Cons — Can’t find any.

Executive Summary

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 – Stellar By Starlight appeared first on Audio Reviews.

Cons — Deserves a tad more upper midrange and treble extension for a wider stage and more sparkle; not the fastest driver; limited applicability of third-party eartips.

Executive Summary

Introduction

IKKO is a Chinese manufacturer that has initially delighted us with their very few however innovative <$200 earphones (and accessories). Their first iem, the IKKO OH1 stood out by its metallic, unconventional shells with a great haptic. The “masterfully jazzy” well-dosed V-shaped IKKO OH10 made it onto our Wall of Excellence. They excel by their superb imaging and staging – and offer a sniff into the premium segment at a mid-tier price.

The – in contrast to the OH10 – brighter tuned IKKO OH1S is a highly underrated marvel, possibly because many influencers had their listening experience guided by the frequency response graph. The OH2 is physically very similar to the OH2. It appears that IKKO wants to appease those customers with there OH2 who found the OH1S too spicy. Will it work?

IKKO are currently expanding their product range into dongles such as the IKKO Zerda ITM01, microphones (for YouTubers), small speakers, and other desktop accessories.

Specifications

:

Physical Things and Usability

In the box are the earpieces, the cable, a set of IKKO I-Planet foam tips, a set of oval silicone tips, a storage wallet, an IKKO pin, an MMCX tool for safely disconnecting cable and earpieces, and the paperwork.

Just like the OH1S, IKKO OH2’s shells are premium built with mostly aluminum alloy and some resin, and they feature one of the companyʼs trademarks: oval nozzles, which help forming any eartip into the cross-sectional shape of your ear canals.

The shells are rather small and light compared to the OH10, they look and feel great, sit firmly in my ears and are very comfortable. The small size of the earpieces is certainly a huge asset. Isolation is not the greatest for me.

I find the haptic and ergonomics premium: 10/10.

I really like the included cable (same as with OH1S): spindly, wiry, light. Coated with hard pvc, it has the right stiffness for me and is not rubbery at all. Great in the days where cables are increasingly becoming ropes pulling our ears down. Less is more, also in this case.

Tonality and Technicalities

IKKO have tuned the OH2 differently from their other popular models. It is not V-shaped like the OH10 – and it is not as treble extended as the OH1S, although both share the relatively flat frequency response up to 1.5 kHz. As in so many cases, the OH2’s frequency response graph is literally misleading as it leads speculations into the wrong direction.

From a helicopter perspective, the IKKO OH2 is somewhat dry and slightly warm sounding iem. For me, the included IKKO I-Planet foam tips worked best. But foams in combination with my ears always generate a rather dry bass.

And it is rather dry indeed. Sub-bass extension is good, there is plenty of rumble down there, and there is no boomy mid-bass peak. Nevertheless could the bass be tighter – and it probably is with a different tips/ears combination. I’d call the bass typical for mid-price single dynamic-driver iems, but nothing special. It is certainly not the fastest around and can be somewhat blunt in some recordings.

The vocals have very good weight and decent definition, they are not set back, which is an asset at this price tag. There is a small congestion from the hesitant upper midrange (pinna gain is <10 dB) which compresses male and female voices a bit. A tad more energy at around 2 kHz would make them wider and airier. Higher piano and violin notes lack sparkle.

The top rolloff starts already in the upper midrange but becomes dramatic at above 5 kHz. Treble extension is audibly lacking and compromises stage width and overall sparkle/air.

And whilst stage is narrow, it has a good height and depth. Imaging and spatial cues are good and resolution, separation, and layering are average. The OH2’s biggest sonic assets are its note weight and its very natural timbre.

IKKO OH2 Compared

The $79 Hidizs MM2 with their exchangeable out vents are more versatile and may have slightly better imaging and staging (more headroom), but I find the OH2 have a better organic reproduction , note weight, and cohesion. Instant wow effect vs. slowly growing likability! I also prefer the OH2’s smaller earpieces for their small design and premium haptic whereas the light yet bulky MM2 shells are reminiscent of the budget KZ fare. I’d say the OH2 appeal more to the older, mature crowd (like me) and the MM2 preferably to teenagers.

The $79 Moondrop Aria, viewed as the dynamic-driver standard below $100, is much faster, brighter, and leaner than the OH2. It is technically cleaner with a better defined low end, a better extended treble, and more width. But it also has an upper midrange glare that may be unpleasant for some. The OH2 is less analytical, warmer, deeper, but also thicker in its performance, it has more “soul” and is more engaging to me. The Moondrop may be the “better” earphone, but the OH2 is more enjoyable to me.

The main question may be how the OH2 compares to the $159 IKKO OH1S? Well the OH1S may be brighter but they benefit from their treble extension, which results in a wider stage and better imaging. They provide more headroom. They also have better note definition and resolution. I’d say the price difference is justified – and I, quite frankly, prefer the OH1S as they are the better iem.

Concluding Remarks

IKKO iems are totally underrated in the internet’s echo chambers that cultivate herd mentality pushing überhyped yet short-lived products to promote compulsive buying habits. IKKO iems have a long shelf live for a reason.

The IKKO OH2 are the mellow alternative to all these brightish <$100 earphones such as the Moondrop Aria. They impress by their haptic and accessories, which are essentially identical to the OH1S at twice the price. They further have a decent tonality with an intimate midrange and an organic timbre.

The OH2 will appeal to the more mature budget “audiophile”, who cares about substance rather than gimmicks.

