a 32Ω IEM. And only now I realise I did not save the previous configuration into a User Preset before modifying it  

No worries. Original factory-recorded THD compensation data are hard coded into the firmware. By accessing Settings / Restore Factory Settings on Tweak9038 app I can swing back to those values in no time.

Using 9038SG3 with an external Amp

TL;DR: don’t.

Some Amplifiers offer balanced input, and their owners would prefer exploiting that route, especially when the Amp also offers a full balanced internal structure.

Too bad that, simply put, such connectivity is not supported by 9038SG3. I found E1DA’s tech support explanation to why is this the case so efficient that I can’t find a better way then quoting that directly here:

DAC and Amp need to be grounded to each other to ensure safe operation. The headphone output of the 9038S has four pins: Hot/Cold Left and Hot/Cold Right. There’s no GND pin. Therefore, it is not possible to ground it to your Amp. People have ignored our warnings before, connected their 9038S to external Amps via a 2.5mm to 2x XLR adapter, and have fried their 9038S as a result. The output really is for headphones only. If you want something that you can use both with headphones/IEMs and with external DACs, get a 9038D.

https://discord.com/channels/483873307251310592/608625162115612693/1001215598203768883

Case closed.

If you really don’t want to use the Tweak9038 app

If you are really really really unwilling to pay the 10 bucks for the app, then – even if you shouldn’t deserve it – there’s a B-plan for you: carefully flashing some pre-cooked firmware made available by E1DA themselves.

The firmware flashing package exclusively exists for Windows OS. Additionally, it requires Comtrue ASIO drivers to be pre-installed to operate correctly.

E1DA makes all the required sw packages available as free downloads of course, and they come with a collection of various alternative firmware versions ready to be flashed on either 9038D or 9038SG3.

It’s of course needed to select the files inside the folder called like the device model which is supposed to be updated of course.

Inside each “model” folder there’s a single file named “Tweak […]”. That is the firmware required for the Tweak9038 app to work. So basically, it’s the firmware that comes preinstalled from factory. Once one of the other firmware files gets flashed in, the Tweak9038 app will not be able to work on that device anymore, and to restore its functionality it’s required to re-flash the Tweak[…] firmware first.

The various files contain non-app-tweakable firmware configurations, quite clearly described by their names.

It’s worth nothing that:

• Firmware names containing “noSTBY” disable the automatic Standby feature
• Firmware names containing “SE” simulate a Tube amp sound signature (set 2^nd harmonic to -50dB)

Special notes about iPhones (with a final Android hint)

Don’t be misguided [too much] by the above-mentioned power drains imposed by 9030D or 9038SG3 on the host, going well beyond 100mA which is known as a hard apriori limitation on Apple’s design.

In spite of that, both 9038SG3 and 9038D can be connected to iPhones via a Lightning connector cable but… whether it will work or not depends on the cable and on the iPhone specific model (!). Some models won’t ever work, other models won’t work with some cables (no power to turn 9038SG3 or 9038D up at all), and finally shall work with some other cables.

E1DA maintains an incredibly helpful if rustic worksheet – available here – collecting internal and users’ experiences: which cable works (or not) with which iPhone model. Check both the Yes/No and Voltage tabs to have the full information you want. The sheet also includes leads on where those cables can be purchased.

Once said it is possible, of course it stays legitimate to wonder whether it’s convenient to indeed connect 9038SG3 / 9038D alone to an iPhone, thereby heavily shortening its daily battery durability.

I myself use 9038SG3 (and Groove for that matter) on the go with “transport pack” made of a tiny DAP + a small lightweight powerbank, kept together by some Bluetack and connected to the dongles by means of a special Y-USB cable.

But that’s another story, and applies to quite a few Android phones too. This specific topic will be covered by a separate article of mine which will be published, well, you know already when.

Considerations & conclusions

You really got through all this article reading it all till here? Heck! I owe you a coffee at the very least. You deserved it.

As I hope I suceeded in saying and explaining why, E1DA 9038SG3 is a very good battery-less DAC-AMP, and an even more brilliant product overall. Unbelievably powerful, drives all nastiest IEMs including no matter which planar IEM, and most HPs as nothing – surrenders only against the most demanding planar overears. This, while offering outstanding sound clarity and superb detail retrieval.

9038D is also extremely good, indeed as good as 9038SG3 sound wise with the sole caveat of output power capabilities which are lower than 9038SG3 but still higher than 90% of the other mobile sources around. Can be the right choice for fixed-cable IEMs and anyhow most other IEMs around bar (some) planars only.

The Tweak9038 app further allows to “play” with the device timbre.

For how much ya’ll know I love my two Grooves, if I were to recommend “one” dongle only for true audiophile use at the lowest possible cost I would name 9038SG3 without the shadow of a doubt. Excellent, indeed.

As already mentioned at the beginning, the 9038SG3 and 9038D I am talking about have been personally purchased.

Very much lastly: I’ve had as always loads of fun going through all this with my audiophile friend Simone Fil, also an enthusiast E1DA user, and much deeper than me in technical audio competence – which of course I ruthlessly exploit. Quite some of the above content is the direct descent from our late evening chats and common findings.

Our generic standard disclaimer.

P.S. – last minute news

On their Discord channel Ivan just recently announced he found a good successor for 9038D’s opamp. Same power, even a bit better THD and DR. It’s code-named 9038D6K as it will also have 6000µF power filtering capacitance, up from 4000 on og 9038D.

So it seems 9038D will be available again… Soon^tm.

The post E1DA 9038SG3 and 9038D Review – They Know What They’re Doing appeared first on Music For The Masses.

Cons — Questyle CMA FIfteen lacks balanced/XLR line-in
– Sparse accessories
– Gain switches hard to reach
– Not the best pairing with very bright headphones

INTRODUCTION

Questyle has slowly become one of the most consistent manufacturers around. Nearly all of their releases are either excellent, or extremely competitive at their respective price-tier.

I have been using the Questyle CMA-400i for the past two years, using it as a reference desktop source. The Questyle CMA Twelve, meanwhile, has managed a place at our Wall of Excellence as one of the best TOTL DAC-Amps around.

Naturally the CMA Fifteen has to bear the weight of high expectations. Anything short of excellence in terms of sonic performance is a letdown. Let’s see if Questyle can maintain the track record with their latest flagship.

Note: the ratings given will be subjective to the price tier. Questyle was kind enough to send me the CMA Fifteen as part of the Review Tour. The unit was sent to the next reviewer afterwards.

Headphones and IEMs used: Final Sonorous III, Sennheiser HD650/HD820/HD560S, HiFiMAN HE-6se V2/HE-400i/Deva Pro, Meze 99 Classics, Dunu Zen, Earsonics Onyx
Price, while reviewed: $2400. Can be bought from HiFiGo.

PHYSICAL THINGS AND USABILITY

PACKAGING AND ACCESSORIES

Questyle does not provide a lot in terms of accessories. A remote, a power cord, the CMA Fifteen itself, and that’s about it. The remote is pretty handy esp for volume adjustment and muting, but many of the buttons do not really work (since this is a universal remote for all Questyle products).

BUILD QUALITY

In one word: excellent. The machined aluminium chassis has a solid, dense feeling. The top panel can be unscrewed by removing the 8 screws (do note the differing lengths of the screws at corners). There’s an option to replace the top aluminium panel with a plexiglass panel but I recommend against it since heat dissipation becomes worse that way.

The front of the unit is full of knobs and lights. Some might find it too busy, and I agree. Having four different logos/trademarks do not help either. Questyle does a far better job with the CMA-400i front panel (where additional logos are shifted to the top panel) so I wonder why they did not choose so here.

Most of the controls on the front panel are self-explanatory. The “Function” button switches between using the CMA Fifteen as a DAC-Amp or a DAC-Preamp. This is a very useful function as with a flip of a switch I can go from my headphones to my powered speakers, for example.

The “bias control” switch meanwhile turns the High Bias mode on or off. More on this later. Also note that all three of the front panel outputs are active at the same time, so I’d advise against keeping sensitive IEMs or headphones plugged in alongside hard-to-drive ones (as once you push the volume for the inefficient ones, the efficient ones will get progressively louder as well).

The volume knob has a cool trick: it rotates accordingly when changing the volume via the remote. The feel and quality of the volume knob is also improved over the previous Questyle DAC/AMps e.g. my Quesytle CMA-400i knob got loose over time. I could fix it by tightening the screw inside again, but it needed some fiddling.

Looking at the back of the device, you have all the expected inputs and outputs. Questyle has a type-C and regular USB type-B input to keep up with modern standards. The USB inputs get the highest priority, but of course you can switch to other inputs with the switch at the front.

The surprising (for Questyle) inclusion is the RCA input. Previous Questyle all-in-ones lacked an analogue input and this made it impossible to use the amp section alone. That’s not the case anymore with the CMA Fifteen, though I’d have preferred an XLR input as well (though space constraint could’ve been a reason for excluding that).

Then we find the stereo outputs and this time XLR-out is available. The line-out can have fixed or variable voltage, and the line-out level can also be adjusted between 14dBu and 20dBu. Lastly, we find the BT module (with LDAC support), a button to pair the DAC-Amp with a BT device, a voltage switch (110V or 220V), and the power input with a fuse underneath.

My only gripe: the gain switch at the bottom. There are four separate DIP switches and you have to individually switch them to the desired gain level. The procedure is annoying as it’s not easy to switch gain on the fly for sensitive stuff. You have to flip the entire unit to gain access. Given that vertical mount does not work here like CMA-400i, you have to fiddle with the unit at times if you intend to use sensitive IEMs and power-hungry planars.

TECH INSIDE THE CMA FIFTEEN

Questyle is known for their clean PCB design and the use of high quality components, and the CMA Fifteen is no exception. The space on the PCB is well-utilized with the DAC, Amp, and PSU components having their separate “grouping”. The components themselves are sourced from reputed brands, e.g. WIMA film caps, Nichicon Fine Gold series caps, DALE resistors, Plitron/Noratel toroidal transformer etc.

The USB controller sits on top the motherboard on a separate “daughterboard” and is connected to the main PCB via a ribbon interface. It’s an XMOS controller, as is the norm nowadays (apart from Schiit who make their own controller).

Another interesting inclusion is the Linear PSU within the unit itself. The CMA-400i lacked this while the CMA Twelve/Twelve Master included a linear PSU as well (though smaller in size). As a result, you won’t have to shell out extra money on external PSUs or “noise filtering” devices.

Finally, let’s have a look at the discrete four-channel current-mode amp section. The voltage-rail caps are on the right whereas the individual amp channels have the DIP switches directly coupled with them at the bottom. This is why you have to switch four different switches just to go from low to high gain, or vice-versa. On the left, you see the ES9038Pro DAC chip, which is the highest performing Sabre chip on the market right now. To learn more about Current-mode amplification, have a look here.

Speaking of the DAC chip, Questyle picked the ES9038Pro since it’s a current-mode DAC chip, and coupled with Questyle’s Current-mode Amp topology, this system can negate the need of IV conversion between the DAC and the Amp, resulting in a more direct signal path. Does this improve the sound quality? Well, that’s hard to gauge, but this is cool from an engineering perspective anyway.

Finally, a list of the technical spec, taken straight out of Questyle’s CMA Fifteen page:

TONALITY AND TECHNICALITIES

Listening setup: Questyle CMA Fifteen connected directly to a desktop gaming PC and alternatively an Apple Macbook Pro (M1 Max). The Macbook Pro ran on battery during listening test. There was no noticeable difference between sound or noise level between these systems, proving that the noise filtering on the CMA Fifteen is doing a good job.

To describe the tonality in one word: Super-transparent. I’ll describe some general traits here, and then move on to pairing with several headphones/IEMs since when talking about sources, pairings are the only way to judge them properly.

The mids are intoxicating, every slight nuance of vocal delivery or guitar strumming being vividly portrayed. The highs are very resolving without a hint of edginess or grain. Notes are slightly rounded but not overly so.

Soundstage is engulfing and stage depth is exemplary. Imaging is precise and differs slightly from most DACs in terms of panning from center to left or right. It’s hard to describe but center imaging is better on the CMA Fifteen than most solid-state DAC-Amps I’ve tried in the TOTL space.

Bass is not as spectacular as the rest of the stuff, given the uncolored, neutral presentation on that front. That being said, even on headphones with relatively “poor” bass e.g. HD650 the mid-bass punch and note delivery was spot-on. Bass is mostly focused on the dexterity of the delivery rather than having a rich, dense bass response.

