These two four-$-figure (before discounts) tribrids, the 8-driver Conductor and 9-driver EJ09, sit at the top of LETSHUOER’s IEM range and are aimed at different audiences – “concert” vs “instrument (studio?) monitor”, respectively – via different tunings. Each is available in universal fit & stock colours; or for extra $, in universal or custom fit with a choice of faceplate..

Preamble

I can’t make comments on packaging or say much about what’s included in the retail packs because these two pairs, kindly loaned by the local rep., came with one cable (the 3.5mm SE version of the EJ09’s SPC one) and no stock tips.

After some experimentation – tips being something I often change anyway – I found my trusty JVC Spiral Dots to work well on the nozzles of both pairs (elliptical on the Conductors). Details of each model’s package contents and physical characteristics are given on LETSHUOER’s website (Conductor; EJ09).

One difference worth highlighting is cabling: the Conductor comes with a 6N OFC cable terminated with a 2.5mm balanced plug, with 3.5mm SE & 4.4mm balanced adaptors included; whereas the EJ09 comes with a silver-plated monocrystalline copper cable with your choice of 3.5mm SE or 4.4mm balanced plug (i.e., one or the other, not both).

I listened to both IEMs from a few sources, spending most time with iFi iDSD Nano Black Label and Schiit Hel; also direct from a Samsung Galaxy S10 Android phone. Having both of these models at the same time, I switched back and forth between them often. While reading my impressions, bear in mind that the contrasts I note between the two might be exaggerated because of that.

Prices, configurations and specifications of the two models are presented together below so readers can easily compare. Following that, Conductor and EJ09 are reviewed separately.

Conductor: Price, Description & Specs

EJ09: Price, Description & Specs

Conductor: Sonics

Tonality

To me these are fairly neutral to slightly U-shaped, with good extension but a bit of exaggeration at each end. A notable hollowness in the upper bass & lower mids leads to perceptions of an apparent disconnect between sub-bass and middle mids and of slight exaggeration of the upper mids, although on sine sweeps the 2.5-3.5k area that often gives me problems, doesn’t, and excessive sibilance is not an issue either. Higher in the treble is still a bit exaggerated though.

Timbre

The thin note weight (and tone density) in the lower mids referred to above tends to de-emphasize male vocals and lower piano & string notes, penalizing material that’s rich in that content. Around 8 kHz there’s a noticeable change not so much in level but in timbre (yes, even on a sine sweep), which might be the EST driver starting to dominate.

Transients seem even across the range, neither too fast nor too slow. Texture is smooth enough in the bass, but the light weight there exacerbates somewhat rough (and ‘ringy’) upper mids & treble. Piano & vocal timbre through the middle to upper mids is nice, however.

In the highs, the EST driver makes cymbals & tambourine sound metallic rather than plastic, but like BA drivers, decay of these seems too fast, so is still somewhat unrealistic. Evidently incorporating EST drivers for the highs takes care & subtlety.

Technicalities

Macrodynamics are subdued – despite these being sub-bass heavy, bass slam is missing. In the middle mids, though, macrodynamics are notably stronger, actually better than the EJ09. Microdynamics and resolution are not remarkable in either positive or negative ways, but at least don’t suffer from the ‘fake detail’ often brought by an exaggerated lower treble.

Imaging is a bit imprecise and instrument separation diffuse, but both come off as “there” because of relatively wide staging – wider than EJ09, but a bit artificial sounding because of it.

Depth front to back comes off a bit better than width because percussion is not quite so forward. However, layering is not particularly well defined. These phones become slightly congested in the mids when playing dense material; this could perhaps be due to relatively high 3^rd-order distortion, a feature of many balanced-armature implementations (see under Measurements).

Measurements

Frequency response from my DIY tube coupler, corrected to approach an IEC711 unit, shows a curve similar to a bassier JVC HA-FDX1, with an upper-mid peak around 4 kHz. This is a few dB higher in the 2.5-5 kHz range than the measurement on the manufacturer’s product page but is similar elsewhere.

Channel balance is very good. I interpret the ‘wobble’ around 200 Hz as an artifact produced by movement at the resonant frequency of the heavy earpiece / light tip-skirt-to-stem junction system.

The impulse responses (not shown here) show that this pair appears to be wired in reverse polarity, but having used the EJ09 cable rather than the stock Conductor cable, I don’t know whether the latter might correct for this by being wired the opposite way. Interested users might wish to insert the cables backwards to see if they hear any difference.

The distortion pattern for the measured SPL shows a THD of around 0.5%, with the 3^rd harmonic popping above the 2^nd between 300 & 1500 Hz. 3^rd order distortion being higher than 2^nd at lower SPLs is common with balanced-armature IEMs, and is held by some people to be responsible for a rough or grainy texture.

The 3^rd order hump in this measurement would manifest at 3x the frequencies it’s displayed on the graph, i.e., centred on about 3 kHz, so might be responsible for the ‘ringy’ upper mids and congestion through the midrange noted earlier.

My impedance measurement is mostly within the range given on the HiFiGo page, around 10 Ohms at the highest and dropping to a bit below 6 in the high treble. This curve is not extreme; amps with higher output impedances will gently suppress the treble response of these earphones, as shown below.

Synergy 

A source with powerful dynamics, a relaxed or rolled-off upper treble, and with warmth in the upper bass and lower mids to compensate for the thinness there would be best with these ‘phones.

Comparisons & Conclusions 

The Conductor is tonally a fairly balanced IEM – though perhaps having a high treble that might cause issues for listeners who are sensitive there – which, to me, is let down mainly by a thin upper bass to lower midrange character. In comparison, the ~$200 more expensive EJ09 (getting ahead of myself) has worse tonal balance (or rather, is too elevated in the low treble; if eq’d or even iEMatched out it could be similar to Conductor) but better timbre & technicalities.

LETSHUOER’s cheaper EJ07M 7-driver tribrid (reviewed by Jürgen here) has technicalities on par with Conductor but tonal exaggeration at the other end of the range (sub-bass rather than high treble), which many people might prefer.

EJ09: Sonics

Tonality

This has a different signature from the Conductor: lower treble is emphasized. Bass, like the Conductor, is strong, the combo coming across as U-shaped on bass-heavy material; but it’s not elevated to the point of being offensive. It’s the lower treble that’s most notable here, becoming tiring on naturally sibilant material.

For my upper-mid sensitive ears there’s a touch too much around 3 kHz, but it’s really the 6-7 kHz area that gives me trouble. Otherwise, there’s a good balance through the bass and into the mids, lower mids in particular coming across smooth and natural.