To give you my personal perspective: I really like the OH2 a lot – and not only for their sound but also for their handling (the importance of which for daily use is typically undervalued in reviews). But then again, I could say the same about the OH1S and OH10.

Until next time…keep on listening!

The post IKKO OH2 Review – A Purist’s Daydream appeared first on Audio Reviews.

Originally priced at a substancially higher level compared to the regular version – which still retails for $249,00 – such Anniversary model is now discontinued. Externally identical except for the finish – available either in silver or gold variant – internal specs are very similar between the regular and Anniversary models.

A friend lent me his personally owned Anniversary Edition Groove recently for me to try it it parallel vs my “regular” Groove(s) and spot any possible audible difference.

Differences on paper

Firstly, please refer to my other article about Groove for a general and quite indepth description of the product, its specs and performances – which I wont report here as it wuold be redudant and tedious.

Looking at official Apogee information, the sole published differences between original Groove and Anniversary Edition Groove are the following:

Everything else, including input power requirements and output power delivery are declared unchanged.

Differences in my ears

Quite simply, I plugged both devices for as much as possible “in parallel” on my existing infrastructure and I auditioned a few key tracks, using some neutral-ish and most of all well-known (by me) drivers such as Tanchjim Oxygen on the low(ish) impedance front, and Sennheiser HD600 on the opposite end.

Long story short: there is some sound difference, yes. But a very modest one at that.

Anniversary Edition does sound marginally cleaner – spatial reconstruction is a little yet audible bit furtherly airy – and modestly more effortless, furtherly uncompressed – microdynamics are maybe a 5% better.

Apart from that, the two devices behave identically in terms of pairing capabilities (and limitations), output power levels and such.

Worth noting I guess that as always all the above is exclusively consequence of direct subjective audition, I conduceted no “measurements”.

Considerations & conclusions

As a known Groove fanboi of course I’m gelous of the Anniversary unit I got as a kind loan, and I’m of course returning now.

On the other hand, performance differences are indeed marginal and in pure honesty I would not say that the Anniversary Edition is an upgrade to die for vs the original Groove. Nice to have, especially if a good condition preloved unit can be found for a good price around, but that’s it.

Our generic standard disclaimer.

The post Apogee Groove Anniversary Edition Review appeared first on Audio Reviews.

This piece is to report my experience with a glorious piece of old world technology, Scottish RHA’s CL2 planar IEMs. A privately owned sample was sent to me by an audiophile friend for assessment, and I now understand his love and jealousy for the item indeed.

Currently discontinued, these IEMs were marketed for around €900 back in their day (some 2-3 years ago).

At-a-glance Card

Full Device Card

Test setup

Apogee Groove+Burson FUN / E1DA 9038SG3-3000 – final E clear eartips – lossless 16-24/44.1-192 FLAC tracks.

Signature analysis

Tonality

RHA CL2’s tuning as it comes out of the box is – simply put – just flawed. Based on a somewhat wide-v general shape, highmid frequencies (2-4Khz) are ununderstandably over excited which inevitably stirs the presentation into a bad sort of shout party. Sub-bass could also do with some more body physicality, but that’s minor in comparison. Highmids, as is, are just undefendable.

That’s bad, but that’s at least as bad as it gets. The great news instead is that RHA’s driver’s elasticity vs even important equalization corrections is close to divine. Using an ordinary PEQ you can push and pull frequencies as you please and CL2 will follow you pretty much into the tonality you exactly want.

The general timbre is that of a (high end) planar driver, so clear, defined and neat, therefore don’t expect what you can’t possibly get, e.g. DD-style attack in the bass, but within that you are free to think to CL2 as a blackboard to draw the tonality curve you prefer on, and that will be nibly delivered.

For my taste fast drivers (like planars) strictly relate to acoustic music like bebop or classical, and that’s why I shaped a sort of mild Vshape, with elevated high mids within the classical DF boundaries on one end, leaving the existing midbass where they are. More on this here below.

Sub-Bass

Sub bass is extended but less prominent than midbass. Especially for acoustic jazz application, a nudge up is really beneficial to standup bass and similar key instruments. A low shelf of +2 / +3dB is recommended.

Mid Bass

CL2 midbass is just great within its planar category. It has pretty much everything you can dream of: speed, definition, texture, detail retrieval – with the sole important limitation of gutt-felt attack which is of course technologically offlimits. Forget any distortion, barred of course that coming from your source so – beware! – CL2 are totally unforgiving on that. Use a clean source, or be ready to hear how dirty your source is. Musically speaking don’t feed them with Pink Floyd, just don’t. Feed them with Andrew Cyrille.

Mids

As previously mentioned, the first thing to do here is removing that elephant from the room: high mids need to be tamed down. I’m putting -3dB around 2.5/3Khz and another -4dB around 4Khz. Then we can talk: mids are now clear, defined, engaging, very detailed and somewhat lean.

Vocals

Vocals are a bit lighter than organic, both male and female although in slightly different ways. An (optional) way to add a bit more body to lower mids vocals in particular is by adding a +3dB high shelf hinged at around 7/800Hz. In such case of course the previous negative bell values at 3 and 4Khz need to be negatively increased by the same quantity. Don’t take notes here, I’ll add an EQ suggestions recap at the end 

Highs

CL2’s trebles are very good, sparkly, detailed, while making sure to stay on unoffensive territory. Even too much. Too much christiandemocrat, if the term makes sense to you. Beyond sonic preference, this is another example where CL’s agility vs equalization offers you an experimentation liberty that’s simply missing elsewhere: go head, adventure into pumping air trebles and last octave up … until you like or can bear. Just push: CL2 will follow, no distortion.