This highly resolving signature comes at the cost of one detriment: CMA Fifteen is unforgiving to poor mastering or recording flaws. Moreover, peaks and dips in the frequency response of IEMs and headphones are laid bare to the listener. If you want your source to be on the forgiving side, CMA Fifteen ain’t it.

MQA hardware decoding works, and MQA tracks sounded somewhat better with the HW decoding turned on than off (in the desktop Tidal app). Make of that what you will, but I did a blind A/B and it was that.

PAIRING NOTES

Let’s address the noise level first. There is very faint hiss with the likes of Andromeda or Final FI-BA-SS. Most IEMs are hiss-free and has excellent dynamics. Generally, the CMA Fifteen pairs especially well with planars and high-impedance dynamic drivers (with high bias on). Note that the high bias mode ensures a longer operation in pure class-A mode.

with Sennheiser HD650

One potential issue I found was that the HD650 would sound slightly shouty in Standard bias mode. Turning on high bias solved that for me (and I did a blind A/B testing just to be sure it’s not a placebo). This was the only time when high bias mode made a very noticeable difference, so I think other high impedance headphones might benefit from this mode as well.

Other than that: exceptionally balanced sound from the HD650. The mids were intoxicating in high bias mode, and the treble was extended without being too subdued or up-front. The bass roll-off isn’t addressed, and bass is the weakest link here (to fix that you really need an OTL amp with the HD650). As far as solid-state pairings go, CMA Fifteen drive and pair with the HD650 as well as anything out there.

with Final Sonorous III

The Final Sonorous III are quite susceptible to source changes, and also very efficient to drive so it’s easy to “over-drive” them on a source that’s just all about grunt and little about “finesse”. The CMA Fifteen handles low impedance loads very well, Sonorous III did not have any edginess in the treble (which appears on subpar sources or when being over-driven). As an aside: Meze 99 Classics also paired extremely well with the CMA Fifteen with the bass being less bloomy and bloated than out of an iFi Zen Can, for example.

with HiFiMAN HE-6se V2

The HiFiMAN HE-6se V2 are notoriously difficult to drive with a sensitivity of only 83dB/mW. People are often using speaker amps to drive them (at times in a monoblock config which is nuts) so the CMA Fifteen are up for a challenge.

And fortunately, they pass that challenge with aplomb. The bass slams hard, with the treble being bright and sparkly but not grainy or super-aggressive (which is the case when the HE-6se V2 are underpowered). Staging was improved noticeably over my CMA-400i and the SMSL SP-400. All of this without having to go past the 12 o’clock position in the volume knob (which is very loud for me).

If you own planar magnetic headphones, very few DAC-Amps will perform as well as the CMA Fifteen.

with Dunu Zen

Dunu Zen is a single dynamic driver IEM that’s very susceptible to background hiss/high noise-floor on the source side. Fortunately, CMA Fifteen has a mostly quiet background, with subtle “hum” being evident when no music is playing. Once the music starts playing even that fades away.

In terms of sound, the Zen had excellent dynamics and also benefitted from the midrange transparency that the CMA Fifteen offers. I do find the pairing with Cayin C9 to be even better when it comes to Zen, but that is a different class of device altogether.

SELECT COMPARISONS

vs Questyle CMA-400i

Being my daily driver, I am fairly accustomed to the CMA-400i sound signature. To summarize, the CMA-400i is less resolving, with the mids being not as engaging. The staging is less expansive as well, though imaging is largely similar.

The bass has slightly more weight on the CMA-400i though faster bass sections are better rendered on the CMA Fifteen. Output power is also noticeably higher on the CMA Fifteen with nearly double the current. CMA-400i also has more background hiss with sensitive IEMs.

Overall, the CMA Fifteen is an upgrade over the CMA-400i, though the 3x increase in price make the CMA-400i an even better value-for-money.

vs Questyle CMA Twelve

In terms of feature-set and output power, these two DAC-Amps are largely similar. The CMA Fifteen have analog input which is a plus.

As for sound, CMA Twelve has slightly more warmth and less expansive stage, and the treble is a bit more rounded. The bass has more weight and slam on the CMA Twelve, but the CMA Fifteen can give the sensation of better “separation” between notes. Mids are also more engaging on the CMA Twelve with even better transparency.

In essence, the CMA Twelve is not too far off the performance of the Fifteen. It’s mostly the stage size and the space between instruments that are larger, grander on the CMA Fifteen, and the bass being more nimble than weighty.

vs iFi Pro iDSD SIgnature

The iFi Pro iDSD Signature has more tuning options and better output selection but it sounds less resolving with a more intimate presentation. Separation of instruments are also not as outlined as the CMA Fifteen. Moreover, planars fared better with the CMA Fifteen, with the HE-6 having more slam on the CMA Fifteen while sounding somewhat anemic on the Pro iDSD Signature in default configuration (no bass boost engaged).

That being said, with the right pairing e.g. bright headphones, the Pro iDSD can sound magnificent. Also the bass boost and tube modes are really well-implemented, so if you are into tweaking the sound of your headphones, Pro iDSD Signature has more to offer there.

CONCLUSION

Questyle CMA Fifteen is a solid all-rounder. It sounds great with almost any headphones and IEMs out there, and it sounds exceptional with planar magnetic headphones. The build is very good, the output power is more than enough for almost any headphones, and the size of the unit is petite enough to be put on the desk alongside your PC and powered monitors.

The only complaint I have is the crowded front-panel, a lack of XLR input, and perhaps a way to apply analog tone-control, something iFi Pro iDSD Signature offers. Other than that – nothing, really.

It’s rare that I come across a device so complete, and something that may stop you from purchasing further gears because it does everything so well. The Questyle CMA Fifteen earns my highest recommendation, and also gets a place in our Wall of Excellence, replacing the previous CMA Twelve Master.

Job well done, Questyle!

MY VERDICT

4.75/5

Contact us!

DISCLAIMER

Get it from HiFiGo

Our generic standard disclaimer.

PHOTOGRAPHY

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

The post Questyle CMA Fifteen Review – The Great Sequel appeared first on Music For The Masses.

The Questyle M15 is a very enjoyable, powerful portable DAC/amp with an uncoloured, crisp, transparent sound far from being analytical or sterile. Candidate for “Best in Class” and on our “Wall of Excellence”.

Pros — Powerful, uncoloured, transparent sound; versatile usage; moderate current draw; great build.

Cons — Can’t find any.

The Questyle M15 was added to our Wall of Excellence.

Introduction

Jason Wang has been an audiophile since middle school. In university, he invented current mode amplification (CMA). CMA devices are characterized by their crisp and transparent sound. It became his ambition to produce audio products with the best possible sound quality. But nothing can remain the best forever, so we should always keep questioning for better. He made this his lifestyle. Jason combined his two principles to form the company Questyle in 2012. Got it?

Questyle had a huge impact with their first digital analog player QP1R back in 2016. Three of us have purchased one – and it remains our reference to this day. Their flagship dap QPM made it onto our Wall of Excellence as true endgame. And the CMA Twelve DAC/amp also collected very good marks from our team.

The company recently also followed the trend of battery-less dongle DAC/amps. Such dongles are marketed to people who want to play music in high quality on their phones, and who don’t want to have a second device in their pocket.

The current market is flooded with dongles – we covered a few – and it appears to be increasingly difficult for a new release to stick out. The 2021 M12 was Questyle’s first effort in this field. Our two guys in Europe were not…too impressed. That’s probably because of their expectations of the crisp Questyle sound, which the M12 did not deliver. It was unusually warm and soft to their ears.

Spoiler alert, the M15 returns to the strictly neutral sound Questyle made its name with. There are a few more things to say, for example how they did it…let’s start with the physicals.

Specifications

Physicals

In the box are:

• 1 * M15
• 1 * USB-A to USB Type-C cable,
• 1 * Type-C to Type-C cable
• 1 * Instruction manual
• 1 * Warranty card

The body is made of metal with a glass cover on top so that one can see the internals at any time. Sturdy, robust…as good as it gets.

Technology

The Questyle M15 incorporates the ES9281Pro SoC (System on Chip) that comprises an all-in-one DAC and headphone amplifier, which delivers a prefabricated sound so that all such devices sound similar. STOP! This is not the case with the M15.

Questyle engineers have enhanced the output signal by adding two Current Mode Amplification (CMA) SiPs (“System in Package”: each with two independent amplification circuits) to achieve the Questyle sound, which is characterized by ultra low distortion, a very low noise floor and very low output impedance of around 1 ohm. This low-voltage configuration is further meant to minimize power consumption, beneficial for mobile use.

The reason why Questyle did not bypass the SoC’s amp altogether is because that’s virtually impossible. And the reason why they didn’t use a pure DAC chip such as the ES9038 is size – it is simply too big. The ES9281Pro chip also features a USB module. Therefore, size and performance dictated the choice of chip.

The M15 offers both balanced (4.4 mm) and single-ended (3.5 mm) circuits.

Functionality and Operation

What it does

• Works plug and play with Windows, Linux, and OSX computers and Android/iOS devices.
• Plays music though single- ended (3.5 mm) and a more powerful balanced (4.4 mm) circuits.
• Supports almost all music streaming platforms worldwide, including Apple Music, Tidal, QQ Music, among others.
• Fully supports and decodes ALAC, FLAC, MQA, and other lossless formats.
• Features two data status indicators that will illuminate one of the following colors: green (sample rate is 48kHz or less), red (hi-res lossless playback: PCM 88.2kHz~384 kHz, or DSD64~DSD256), magenta (final unfold of an MQA Core stream).

What it does not

• Has no on-board control.
• Needs a lightning adapter to be used with iPhone.

The Questyle M15 does not have an on/off switch. It draws current from the host device and switches itself on, when a headphone of earphone is plugged into one of its two sockets.

Amplification and Power Consumption

The manufacturer’s amplification data are rather cryptic so that I put the Questyle M15 to a practical test. The problem is that balanced cables for full-sized, power hungry cans are hard to come by – to take advantage of the M15’s 4.4 mm balanced circuit, which is much beefier than the single-ended circuit (a generally valid statement).

Running the 300 ohm Sennheiser HD 600 on the (weaker) single-ended output – to my surprise – did not only provide enough power, it also maintained the zing, bite, and clarity experienced with easier to drive earphones.

Then I ordered a balanced cable for the balanced circuit – which worked even better. The M15 has enough power to adequately drive a 300 ohm headphone.

Questyle claims that the M15 has an ultra-low power consumption (which, of course, is relative to performance). I did a quick test with the FNIRSI-FNB48 voltmeter. The M15’s single-ended circuit has about twice the power drain of the “frugal” AudioQuest DragonFly Red, and approximately one third more than the DragonFly Cobalt. Both are designed for low power drain, which comes with compromises in performance.

The Questyle M15 has, however, a much smaller current drain than the much less powerful Hidizs S9 Pro. And it works with iPhone that limited power draw to 100 mA, which shuts out similar dongles such as the Astell & Kern PEE51.

I’d say the M15 is very current efficient, but you’d still better have a decent phone battery.

Sound

The Questyle M15 has a sonic signature owners of Questyle equipment love: essentially neutral with great extension at both ends, unparalleled resolution, clarity, transparency, and crisp dynamics – and all that without ever being strident or aggressive, sterile or analytical (Topping comes to mind as the opposite). Almost like a little class-A amp in your pocket. If you have listened to the QP1R dap or the CMA 12 DAC/amp, you will know what I am talking about.

Spatial reconstruction is excellent in both single-ended and balanced circuits. No compromise has been made for the single-ended circuit, the only difference between the two is power. This is in contrast to some other models that sacrifice headroom in their single-ended circuit such as the EarMen Sparrow.

And that’s all you have to know.

Questyle M15 compared

Questyle had released the $150 M12 a year earlier. In contrast, it features only a 3.5 mm single-ended circuit, and, most importantly, it has a different sound: softer and warmer than the M15 or QP1R dap…which did not quite delight Alberto at the time. The M15 also has a gain switch for driving a larger variety of headphones.

Apogee Groove: is much more powerful, way higher current drain, a very high output impedance of 20 ohm, and it does not run with most phones, not at all with iPhones. Its use with hybrid iems is not recommended by the manufacturer. Sonically, the Groove is more coloured and it drives headphones without the need of balanced cables. The Groove offers the best spatial reconstruction of all dongles I have tested but is limited to single dynamic driver earphones and headphones.

With the Sennheiser HD 600, the Groove delivers more dynamics and a deeper stage than the M15. The differences are, however, not substantial. In summary, the Groove excels in it specialized applicability, but the M15 is more universally deployable.