Timbre

Despite the lower treble’s elevation it doesn’t come across as too artificial – there’s no notable ‘plastic’ texture, cymbals sounding nicely metallic but maybe decaying too fast (possibly the effect of the EST driver again). The roughness/ringyness of the Conductor is not evident, a good thing given the EJ09’s elevation in this part of the range. Lower & middle mid character is smooth; a bit lean, but much more satisfying than the Conductor’s hollowness there.

I speculate that the EJ09’s nicer upper bass & lower mid character might be due to its lack of front venting vs the Conductor; from the manufacturer’s descriptions, the dynamic drivers are otherwise the same . Transients are fairly fast in the mids but not particularly slammy, which gives the perception of a slight disconnect from the strong and well-textured bass.

Technicalities

Macrodynamics are good, there being solid slam in the bass (more than Conductor) and moderate through the mids (somewhat less than Conductor). Microdynamics in the upper mids & highs are good, but are not quite so well rendered in the lower mids. Imaging and separation are good, especially in upper mids & highs, but again, not remarkable, maybe surprisingly given the lower treble emphasis.

Layering and front-to-back staging seem a bit flat, probably because percussion high notes are too up front and (male) vocals are relatively recessed. Stage width seems narrower than portrayed by the Conductor, but as a consequence perhaps less artificial.

EJ09 is resolving of low-level information through most of the range, but gets into ‘fake detail’ territory in the lower treble because of the elevation there. These maintain character well through complex passages, avoiding the midrange congestion of the Conductor, but the elevated lower treble can become a distraction with some material.

Measurements

Corrected frequency response is similar to the Conductor (and to the measurement on the manufacturer’s product page) below ~4 kHz, but remains elevated through the lower treble out to around 10 kHz, this being the major tuning difference between the two models. Channel matching is again very good, and the ‘wobble’ around 250 Hz is again interpreted as an artifact of my measuring system (not real). 

Distortion is somewhat lower than Conductor, with the notable difference of being dominated by 2^nd order throughout the range, 3^rd order at this SPL remaining lower everywhere – in contrast to many BA-based units. Possibly this accounts for EJ09’s better perceived texture through the upper mids and into the highs.

 EJ09’s impedance profile is more extreme than Conductor’s, varying from a high above 20 Ohms in the midrange to a low of 4 Ohms in the lower treble. This means that even slightly higher output-Z sources (e.g. the iFi Audio iEMatch’s ‘high’ setting of 2.5 Ohms and the 4.4 Ohms of the iEMatch jack of the Nano BL) will result in notable reductions to the upper mids and treble, having greatest effect around 6 kHz.

Synergy

If you don’t like an elevated lower treble, you should avoid pairing the EJ09 with a bright source. The impedance profile is possibly a lifesaver in this respect, as higher-impedance amplifiers suppress this area. Using the iEMatch jack of my iFi iDSD Nano Black Label, I found the tonal balance to be much improved.

Comparisons & Conclusions

The lower-treble-boosted EJ09 represents a different tonal flavour vs the bass-heavy EJ07M and neutral to slightly upper-treble-tilted Conductor, and these 3 tribrid models could be viewed as complementary in that respect (this was presumably LETSHUOER’s intention, although the marketing language and the existence of 3 different EJ07 variants confuses things somewhat).

Users for whom tonality is the primary selection factor have 3 clear choices according to their preferences. However, the different tonal tunings also come with timbral and technical contrasts, so potential buyers should read reviews carefully to see what non-tonal aspects of a particular model might be deal-breakers for them.

Concluding Remarks

While hybrids and tribrids with EST treble drivers are becoming more common at all sorts of prices, particularly with tribrids it’s hard to escape the sense of disconnection resulting from the contrasting sonics of the different driver types that dominate different parts of the frequency range. For a sense of coherence, in my opinion it’s hard to beat earphones that use the same driver type, preferably a single driver, throughout. 

This is not to say, though, that great tribrids cannot be done: the best IEM I’ve heard to date, the Vision Ears Elysium, mixes DD, BA & EST drivers very successfully (and in an odd configuration), but to compare it would be unfair to LETSHUOER because it’s much more expensive ($2280 currently) than the models reviewed here (and my least favourite part of that earphone was the EST treble).

Getting back to the $1000 range, these earphones present me with a conundrum: while they do a lot of things well, there’s a lot of competition from similarly-priced IEMs with all sorts of driver complements for all sorts of tonal preferences. I admit my experience in this price range is lacking, so I’ll refrain from making value judgements on these two models.

Footnote: TOTL Cadenza 12 arriving

LETSHUOER will shortly release their new TOTL, the Cadenza 12 (see stories at HiFiGo and ecoustics; as of today they’re not on LETSHUOER’s site).

These will sport one 10mm kevlar-dome dynamic driver (likely the same as in the Conductor and EJ09), 11 balanced-armature drivers from Knowles and Sonion – no electrostatic drivers, interestingly – titanium alloy shells, and a monocrystalline copper + monocrystalline silver hybrid cable with 2.5, 3.5 & 4.4mm terminations/adaptors.

According to ecoustics, impedance is 16 Ohms (but with so many BA drivers this will likely vary significantly with frequency), sensitivity is 110 dB/mW, and price will be $US 2299.

Disclaimer

These earphones were lent to us for evaluation purposes by North America LETSHUOER rep. Joseph, who we thank for the opportunity.

Our generic standard disclaimer.

Contact us!

The post LETSHUOER Conductor & EJ09 Review appeared first on Music For The Masses.

Summary

These two single-chip dongles (Bolt: ESS9281 Pro, UA1: ESS9218 Pro) are superficially similar but quite different sounding. The Bolt can be summarized as clean and midrange-focused, the UA1 as bass- and upper-mid-emphasized (more “Harman”). Which is preferred will depend on the transducers they’re paired with as well as the tastes (and budget) of the listener.

For this comparison I listened with JVC HA-FDX1 single DD & Ultimate Ears UE900S quad BA earphones to 16/44.1 FLAC files played via USB Audio Player Pro from a Nokia 4.2 Android phone. The Bolt is currently $110, the UA1 $45. For details on physical things, specs, etc., see Jürgen’s individual reviews here and here.

Helm Bolt

In summary, the Bolt’s tonal/timbral package is warm in the bass and more clean & precise in the upper mids & treble. With some material, these contrasting characters make it seem a bit disconnected top to bottom. While having good weight in the bass, bass & sub-bass can come across as a bit boomy, un-defined (one-note) & soft, particularly with the source-picky JVC HA-FDX1. 