Equalization Recs recap

Technicalities

Soundstage

CL2 offer very good space sizing both accross and in depth. Not the “most huge” room I heard yet in line with expectation on this price level, and vis-a-vis the other high quality technicalities on the product.

Imaging

Macrodynamics are very good, instrument placement is correctly executed in all occasions and casting on the stage comes accross as credible an fully natural

Details

Detail retrieval on highmids and trebles is finely granular and inoffensive / unfatiguing at the same time – an extremely difficult and therefore rare balance to achieve per my experience. Very good detail extraction also happens from mids and bass, with the sole already mentioned caveat regarding planar timbre necessarily keeping bass just a shiff south of truly organic, which also impacts on the realism of their details of course.

Instrument separation

Separation and layering are beyond beautiful; precision and definition are really outstanding and fully worth the price tag and much beyond.

Driveability

CL2 are extremely demanding in terms of amplification. They require a “high minimum” in terms of current delivery, and furtherly positively scale with the amp’s qualities. Amongst the multiple and diverse sources I have available in the end only desktop gear gave CL2 some serious glory, with the sole notable exception of E1DA’s 9038SG3 and 9039D. Pretty much everything else I have at hand right now doesn’t “open” them up appropriately due to scarse current delivery.

CL2 also easily pick hiss up from the source (in my case: Burson Fun), while on the other hand they prove quite resilient to FR skewage even when the amp pair offers a sub-idel damping factor (again for my case: Burson Fun).

Physicals

Build

Ceramic shells following the classical RHA shape are at the same time solid, resistant and – for my taste – greatly stylish to look at

Fit

CL2 fit rather well into my outer ears, although they tend to stay not perfectly still especially vs mandibular movements.

Comfort

Comfort is ok once fitted. The shape is not 100% ideal to me, but its rounded surface helps minimising pain points and such. Above average anyway.

Isolation

Passive isolation is rather average.

Cable

The privately owned unit I borrowed came with a third party cable so can’t comment on stock one(s).

Specifications (declared)

Comparisons

7Hz Timeless

An unfair comparison looking at price tags: €200 for this chifi thingie, €900 for the scottish one – the latter better be really good ! Dual unfair insofar as per my previous piece on Timeless I don’t find those particularly brilliant even in their own price class. I’m mentioning them mainly due to their recent hype.

Similarly to CL2, ootb Timeless presentation also comes accross as flawed: a major distortion point at 9300Hz introduces a nigh-ridiculous, very invasive artificial tint to the timbre, which must be eliminated or the product is just unaudible, to me at least. Timeless also can benefit of some further sub-bass elevation, again like CL2 does. End of the similarities.

Timeless’ driver is very obviously less refined than CL2’s (heck! at 1/4th the price…) and this results in a much more pronounced, and unpleasant, “inevitably planar” timbre in the first place, and a dramatic lack of texture and detail in the bass line which is dull, uninspiring.

Timeless’ highmids are less shouty than CL2’s out of the box, but they still need EQ correction. No problem, if not for the fact that when downtamed Timeless’s high mids become dull, while CL2’s stay fully vivid, and extremely pleasant.

Even more importantly than all that precedes, Timeless’ technicalities are a joke compared to CL2’s: instrument separation is underwhelming at the very least on Timeless (even vs some non-planars by the way), microdynamics and detail retrieval are nothing more than average un the highs, inexistant from the bass, and soundstage depth is MIA (as in: Missing in Action), whereas CL2 ticks all those boxes with great competence, with a sole sub-top remark reserved to microdynamics which could be even better weren’t for the superfast driver nature of course.

Campfire Andromeda [2020]

Based on a totally different driver setup (5 x BA vs 1 x Planar) comparing Andromeda with CL2 is significant on 2 counts: their sonic presentation (speed, detail, timbre) and their prices categories (€900 vs €1100) are close enough.

You may read my take in detail on my earlier piece about Andromeda [2020], here let me go straight to the point: beyond their differences, Andromeda and CL2 share an almost magically spot-on balance between detail retrieval and control, resulting in smoothness all accross the board.

Neither are my exact cup if tea in terms of timbre: both is too fast, too technical for me. Of the two, CL2’s planar timbre is less pronounced than the (in itself decently moderately at the very least) Andromeda’s BA. What’s totally stunning on Andromeda, and even more so when directly compared to a single-driver product like CL2, is their tonal and timbral coherence across the entire spectrum, and the 5 different drivers working under the hood.

Conversely, and correspondingly, CL2’s single driver needs not pay any toll to the 5 (say: five) different drivers employed inside Andromeda in terms of bilateral extension, articulation, detail retrieval.

Both on my scoreboard excel on the same macro points: the already mentioned resolution/smoothness balance and timbre cleanness and clarity line up in both cases with superb treble delivery, and beyond good imaging, separation and layering. Again, both show their limits on bass texturing and microdynamics in general – which is of course inherent to the very nature of the driver technology of choice in either case.

Andromeda are much less elastic to heavy eq compare to CL2, on the other hand they require much less as their presentation is way more than viable already out of the box. They require much less “power” to be driven, but not a much “cheaper” source anyway: dealing with their very high sensitivity and very low impedance without turning into hiss or distortion in general is not easy.

Considerations & conclusions

RHA CL2 are just spectacular IEMs and they would still be worth every single cent of their price tag if they hadn’t been discontinued as a part of RHA’s disengagement from the higher segments of the audio market. The sole possibility is now finding a good preloved unit.