AudioQuest DragonFly Cobalt is smaller and thus handier on the go, has USB filtering included and sounds a bit smoother and a tad warmer. It has similar imaging and spatial reconstruction qualities. It is less powerful – at a lower power consumption, and therefore more limited in its application. The evaluation of sonic differences relies on personal taste but are on par in terms of overall quality. Both offer stellar sound.

Practical Aspects

Questyle and similar dap manufacturers offer dongle DAC/amps to cover the phone/table/notebook market. A dap has principally a cleaner data and power source than a phone or a computer, as it is designed for playing music only. Computer and phone feature other clocked internals that introduce contaminations (“noise”) to the sound. So you are always better off with a dap, sonically – any USB DAC/amp (“dongle”) is a compromise.

When it comes to dongles, the user has to pick their poison: low current draw (= low power = battery preservation) vs. high power (= better sound quality = battery hog). Both are mutually exclusive.

You obviously need a powerful dongle to operate full-sized cans. Devices optimized for low current draw such as the AudioQuest DragonFlys will be easy on your phone’s battery however not do a satisfactory job on demanding headphones. Clipping will occur which will first be noticed when the bass is getting muddy.

Battery hogs such as Hidizs S9 Pro will do a better job on such headphones but empty your phone in no time. The Apogee Groove will not run with most phones at all. Powerful AND low battery drain does not exist!

There is a fundamental lack of technical understanding by some testers who run full-sized, insensitive cans on battery-preserving dongles, then rate them lowly. This misuse conveys the wrong information on the quality of such devices and distorts the playing field.

Therefore, if you have an old phone, a DragonFly type dongle may be right for you. If you want to run full-sized headphones from your computer, you may favour the Apogee Groove type. The Questyle M15 strikes a good balance between powerful output and current drain. However, despite its advanced power management, it is not a miracle power saver. In the end, you have to factor your intended usage into your buying decision.

Concluding Remarks

The very versatile Questyle M15 dongle is as good as it gets in its category. It is for listeners with very high standards. I will use this one for future iem testing…and submit it for approval to be attached to our Wall of Excellence.

Until next time…keep on listening!

Contact us!

Disclaimer

I received the unit from Questyle Engineering for my analysis. I thank them for that as well as for responsive in answering my questions. You can purchase the M15 at the Questyle Shop.

Our generic standard disclaimer.

The post Questyle M15 Review (1) – Stellar By Starlight appeared first on Music For The Masses.

The $109 Qudelix-5K is a good sounding and handling Bluetooth DAC/amp with all possible bells and whistles that comes with an impressive monitor and control app. The $29 QX-Over is a proprietary earphone design sonically optimized for the 5K.

Pros — Powerful quality sound; excellent functionality and customizability through comprehensive app/Chrome browser extension; good battery life; great technical integration of QX-Over earphones; superb value.

Cons — Steep app learning curve to take advantage of all features; no storage bag; buttons could be marked better.

The Qudelix-5K was added to our Wall of Excellence.

Introduction

I have yet to find another company that has so much customer satisfaction and loyalty as Qudelix. Long before I even thought about the Qudelix-5K , happy customers were all over me inquiring whether I had checked out this device.

And once I finally “gave in” to peer pressure, I learnt that there is probably hardly another company with so much pride in their products, so much detail in optimizing functionality and documentation thereof, and such a responsive and enthusiastic customer service. And yes, I needed their customer service as I didn’t know much about Bluetooth at the time – now I know everything…almost.

Qudelix are an audio-system engineering company that develop and produce affordable high-end audio in the Republic of Korea – which is a high-cost market. It is therefore astonishing that they can offer their gear at attractive prices. They offer the 5K USB DAC, the QX-over earphones to go with the 5K, and the T71 gaming USB DAC.

Key Specifications

Physicals

The environmentally sustainable packaging – a plain cardboard box (dimensions 91 x 55 x 55 mm; QX-Over comes in a box of the same dimensions) – contains the quickstart user manual. In the box are the 5K and two 120 mm cables (USB-C to USB-A and USB-C to USB-C).

The actual Qudelix-5K itself a rectangular plastic box with a metal shirt clip at approximately the size/dimensions of a 9V battery…(52.8 x 26.7 x 15.6 mm including clip – at a weight of 25 g). The enclosure hosts two double multi-function buttons, a USB-C port, and two headphone sockets (3.5 mm single ended and 2.5 mm balanced.

Technology

ES9219C Headphone SoC

The Qudelix-5K DAC/amp deploys a ES9219C Headphone system on chip or “SoC“ [see also ESS specs sheet]. Earlier versions of the 5K hosted the ES9018p SoC until it was discontinued by ESS Technology. Qudelix prefer to refer to the SoC as IC (integrated circuit).

SoC means that the ES90219C is a closed system that incorporates the DAC and headphone amp on the same chip. The sound is therefore pretty much prefabricated and devices with this SoC all sound rather similar. This is in contrast to individual DAC chips (on other devices), which do not tell you anything about sound as it mostly depends on the custom-designed output stages. Qudelix’s added software aims to access all features of the ES90219C.

Bluetooth 5.0

The Qualcomm QCC5124 SoC used is an energy-efficient Bluetooth DAC/amp that supports all the latest audio codecs including the Sony LDAC topping the data transmission rates. The codecs deployed has to match the one used by the source device. The QCC5124 SoC can process both Bluetooth and USB signals. When the Qudelix app is enabled (see below) iOS devices and 5K pair automatically.

In summary, we have two independent SoCs, the QCC5124 and the ES9219C. The incoming Bluetooth signal is decoded but bypasses the Qualcomm’s DAC – and outputs it to the higher-quality external ESS9219C DAC/amp.

Functionality and Operation

Overview

What the 5K does:

• works as wireless receiver supporting all the latest Bluetooth codecs
• as USB DAC/amp, the 5K supports 96 kHz/24 bit USB audio streaming, works with Windows, Mac OS, and Linux – and connects via USB-C to android phones
• functionality and sound can be highly customized via a phone/tablet app or Google Chrome extension
• plays hi res music from my Sony dap via LDAC
• can simultaneously be charged and streamed to from computer while being controlled from phone via Bluetooth
• Bluetooth connects automatically to iPhone (when app is connected)
• sound can be adapted to personal taste with 8 DAC filters
• features graphic and parametric equalizers, including presets for many of the most widespread models
• offers powerful output with two gain levels (1 Vrms and 2 Vrms)
• features a built-in high-sensitivity microphone for phone calls
• automatic firmware update

What it does not:

• decode MQA
• have a display
• come with a protective case

Buttons & App/Chrome Browser Extension

The Qudelix-5K has a two multifunction double-buttons (red and blue if illuminated) that control Bluetooth connectivity, onboard volume, and song transport (start/stop/back/forth). They are not marked (one of them has a ridge for touch recognition…but you have to remember which one it is…it is the blue one).

There is also a free mobile app (Android/iOS) and a Google Chrome browser extension for remotely monitoring and adjusting/changing performance/parameters. Both have the same functionalities. The Qudelix mobile app works over Bluetooth link only. The Qudelix PC Chrome app works over USB link only.

In detail, you can monitor device and system internals such as the kind of connection, Firmware, even warranty. You can power the device off, pair with peripherals, do resets, access the user manual, and get in contact with customer support and the Qudelix discussion forum.

You can monitor the battery including all stats and set charge levels as well as power modes. You can even set the button functionalities including turning on and off the button’s LEDs and enable multi-point pairing if desired. The charger function can be turned off in the app, which is necessary for USB operation with iPhone – as Apple only allows 100 mA current draw (but why would you want to do that?).

You can prioritize USB vs. Bluetooth, further monitor input parameters (bit rate, sample rate, RMS levels etc.), the active Bluetooth codecs/USB DAC functions, and set the microphone functionality. You can adjust volume on both host device and 5K.

And you can adjust the DAC/amp bit selecting output power (1 or 2 VRMS) and output quality (Standard/Performance) as a way to manage battery consumption. You can set the output mode to auto, balanced, single ended (unbalanced), or QX-over (the proprietary iems). You can even swap L and R channels…handy, when testing earphone balance.

Finally, the ESS9219C SoC lets you choose between 8 digital filters (best start with “minimum phase fast/small rolloff”). The QX-over has its own extra tweakability in the app.

Last but not least, there is a choice of parametric and graphic 10-band equalizers with 10 programmable presets. The app also provides access to a user-maintained public database with auto eq presets for all popular earphone models…hundreds of choices.

In summary, the app is a nerd’s paradise. You find a complete operational overview here.

Power Consumption/Battery Life

The Qudelix-5K hosts a 500 mAh lithium polymer battery. At a rate of 200 mAh, it is fully charged in 2.5 hrs. The battery discharge time varies with codec, sample rate, power profile, output mode as well as earphone/headphone sensitivity and output volume level.

Depending on combinations of these factors, battery life is between 6 and 18 hours. Check here for a detailed breakdown.

Amplification

Single-ended and balanced outputs features 80 mW and 240 mW per channel, respectively. Each of the circuits has two modes (or gains). Single ended features 1V_RMS mode for “normal” iems around 32 ohm. 2_VRMS mode drives low-sensitivity iems and headphones.

The balanced circuit offers more powerful 2V_RMS and 4V_RMS modes. All these modes are user selectable.

Full-sized headphones obviously prefer the more powerful balanced circuit, however, balanced cables for them are hard to find – and if so, they are not swappable between headphones, as there is no connection standard. Paradoxically, cables of easier-to-drive iems adhere to two standards (MMCX and 0.78 mm, 2 pin) and balanced cables are readily and cheaply available for them.

In real life, the 5K’s single ended circuit drives my 150 ohm Sennheiser HD 25 with ease, but the 300 ohm Sennheiser HD 600 bring it close to its knees. The balance circuit played any iem thrown at it – and more.

Wrong world!

Sound

The Qudelix-5K is primarily designed as a Bluetooth receiver for on the go. Hence functionality is above audiophile fine tuning. The ES9219C SoC with DAC and amp delivers a prefabricated sonic signature as it is impossible to manipulate the amp part other than through unleashing the functionality via custom software. Therefore, all devices with this SoC will sound similar.

That said the Qudelix-5K features a neutral sound with a tad of warmth added. The big difference between USB and Bluetooth sound is that Bluetooth sacrifices some dynamics and depth.

Extension is decent at both ends, there is nothing scratchy or strident, note weight is very good, note definition is ok. My overall impression is…middle of the road…not the most audiophile but more than workable – and enjoyable. Imaging, resolution, clarity, staging are all good and even great for the price. Headroom with the balanced circuit is excellent.

Considering the ambient sounds one is exposed to on the road, the 5K’s musical presentation is more than adequate and actually quite delightful – even more so when combined with the functionality.

So what do you get in a $250 DAC/amp such as the Questyle M15? First, no Bluetooth…but better midrange clarity, more “zing”, more intimacy, better note definition, a better organized stage…and a bigger battery drain on your phone.

Both kinds of devices clearly serve different purposes. One for the soft sofa at home and the other for the hard seat on the bus.

QX-Over Earphones

The $29 QX-Over earphones are another one of Qudelix’s technical specialties – they only fit the 5K and T71. The iems feature two 8 mm dynamic drivers and utilize the 5K’s active crossover as part of its 4-channel DAC/amp and DSP for optimal sound quality.

The QX-Over therefore features a double plug that is inserted simultaneously into the 2.5 mm and 3.5 mm sockets. Using the stock tips is required to unleash the intended sound signature.

The QX-Over have a safe, V-shaped, slightly warm tuning with a huge headroom and great staging (obviously the result of the proprietary crossover technology). Again, no audiophile delicatesse, but a decent burger fare: an unpretentious souped-up mainstream iem that is optimized for the 5K.

They have tight enough bass with a good sub-bass extension generating a healthy rumble. Vocals are not too recessed, they are a bit on the lean side but still have enough body. There can be the occasional shoutiness. Treble extension is not the greatest and high notes can be a bit subtle.

The OX-Over are quite quirky in terms of dynamics and clarity is also good. Seriously, although quite middle-of-the-road, the QX-Over completely do the job outside of the house (in…errmm..the middle of the road). Even inside: I danced around my kitchen with them while unloading the dishwasher. I definitely recommend this experience as an add-one to the 5K.

Comparison to FiiO BTR5

The $129 FiiO BTR5 features the same ES919C SoC as the 5K, and both presumably sound very similar. Qudelix released a comparison pdf (that is in need of minor updating).