With the UE900S, though, the tendency for softness in the bass goes away and the rounder character benefits the otherwise lean BA bass notes. Treble is extended but not overemphasized; ‘sweet’ would be the old-school audiophool term. The clean nature of the mids and highs gives a very good sense of instrument separation and imaging. 

Overall I found the Bolt to be very good with UE900S – they sound ‘cleaner’ than from other SE dongles I’ve tried them with and the tonal balance benefits their lean-in-the-bass, low-in-the-upper mids, tizzy-up-top character.

Shanling UA1

First impression of the UA1 is of good top-to-bottom integration and good resolution, with dynamics that are more consistent in character across the range. The top end is well defined but well controlled, not splashy. There’s good bass: with HA-FDX1, sub-bass definition & extension are certainly there, both better than with the Bolt.

However, the UA1’s upper mids are a bit nasal/honky/shouty, particularly with the FDX1s which are a bit elevated there. With those ‘phones the UA1 is more balanced at the extremes than the Helm, but a bit tonally and timbrally off in the mids.

With the UE900S, the bass remains good but the upper mids & treble come off as overexaggerated, sibilant and a bit hashy compared to the Bolt. Cable games might help this, but I’m not optimistic.

Matching

Comparing these two dongles with these two earphones shows the importance of synergy: the Helm is a much better driver for the UE900S than the UA1 is. The sweeter treble of the Helm helps balance the 900s’ overdone highs, and although the 900s’ dipped upper mids would ostensibly seem a better fit with the UA1’s tendency for shoutiness, they actually seem cleaner and better balanced there with the Bolt. The Bolt’s softer, rounder bass isn’t a problem, as it makes the 900s sound a bit more natural. With the FDX1s, however, the Bolt gives a very soft sub-bass compared to the UA1. Conversely, while the bass of the UA1 matches the FDX1s better, its Harmanish tonality does their upper mids no favours.

It’s tempting to attribute differences in the bass, in particular, to differences in output power.  According to Audio Science Review’s measurements, the Bolt clips at 60 mW into 32 Ohms and about 56 mW into 16 Ohms (HA-FDX1 impedance). Shanling specifies the UA1’s power output as 80 mW into 32 Ohms. The difference between the two dongles isn’t large and I doubt it tells the whole story, because the DragonFly Black is very anemic at 18 mW into 32 Ohms yet the HA-FDX1s don’t lose the definition in the sub-bass when fed from the Black to the extent that they do from the Bolt (warmth of the Black’s signature aside). I conclude that with these dongles, transducer synergy is ‘a thing’.

Other Quick Comparisons

Audioquest Dragonfly Black: pleasant warm emphasis (more than the Bolt), but everything softened and resolution lost (blurred, even a bit scratchy or fuzzy in the highs) compared to the Bolt and UA1. Would view as smooth if not by comparison. Smooth (but not soft) in the bass & lower mids; relaxing with the FDX1s.

Apple dongle: softer than DragonFly Black throughout, not as warm though.

EarMen Sparrow single-ended output: Bolt has better macrodynamics, more and cleaner treble, and is more resolving. UA1 has better note definition (resolution). Sparrow balanced output bests both in dynamics & resolution.

Ifi iDSD Nano BL SE (unfair comparison because: not a dongle, battery powered, 200 mW @ 16 Ohms, significantly more expensive; but included here for completeness because I compared it): darker tonal balance, timbre across the range more integrated, balance between dynamic swings & transient speed more even (maybe a little on the slow side compared to the ESS sound, but to me more natural because of that; organic). S-Balanced is a notable step up over SE in ‘cleanliness’.

Conclusion

It was interesting to hear such different sonic characters from these superficially similar dongles. I hesitate to recommend one over the other as transducer synergy, based on my admittedly limited trials, seems to be important. In general terms, I’d suggest that the Shanling UA1 might be the better match if you have ‘phones that are known to be demanding in the bass; and the Helm Bolt might be the better if you have ‘phones you find at the edge of your tolerance in the upper mids.

Disclaimer

These two dongles were sent to Jürgen for review by Helm Audio and Shanling, who we thank for the opportunity to hear them.

Our generic standard disclaimer.

Contact us!

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

The post Helm Bolt vs Shanling UA1 USB Dongle DAC/Amps Review – Freedom of Choice appeared first on Music For The Masses.

Cons — Interference could be an issue with certain mobile phones or signals; SE output takes such a hit in dynamics and resolution vs balanced that it might be a waste for many users; power consumption via balanced is likely high.

Summary

The EarMen Sparrow is a flexible (balanced or single-ended), powerful USB DAC/amp dongle with great sound quality, being particularly dynamic from its balanced output. However, it can be susceptible to interference when run from a mobile phone.

Sonics and Comparisons

I listened to the EarMen as part of a comparison of a few USB DAC/amp dongles old and new. Listening to all was mainly done with the Drop+JVC HA-FDX1 single dynamic-driver IEMs using the Mee Audio MMCX balanced cable (SPC), with a 2.5 bal. to 3.5 SE adapter where necessary to minimize possible cable differences. Being an Android user, I sent audio (mostly 16/44.1 FLAC files) to the Sparrow with USB Audio Player Pro.

Balanced: From the balanced output, performance is impressive: macrodynamics, note definition & weight, instrument separation, and transient resolution are all excellent, making for a very ‘technical’ package. Tonal balance is good too, no particular part of the range seeming over- or under-emphasized.

While I liked it, the dynamic and fast presentation from the balanced output might become fatiguing after a while with revealing and dynamic transducers like the JVCs and especially with very ‘technical’ multi-balanced-armature IEMs. Matching with smoother ‘phones, or switching to the SE output, might be preferable for long listening sessions.

Single-ended: There’s a notable hit in macrodynamics and low-level resolution from the 3.5mm SE output vs balanced, and note definition, particularly in the bass, is weaker, leading to a much more relaxed presentation.

As mentioned above, depending on the transducers the EarMen Sparrow is paired with, this might not be a bad thing. The contrast however is very pronounced, especially when comparing with others: The Tempotec Sonata BHD, for example – a balanced-only unit – is itself pretty revealing but is notably less dynamic than the Sparrow’s balanced output and notably more dynamic than it’s SE output. And the latter is more relaxed than the single-ended Shanling UA1, and – except notably in the bass – than the single-ended Helm Bolt (which uses the same ES9281Pro SoC as the EarMen Sparrow).