They deliver an incredibly refined clear and lifelike presentation – a mixture that’s as desireable as rare to effectively find. They can (and must) be freely equalised to have their tonality shaped precisely as per the user taste, and deliver a nothing short of stunning level of technicalities.

Sincere thanks to Simone Fil for the loan and assessment opportunity.

Our generic standard disclaimer.

The post RHA CL2 Review – Hands Down The Best Planar Yet appeared first on Audio Reviews.

Cons — Relatively high impedance…benefits from amplification.

Executive Summary

Introduction

BQEYZ made themselves a name back in 2018 with one of the first neutrally tuned budget iems, the $30 2DD +2BA BQEYZ KC2, at a time when budget meant V-shaped. The KC2 is still available and has a dedicated following.

The company continued a class higher with the $139 1DD +1BA +1 EST BQEYZ Spring 1, which had wonderful vocals but a somewhat pillowy bass. The subsequent 1DD +1BA +1 EST $169 BQEYZ Spring 2 improved the bass somewhat. All of the above were metal built.

The subsequent $129 1DD +1BA +1EST BQEYZ Summer deviated with its translucent resin shells and finally featured the desired punchy bass.

We have collectively analyzed all of the above to the hilt, including Durwood’s study of the effect of nozzle mesh on the Spring 1’s frequency response.

The latest BQEYZ model is named “Autumn” after the third season of the year, hence “Tre Stagioni” (three seasons). With their BQEYZ Autumn, the company reverts to metal shells being essentially identical in shape to the Summer’s.

New is the driver configuration which is a single DD. BQEYZ also offer maximum sonic flexibility by including three sets of magnetic tuning vents at the font of the shells. Each of these pucks constitutes a different front vent with its very own bass response.

It is an interesting approach contrary to the JVC FDX1, the perceived bass response of which is dosed by screw-on nozzles containing different filters. Although these alter the JVC’s upper midrange response, the effect is only heard at the low end, as the human ear registers the whole frequency spectrum in context.

Specifications

Physical Things and Usability

In the box are the 2 earpieces, the cable, 3 pairs of tuning pucks in a holder, the magnetic tuner pole, 2 sets of eartips (S/M/L), a brush, and a carrying case. The three tuning pucks (“bass”, “normal”, “treble”) are actually the inner earphone vents (also called front vents). They come in different openings: the smaller the bassier. We describe the relevant physical principles in this article.

The metal pucks are inserted and removed with the included magnetic pole. This takes as long as a tire change during a Formula 1 race. The magnetic fit guarantees minimal wear and tear even when swapped frequently. Very handy.

The earpieces are made of CNC machined metal and are built very well. The overall haptic of shells and cable is great. BQEYZ have addressed the criticism of the BQEYZ Summer’s resin shells.

Fit and comfort are very good, isolation is rather poor for my ears. The cable has silver-coated copper and high-purity copper strands. It is loosely braided with minimal contact area between the strands for minimum interference. I find the cable rather pliable and light – it has no microphonics.

2 sets of eartips (S/M/L) are included, one wide bore and the other narrow bore. Note that the nozzle diameter exceeds the usual 4.5 mm so that many third-party eartips will not fit. You may try the SpinFit CP500 or any Azla SednaEarfit models if going for third-party tips.

Tonality and Technicalities

A universally valid assessment of the BQEYZ Autumn is difficult as tonality and technicalities depend on the interplay of several factors: magnetic tuning puck + eartips + source (in any combination). This versatility allows to you pretty much to create your own favourite sound.

Considering its 46 Ω impedance, the Autumn benefits from amplification, although it works surprisingly well with my iPhone SE (1st gen.). For example, the powerful Apogee Groove produces a much cleaner and better defined image than the weaker AudioQuest DragonFly Cobalt.

Using the JitterBug FMJ with the Apogee Groove makes quite a difference in that it ads definition to the image. The difference is actually considerable.

With the wide-bore stock tips, the “bass” vents generate more…yes…bass…which drowns the vocals out somewhat — and the “normal” vents bring voices more into the foreground without sacrificing bass impact. But this latter combination may be bassier than the combination of “bass” vents and JVC Spiral Dots.

I played with the stock eartips but got the best results with the JVC Spiral Dots that disperse some of the mid-bass and produce the tightest possible low end. Bass generally digs deep but the vocals move into the foreground with the JVCs. Signature becomes brighter but notes also cleaner and more articulate.

I also experimented with the vents, and the normal ones yielded the best result (in combination with the Spiral Dots). The bass vents “overthicken” the low end, move the vocals back and therefore remove intimacy and detail.

My favourite combination therefore is the normal vents with the JVC Spiral Dots.

So, how does the BQEYZ Autumn sound, actually (with “normal” puck and Spiral Dots)? It has the classic slightly warm single-dynamic driver sound with a rather crisp attack adding some edge.

The low end is on the tight side, it is well extended and remains focused to the lowest frequencies. There is no mid-bass hump as emphasis is on the lower frequencies, just above sub-bass. Drum kicks in the mid bass are not as pronounced as they could be but they are nevertheless hard as a rock – and dry.

Lower midrange is standalone without bass bleed. Male and female voices are somewhat recessed, of medium note weight, energetic, and natural. There is no shoutiness but we are getting there, although that 5 kHz peak is not irritating to my ears.