The main differences between the two devices, apart from price, are weight (BTR is much heavier), battery life (5K much better), native resolution (BTR up to 32 bit/384 kHz), and app/Chrome extension (5K much more customizable). Qudelix 5K has a resolution of up to 24 bit/96 kHz (just like the AudioQuest DragonFly Cobalt), which covers 95% of all audio files).

Another huge difference is the customer support. FiiO have never replied to any message of us at audioreviews.org authors whereas Qudelix have a short turnaround time with dedicated support.

Concluding Remarks

The Qudelix-5K is probably one of the most mature products on the market and bears zero risk to the buyer. No wonder it enjoys an excellent customer satisfaction.

One of my personal highlights is that it turned my Sony NW-A55 dap into a balanced player.

Apart from great sound and functionality, the free tweaking/monitoring app is a great teaching medium. Sure, the 5K can’t compete with $300 competitors, but it is still good enough to be used even with premium earphones – and it is simply perfect for use on the road.

Oh, and I highly recommend ordering the QX-Over earphones as add-on.

The Qudelix-5K was added to our Wall of Excellence.

Until next time…keep on listening!

Contact us!

Disclaimer

The Qudelix-5K was provided by the company for review upon my request – and the QX-Over showed up as a surprise. And I thank them for that as well as for answering all my questions patiently and in every detail.

You can get the 5K and QX-Over from amazon and directly from Qudelix Store.

Our generic standard disclaimer.

The post Qudelix-5K Bluetooth DAC/amp With QX-Over Earphones Review – Highest Pragmatism appeared first on Music For The Masses.

Now that these babies have been stuck on our Wall of Excellence though… well, it’s time to act.

At-a-glance Card

Full Device Card

Test setup

Sources: Apogee Groove + Burson FUN + IEMatch / Apogee Groove / Sony NW-A55 mrWalkman / Questyle QP1R – Type-D pads on Sonorous-II, Type-E pads on Sonorous-III – Stock OFC cable – lossless 16-24/44.1-192 FLAC tracks.

Signature analysis

Technicalities

Physicals

Specifications (declared)

A glance at the technology

Quite a few by now know final (yes, they write it lowercase) as a group of incredibly proficient audio engineers, and their products, may them encounter the complete appreciation of the single individual or not, based on personal taste, are anyhow always granted to be the fruit of non-trivial investigations, studies and technological achievements. Sonorous headphones make of course no exception.

Ear pads

Ear pads – their internal structure, size, thickness, and external fabric – do change headphones sound even more than what eartips do to IEMs.

First and foremost, the distance between the actual sound transducers and the ear modulate low frequency sound pressure, which obviously significantly influences the presentation. Based on this fact, final Sonorous earpads are filled with sponges of different thickness and consistency. Their external material is synthetic leather featuring equal horizontal and vertical flexibility.

Another important aspect when it comes to closed-back earphones is avoiding sound appearing “muffled” due to lack of backside venting. Final accomodates for this by carving small apertures on the inside and the outside of the pads “donuts”, achieving superb results in terms of sound clarity.

Lastly, final designed a quite ingenious system to facilitate pad swapping. By direct experience it does work. You may want to take a look at this video to get an idea.

BAM

That stands for “Balancing Air Movement”. It’s the marketing name for final’s project focused on obtaining results similar to open-back heaphones even on closed-back ones, especially in terms of clarity, controlled bass delivery and of course soundstage and imaging.

At final, we decided to focus on developing technology for the reproduction of bass tones and three-dimensional space with the full-range reproduction of a theoretically unproblematic single driver unit, rather than taking things in a multiway direction. We went back to the beginning and reviewed the performance of the balanced armature driver, focusing our attention on something we had previously overlooked : airflow inside the housing. We developed BAM (Balancing Air Movement), a mechanism that optimizes airflow inside the housing through the creation of an aperture in the driver unit, which is usually sealed. While achieving bass tones and deep, three-dimensional spatial representation, which proved difficult with single driver full-range reproduction, we achieved a BA type that at the same time made for natural listening the user doesn’t tire of.

https://snext-final.com/en/products/detail/SONOROUSII.html

And boy, that works! Of course I’m not technically competent enough to say wether the trick is that or “just” that, but it’s a fact that Sonorous earphones do deliver an incredibly clear and vast soundstage, and perfectly controlled bass, actually sensibly better than any other closedback headphone I happened to audition equal or below their cost. On the other hand, reading final’s description we get a hint as to why Sonorous HPs are “less isolating” than other models in their same technological category.

Let’s pad-roll a bit… !

Sonorous II and III are good as-is, i.e. with their stock pads. Period. You can skip this chapter, especially if you are on a tight budget.

That said, given my appreciation for the base configuration I wanted to go all the way through on their available options – at least the official ones, those offered by the manufacturer themselves.

Final makes a number of variations available for their Sonorous headphones line, which are all mechanically compatible with every model in the lineup as the housings chassis are identical accross the board. Each model is named with a letter (Type-B, Type-C, etc). Sonorous-II and Sonorous-III come equipped with 2 different earpad variations already, then I ordered 2 more different ones, and I started rolling…

So the aftermath is… I could have saved the money for Type C and B, and just swap stock pads between Sonorous-II and Sonorous-III to reach my preferred configuration on both. But how could I have known it without trying?

Conclusions

Sonorous-II and Sonorous-III are arguably the best closeback headphones on the market in their price class, and in my experience it takes tapping at Shure SRH-1540 to have something significantly competitive to talk about.

While they feature two quite different timbres, tonalities and presentations, neither is a real all-rounder musically wise. I’d recommend Sonorous-II blind-eyed for cool acoustic jazz, and any other clear-timbre musical genres, and Sonorus-III to whomever looks for a warm-neutral, midcentric, incredibly dynamic driver for prog rock, song writers, folk or such.

Finally, they are not “inexpensive” in absolute terms – so they might well not be one’s first take at overear headphones – but rest assured that they are not by any means “cheap”, indeed they are actually worth each single penny in their price for the quality, the comfort and the musical proficiency they deliver to their owner.

Disclaimer

Both samples I’m talking about in this article are my own property, they did not come from the manufacturer or a distributor on review/loan basis.

Our generic standard disclaimer.

The post final Sonorous-II And Sonorous-III Review appeared first on Music For The Masses.

Cons — Cayin C9 is rather heavy
– Very faint amp hiss with sensitive IEMs
– Gets warm in class-A mode after more than an hour of operation
– NuTubes don’t sound like classic tubes, tube purists may feel disappointed
– Won’t replace desktop setups if you’re running inefficient planar headphones
– Eye-watering price that gives you a pause before purchase

INTRODUCTION

Cayin is no stranger to amps. In fact, they make some of the best desktop amps out there, including the venerable iHA-6 and the top-dog, the HA-6 (one of the best amps I’ve ever had the pleasure to listen to, by the by).

The Cayin C9 is their flagship portable amp, meant to be more transportable than portable given the ~0.5kg of weight.

Note: the ratings given will be subjective to the price tier. Cayin C9 was sent to me as part of the EU Review Tour (thanks Andy!)

IEMs/Headphones used: Dunu Zen/SA6, Final FI-BA-SS/E5000, UM MEST mk. 2, Campfire Audio Holocene, Sennheiser HD650, Hifiman Ananda

Price, while reviewed: $2000. Can be bought from Musicteck.

PHYSICAL THINGS AND USABILITY

PACKAGING AND ACCESSORIES

In terms of accessories, you get two high quality interconnect cables (a 4.4mm to 4.4mm balanced cable, and a 3.5mm to 3.5mm single-ended cable). You also get a type-C cable for charging (supporting QuickCharge), a screw-driver (for removing the battery bay), and some spare screws. That’s about it, no carrying case or anything. The accessories aren’t plentiful given the price-tag but you do get all the basic necessities.
3.5/5

BUILD QUALITY

Cayin C9 has a two part design: the front part has the amp circuit along with the controls/switches, and the back side has the battery bay which can be slid out. The top of the device is aluminium with CNC-cut windows (covered by glass) that houses the NuTubes, and the bottom of the device has a sheet of glass on it (I do wish this portion was also aluminium for consistencies’ sake). The tubes glow green when turned on and takes about 3/4 seconds to warm up.

The front of the device has… everything. Well, everything bar the pre-amp/line-in toggle button (on the left side of the device, you need to press it along with selecting pre-amp input mode on the front panel to activate the mode) and the USB-C port/battery indicators (on the back of the device, with the battery bay). Both the 3.5mm and 4.4mm inputs/outputs are on the front, along with the power switch/operation indicator LED button. There are toggles for (from left to right) line-in/pre-amp input mode, gain (High/Low), Timbre (Solid state/Tube), operation mode (Class-A/AB).

Lastly , there is the volume knob which is an ALPS rotary encoder and has quite high precision from my experience with no channel imbalance even at extremely low volumes (it’s electronic and resistance-ladder based with 130 discrete steps). The knob takes some force to rotate though, and it’s somewhat recessed into the housing to prevent accidental volume changes (which can be damaging due to the extremely high output power on the C9).

I don’t really have any complaint about build quality here.
5/5

USABILITY

The Cayin C9 is more of a transportable than a portable device. In other words, they need to be stationed somewhere (a desk/bedside) and not really portable in a shirt/pant/coat pocket (unless you love unsightly bulges). Other than that, it’s quite easy to operate the device once stationed on a desk. Changing between modes is easy to do without looking once you get the layout memorized. However, due to all the controls being on the front, it can a pain to hook it up as a sole headphone amp with a desktop DAC (then you need to reach on the back to connect/disconnect headphones and IEMs). As of now it is more suited to connecting with DAPs than desk setups.

Another interesting aspect is that there is a slight delay every time you change modes. This is something you have to take into account for on-the-fly A/B comparison as the changes introduced by the tube mode, for example, won’t be instantaneous.
3.5/5

BATTERY

The Cayin C9 uses four 18650 Li-ion batteries and apparently switching batteries may bring subtle changes to the sound signature (I did not verify this). It supports quick charge so recharging is quite quick, and I managed ~8 hours on a single-charge in class-A/High gain mode from the balanced out. This is not a stellar showing but given the power and performance here it is within expectations. Do note that Cayin have built several protection mechanisms in the battery powered circuitry (and you cannot bypass battery power here, not sure why would you want to anyway since the battery power is better than direct AC input for this particular use-case). You can read more about the power delivery method here.

AMP ARCHITECTURE

The internal architecture of the Cayin C9 is fully discrete and fully balanced. Cayin also didn’t use a traditional IC/Op-amp based circuitry, rather opted for fully discrete design. The volume control is resistance-ladder based with 130 discrete steps.

Instead of trying to explain all the nitty-gritties in detail (which isn’t really my forte) I’d instead link to the Cayin head-fi thread (click here). There you will find amp schematics alongside a closer look at the internal components.

TONALITY AND TECHNICALITIES

The Cayin C9 is an absolute chameleon of an amp when it comes to tonality and technicalities. Between the class-A/AB mode and solid-state/tube timbre, you can have 4 different signatures, and this is quite helpful when it comes to pairing IEMs with a specific sound signature. Please note that due to the way the mode-switching works in this amp (has a 2-5 seconds delay depending on mode) some of the A/B comparisons below are based on auditory memory and listening notes. In other words: take them with some salt (though I am fairly convinced about the different bass reproduction in class-AB mode and the general characteristics of the tube mode).

CLASS-A (SOLID STATE)

This is my most favorite mode, and apart from very bass-heavy stuff I preferred almost everything in my collection in this mode.

The best part about the class-A mode is the bass rendition. This is, by far, the best bass reproduction I’ve heard on a portable amp. The sheer grunt of the sub-bass (provided you have a suitably extended IEM) is unmatched. No DAP I’ve tried till date including the likes of Lotoo PAW Gold Touch, Sony WM1Z, Questyle QP1R, or the A&K SE200 could come close. I went through a huge portion of my library to simply enjoy the basslines in a completely different manner.

The sheer control Cayin C9 has over the sub and mid-bass is also uncanny. Snare hits are authoritative, sub-bass rumble is very much present, but it doesn’t overwhelm and actually corrects the bass-bleed issue in certain IEMs (Final E5000, for one). The best part about the bass: its density, given you got a good bass reproduction on the transducer side of things. The Cayin C9 isn’t a miracle-worker of course even in class-A mode. If you are pairing it with a BA-only IEM, the bass can only be so good. You’ll miss the texture and slam of good dynamic-drivers and that’s expected. Thus, the class-A mode is especially suited for dynamic driver IEMs/Headphones and the efficient planar magnetic ones.