Non-Sound Stuff

Here’s what might be a deal-breaker for some: when playing from the balanced output, the EarMen Sparrow can pick up interference when it’s close to a phone. This has been discussed on internet forums, and EarMen to their credit tried to address it by replacing the original cable with a longer, better shielded one.

I replaced the original with another that was reported to help, the OEAudio OEOTG, which improved the issue but didn’t completely solve it. If you can keep the dongle away from your phone, if you only use it in airplane mode, or if your phone/carrier/local signal doesn’t give you this problem (Jürgen tells me he didn’t experience it with his iPhone SE), great – but it might be a lottery.

For me (Nokia 4.2) it’s much reduced (or absent) from the SE output, but present enough to be annoying at listening levels from balanced when everything’s jumbled together in a pocket.

Minor considerations: unlike with other dongles, sometimes the EarMen Sparrow doesn’t play right away from UAPP when hot-swapped in after another dongle, requiring a re-boot of the player. This doesn’t happen every time, though, and I suspect a recent UAPP update might have cured the problem entirely; I haven’t seen it in the last couple of weeks.

Also, the EarMen Sparrow gets very warm in balanced mode – you can tell it’s putting out some power! This is good, but will come with a pretty high battery drain. Jürgen found the drain when using SE to be in the higher half of his tested units; be aware that balanced use will drain your battery faster still.

More Comparisons & Conclusion

The most obvious comparison among the units I have here – because it’s the only other one with a balanced output – is the dual-CS43131 Tempotec Sonata BHD. Compared to the EarMen Sparrow this has tonal emphasis in the upper mids, a splashier/hashier treble, a more rounded bass, and transients which apart from in the bass are similar in speed to the Sparrow but lesser in weight. However, the Sonata BHD is currently under 1/3 the price of the Sparrow.

The Earstudio HUD100 Mk2 (currently $120), a favorite of Jürgen’s which I haven’t heard, could make for an interesting comparison because although being single-ended, has two outputs, one with high power. Comparisons with other, non-balanced units should be seen in terms of price – and not having heard similarly priced SE units, I can’t usefully comment. 

Overall, I’m impressed with the EarMen Sparrow. The flexibility and differences in sound signature offered by the choice of outputs, and the absolute performance of the balanced output, make it a great contender in the dongle space. The interference issue however, is a serious one.

Contact us!

Disclaimer

This is the same unit reviewed by Jürgen here, which was supplied to him by EarMen upon request.

Our generic standard disclaimer.

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

The post EarMen Sparrow Dongle DAC/Amp – Brief Second Opinion appeared first on Music For The Masses.

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

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

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

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

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

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

Until next time…keep on listening!

Contact us!

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

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.

Cons — Bass doesn’t retrieve every last detail, treble might be too rolled off for some and upper mids a touch too high for others, ‘light’ note weight in the mids and highs compared to full DD units.

Executive Summary

The Moondrop x Crinacle Blessing2:Dusk is a tonally balanced (with tasteful bass bump), technically focused hybrid that does just about everything right. Its highly resolving midrange features lighter note weights and excellent detail retrieval, imaging and instrument separation for a very ‘clean’ overall presenation. While technicalities are the first impression, I don’t find anything really ‘off’ about the timbre. Its revealing rather than euphonic nature would make it a complement to, rather than a replacement for, a good dynamic-driver pair.

Tonality and Technicalities

These in some ways have the classic Moondrop signature (before their attempts at diffuse-field neutral, eg SSR, SSP Illumination): a not-too-exaggerated upper midrange and a slightly rolled-off treble – but, with a bit of added bass, focused on the low- to sub-bass. The balance of the bass on these is very good, having a good low rumble along a level of mid- to upper bass that doesn’t intrude on the lower mids. It’s not bass-head material and neither does it overly warm things up. The bass, however, is the one area I find the technicalities of these earphones are a bit lacking: some detail is missing in some material, e.g., reverb trails fade too early and ‘dirty’ distortion is underplayed or absent.

In the upper midrange, I find that between a balanced-armature earphone and a dynamic-driver earphone that measure the same, the BA will seem to be more shouty and harsh than the DD, possibly because of the BA’s faster but ‘lighter’ transients. With the Moondrop Blessing2:Dusk, I find the upper midrange to be getting close to the edge of what’s acceptable, perhaps because of the contrast with a treble that rolls off early.

One of the main notables for me about these earphones is the resolution through the midrange. Detail retrieval is excellent, all sorts of microdynamics and subtle pitch variations being discernible even with amps that tend to gloss those aspects over (Dragonfly Black). At least partly because of this, imaging, instrument separation, and L to R staging are also very good. While sometimes an overly technical focus will make for an unsatisfying overall musical picture, I don’t find these phones to exceed the boundaries of good taste in this respect. For me another big plus is that the common ‘BA timbre’ of overly fast yet lightweight transients, most noticeable in how cymbal shimmers decay, is barely present in these earphones.

Source Synergies

While many all-BA earphones have a difficult impedance vs frequency profile, leading to amplifiers with somewhat elevated output impedances markedly changing the phones’ frequency response, hybrids as a class don’t seem to suffer from this as much. The Blessing2:Dusk is one of these, its impedance profile indicating that the mid-treble would be boosted significantly only if amps of 10 Ohms or greater are used.

In other respects they’re fairly amp-friendly too. They’re sensitive enough to be driven loud from portable sources and don’t seem to need great power to make them ‘wake up’, yet not so sensitive that they hiss or overly restrict the usable volume-pot range from typical headphone/IEM desktop amps. I don’t mind a bit of treble rolloff, so I found sources with a neutral or slightly laid-back signature to work best, allowing the midrange technicalities of the Blessing2:Dusks to shine through without emphasizing the upper mids too much. People wanting the last gasp of treble might prefer brighter sources.

Concluding Remarks

While a) I don’t really want to buy any more IEMs and b) I’m cheap, I’ve been thinking that a more technicality-focused BA or hybrid pair to complement the weightier, dynamic-driver timbre of the Drop JVC HA-FDX1 would be a ‘nice to have’. At their $US320 price, the Moondrop Blessing2:Dusk, with their well-balanced tonality, great midrange technicalities, and lack of ‘BA timbre’ have me thinking about it.

Contact us!

All Our Earphone and Earbud Reviews (with Links)

Disclaimer

I received these from Jürgen as part of a tour initiated by Crinacle, and held them for two weeks, before sending them on to the next reviewer.