Midrange temperature is a bit cooler than in the bass region but still not quite neutral. Midrange resolution is very good, everything clean and clear there. Note definition is very good.

Lower treble rolls of substantially. Cymbals are a bit back and don’t have the best definition – but they are still ok. Resolution is better in the midrange than in the treble region.

Stage is average in width, height and depth. Spatial cues is very good. Attack is sharp and crisp without being aggressive. The dynamic driver is rather nimble. Stage positioning and separation are also good. Timbre is good.

I am a bit short in my sonic description as it mostly applies to this very particular setup.

BQEYZ Autumn compared

The dynamic-driver competition in the $200 region is tight. The Tanchjim Oxygen (which I don’t know) and the JVC HA-FDX1 are standard staples on our Wall of Excellence (also count the 1+1 IKKO OH10 in). The Moondrop KATO is arguably the company’s best dynamic-driver offer.

To disappoint you, it is impossible to tell which is the best of the lot as they are very close in terms of (sound) quality. But they differ quite a bit in ergonomics.

For example, the IKKO OH10 is very heavy in one’s ear, and so – but to a lesser extent – is the KATO. The Oxygen have short nozzles that may not fit everyone and the JVCs have a weird shape altogether that may not be the most comfortable for many either. In this respect, I prefer the Autumn’s compact shells.

But what I can say is that the Autumn sound more refined than the brighter $139 BQEYZ Summer, particularly in the midrange. The JVCs are not as crisp as the Autumn, they are smoother, dampened, with more rounded notes – but not as deep. The Autumn are rougher around the edges, more dynamic/energetic, and they have more midrange body and a much better sub-bass extension.

The Moondrop KATO are brighter than the Autumn (in my setup), with a wider but shallower stage. They have a smoother bass and vocals are not quite as intimate. They also have more sparkle with more air in the midrange. And they are more prone to shoutiness. How graphs can deceive us. Voices are a bit thicker and more rounded in the KATO. Treble resolution is similar between the two.

As I tend to say (well I stole it from Alberto): pick your poison!

Concluding Remarks

The BQEYZ Autumn are well built and good sounding single-dynamic driver earphones that fit their price category well – and that can prevail against their tough competition.

Whilst it is difficult to rank the large crowd of $200 single-dynamic drivers, the Autumn stick out in two aspects: comfort/fit and sonic versatility through the included tuning front vents. They are, in my opinion, the best offering in BQEYZ’s 3 season series.

Tre stagioni? Quattro stagioni! Now we are ready for “inverno”. No, that’s not what you think*…learn Italian…

Until next time…keep on listening!

*Italian: winter

The post BQEYZ Autumn Review (1) – Tre Stagioni appeared first on Audio Reviews.

Cons — V-shape; heavy earpieces, shoddy cable.

Executive Summary

Introduction

The OH10 “Obsidian” has been hanging on our Wall of Excellence for a while, mainly triggered by Alberto, who had written a glowing review. He characterizes the OH10 sensibly and exhaustively so that there is not much room for things to add.

I have tested the OH10 for 1/2 year with endless source combinations.

IKKO is a company that has excelled through excellent builds and a rather small quality rooster of iems (and lately other products), each of which has had a rather long shelf live. The company obviously designs sustainable quality, which is not easy to find in the Shenzhen environment.

The OKKO OH1, their first offering, may have been a bit bright for my taste, but it stuck out from the field because of its sturdy metal build and the unusual shape of their earpieces. It was recently superseded by the smaller OH1S, which is highly underrated because of anti-hype by the usual YouTube screamers. The OH10 was introduced between the two models. It has been on the market for a while, and it is still as relevant as on its first day.

Specifications

Physical Things and Usability

Please relieve me for once from describing the photo showing the content. Yes, the cable is crap and I use Final E tips.

The metal earpieces are super heavy and relatively big – and probably more suited for home use, but their haptic is great. The nozzles are long enough. Fit is good, comfort depends on how much I move, and isolation is average.

Tonality and Technicalities

I was for the longest time in the belief the OH10 featured a crisp single dynamic driver…but it is rather a 1+1 (dynamic driver and balanced armature driver) constellation…which speaks for its cohesion. Both drivers obviously harmonize well with each other.

To give you the helicopter perspective: the OH10 excels by its fantastic bass slam and its excellent imaging. The price paid is recessed vocals and treble extension.

OK, ’nuff said already. Now you know what Alberto and I think of the OH10.

Co-blogger Kazi gave his snappy account on Facebook:

• Unique shell design and very dense shell material. 
• Too heavy for some, myself included. I find them to weigh down on my ears after a while.
• Isolation is lacking.
• Sub-bass is excellent. Punchy, agile, with good amount of rumble.
• Mid-bass is slightly thinner than expected but got good texture. 
• Vocals are recessed. Not gonna set the world alight with midrange performance.
• Upper-midrange can feel peaky at times. I found them to be too up-front on some hard rock tracks. 
• Treble is inoffensive, decent amount of sparkle but lacks the extension and air of upper-tier stuff. 
• Good staging, not as wide or deep as E5000 but fairly balanced across all three axes. 
• Imaging is decent, did not stand out to be as much as, say, the Falcon Pro. 

IKKO OH10 Compared

People keep asking for comparisons with the IKKO OH1S “Gems”, which is redundant as both sound totally different. The OH1S is more forward and brighter, and one cannot replace the other. That’s why companies run different models simultaneously…duh!