All this talk about bass made me almost ignore the delightful midrange in the class-A mode. There is an analogue tone to the entire sound and vocals sound especially rich. However, transients aren’t softened at all and there’s a sense of transparency to the entire presentation. The stage depth is another aspect that seemed best on class-A mode, though I’d attribute it to the sub-bass response that is often perceived as depth while listening to tracks with an elevated sub-bass line. Separation was stellar with balanced out and I don’t think it can get any better in terms of perceived channel separation.

CLASS-A/B (SOLID STATE)

If you found the class-A mode to be a bit bass heavy and the mids to be somewhat up-front, then the class-AB mode evens things out. The bass is less authoritative and the midrange esp vocals get slightly pushed back. So you end up with a more relaxed, wider presentation overall. I would recommend this mode with bassy IEMs or headphones. Channel separation was excellent in this mode as well.

NUTUBE + CLASS A, A/B

Last but not the least: NuTubes. The Korg NuTubes are miniaturized triode vacuum tube that uses vacuum fluorescent display technology to emulate the class tube distortion. Basically: you get the tube sound without having large, heat-generating, extremely microphonic vacuum tubes. More info can be found here.

That’s the sales pitch at least. In practice, I didn’t find Korg NuTubes to be as tonally rich and colored as traditional tubes. Cayin’s own N3Pro, for example, has a more drastic and noticeable coloration via JAN6418 tubes. The coloration here is subtler. When coupled with class-A mode, the bass becomes somewhat loose and lacks the texture, definition, and authority vs the solid-state mode. Resolved detail is also masked somewhat. Female vocals sound richer, however, and some harshness/shrillness is smoothed over. Treble detail is also masked to a degree esp the attack-decay of cymbal hits aren’t as pristine as they are on the solid-state mode.

In the end, I found the NuTube to work best with the class-AB mode for my tastes and gears. With some bright or neutral IEMs the tube mode works quite well in reigning down the harshness. However, don’t expect the stellar separation and resolution of the regular class-A mode with the tubes engaged.

PAIRING NOTES

The Cayin C9 made nearly every IEM/headphone in my collection sound, well, better. Given the numerous modes I think one can mix and match and make it work with any IEM. However, the Campfire Andromeda 2020 had audible hiss even at low gain, so if you own very sensitive IEMs you may want to use an iFi IEMatch in-between. Final FI-BA-SS, meanwhile, didn’t hiss much even though it can detect hiss on many sources.

There was a slight amount of hiss on the Dunu Zen but the end result was simply stunning when pairing the Cayin C9 with Lotoo PAW 6000. I used the balanced line out mode and the presentation was very dynamic. The resolved detail was desktop class and frankly – I can see myself ditching even high-end DAC/Amp setups for this combo (LP6K + Cayin C9). Cayin C9 + Questyle CMA-400i was less drastic a difference though the sound was softer and more rounded than the regular headphone out of the CMA-400i.

Lastly, I paired the Cayin C9 with the A&K SE200 and it was another excellent pairing. The A&K’s AKM output gained even better microdynamics and I could listen to the Sennheiser HD650 in its full glory. Many prefer this particular headphone from OTL tube amps so I decided to try the tube mode on the C9, but the end result wasn’t aligned to my tastes. Your mileage may vary.

Overall, I found the Cayin C9 to take on the characteristics of the DAC/DAP it’s connected to while enhancing some parts of it (mostly bass response, channel separation, and dynamics). As such, I’d recommend the Cayin C9 even for TOTL DAPs like Lotoo LPGT, provided you are willing to splurge for the diminishing returns.

SELECT COMPARISONS

vs iFi Diablo

The iFi Diablo ($1000) is a powerhouse of a portable DAC/Amp that’s mostly intended to drive power-hungry headphones. It is excellent with inefficient planars (apart from the most demanding ones like Hifiman HE-6/Susvara) and as such works better in terms of powering planars than the Cayin C9.

That’s about it, though. The amp section on the Cayin C9 is superior to the Diablo in terms of tonal richness, bass reproduction, and powering IEMs and efficient headphones. The stellar separation of the C9 cannot be found on the iFi Diablo as well, and staging is more cramped as a result on the iFi Diablo. Moreover, it doesn’t have as many different modes as the Cayin C9 incl. the NuTubes.

As an amp, the Cayin C9 is indeed superior to the iFi Diablo. However, at half the price the Diablo also has a built-in DAC section and doesn’t rely on stacking as the Cayin C9 does, which is something buyers shall take into account.

vs Cayin iHA-6

In the end, I decided to compare the Cayin C9 with other desktop amps because that’s what most of the target audience would be looking into (desktop-class performance in a more portable format). The Cayin iHA-6 ($700) is one of the best amps under $1000 IMO, and I love pairing it with the iFi Neo iDSD (review coming soon for the iHA-6 soon). The iHA-6 is huge and heavy so if the Cayin C9 can somewhat replicate the feeling of transparency you get with the iHA-6 – that’s a major win.

Turns out that the Cayin C9 is actually… better than the iHA-6. Wait, hear me out. It’s not better in terms of power, iHA-6 can push 7Watts (!) into a 32ohm load from the balanced out whereas the C9 manages a mere (!) 4Watts. However, when not driving super-demanding planars, the Cayin C9 simply has better imaging and dynamics (esp microdynamics). The iHA-6, despite being similarly transparent in the midrange, sounds edgier in treble and not as effortlessly resolving. Another issue with the iHA-6 is that it’s beyond overkill for IEMs and might even blow the drivers out if you’re not careful. Moreover, iHA-6 has very high noise-floor for sensitive drivers.

The realization that an amp 1/8th size of the venerable iHA-6 can outperform it in most scenarios is rather shocking for me, but that’s how it is. The C9 is almost 4x the price of the iHA-6, but it seems you do get your money’s worth of performance at a much smaller footprint.

vs Headamp GSX Mini

The Headamp GSX-Mini ($1800) is one of my all-time favorite solid-state desktop amps and something I recommend everyone to try out. Given its desktop nature, it completely outshines the Cayin C9 in terms of output power and headphone driveability, though with moderately sensitive planars like Final D8000 Pro/Meze Empyrean you’re not really gonna need extra juice out of either of them.

I’ll skip over build etc. since it doesn’t really make sense when you’re comparing apples to oranges (desk amp vs transportable amp), but in this case there aren’t many competition to the C9 so desktop amps it is. However, one thing I must note: the volume knob on the GSX-Mini. It’s fabulous, class-leading. I want to fiddle with it for absolutely no reason, it’s that good.

With that out of the way, let’s talk about sound. There is a distinct difference in presentation between these two amps. The Cayin C9 goes for a transparent signature with slightly warm/analogue midrange and a sizeable increment in bass texture. The Headamp GSX-Mini takes a more laid-back approach with the bass but focuses on midrange and treble more. Outstanding detail retrieval is its calling card and there it does beat out the Cayin C9 marginally (when paired with full-size headphones).

However, the Cayin C9 strikes back with superior staging/imaging. The GSX-Mini can feel a bit closed-in in comparison. As a result the GSX-Mini works great with planars like Arya which have a naturally wide staging and the sound gains more focus with the GSX-Mini (if that’s what you want). The Cayin C9 meanwhile works better with IEMs and headphones that have relatively more intimate staging (e.g. Dunu Zen, Focal Utopia).

Overall, with the correct matching/pairing of headphones, the GSX-Mini does outperform the Cayin C9 in terms of resolved detail. That the Cayin C9 competes with a full-on desktop amp priced similarly is testament to what Cayin has achieved with the C9, and I am left even more impressed at this point.

CONCLUDING REMARKS

If you’re someone who owns a premium DAP (>$1000) with a high quality line-out and intend to make the absolute most out of your IEMs and less demanding headphones (as in, less than the Susvara/1266 Phi/HE-6) – the Cayin C9 will pretty much be an endgame addition at this point. The weight of ~500gm makes it hard to carry around but I am mostly using it while on the desk/lying down and it works absolutely fine that way.

The biggest issue of the Cayin C9 is its price-tag of $2000. Only the most effusive of enthusiasts would pay that much for a headphone amp that improves upon the intangible aspects of the sound you get from a high quality DAP. However, once you hear it there’s no going back and the dynamism it brings is truly one-of-a-kind.

Cayin chased perfection with the C9, and I daresay that they came dangerously close to it. I’ll miss listening to it, but hopefully not for long as I plan on getting one for myself.

TEST TRACKS

https://tidal.com/browse/playlist/04350ebe-1582-4785-9984-ff050d80d2b7

MY VERDICT

4.75/5

Endgame performance, but you gotta pay a pretty penny. #HighlyRecommended

Contact us!

DISCLAIMER

CAYIN C9 Was sent as part of the EU review tour. You can buy it from here.

Our generic standard disclaimer.

PHOTOGRAPHY

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

The post Cayin C9 Portable Amplifier Review – Chasing Perfection appeared first on Music For The Masses.

Cons — Upper midrange glare, lack of treble extension.

Executive Summary

The $700 Dunu Zen is a natural sounding single-dynamic driver earphone with immersive depth and fantastic macro- and microdynamics and resolution that falls short of perfect only by its upper midrange glare.

Introduction

Dunu does not need an introduction, they have been providing the community with quality audio products since 1994. And they had been on my radar for the last five years, recommended by my German colleague “Chris, the Headphone Collector“. But whereas my co-authors have filled our blog with Dunu reviews, I have only had the opportunity to analyze one of their premium earphones now.

Specifications

Physical Things and Usability

I am skipping the package content as I never really unpacked the whole lot because of time constraints adherent to the short period I had this loaner for. I simply used stock cable and the earpieces, and added SpinFit CP 500 eartips upon the recommendation of co-blogger Kazi Mahbub Mutakabbir.

So I rather focus on my sonic perceptions and some simple comparisons with the Zen’s presumably closest competitors: Cayin Fantasy and Moondrop Illumination…and less so with the JVC HA-FDX1.

Tonality and Technicalities

Equipment used: MacBook Air & DragonFly Cobalt; iPod Classic 7th gen.; SpinFit CP500 eartips.

I since am a bit limited in my listening experience as I had the Dunu Zen only for two weeks as part of the Head-Fi tour. You may also want to read Kazi’s more detailed review for more details.

TL;DR: the Dunu Zen are characterized by their immersive, natural sound (timbre/dynamics) while having a great resolution and staging. They offer this rare combination of traits of multi-drivers and single dynamic-driver earphones.

And they also defy the idea of tuning a driver according to a trendy model curve. The Dun Zen appear to be tuned according to their driver, which results in a rather “ugly” frequency-response graph but a great sound (and not the other way round; plenty examples exist).

What stroke me most every time I used the Dunu Zen is that extended low-end with this well-layered, well-textured, articulate mid bass that creates a wonderful “depth of field”. The beefy, visceral low end comes with a natural punch. This results a warm tonality with full, rich drums and re-inforced deeper vocals. Simply seductive and essentially perfect.

And does not smear at all into the lower midrange. Voices are very well defined, nicely sculptured but the higher vocal notes could be a tad richer and creamier. There is a tendency toward sharpness/are a bit sharpened by that 12 dB gain from 1 to 2 kHz that adds some glare just below shoutiness. Nevertheless, the vocals are organic with good note definition.

Treble is crisp without being edgy. Cymbals are very well defined as you are used from a piezo. There is no smudging going on at all, but also no harshness. Good definition. Upper treble is lacking a bit.

Staging is not the widest but rather deep, and instrument placement and separation are bordering on spectacular. What is truly amazing is the macro- and microdynamics as well as macro-and micro-resolution. All this results in great spatial cues with – I had mentioned it already – lots of depth.

Yes, the piano and forte sections of an orchestra are handled very well, and so is the small dynamic nuances. For example, I really enjoyed the subtle dynamic variations of an oboe and its interplay with a harpsichord as in this DGG recording. And all this at a very natural, authentic timbre. Attack and decay are just right.

Dunu Zen compared

At $700, the Dunu Zen is in line with the $800 Cayin Fantasy and $800 Moondrop Illumination. Zen has the biggest depth and least treble extension of the three. The other two cannot compete in terms of punch and microdynamics.

I have to be cautious with details as these comparisons are based on memory – they were all loaners which I analyzed at different times. Please take my comments with a grain of salt.

The Cayin is brighter, wider, and also has excellent detail resolution, but it has this 5 kHz peak that introduces harshness and grain to many ears. And it lacks sub-bass extension.