Get the Moondrop x Crinacle Blessing2:Dusk from SHENZENAUDIO.

Our generic standard disclaimer.

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

The post Moondrop x Crinacle Blessing2:Dusk Review (2) – Minority Report appeared first on Music For The Masses.

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

TONALITY AND TECHNICALITIES

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

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

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

Measurement Mysteries

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

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

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

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

Modding?

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

CONCLUDING REMARKS

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

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

Contact us!

DISCLAIMER

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

Get the Shozy Form 1.1 from HifiGo

Our generic standard disclaimer.

About my measurements.

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

RELATED…

The post Shozy Form 1.1 Review – Brief Sonic Impressions appeared first on Music For The Masses.

Cons– System matching required (depending on preferences).

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

The ifi Audio Zen Phono preamplifier is an excellent performer suitable for a wide range of phono pickup cartridges at a budget price. But depending on preferences, its transient speed and dynamics mean it might not sound ‘vinyl enough’ in some systems.

INTRODUCTION

I’m not sure how many of Audioreviews’ predominantly portable-focused audience will be interested in anything to do with vinyl – but I am, and I get to write here :-P.

For those unfamiliar with the species, a phono preamplifier is a component that corrects the amplitude imbalance of the low vs high frequencies of a record (which exists because otherwise the low notes would give grooves with such big wiggles that hardly anything would fit on a side) and boosts the signal from the pickup cartridge to a level suitable for the ‘line’ input of a regular audio amplifier. These things have always been around, but in the days when vinyl was the main source of recorded music they were built in to most stereo amplifiers and stand-alone ones were ‘boutique’ and usually expensive. As vinyl’s popularity has recovered from its low point during the CD years, phono preamp stages have increasingly been incorporated into amplifiers and even turntables – but still, amps designed for modern digital systems and better-quality turntables typically don’t have them, so a stand-alone unit is often required.

As a low-budget alternative to its considerably more tweakable and expensive iPhono 3 (also relatively new), ifi Audio has recently expanded its new ‘Zen’ line of compact home/desktop audio components with the Zen Phono, an inexpensive phono preamp suitable for moving-magnet and moving-coil (including low-output) pickup cartridges.

SPECIFICATIONS

Just the important highlights of the ifi Audio Zen phono preamplifier here, you can read the ifi product page for all the claimed signal/noise, distortion etc. figures (oddly though, they give no crosstalk spec):

Gain/load options: MM 36 dB/47k Ohms; MC HIGH 48 dB/47k Ohms; MC LOW 60 dB/1.4k Ohms; MC V LOW 72 dB/110 Ohms
Outputs: Single-ended RCA L, R; Balanced 4.4mm
Power: DC 5V, 500mA
Dimensions: 158x117x35mm / 6.2×4.6×1.4” WxDxH
Weight: 515g / 1.14lb
Warranty: 12 months
Price: $US 149 / GBP 149 / EUR 159
In the box: Zen Phono, manual, warranty card, power supply, 45cm / 18” dual RCA cable

PHYSICAL THINGS AND USABILITY

The nattily shaped and nicely finished metal case is of the same style as other Zen components. It’s certainly more attractive than many other phono preamps, which tend to be ugly boxes of odd proportions. On the front are the power button, LED indicators for power and gain/load setting, and a button and indicator LED for a subsonic filter circuit designed to eliminate the low-frequency ‘whoomph’ that could come from a badly warped record. 

Connections, the switch for the 4 gain/load settings, and the DC power input are on the back (the power supply is a small standard switch-mode unit, not one of iFi’s low-noise ‘iPower’ things). Standard RCA sockets are used for the unbalanced outputs and phono inputs, and there’s a screw for connecting a ground wire if your turntable requires it. There’s also a balanced output socket (4.4mm TRRRS) to take advantage of the Zen’s dual-mono circuit design. This is unusual (unique?) at this price point. Using this into the balanced inputs of a stereo amplifier will require a 4.4mm TRRRS to dual male XLR adapter cable, which are available from internet retailers and which iFi Audio say they’re going to make too.

FUNCTIONALITY AND OPERATION

Having 4 gain/load settings in a budget phono preamp is pretty good. Moving-magnet and high-output moving-coil cartridge types are generally designed to work with a high input loading, so having MM and MC HIGH gain switchings with 47k Ohms impedance makes sense. Optimal cartridge loads tend to decrease with output, so 1.4k Ohms and 110 Ohms for MC LOW and MC V LOW respectively is sensible too, although vinyl tweakers with boutique MC carts tend to like to change loadings if they can. However, many such carts are very expensive and would likely be used with a much more expensive phono stage.

Connecting and using the ifi Audio Zen phono preamplifier is dead simple, although you have to wait for a while for the microprocessor-controlled circuit to sort itself out on powering up or switching gain – the lights flash interestingly for a few seconds. As with anything that amplifies very small signals, the Zen should be kept away from potentially noisy power supplies, transformers and cables if it’s not to pick up interference; but I found it to be not as picky about placement as other stand-alone phono stages I’ve had.

For the following impressions I used it between my Sansui SR-525 direct-drive turntable with a Denon DL-110 high-output moving-coil cartridge and either: a Rega Brio 2017 integrated amplifier feeding Dynaudio Audience 52SE standmount speakers and Triangle Tales 340 subwoofer; or a Massdrop Cavalli Tube Hybrid headphone amp feeding Sennheiser HD6XX headphones. The Denon’s output is high even for a HOMC, so I tried both MM and MC HIGH settings, but I thought MC high had slightly better resolution so I spent most time listening with that. I didn’t play any badly warped records so I didn’t try the subsonic filter, and my amps don’t have balanced inputs so I couldn’t try the Zen’s balanced output.

SONIC QUALITIES COMPARED

Listening comparisons were to the two other phono stages I currently have: the Hagerman Bugle, a well-regarded $US 189 unit from a small Hawaii-based company (mine is version 2, identical to the current model but with fixed gain & load of 40 dB & 47k Ohms) and the phono stage built into the Rega Brio 2017 integrated amplilfier (40 dB & 44k Ohms according to Stereophile’s measurements). 

The really notable things about the Zen Phono compared to the other two are increased resolution of low-level information throughout the frequency range; increased transient speed, particularly in the bass; and increased treble resolution, which comes across as a more extended treble. The tonal balance of the Zen Phono is more forward (upper mid/lower treble focused) than the others. This is highlighted by tracks with female vocals, violins, horns, and high-pitched guitar solos. Together with the increased resolution, this adds to the perception referred to below of it being less smooth/relaxing, but also increases the sense of ‘detail’ conveyed.