More interesting appears to be a comparison between the OH10 and the Unique Melody 3DT with its three dynamic drivers. As you can see, both have largely overlapping frequency responses. But I have to disappoint you again as both iems sound completely different. The UM 3DT is much more analytical and less engaging than the OH10.

But what this tells us the limitations of frequency response graphs for characterizing the sound of iems.

Concluding Remarks

The IKKO OH10 gives $$$ conscious audio enthusiasts access to premium quality at a mid-tear price. With its excellent imaging, it plays in the league with the big, expensive boys…not on top, but well above the bottom.

What you sacrifice is comfort through the large and heavy earpieces and some vocals intimacy through the V-shape. But the OH10 does full justice to high-quality sources way above a phone.

It is for good reason a standard staple on our Wall of Excellence…and will remain there for a long time…and im my collection. Kudos to IKKO for demonstrating sustainability in the short-lived world of Shenzhen consumerism.

Until next time…keep on listening!

Contact us!

All Our 316 Earphone and Earbud Reviews (with Links)

Disclaimer

The Ikko Gems OH1S were provided by Ikko for my review and I thank them for that. I also thank Alberto and Kazi for discussion.

Get the Ikko Gems OH1s from ikkoaudio.com

Gallery

The post IKKO OH10 Review (2) – On Our Wall Of Excellence appeared first on Audio Reviews.

Cons — Lean and somewhat bright in the vocals department; top-end transients a bit fast.

Executive Summary

The LETSHUOER S12 is a well executed planar magnetic iem with all the traits adherent to this technology (low distortion, tight bass response, easy to drive, better sense of imaging, deeper stage, great bass extension).

Introduction

Planar magnetic headphones are popular because of their characteristic sound, but they have been traditionally overpriced and underperforming. They have therefore largely enjoyed a life in the shade.

That until a YouTuber started a hype putting the $220 7Hz Timeless ahead of its $1000 siblings, which attracted the attention of bargain hunters. Whilst this was a bit of a deception (the “other” $200 competition was not mentioned), it started a vivid and fruitful discussion all over the forums.

LETSHUOER (formerly known as Shuoer), a company from Shenzhen, China, jumped quickly on that bandwagon and released their S12 at $50-70 lower than the Timeless. They are mainly an OEM manufacturer who came on the scene with their ambitious $850 EJ07 that received a rather lukewarm reception by analysts (it was updated to the much improved EJ07M, which I am currently analyzing). LETSHUOER also did not impress with their budget fare such as the Shuoer Tape.

To take it away, the LETSHUOER S12 is a very good iem and a keeper for me. But can it prevail against the pricier 7Hz Timeless? You may be surprised…

Planar Magnetic Drivers – What do We expect?

The main purpose of a planar magnetic driver was to optimize bass response. In the earlier days, planar magnetic headphones reached down to 20 Hz whereas dynamic drivers only to 50 Hz. On the other hand, a dynamic driver has more punch and slam.

This has changed as slam in the planar magnetics has improved. Further advantages of planar magnetic drivers are: low distortion, tight bass response, easy to drive, better sense of imaging, deeper stage, and great bass extension.

LETSHUOER S12 Specifications

Physical Things and Usability

In the box are the earpieces, a silver-plated monocrystalline copper cable, 2 sets of LETSHUOER’s standard eartips (S/M/L), a container with foams, a much too small carrying case, and the usual paperwork.

The earpieces are of CNC machined aluminium, their build is rock solid. And they are relatively small, a characteristic also of the EJ07M. Small usually means comfortable, and that’s certainly the case here. Fit is also good for me – much better than the 7Hz Timeless with their larger “footprint”. The translucent stock eartips work well for me, but the seal is average for me (but also better than the Timeless).

The cable is somewhat unusual as it has a rather thick PVC coating, reminiscent of my mum’s clothlines. Well, it is not quite as thick but has a comparable tension/stiffness – and that without being heavy. It is funky to me, I quite like it. And it shows minimal microphonics when wiggled. The storage case is small so that I have not yet tried to squeeze the assembly into it.

In summary, the overall haptic is great and everything works right out of the box.

Sonic Characterization of the 7Hz Timeless

Equipment used: MacBook Air, Khadas Tone2 Pro/4.4 mm BAL & 3.5 mm SE or Earstudio HUD 100/high gain + JitterBug FMJ + ifi Audio iPower X; 4.4 mm stock cable with or without Cayin 4.4 mm to 3.5 mm adapter; Shuoer S12 stock eartips (translucent ones…the loaner came without eartips).

The 7Hz Timeless has been discussed in all details by the usual protagonists, including our own. Find the reviews of Alberto here and Durwood there, and Kazi’s elsewhere. And I have the Timeless on private loan while writing this.

The big schtick in the discussion, as mentioned before, is that planar magnetic iems have been underperforming and overpriced in the past and the 7Hz Timeless constitutes a much better value. At $220, a sweet spot for many, it has to prevail against an army of other models crammed in there. And, to give it away, I think the price is adequate but not sensationally low.

The 7Hz Timeless is all about bass. While it still lacks slam for many (a feature of planar magnetics) there is much bass. The extension is great, but mid-bass can be a bit much for me. It is soft, fuzzy, and occasionally boomy, and pounds mercilessly against my eardrums. I find this overwhelming and tiresome, but that’s subjective. Many may actually like that. For my personal taste, the midbass lacks composure, tightness, and spice.

Replacing the Shuoer S12’s stock ears tips with the JVC Spiral Dots took mitigated the “problem” to some extent, but did not entirely eliminate it.