The Moondrop is has the least mid-bass of the lot, and is the least resolving. It comes across as bright and aggressive to my ears, like the Cayin.

It may be a bit unfair to compare the $250 JVC HA-FDX1 with the Dunu Zen. But, the JVC had been hailed by some as possibly the best single DD on the market 2 years ago.

Well, the JVC cannot quite keep up with any of the three in terms of staging – and its timbre comes across as somewhat metallic. But it is a decent choice for the budget audio enthusiast.

Concluding Remarks

Although the Dunu Zen is not perfect, it is close. It comes in second on my eternal list, just beaten by the 3000 Euro VisionEars Elysium. I absolutely love the Dunu Zen for its immersive, seductive listening experience and its microdynamics: never have I enjoyed the synergy of an oboe and a harpsichord so much.

I am still considering buying one for my amp/dacs reviews. The usual problem: too much gear and no money…and the Zen Pro coming. The Zen Pro incorporates tuning suggestions by the graphing crowd.

I hope the company has not compromised sound quality for sales-generating graphs, as currently seen with DACs and amps. We’ll see.

Until next time…keep on listening!

Contact us!

All Our Earphone and Earbud Reviews (with Links)

Disclaimer

The Zen was provided as part of a Canadian Head-Fi tour and I think the organizers for that.

Get the Zen from Dunu.

Our generic standard disclaimer.

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

The post Dunu Zen Review (2) – Almost Perfect appeared first on Music For The Masses.

Introduction

These brief notes are to complement Jürgen’s earlier review of the Vision Ears Elysium and VE8, with which I mostly concur. As with Jürgen’s review, my impressions are mainly comparisons between the two models because I’ve heard nothing else near their price range to compare them with. All listening was with with stock cables and (med) tips (which are Spinfit tips CP145s) and Audioquest DragonFly Black or Ifi iDSD Nano BL (‘Direct’ output unless noted) – perhaps rather ‘lo-fi’ sources for such expensive earphones.

Tonality and Timbre

VE8 bass is good – strong, extended. Nice timbre for a BA; still more ‘tight’ than ‘fast’, but similar to how I like it on a good ‘fast’ DD (JVC HA-FX1). Maybe too strong, kick drum & bass can come across as further forward on the stage than everything else but the vocalist. On the Elysium, mid to low bass (guitar) is strong, low to sub bass (kick drum) less so than VE8, ie less bass extension, but again it’s of excellent quality.

In contrast to some commentators, I thought bass guitar has better texture (reverb on decays) than on the VE8, maybe because it isn’t overwhelmed by the sub-bass. But, what would be nicer still is if the VE8 sub-bass level was present here too (yes, I want to have my cake as well as eat it).

VE8 mids are slightly honky – not good with vocals with nasal or honky signatures, and there’s noticeable emphasis on some horns and distorted guitars. They’re forward and can come across congested on some material.

By contrast, the mids on the Elysium are the star, further back in the mix while also being smooth and with fantastic timbre, not a trace of nasality or honk even with challenging vocals. Liquid, organic, and well integrated. Piano & vocals, wow. This is the best midrange I’ve yet heard on an IEM.

Treble on the VE8 is extended but smooth, the best I’ve heard on a BA (for the price of these, it should be!). It nonetheless seems a bit blunted in cymbal attacks, possibly as a result of a tonality in which the lower treble area is a bit recessed.

The Elysium treble imparts a slightly odd timbre to cymbals (because of the electrostatic drivers?) but is nicely extended, probably more than my old ears can really appreciate. Compared to the VE8, a lower treble boost is evident, and I’d say more accurate, with the transition from upper mids into treble being better balanced. Timbre-wise the Elysium treble seems a touch fast in both attack & decay, but compared to the VE8 cymbal hits are more prominent (if not louder), and decays are longer.

Pressing the Elysiums further into my ears exaggerated the treble, in contrast to the usual IEM experience of exaggerating the bass. Individual listeners’ treble experience will likely depend on seal and insertion depth.

Technicalities

Imaging & separation: imaging is more precise on the Elysium, separation between instruments more defined on the VE8.

Macro & microdynamics: VE8 is slightly ahead here, but is maybe a bit unrealistic (overdone) in amplitude on the macro. Elysium does better gradations, rather than ‘on-off’, with dynamics in the mids, and better captures subtleties there.

Pitch resolution: In the mids especially, this is better on the Elysium – small pitch change subtleties are rendered better, with more gradation.

Source Considerations

While the Elysiums are happiest with a more powerful source, the VE8s are more typical multi-BAs in that they have a very slight hiss noticeable in silences from the DragonFly and from the Nano BL’s ‘Direct’ jack at playing volume. This is unfortunate, because the ‘iEMatch’ jack’s relatively high output impedance lowers upper mids & treble by up to 3.3 dB.

Source matching will be important with both of these earphones, because as both listening and frequency-response measurements show (see Jürgen’s review), neither has an exaggerated upper midrange – yet both have impedance vs frequency curves that will suppress upper mids and treble if the amplifier that’s driving them has an elevated output impedance.

On the graph below, the tan curve is my impedance measurement for the VE8 and the blue curve is that supplied by Vision Ears after we queried them as to why my measurement was so different from the 22 Ohm (@ 1 kHz) specification given on their website.

VE replied that the 22 Ohm spec was for a prototype version, and the correct number is 16.4 Ohms as on their blue curve. The other curves on this graph show the effects on the VE8’s frequency response using amplifiers of up to 5.5 Ohms output impedance (purple, lowest, curve).

The Elysium has an even more extreme impedance vs frequency curve, increasing exponentially from single digits in the treble to > 200 Ohms in the bass. This will interact with amps of higher output impedance to tilt the frequency response darker, with the greatest effect around 12-13 kHz. 

Contact us!

All Our >250 Earphone and Earbud Reviews (with Links)

Disclaimer

I too thank the tour organizers and VE for the opportunity to hear these two pairs. Also we thank Marcel from VE for providing his impedance measurements and discussion.

Our generic standard disclaimer.

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

The post Vision Ears Elysium and Vision Ears VE8 Review (2) – German Magic appeared first on Music For The Masses.

INTRODUCTION

Vision Ears Elysium and Vision Ears VE8. Vision Ears are a company out of Cologne, Germany, that specializes in premium items, universal fit and custom fit. Their products don’t come cheap, they are somewhat luxurious, we therefore don’t talk about money in the brief review, but rather about reward. Head-Fi and Audiotiers offered the Vision Ears Elysium and the Vision Ears VE8 for 8 days as part of the Canadian Tour. The time was a bit short for a full review, however I took good notes to give you my impressions. One thing up front, this was a great learning experience. After listening to these premium products, I now even see the budget and mid-tier offer in a different light…I therefore recommend every analyst to grow on testing such premium products.

The Vision Ears VE8, as the name may imply, is an 8 BA earphone whereas the slightly pricier Vision Ears Elysium features drivers of three different technologies: surprisingly a BA for the low end, a dynamic driver for the midrange, and two electrostatics for the upper end. In detail…

There is a complimentary view with some more measurements by Biodegraded:

SPECIFICATIONS ELYSIUM

Drivers: 1BA for bass – 1 dynamic for mids – 2 electrostatic for highs
Impedance: 14.2 Ω at 1 kHz
Sensitivity: 105 dB at 1mW
Frequency Range: X – Y Hz
Cable/Connector:
Tested at: 2500,00 EUR (incl. 19% German VAT)
Product Page: Vision Ears

SPECIFICATIONS VE8

Drivers: 2 x Bass – 2 x Mid – 4 x High 
Impedance: 16.4 Ohms ( at 1 kHz )
Sensitivity: 120 dB SPL at 1 mW 
Frequency Range: X – Y Hz
Cable/Connector:
Tested at: 2150,00 € 
Product Page: Vision Ears

TONALITY AND TECHNICALITIES

Follow these links for some background information:

My tonal preference and testing practice

My test tracks explained

Equipment used: MacBook Air/iPhone SE (1st gen.) and ifi nano BL (IEMatch for Vision Ears VE8 and Direct out for Vision Ears Elysium).

The Elysium needs a lot of power, probably owing to the electrostats, and they are not well driven by a phone. The VE8 are more content with low-power sources.

Most – if not all – tour participants and reviewers preferred the Vision Ears VE8 over the Vision Ears Elysium. In contrast, I found the Elysium fantastic and the VE8 “nothing special” (considering the price). The Vision Ears VE8 have toned-down upper mids similar to the Campfire Andromeda; they sound warmer and thicker, but also more congested and less energetic than the Elysium. This produces an inoffensive, agreeable meat-and-potato sound that fits most musical genres but it lacks the engagement factor, especially with female voices. The Elysium are overall more energetic with a “wider” sound. They have a boosted upper midrange that usually does not work for most earphones – but it does in this case (no shoutiness!), which points to the driver quality. I find the sonic image of the Elysium way more articulate and refined compared to the Vision Ears VE8 with breathtaking vocals reproduction. Best I have experienced in any earphone…though my selection is limited.

Both models are very similar at the low end: subtle, articulate, clean bass and sub-bass, well dosed and tasteful. Good, realistic attack. Minimalistic, slightly warm and never anemic…well separated from the lower midrange. Bass attack and decay are excellent. The difference in the upper midrange let’s the VE8’s bass perceive as a bit thicker, less focused, and thumpier as the human ears hear the whole frequency spectrum in context. The Elysium have the sharper drums attack.

The Elysium takes the lead in the vocals, and that by far. Voices in the Elysium are brighter, have more life, more bite/energy, more detail, more air, more corners, and more appeal. Note definition is generally superior over the VE8. In comparison, the vocals in the VE8 are “duller”, darker, more intimate, and have the lesser resolution…which also results in more body and more midrange intimacy. The fuller body is probably the reason why most protagonists prefer the VE8 over the Elysium. Midrange in the Elysium has more filigree and air – and is better resolving. Vocals have just the right intimacy and not too much intimacy in the Elysium. They are spicier but not too spicy. There is a good balanced between upper and lower midrange. The VE8’s midrange offers the sonic equivalent of an optical illusion.

And the Elysium extend their lead in the treble. Holy moly, I have never heard such clean, nicely separated, super dry, crisp cymbals. The two electrostats don’t overdo anything, they don’t emphasize the highs, they just refine them. Truly an outstanding sonic experience. The VE8’s treble are not bad either but cymbals are less pronounced and a bit covered/less separated by/from the thicker midrange.

The lean but energetic vocals in the Vision Ears Elysium means great midrange clarity, transparency, and detail resolution. Stage is very wide and tall, with realistic depth. Queen’s “Bohemian Rhapsody” at Live Aid put me right into Wembley Stadium. Rather holographic imaging. The VE8s have the narrower stage.

Vocals timbre is natural in both earphones despite the differences in energy level.

Elysium has better midrange clarity and transparency, better 3D rendering, better separation between instruments, more energetic voices, a more subtle bass, and better spatial imaging. Everything sounds more crowed and less open in the VE8. Overall, the Elysium are definitely the sharper knife in the drawer.

CONCLUDING REMARKS

The Elysium constituted a highly educational experience and changed my approach to sound. The two electrostats produced cymbals so crisp – never heard that before. I found the energetic Elysium more engaging and involving over the thicker, fuller bodied but less resolving VE8s. In this tour kit, I perceived the VE8 more as decoration or support for the Elysium. In fact, the Elysium made so weak for a moment that I considered selling my house to afford one. But in the end, I will have to wait until I wander the Elyisan fields (or the Champs-Élysées before) to experience such (sonic) enjoyment again.

Until next time…keep on listening!

Contact us!

DISCLAIMER

The two models were part of a semi-private Head-Fi tour. I thank Bill Barraugh for organizing it.

Our generic standard disclaimer.

About my measurements.

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

RELATED…

The post Vision Ears Elysium and Vision Ears VE8 Review (1) – Life Less Ordinary appeared first on Music For The Masses.

Cons — Recessed mmcx port on Sony IER-Z1R housing can be an issue for 3rd party cables
– Bulky housing gets uncomfortable and might not even fit
– Can deliver over-bearing bass at times
– Mids are lacklustre, average in terms of resolution and engagement factor
– Center-imaging isn’t class-leading
– Somewhat source-picky

INTRODUCTION

Sony needs no introduction.

I mean, you have used at least one of their products in your lifetime. Thus, let’s cut to the chase. The Sony IER-Z1R is their flagship (universal) in-ear monitor. Priced at $1700 retail, these are true top-of-the-line contenders in the IEM space and is looking for a place among the best of the best earphones around. 