The Bugle has a warmer tonality than the Zen and its bass maybe goes deeper (it’s at least more prominent) but it’s nowhere near as well textured. Bass guitar notes through the Zen snap on and off beautifully and preserve reverb missing from the Bugle in their decays. The Rega has a warmer tonal balance still, but its bass doesn’t seem as deep as the Bugle’s and is similarly rounded.  The Zen seems more extended in the treble than both, and with reduced hash, cymbal decays being cleaner and sibilants being rendered more correctly (‘sss’ not ‘shh’). The Rega also has some slight grain in the mids.

Compared to both of the others, the Zen has considerably better resolution across the range, leading to improved instrument separation and staging and every component of the music being more discernible. The improved rendering of subtle vocal and instrumental pitch and volume changes adds to the effects of the snappier transients to result in improved timbral qualities particularly in vocals and horns. Dynamics are also heightened, note edges on percussion hits and string plucks seeming to come in louder as well as faster; and these more precise notes seem to appear out of and fade into a quieter and deeper background.

In summary, the Zen Phono has significantly superior technical abilities than these other two phono stages (and by extension, another that I’ve compared the Bugle to: the MM section of the first version of the Pro-Ject Phono Box. I haven’t heard the current version). However, there’s a potential downside to this: if you like a smoother, more ‘liquid’ presentation, you might find the Zen Phono’s zippy transients and high-amplitude dynamics a bit much, particularly if your systems has other components with these characteristics. Direct-drive turntables tend to be faster in the transients than belt-drive ones, and some cartridges can be analytical or ‘dry’ sounding. 

While I found the other preamps smoother and more relaxing to listen to (particularly through speakers), their smoothness came with a notable loss of resolution compared to the Zen. Small low-level changes in the midrange, delicate vibratos in vocals that were glossed over by the Bugle and the Rega, and the textures highlighted by the faster transients and heightened dynamics that were rendered much better by the Zen demanded more attention, especially on lively tracks. For me on my system, these improved technical aspects would be worth the change. For other people with other systems though, this character might come across as too much of the ‘technical’ at the expense of the ‘musical’ or ‘euphonic’, and be the opposite of what they’re trying to achieve with their vinyl setup.

OTHER COMPARISONS

The Hagerman and built-in Rega preamps are appropriate comparisons budget-wise and in configuration. While the Rega at 40 dB gain is really only good for MM and the highest-output MC carts, The $US 189 Bugle 3 has four gain/load combinations: 40 dB / 47 k Ohms, 50 dB / 553 Ohms, 60 dB / 100 Ohms, 64 dB / 85 Ohms. These are a good mix for multiple cartridge types. Other appropriate comparisons would be to the $US 129 Schiit Mani, which has four gain settings spanning 30-59 dB and two loading options, 47k and 47 Ohms, selectable independent of gain. I haven’t heard the Mani, but in a review herethe writer found the Zen to convey more detail. I also haven’t heard the current iteration of the $US 115 Pro-Ject Phono Box (40 dB / 47 k Ohms, 60 dB / 100 Ohms); this has slightly different specs from the old version that I found inferior to my Hagerman so it might sound different. There are a few others in the price range of the Zen (e.g., NAD PP 2e, Music Hall Pa1.2), but these typically have fewer gain & load options and none have a balanced output option.

CONCLUDING REMARKS

The iFi Audio Zen Phono phono preamplifier offers excellent performance, flexibility and value. The only caveat is that its performance emphasizes the technical rather than the euphonic aspects of music reproduction, which might not be a perfect match for all vinyl lovers’ tastes or systems.

MY VERDICT

Our rating scheme explained

Contact us!

DISCLAIMER

Audioreviews thanks ifi Audio for their loan of a Zen Phono for this evaluation. Note by the editor: following his review – and only then – Biodegraded negotiated to buy the unit out at a 25% discount.

Our generic standard disclaimer.

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

The post ifi Audio Zen Phono RIAA Preamplifier Review – And Now for Something Completely Different appeared first on Music For The Masses.

THE ISSUE

The tonality of the well-received KBEAR Diamond, which had tuning input from Larry and Jürgen, has been described in terms from slightly U-shaped or just a tad bassy (e.g. Loomis, Jürgen) to aggressively v-shaped (e.g. guest reviewer Christophe). When I received my pair, my first thought was that my co-bloggers were irredeemable bassheads. The right-hand side of the V didn’t bother me, but I found the low bass really too much. It’s been mentioned that these are very tip-dependent, and Jürgen and Larry encouraged me to try different ones. In my particular ears, however, different tips either gave good seal and maintained the overbearing bass or gave poor seal leading to very weak bass and lower mids, with no happy in-between (Tennmak Whirlwinds, which I’ve used successfully with other sets, I found too shallow for the deeply-fitting bodies of these). The stock grey tips in medium fitted me well, and not noticing audible differences between those and other wide-bores of similar depth, I stuck with them. I also wondered if I might have a slightly differently tuned pair from the ones that early reviewers received; more on that later.

Being impressed with the timbre and technicalities of the Diamonds (as mentioned in reviews here and elsewhere) and their smooth upper mid and treble presentation, I decided to have a go at modding them to see if I could get the bass down to somewhere not so overwhelming, and if that turned out to increase the perceived upper mid bump, to try reducing this as well. I wanted to see if I could get something closer to ‘my’ target neutral, which through bass and lower mids is represented by the JVC HA-FDX1 with ‘medium’ filtered nozzles, and through the upper mids and lower treble is something between the modified Hifi Walker A1 and Moondrop Kanas Pro. These are shown on the graph below along with the stock Diamond; all are L-R averages measured with our plastic fantastic coupler.

STEP 1: FIXING THE BASS

I started with the bass, and after trying the air-duct-under-the-tip trick and finding that even a thin insert reduced the bass too much, I went for the irreversible but more precisely tuneable solution of piercing the filters in the front vents, taping them up again, and needling the tape to get bass down to taste (see here for another example of this, and see the photo below for reference).

Because the front vent is in the nozzle, well in front of the driver and perpendicular to it, the deep and vigorous needling necessary to pierce the strong and springy-feeling filter is no risk to the driver. The needle should be inserted as far as it will go, numerous times with slight variations in angle to get the hole in the filter out to about the same size as the vent itself. To be safe, make sure your fingers are not covering the rear vent or nozzle bore: as with inserting or extracting non-vented earphones too fast, sometimes creating strong air compression or vacuum can damage the driver. Listening to the earphones after this operation, there should be almost no bass and the tonality should sound the same in both left and right. If there’s still appreciable bass in one or both, poke harder!