Mid-bass appears to be up front on the soundstage in some tracks and covers up the whole image like a curtain, which makes for a shallow stage. And it provides for a very abrupt transition into the lower midrange up to bright, female voices. The lower midrange is naturally rather lean (another feature of planar magnetics) and vocals can be partially masked by the bass. Because of the lean and bright nature of the midrange, there can be shoutiness in some tracks.

But even in bass-less tracks vocals lack body and richness although they are articulate, very well sculptured, and natural. There is some brightness in female vocals, but they are “more lean than bright”. There is very good midrange clarity. All of these appear to be the result of the planar magnetic driver’s low distortion.

Treble is another mixed bag. Extension is great, treble resolution is good, upper transients are fast to oversharpened (“tizziness”), there is good air but also the occasional metallic sheen to it.

Technicalities are great. Timbre is ok, resolution and separation are good. Please check the big body of reviews for further details.

LETSHUOER S12 Tonality and Technicalities

Equipment used: Questyle QP1R on med. gain, Sony NW-A55; MacBook Air with Apogee Groove, AudioQuest DragonFly Cobalt, Khadas Tone2 Pro/4.4 mm BAL & 3.5 mm SE or Earstudio HUD 100/high gain + JitterBug FMJ + ifi Audio iPower X; stock cable or CEMA 6N OCC + OCC silver-plated 2.5 mm balance cable with or without the ddHiFi DJ44A adapter; stock eartips (translucent ones).

The LETSHUOER S12 carries most of the characteristics expected from a planar magnetic driver: low distortion resoling in good clarity, tight bass, deep bass extension, easy to drive, good staging…but, but but…

The S12’s bass is tight while digging deep. Midbass is well composed and focused, notes are not as rounded and soft (as in the Timeless), there is a crisp attack…and that’s the biggest different to the Timeless. A smaller but better focused kick.

This may have a few reasons, for example, the different housing shapes and the Timeless’ bigger contact area inside the concha (“bigger in-ear resonance”) and also the S12’s relatively higher frequency response above 2 kHz (which itself may be related to the housings).

The S12’s better mid-bass composure may trigger a chain effect in that the midrange is not masked and therefore clearer. Its transition from bass to lower midrange is much smoother compared the abrupt change in the Timeless…which results in a much more cohesive, balanced sound…which is the dealmaker/breaker for me.

Female voice remain articulate and lean, but are more forward and intimate, and a tad brighter, livelier, and spicier than in the Timeless. Vocals have a perceived higher energy in the S12, which plays them softer and therefore with lesser note definition. They are more prone to sibilance and shoutiness with unfavourable sources in the S12, but this has not been a problem for me.

Treble is also a mixed bad with the S12. Whilst extension and resolution are great, the transients are a bit fast up there and occasionally also yield that metallic sheen (“tizziness”) as in the Timeless.

As to technicalities. Staging is rather average, but tall, and reasonably deep (much deeper than in the Timeless). I find the staging adequate. Timbre is ok but benefits from a warm source such as the DragonFly Cobalt or Apogee Groove. Separation and instrument placement are ok. Resolution is absolutely superb and dwarves the Timeless’.

The Timeless, overall, sound a bit darker and less dynamic, more laid back but less composed than the more forward S12, which runs more into danger of being shouty. S12’s attack is crisper, Timeless have the softer transients. Note weight in the midrange is about even and could be better in both models.

When compared to a photo, the Timeless is more blurred and the S12 is sharper…but some may find the S12 overpixelated.

In summary, the S12 has the better composed bass, crisper attack, deeper stage, and better resolution than the Timeless. Everything is tighter in the S2. Compared to a car’s suspension, the Timeless is a comfortable SUV and the S12 is a sporty BMW.

In the end, it comes down to personal taste: pick your poison!

LETSHUOER S12 Driver = 7Hz Timeless Driver?

There are voices that speculate that both models have the same planar magnetic driver. After all, both models graph identically up to 2 kHz, and the differences above are just minor variations, possibly caused by the different housings. And some of the sonically perceived differences can be the product of the interactions between housings and our conchas.

We have also insider information that points to this as well as indirect evidence from upper harmonics measurements. Apparently, this OEM driver has been catching dust on the market for quite some time.

LETSHUOER, upon my request, are evasive and dwell on numbers: the Timeless has a 14.2 mm, the S12 a 14.8 mm driver – so they are different. Or one is a variation of the other? Stop, it all depends how (accurately) you measure them (e.g. front, back…).

The question is why nobody wants to admit to it? The answer is easy: to keep peaceful coexistence of companies as one could sue the other for “copycatting”. This could be a huge issue if one company’s model costs $$ and the competitor’s model (with the same driver) costs $$$$. Examples exist but are not widely publicized to protect the lucrative “kilobuck” markets.

So, unless somebody has cracked both models open, the driver question will be shrouded in mystery. At least for you :).

More LETSHUOER S12 Comparisons

We are in for some surprises. The S12 killed my beloved Final E5000 with my Questyle QP1R reference dap in these aspects: staging, transparency, really good transients, and upper extension. I hope I just had a bad morning when testing these two. The Final has a narrower stage lesser upper extension, less clarity…but more bass quantity.

The KBEAR TRI I3 Pro Pro is less cohesive than the S12 with a narrower stage, lesser resolution, and less midrange clarity. The I3 Pro is less balanced. Resolution is much better in the S12, which also has the crisper attack with more pizazz.