Does the Sony IER-Z1R justify the hefty price-tag, or is it another underachiever? Let’s find out.

Note: the ratings given will be subjective to the price tier. My dear friend Syed lent me his personal unit.

Sources used:  Cowon Plenue R2, Sony NW-A55, Sony WM1A, A&K Kann Alpha
Price, while reviewed: $1700. Can be bought from Sony’s Official Website

PHYSICAL THINGS AND USABILITY

PACKAGING AND ACCESSORIES

An accessory set fit for a king, preceded by a regal unboxing experience. The IER-Z1R puts most flagship packaging to royal shame *cough* 64Audio *cough*. It’s a TOTL product through and through and Sony spent considerable time into the packaging and accessories. The jewelry box like assembly with sliding trays keep the various items into their own compartment. The stock cables are built well and is very ergonomic with no touch noise, but they are a tad too long for my liking. Does help when you connect the IEMs to desktop amps though. There are too many tips to count and you get an oversized box to store the IEMs with felt-lining inside. Overkill, impractical, but very cool.
5/5

BUILD QUALITY

The Sony IER-Z1R is built and sized like a tank. The zirconium alloy shells are absurdly large. Everything but the nozzle is super-sized, including the recess into which the mmcx port sits. As a result one must choose after-market cables carefully. Most third-party cables have a thinner mmcx stem that will be literally eaten up by the Z1R (thus I’d recommend the Sony stock cable or the kimber cable).

Back to the housing, the backplate has a perlage pattern often seen on luxury watches (a metal tip rotates on top of the metal plate to form such a pattern). The shape of the housing mirrors the shape of the inner acoustic cavity (more on this later) and thus have a unique design rarely seen elsewhere. The top of the IEM houses the color-coded channel markings, where I can see something that resembles a vent. Other than that, no other vents or asymmetries in the housing.

The design stands out and draws attention, as is customary for Sony’s signature line of gear.
5/5

COMFORT, ISOLATION, AND FIT

Comfort = horrible. Fit = atrocious. Isolation = above average (when pushed deep into the canals, basically how these IEMs are supposed to be worn). Wearing the Sony IER-Z1R for any length of time is a challenge and will definitely be the deal-breaker for most people. Auditioning the IEM before purchasing is strongly advised. 
1/5

SOURCE AND EARTIPS

The best source for the Sony IER-Z1R is Sony’s own WM1A Walkman DAP. People often talk about “synergy” between source and IEM, and very few pairings showcase such synergy. I myself tried the Z1R mostly with the Cowon Plenue R2 during review, however, and used the stock Sony Hybrid tips. Later on I tried it with the WM1A and that did improve upon my issues with the mids. If you are planning to get an IER-Z1R, the WM1A/WM1Z DAPs are recommended.

DRIVER SETUP

The Sony IER-Z1R has a triple-driver hybrid setup, with two dynamic drivers in charge of bass/mids and upper-treble, and one BA driver in charge of the treble. 

The largest driver in this array is the 12mm bass/midrange driver that has a Magnesium dome with Aluminium-coated LCP surround. This ensures better pistonic motion and a very high excursion. The excursion is further aided by a resonance chamber and tube structure in the back of the driver. All of these results in the signature hard-hitting, dense bass of the Sony IER-Z1R.

The upper-treble tweeter also has a very interesting design. It’s a 5mm micro-dynamic driver with Al-coated LCP diaphragm and offers up to 100KHz response — a figure that’s inaudible by all humans but aces the numbers game. In practical use, the 5mm driver has very fast transients and offers the timbral accuracy of a dynamic driver instead of the artificial BA timbre or the fleeting, lightweight nature of EST tweeters.

Lost in all these is the miniscule side-firing BA treble driver that mostly handles lower and mid-treble. It’s a Sony proprietary T-shaped armature pin and has better timbre and slightly slower decay than typical Knowles BA drivers.

Sony doesn’t just stop here, rather they place these drivers in a coaxial orientation in a 3D-printed magnesium alloy chamber. The material choice is to reduce resonant frequencies and also the unique design results in a straight sound path for each driver, thus avoiding the usual cross-over tubes. Very fascinating driver setup all in all, but it’d all be for naught if the sound quality isn’t up to the mark. Fortunately, that’s not the case at all.

TONALITY AND TECHNICALITIES

The Sony IER-Z1R has a V-shaped sound signature, but that’s a reductionist statement to say the least. The IER-Z1R lives and breathes bass. The sub-bass sets the foundation of the entire sonic delivery and boy oh boy if this ain’t the best bass response in an earphone on this forsaken planet. I’ve heard IEMs with even more emphasized bass or faster bass, but the delightfully textured bass on the Z1R is second to none when it comes to providing the sense of rhythm. The slam, the slightly extended decay (unlike the super-fast BA bass), the subterranean reach of the sub-bass — it’s the whole package. The mid-bass is no slouch either (unlike the DF-tuned IEMs around) and snare hits/pedals have superb definition/body. Macrodynamics are some of the best I’ve ever heard. If you’re a bass-head, this is your endgame (as long as your ears are large enough).

The other aspect of the IER-Z1R that is apparent right away is the sense of space it portrays. The stage width is as good as many full-size open-backs. The stage depth is remarkable, and coupled with precise imaging you truly get that out-of-the-head experience. The one aspect where it falls short of the likes of, say, Hifiman Ananda in terms of staging is the stage height. This is where the large drivers on full-size headphones flex their muscles. 

Despite the bass focus the treble on the IER-Z1R is… perfect. It has adequate sparkle and air without veering into the “bright” zone. Cymbal decays are well-extended and even in sections with super-fast cymbal hits the notes don’t smear into each other. Transient response overall is excellent. There is a slight peak around 5.5KHz but that never became a bother for me personally. This is where insertion depth comes into play because with a less-than-adequate insertion the treble becomes splashy. If I had to nitpick about the treble response it would be the slightly soft leading edge of notes. This rounded nature of upper-frequency notes help in avoiding listening fatigue but can take away the rawness of crash cymbals. Nonetheless, Sony has made a good trade-off IMO and the treble is nearly as good as it gets in the TOTL range.

Unfortunately, Sony focused a bit too much on the bass and treble and the midrange played second-fiddle to both. The mids here are just about okay I’d say. Male vocals sound somewhat muffled and female vocals, despite having more focus than male vocals, are robbed off of the emotion that certain IEMs in this price are capable of displaying. Also instrument separation and microdynamics weren’t as great as I hoped it would be, partly due to the recessed lower midrange. String instruments lacked the bite and their undertones were often muddied by the bass. Mid-range performance is definitely the weakest link in the IER-Z1R signature and that’s disappointing given the stellar bass and treble.

To summarize: if you like V-shaped sound signature and aren’t too bothered about the subtleties of vocals — this is it, this is the IEM to end all V-shaped IEMs. 

Bass: 5/5
Midrange: 3.5/5
Treble: 5/5
Staging: 5/5
Imaging/Separation: 4.5/5
Dynamics/Speed: 4/5

SELECT COMPARISONS

vs Campfire Andromeda ($1000): The tuning of the Andromeda and the Z1R couldn’t be more different. Whereas Campfire Audio went for a relatively balanced tuning for the Andromeda 2020, Sony is proud of their bass driver and tuned the Z1R with sub-bass focus in mind. Bass is where these two IEMs differ the most. Andromeda 2020 has typical fast BA bass that’s nimble without being punchy. The Sony IER-Z1R’s bass is slower but makes up for that with slam and punch and sub-bass that rattles inside your eardrums.

Midrange is where the Sony pulls back a bit whereas the Andro 2020 (in contrast to the Andro 2019) gains some presence. Vocals are more prominent on the Andro 2020 and midrange in general is better executed, I’d say. String instruments esp shine on the Andromeda. 

As for the treble, the Campfire Andromeda 2020 has really well-executed treble that’s smooth, non-fatiguing, and well-extended but pales in comparison to the treble on the IER-Z1R. Cymbal hits have a presence and crunch that’s just missing on the Andromeda 2020. 

In terms of soundstage/imaging, the former goes to the IER-Z1R whereas the Andro 2020 has slightly better center-imaging than the IER-Z1R but similar cardinal/ordinal imaging otherwise. 

If you want visceral bass punch and some of the best treble under $2000, the Sony IER-Z1R shall be your pick. However, the Andro 2020 has a more balanced tuning and acts as a complimentary tuning to the IER-Z1R’s exciting delivery. Comfort is also much better on the Campfire Andromeda, so there’s that.

vs Final A8000 ($2000): The Final A8000 is their current single-DD flagship and sports a pure Be diaphragm driver. While the A8000 has north-of-neutral sub-bass rise, it pales in comparison to the level of mid-bass thump that the Sony IER-Z1R provides. However, the A8000 bass is faster and will cater well to those who prefer a nimble bass presentation. 

In terms of midrange, I prefer the A8000’s vocals by a margin over the IER-Z1R. Final knows how to tune the midrange and the vocals/string instruments are as articulate as they can be on the A8000. Every subtle nuance is highlighted including vocalists breathing in/out. Timbre is another strong point here with the metallic tinge of steel strings being evident against the more natural, softer tone of nylon strings. 

The treble region is where the Sony IER-Z1R pulls ahead with no sharp 6KHz peak (A8000’s biggest downside) and more extended upper-treble. This leads to an even wider soundstage (though A8000 has very good stage width). Imaging is about even on both with center-imaging being slightly less accurate on both IEMs. Overall resolution is about similar on both, with the more resolving A8000 midrange being counter-balanced by the smoother yet better extended treble on the IER-Z1R.

Between these two, I’d pick the IER-Z1R if you can get a fit and don’t bother too much about midrange. However, the A8000 is a great choice if you prefer well-realized vocals/string instruments, a faster bass response, and don’t mind the 6KHz peak/willing to tune it via PEQ.

vs 64Audio U12t ($2000): Finally, Goliath vs Goliath. The 64Audio U12t is one of the best IEMs available around the $2000 mark and is one of the best all-BA IEMs out there. By swapping the APEX modules you can also increase the bass response in them (M20 offers a bit more bass). This comparison is made with the M20 module. 

The U12t has perhaps the best BA bass out there, and it’s quite a feat indeed. However, it can’t out-muscle the physical grunt of the Sony IER-Z1R’s bass response. The mids are better tuned on the U12t, as is a theme in this comparison. The treble is where we find interesting differences. The U12t goes for a smoother treble presentation with rounded notes, whereas the IER-Z1R has a more immediate sense of attack that gives cymbal hits/hi-hats a really nice bite. I think depending on taste you might prefer one over the other, I myself find the Z1R’s treble response more appealing.

Soundstage is wider and taller on the IER-Z1R but stage depth is about par on the U12t. Imaging is tad more precise on the U12t, though these are marginal differences. Where I found more palpable was the difference in coherence. U12t, despite the 12 drivers, sounded more coherent than the IER-Z1R. Also a slight note about build/accessories: Sony IER-Z1R is quite a bit ahead on those aspects.

In conclusion, if you want a smoother, laid-back listen with great all-round performance, the 64Audio U12t will serve you really well. For those who need more excitement and fun-factor, the Sony IER-Z1R shall be on the top of your list.

CONCLUDING REMARKS

In hindsight, it’s quite easy to review and recommend the Sony IER-Z1R. If someone wants the best bass available in an IEM, they should definitely try the IER-Z1R. It’s an unabashedly fun, colored tuning that works well across various genres. 

The big elephant in the room: the fit. Without a deep, snug fit you’d have a hard time finding what makes the IER-Z1R so special, making it rather necessary to trial these beforehand. 

If you can get a fit, and if you love bass — the Sony IER-Z1R is a no-brainer really. I am yet to find something that tops it as the bass-head endgame, and if you know that’s what you want and got the right-sized ears — get ready for some brain-rattling.

Test tracks:

https://tidal.com/browse/playlist/04350ebe-1582-4785-9984-ff050d80d2b7

MY VERDICT

4.5/5

Highly Recommended if you want the ultimate bass-head IEM.

Contact us!

DISCLAIMER

The unit was on loan from a friend.

Our generic standard disclaimer.

SONY IER-Z1R PHOTOGRAPHY

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

The post Sony IER-Z1R Review – Sheer Bass-Head Delight appeared first on Music For The Masses.