To get some bass back again, put a small strip of tape over each front vent and poke a small hole with the tip of the needle. Listen to see if the bass balance is similar in each earpiece (sometimes hard to judge at these low frequencies), enlarging the holes to get the balance even and its level to your taste. A measurement setup is useful in this respect, but not necessary; your ears know what you like. If the bass gets too thin or too unbalanced, start again with new tape. I use Scotch ‘Magic Tape’ for this rather than the ubiquitous modder’s tool of 3M Micropore because Magic Tape is thin and easy to work with and small holes in Micropore tend to heal, becoming smaller over time.

STEP 2: FIXING THE UPPER MIDRANGE

Upon reducing the bass, you might find that the upper midrange and upwards has become too prominent. Disregard this as much as you can while getting the bass to your target, because taking down the higher frequencies can be addressed next if you think it necessary.  This is where Micropore or similar tape, or third-party filters if you have them, can be used. Unfortunately, the peakiness in these is in the upper midrange (around 3 kHz), and it’s difficult to get this area down without taking the treble along for the ride. I tried a few things here; 3M Transpore (which has bigger pores than Micropore but is impermeable between them) to different-width strips of Micropore. In the end I settled on a 4mm-wide Micropore strip, as shown in the photo. This left the upper mids a bit more elevated than I’d like, so screechy horns on some material remain a bit much; but I found that 100% coverage of the nozzles not only took too much air out of the treble, it also squashed mid and treble dynamics. 

My favoured end result (green curve) is to me slightly v-shaped, having more bass & upper-mid emphasis than the JVCs but not being too much more rolled-off in its already somewhat relaxed treble, and restoring some presence to the lower and middle portions of the midrange. And importantly, doing something not reflected in frequency-response graphs: retaining and even enhancing the good timbral qualities and technicalities of the pre-mod character. I find bass notes now to have better defined textures, and midrange voices and instruments to have apparently enhanced detail and placement – while the whole signature retains an overall smoothness that makes an interesting change from the wicked fast transients of the JVCs.

So if you find these to be too v-shaped for you and you don’t mind the irreversible aspect of the bass component, give these mods a go. Experiment with different widths and configurations of tape (e.g. two thin strips crossed), maybe along with different tips (see Larry’s list for ideas, bearing in mind that different tips might sound different in different ears) until you find what suits you best; the joy of modding is that you get to be the tuner and call the final shots. And of course, if you find your Diamonds just fine as they are – don’t do any of this, just enjoy them!

I speculated in the first paragraph that my pair might have been a bit different from others. This suspicion is based on Jürgen not reporting them as overly bassy or v-shaped (although he’s accused me in the past of being a bass lightweight, we don’t usually differ too much in our impressions there), and on differences between our measurements. We use identical couplers, both ‘built’ by me, and the same measurement procedures, and our past measurements of the same earphones have given results that are very close. Comparing our Diamond measurements, however, mine are 3-4 dB higher in the low bass and ~3 dB higher around 3 kHz and don’t drop anywhere near as deep into the mid-treble compared to his (whether my original unsmoothed L&R or the 1/12-octave smoothed average in the graphs above is used in the comparison). It’s not impossible that the difference is operator/measurement-equipment variation, but this past experience and Christophe’s reaction to these as well as mine does make me wonder.

Disclaimer

The KBEAR Diamond was provided unsolicited from KBEAR. Thank you very much. You can buy it at the KBEAR Official Store.

RELATED…

KBEAR Diamond review by Loomis

KBEAR Diamond review by Jürgen

KBEAR Diamond review by Christophe

All our modding tricks

The post KBEAR Diamond Mods: If They’re Too Bassy or Too V-Shaped, Try This… appeared first on Music For The Masses.

Cons: Weight; bass (for non-bassheads) overdone; uppermost mids to low treble a bit suppressed.

You find a series of photos of the MKP on our blog HERE and a second review by Jürgen HERE. A third review by Loomis is HERE.

A lot, mostly good, has been written about these. I won’t spend time repeating too much of it, but will rather focus on what hasn’t been commonly said (which might come across as more negative than I intend to be; bear that in mind as you read).

These are solidly constructed and very pretty to look at if you like shiny silver things. The cable is a fancy braided affair that’s very flexible and non-microphonic. Earpieces and cable together give a very classy impression. BUT: the earpieces are heavy, and for a single DD, bulky. The bulk and weight lead to a feeling of insecurity in the ears. The stock medium tips, while not great, fitted me ok with some effort and gave only adequate isolation. I’d recommend experimenting to find the best tips for these for your particular ears.

Apart from the bass, the tonality is fairly even. Bass is elevated, and comes across as rather more intrusive than our measurements would suggest. After a while I found it fatiguing, even with material that isn’t bass-heavy. Others have described the rest of the range as balanced, but to me the uppermost mids and low treble seem to be a little lacking, an impression likely reinforced by the smooth presentation in that area. This would appeal to people who are very sensitive in the upper midrange (I don’t think I am). Treble is extended but not over-exaggerated.

Timbre is good across the range. Vocals and instruments are rendered realistically. Technicalities are likewise good, with the exception perhaps of slightly too-relaxed macrodynamics in the high mids, which, while imparting a sense of smoothness, does reinforce the impression of a dip there. Microdynamics though are good, and together with the competent resolution of transients, leads to a good sense of instrument separation and imaging.

In conclusion: I didn’t mind these, but the combination of the bulk & weight, the overdone bass AND the uppermost-mid dip means they are not for me. Possibly the bass would be less intrusive from a source that’s on the lighter side (I listened both direct from my phone and via the Audioquest Dragonfly Black DAC/amp, the longer sessions being from the latter), and therefore not so fatiguing on long listens (and there’s always modding to try). However, if you like bass and you’re sensitive in the high mid/low treble area, these might be worth considering.

SPECIFICATIONS

Name: Kanas Pro
Type: In Ear
Driver: Dynamic
Sensitivity: 110 dB
Impendence: 32 ohm
Frequency Response: 20 Hz – 20000 Hz
Cable Length: 1.2m
Plug Type: L Bending
Color: Silver
Price: $179.80 (at the time of this review):
Purchase Link: Wooeasy Earphones Store

DISCLAIMER

This pair of Kanas Moodrop Pro was supplied by Wooeasy Earphones Store for independent reviews by the authors of Audio Reviews. Thank you very much!

Our generic standard disclaimer

About our measurements

MY VERDICT

Our rating scheme

The post Moondrop Kanas Pro Review (1) – Quick Thoughts appeared first on Music For The Masses.

Cons – Bass a bit soft, treble a bit hashy/hissy, mids seem distant, technicalities do not cut it.

SUMMARY

The Yinyoo D2B4 (updated version) is a slightly bass heavy but otherwise neutral hybrid over-the-ear IEM of excellent construction and good comfort that sells for $US186.25 (regular price). The nice tonality is somewhat let down by the timbre at both ends of the range, which for the price is disappointing.

UPDATE: The Yinyoo D2B4, out of the box, are flawed because the feature the “wrong” tuning filters and eartips. How turn these into good sounding earphones, read our UPDATED REVIEW.

SPECIFICATIONS (FROM DIFFERENT SHEETS)

• Product Name: Yinyoo D2B4 in-ear earphone
• Earphone Type: in-ear hybrid, 2 coaxial dynamic bass drivers (10 mm) & 4 balanced-armature mid & treble drivers
• Impedance: 19 Ω +/- 2% @ 1 kHz (but see below)
• Sensitivity: 102 dB/mW
• Frequency Range: 20-40 kHz (whatever that means)
• Distortion: 12% or <3% @ 1 kHz @ 1mW, take your pick (see below)
• Interface: 3.5mm TRS straight plug, gold plated
• Connector: MMCX
• Cable: 1.2 m ± 3 cm; silver-plated 4-core copper, no microphone
• Colours: black or blue
• Price: $93.13 — 186.25
• Purchase Link Aliexpress
• Purchase Link Amazon

As is usual with single-number specifications they’re mostly meaningless or just wrong. What exactly happens at 20 Hz and 40 kHz? And 12% distortion?? Where does that number come from? The ‘<3% …’ figure is more conventional but at 1mW this is a higher SPL level than you’d want to be listening at. Even on my noisy system at a more reasonable 85 dB, THD at 1 kHz is <1%. It’s unusual and welcome that the frequency of the impedance figure is quoted, but as with most BA or hybrid earphones it varies quite a bit across the range. Measuring shows it’s ~31 ohms through the bass, dropping through the midrange to around ~9 ohms in the treble (the NiceHCK M6 is similar). This >3x difference will interact with sources with higher output impedance to boost the bass and lower mids relative to the treble as shown on the graph below (the impedance vs frequency curve is in brown). For reference – the iPhone 6 headphone jack has 3.2 ohms output impedance, iPhone 5 is 4.5, Topping NX3S is around 5, and Macbook headphone jacks and some Topping desktop amplifiers are around 10.

IN THE BOX…

…are the two earpieces, cable, 3 pairs of each wide-vote and narrow-bore eartips (S, M. L), and a sturdy case. Note that the v2’s cable is different from that of the earlier version.

BUILD

These are very classy looking, smooth coated, machined aluminum ear-bowl shaped shells with two rear vents per side and MMCX connectors for the cables. Unlike the NiceHCK M6, the nozzles/filters (5 mm apertures) are not removable. The cable is a nicely flexible but rather thick affair that, with its braiding below the sturdy splitter block and large 3.5 mm plug, is on the whole rather bulky. The earpieces and cable together give an overall impression of quality and durability.

ERGONOMICS

These fit my ears well and are comfortable. The memory wire on the connector ends strikes a nice balance of being stiff enough to keep its shape yet flexible enough to be easily bent into a new one, and the rest of the cable is flexible, drapes well, and has low microphonics. I’d have no problem wearing these for long sessions.

SOURCE AND EARTIPS

These were easy to drive from my phone, an old Samsung Galaxy S4 (1.2 ohm output impedance). Given that, I didn’t try another source.

The two sets of S, M & L tips included are quite different. The black ones (thin, soft, “custom medical-grade hypoallergenic silicone”) are about 1 mm shallower than the grey ones (thicker, less flexible) and have stems another 1 mm shorter, the combined effect being that the nozzles are almost up at the openings of the black tips but about 2mm back from the openings of the others. In addition, the apertures of the grey tips are narrower, around 3 mm. The medium black tips fitted me well, were comfortable, and gave me an insertion depth that isolated well. Quick measurements with the grey tips show these reinforce the treble, which is opposite to what I expected and not desirable, so I didn’t try them.

SOUND

The tonal balance of the Yinyoo D2B4 is pretty good (see below): bass is mildly boosted but not overdone, the 2-5k area is elevated about the right amount, and the drop through the treble starts at about the right place and is around the right depth (could maybe be a little lower around 10k). On our plastic-tube couplers and in my ears, this signature is fairly neutral (the bass could stand to be around 3-5 dB lower). This is good, because many hybrid/BA earphones don’t respond well to equalization.

Unfortunately, timbre and technicalities don’t come up to the same standard. The bass is somewhat loose and muddy; and while the treble doesn’t have the overly-fast decay of many BA implementations (the NiceHCK M6, a similarly-constructed earphone, is guilty of this), it’s hashy/hissy and there’s accentuated sibilance with problematic recordings. In addition, the mids seem somehow distant. The combination of all this doesn’t help imaging and soundstage, which are imprecise; dynamics, which are soft; and detail resolution, which is lacking. There’s also that classic hybrid sense of incoherence – the feeling you’re listening not to one earphone but to many different ones within the same enclosure. Given the even tonality, all this is disappointing.

CONCLUDING REMARKS

These have solid construction and a nice cable, good comfort and isolation, good looks and an even tonality. Given the downsides, though, even the ‘discount’ price is too steep. While I appreciate the construction and fit of the Yinyoo, sound quality considerations come first and make me ask myself if I’m alone in wondering how much demand there’ll be in the relatively expensive machined-aluminum, multi-driver space.

DISCLAIMER

The review unit was provided by Yinyoo upon their suggestion — we at Audio Reviews thank them for that. Note that this particular specimen incorporates the latest retuning as of 2019-03-20 including a new cable. The sole purpose of this review was to independently test the Yinyoo D2B4’s technical and practical capabilities. Following the review, Audio Reviews offered to return the unit to Wooeasy but they didn’t take it back.

Our generic standard disclaimer

About our measurements

The post Yinyoo D2B4 v2 Review – You May Ask Yourself… appeared first on Music For The Masses.