Cons — Stock cable forms kinks, gets tangled in pocket
– Somewhat soft transients
– Treble lacks sparkle, rolls-off early
– Soundstage depth/imaging is average
– Lower-mids can sound a bit recessed

INTRODUCTION

Moondrop needs no introduction nowadays after being one of the most consistent manufacturers out there in terms of releases and their adherence to hitting “target curves”, or a specific frequency-response in other words.

The Moondrop Aria 2 (2021) is their latest release that, on paper, succeeds their age-old model, the Aria (which had a shell similar to their now discontinued Crescent). Confusing naming schemes aside, the Aria refresh is nothing like the old model with a very different shell design along with a detachable cable (whereas the previous model had a fixed cable). Moreover, it seems to compete directly with their own Starfield and might even retire the old model given its lower price tag.

Let’s see if the new Aria 2 is a worthy refresh, and if it can carve itself a spot in the ultra-competitive budget segment.

Note: the ratings given will be subjective to the price tier. Nappoler Hu from HiFiGo was kind enough to send me the Moondrop Aria 2 for evaluation.

Sources used: Questyle CMA-400i, Sony NW-A55 (MrWalkman modded), LG G7
Price, while reviewed: $80. Can be bought from HiFiGo.

PHYSICAL THINGS AND USABILITY

PACKAGING AND ACCESSORIES

The packaging, in usual Moondrop fashion, has an anime box-art. Other than that the accessories are mostly standard: a cloth-braided cable, 6 pairs of eartips, a small carry case, a pair of tweezers to replace the nozzle filters, and some spare nozzle filters. While the tips and case works fine, I’m a bit annoyed with the stock cable. Now, it’s an upgrade over Starfield’s noodle-like cable but the ergonomics are poor and it gets tangled very easily. The sheathing is also stiff and forms kinks very easily. I’d recommend an upgrade cable if budget permits.
4/5

BUILD QUALITY

The build quality is excellent with an aluminium alloy housing. The matte black paintjob has a soft-touch finish and the rose-gold pattern on top adds a bit of character to the shells. There are two vents on the inner-side to alleviate pressure. The 2-pin ports are recessed which is great for long-term durability. Finally, the nozzle doesn’t have any lips to secure the tips but it does grip the tips better this time around (unlike the Starfield nozzles where tips would slip out). The paintjob also seems more durable than the Starfield one (which chipped off easily) but time will tell. So far so good.
5/5

COMFORT AND ISOLATION

Due to its snug-fit and lightweight nature, the Aria has very good wearing comfort. Isolation is above-average too and with the right tips you can drown out quite a bit of outside noise.
4.5/5

SOURCE AND EARTIPS

For the purpose of this review, I primarily used the Questyle CMA-400i and LG G7 as sources. The Aria 2 runs well on most sources, though with better sources it does seem to scale. I’ve found it to pair the best with Questyle CMA-400i but then again it’s a desk setup and costs quite a bit. On a budget, the LG G7 worked just fine, with the Sony NW-A55 providing a very dynamic and engaging presentation.

The stock tips are fine but I opted for Spinfit CP-145 as it seemed to slightly widen the stage without sacrificing on the tonality/technicalities.

DRIVER SETUP

Aria 2 opts for a 10mm LCP (Liquid-Crystal Polymer) along with an N52 magnet system. The voice coil is just 35 micron thick and there’s also a brass cavity on the back to reduce resonance. Finally, the high frequency waveguide disperses high-frequency waves to reduce resonance peaks. LCP diaphragms have been used in legendary single-DDs like the Sony EX-1000, though in that case the diaphragm size was much larger (16mm) and the diaphragm stiffness also reportedly higher. However, given the price constraint at play here (1/6th of the EX-1000ST) it’s great to see LCP diaphragm here instead of the more mainstream CNT, Ti/Be-plated PET, or DLC diaphragms (though the latter costs more usually).

One interesting tidbit: Moondrop recommends 100hrs of burning to ensure that the drivers are in “optimal” condition. They even provide some burn-in instructions in the user-manual (comes in the box). I usually don’t bother with IEM user-guides but this one time I’m glad I read it. Whether or not you’re a believer in burn-in, it’s interesting to see that Moondrop is recommending this as they’re usually very focused on measurements and such (burn-in usually doesn’t show up in FR graphs). I decided to follow the guidelines and burned-in for ~60 hours or so before forming my impressions. It doesn’t hurt after all.

TONALITY AND TECHNICALITIES

The Aria 2 has a warm, upper-mid centric presentation that has some similarities with the Harman In-ear target curve. Fortunately, the upper-mids aren’t as pronounced as the Harman IE target and the mid-bass has more body, resulting in a more even and natural transition from sub-bass to upper-bass and lower-mids subsequently.

The standout feature on this one has to be the bass response which, IMO, is one of the best under $100. The bass reaches all the way down to 20Hz and provides excellent rumble. Best of all: it doesn’t slope right away as it moves into the mid-bass unlike some recent IEM releases that gives rise to what I call “2.1 subwoofer effect” (you feel that the sub-bass is detached from the rest of the frequency). As a result, the bass frequencies are all well-portrayed and the sub-bass focus sounds tastefully done. Snare hits are authoritative, double-pedals have a full-bodied nature to them, and most of all male vocals don’t sound thinned-out. Bass texture is great, and bass speed is above-average.

As we move into the lower-mids, it does some warmth from the mid-bass bump but this is where I encounter my first issue with the Aria 2. The male vocals sound somewhat distant, although they’re perfectly intelligible. The finer articulations (vocalists inhaling/exhaling, subtle shifts in the delivery) are not as well portrayed as a result. Female vocals are much better portrayed however though again the lower-ranges suffer from recession. On the plus side, these are excellent when it comes to rendering acoustic guitars. The leading edge of guitars sound crisp while having a certain heft to them. Distortion guitars are not as well portrayed however due to less energy around the 4KHz region, but this also helps in reducing listening fatigue so there’s that.

Finally, the treble, and there’s not much to say here. It’s inoffensive without being boring. The treble rolls off fast post 11KHz and doesn’t really offer a lot of sparkle or air. Cymbal hits sound somewhat muted and the resonance after the hit is absent. There’s a slight peak ~10KHz in the official graph which seems more like driver resonance and didn’t really bother me during listening sessions. I should also add a note about the timbre which is very natural here and doesn’t suffer from the artificiality of the typical BA drivers (and even some metal-coated PET diaphragms).

Dynamics are quite good, especially macrodynamics are class-leading. Micro-dynamic shifts (gradual changes in volumes) are portrayed fairly well though some of the competition does that better. Staging is good overall in terms of width/height, though stage depth is lacking vs the higher-tier IEMs. Imaging is not as precise as I find on competing IEMs so I’d say it’s about average for the price bracket. Separation is good, however, owing to faster transients of the LCP diaphragm, though I do find the leading edge of notes to be somewhat soft which robs some instruments off of their excitement/engagement factor. The better transients also aids in complex tracks though the treble does seem to get drowned out in that case.

Overall, I find the Aria 2 to have a very versatile sound profile that works well across a variety of genres. The presentation is dynamic with a very natural timbre and excellent rendition of acoustic guitars/percussion instruments. Due to the wide stage, instruments aren’t congested and separation is very good as well. However, the male vocals might sound recessed, the imaging isn’t as precise as I hoped it to be, and stage depth/treble extension is lacking. Given its budget nature though, I’m willing to forgive a lot of that.

Bass: 4.5/5
Mids: 4/5
Treble: 4/5
Imaging/Separation: 3.5/5
Staging: 4/5
Dynamics/Speed: 4/5
Timbre: 4.5/5

SELECT COMPARISONS

vs Moondrop Starfield ($109): The Starfield received mostly rave reviews upon launch, though I myself found it very average on all fronts apart from the mid-range (vocals, to be specific). It was kind of a one-trick pony and I didn’t find the trick to be entertaining enough to warrant a super-positive review. I’d not discuss differences in build/accessories here as they are mostly similar (though Aria 2 cable is better).

The Aria 2 fixes most of my issues with the Starfield. The bass is much tighter with faster transients, acoustic guitars and percussion instruments don’t sound as “mushy” anymore, and the treble actually has some life in them. The stage is also wider and taller on the Aria 2, though stage-depth is similar on both (as in average). They measure similarly on FR but during listening the difference these technical upgrades are very noticeable. The one area where the Starfield trounces the Aria 2 is the vocal performance with Starfield having a more up-front/engaging vocal delivery. That’s about it though, and I’d pick the Aria 2 over the (more expensive) Starfield 11 out of 10 times.

vs Final E3000 ($50): The Final E3000 has long been one of my favorites under $100 and the Aria 2 has challenged it well for that throne. In terms of build quality, Aria 2 gets brownie points for having a detachable cable (though the supplied cable is far worse than E3000 stock cable). Both are very comfortable IEMs and offer good isolation.

The sound profile is quite different between them. The E3000 is a laid-back sounding IEM with warm, thick notes and an uncanny ability to separate the vocals from the rest of the instruments. In fact the biggest difference between the E3000 and the Aria 2 is how the former projects a wide, deep soundstage. Vocals are also more lush on the E3000, though they are even more recessed than the Aria 2. In terms of bass response, the Aria 2 is more sub-bass focused whereas the Final E3000 has mid-bass focus. Thus, the snare-hits/double-pedals sound even more substantial on the E3000 whereas Aria 2 can reproduce bass rumble better. Treble is about similar on both though the E3000 has slightly better sparkle and energy in the leading edge of cymbal hits. Imaging is also better on the E3000, though it falls behind the Aria 2 in complex tracks due to slower driver. Finally, microdynamics are superior on the E3000 with the Aria 2 having better macrodynamics.

One thing to note is the amping requirements which is higher on the E3000. Aria 2 is far easier to drive. All this makes the Aria 2 an easier pick for those who want more balance across the spectrum and don’t want to invest in a source. If you have a good source, however, the Final E3000 is still a very unique offering and will be right up your alley if you want a non-fatiguing, laid-back yet impressively wide presentation.

vs BLON BL-05S ($40): This is a comparison that many requested due to the BL-05S punching way above its price-tag in terms of technicalities. Let’s get into it, then.

In terms of build, the Aria 2 wins simply because of a more agreeable color, though I’m lately finding the BL-05S less of a turn-off. The stock accessories are also super-terrible on the BLONs so Moondrop gets an easy win here. Comfort/isolation is also better on the Aria 2.

Now, let’s get into the sound. The BL-05S has more focus on clarity with a more prominent upper-mids presence. The bass suffers on the BL-05S as a result with the Aria 2 having a superior bass response. In fact, the improvement in bass alone warrants an upgrade to the Aria 2 if you’re using BL-05S and need more “thump” in the lows. In the mids, I find the BL-05S to be better for female vocals and electric guitars. Treble also has more sparkle on the BL-05S though cymbals can sound a bit splashy at times on the BL-05S (which the Aria 2 avoids). Timbre is better on the Aria 2, so is soundstage width and height and the overall dynamics. Stage depth and imaging, however, is better on the BL-05S, so is the separation (surprisingly so).

It’s quite ironic that the BL-05S, despite being half as costly, is besting the Aria 2 in a few technical aspects (mainly imaging and separation). However, I find the Aria 2 an easier listen with far superior comfort/isolation and of course: bass. I can also see many getting both these IEMs to cover all bases (Aria 2 when you need a more smooth listen, BL-05S for the metal/rock sessions).

CONCLUDING REMARKS

The Moondrop Aria 2 is a wholesale upgrade over the Moondrop Starfield, despite the apparent similarity in the FR graph. I was very disappointed with the Starfield so the Aria comes as a form of redemption for the budget Moondrop offerings, among which I’ve only like the Crescent so far (and they don’t even make them anymore).

For me, the Aria 2 is now a default recommendation in the $100 range and renders many of its peers/predecessors irrelevant, if not unremarkable. It doesn’t excel in many technical aspects but as an all-round package it is very hard to beat. The stock accessories are good enough to get you going, the bass response is fantastic, the mids sound just right (albeit the lower-mids recession can sound a bit odd), and the treble is inoffensive for the most part aiding in long-term listening. Add to that good dynamics, separation, and stage width, and we’ve a new winner.

Well done, Moondrop, and I hope you guys keep it up.

MY VERDICT

4.25/5

A worthy upgrade to the Moondrop Starfield, and one of the best IEMs under $100.

Contact us!

DISCLAIMER

Get it from HiFiGo

Our generic standard disclaimer.

PHOTOGRAPHY

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

The post Moondrop Aria (2021) Review (2) – The Big “Little” Upgrade appeared first on Music For The Masses.