The Moondrop KATO offers a narrower stage because of early treble rolloff. It is slimmer in the bass and the upper midrange but still comes across as not less shouty. It also lacks richness in the lower midrange, a full orchestra’s crescendo comes across as somewhat lean in comparison. The S12 excels in resolution. It is much more bass dominated without overbearing midbass. Higher notes in horn sections as not as incisive as in the Kato, which is a bit scratchy in the upper mids in comparison.

The $600 LETSHUOER EJ07M shows better carved out vocals, is less bassy, has a narrower and deeper soundstage, better dynamics, and better resolution. Its presentation is lean(er) but never on the analytical side.

Concluding Remarks

I absolutely love the LETSHUOER S12. It is reasonably priced and I have yet to find a competitor in this price category that sounds as good. I also prefer the LETSHUOER S12 over the Timeless for five main reasons: better fit, tighter bass, deeper stage, better resolution, and a lower price.

LETSHUOER, ey! Never judge a book by its covers.

Until next time…keep on listening!

Contact us!

All Our 302 Earphone and Earbud Reviews (with Links)

Disclaimer

The LETSHUOER S12 was sent to me unsolicited by the company. The 7Hz Timeless wass on private loan from Super Best Audio Friend Rockwell. A huge thanks to both. At the time of publication, this S12 specimen was on a “West of Centre” Canadian tour to Rockwell and co-blogger Biodegraded. You may find their impressions over at SBAF.

Get the Shuoer S12 from letsshuoer.net

Our generic standard disclaimer.

The post LETSHUOER S12 Review – Compared to 7Hz Timeless appeared first on Audio Reviews.

Featuring a single dynamic driver and a $219,99 price point Falcon Pro compete on a quite interesting market segment, populated – as usual – by a lot of underwhelming (or downright garbage) competing products alongside a few very solid longstanders.

At-a-glance Card

Full Device Card

Test setup

Apogee Groove / Sony NW-A55 mrWalkman / Questyle QP1R / Ifi hip-dac2 / Cowon Plenue 2 – final E clear eartips – lossless 16-24/44.1-192 FLAC tracks.

Signature analysis

Technicalities

Physicals

Specifications (declared)

Some critical comparisons

vs Tanchjim Oxygen ($260)

The comparison is pertinent on the “similar” pricing and technology (1DD) standpoints, although it must be noted that Tanchjim Oxygen are by designed tuned towards a “lean harman”, neutral organic target, Falcon Pro towards a V shaped warm one, which of course should set different apriori expectations from either product.

With that being said, Tanchjim Oxygen’s midbass is way faster, more controlled and articulated. Mid bass, down to sub bass notes are much more textured and technical on Oxygen compared to the bloomier ones issued by Falcon Pro.

Although not a detail monster by design, Oxygen also retrieve significantly more subtleties both from highmids/trebles and bass. Note weight is leaner on Oxygen accross the spectrum – maximally so on midbass, but on mids and trebles too. Oxygen are better at layering and separation.

Overall, Oxygen are obviously preferrable on acoustic music (classic, jazz), Falcon Pro’s “meatier” personality may be preferrable on folk, progrock & such.

vs final E4000 ($149)

Oppositely from the previous case, there is quite some common ground between Falcon Pro and E4000 in terms of intended tuning as both are clearly designed aiming at a warm-colored tonality.

With that being said, E4000’s tonality is evidently more balanced, with a much less invasive, color-imposing, slow bidbass, a bit, but definitely, clearer highmids and trebles.

On a more technical level, Falcon Pro deliver more solid note weight in the trebles, but less definition on trebles and everywhere, really. Falcon Pro offer a somewhat more extended stage size (both on width and depth), E4000 are way better in terms of layering and instrument separation.

Falcon Pro are easier to bias, E4000 require more current to properly open up.

Considerations & conclusions

Dunu Falcon Pro are honest, well executed single-DD IEMs, exuding design and construction quality from all the angles you can watch them from. Their tuning is very sided, so to say, towards a warm, laidback, intimate presentation which clearly aims at pampering the user more on the overall musical experience then at stunning on technicalities.

Their features do not coincide with my personal preferences neither from the audio nor from the musical standpoints, but that’s of course totally personal.

I received a sample unit kindly provided by co-blogger Kazi.

Our generic standard disclaimer.

The post Dunu Falcon Pro Review – Warm Intimacy appeared first on Audio Reviews.

The new version of iFi’s recently discontinued hip-dac, amongst the few low cost mobile dac-amps featured of our Wall of Excellence, is marketed at a very similar price (€ 189,00) compared to its precedessor.

At the end of the day, my opinion about hip-dac2 could be condensed in a simple one-liner: as good as Hip Dac, so very good for this price point, with the addition of a higher MQA reconstruction quality.

As I never published an article about original hip-dac I will take this opportunity to deliver an extended article on the “hip-dac franchise”, so to call it. I will clearly mark the differences between hip-dac2 and hip-dac within the text. Let’s go through it.

At-a-glance Card

Product analysis

Key features and general description

hip-dac2 (like its precedessor hip-dac) is a battery-equipped slim-bodied easily pocketable USB DAC-AMP.

Size-, weight- and shape-wise it’s just wonderful. The full metal shell is sturdy, greatly pocketable, and at the same time superbly stylish from the shape and finishing points of view. It “pairs” very well with an average smartphone when used in conjunction with that.

Sole audio input is the USB data port.  The input connector is the “usual” iFi USB-A recessed male plug. A USB-A(f) to USB-C and a USB-A(f) to USB-A(m) short cables are supplied free. No UBS-A(f) to micro-USB nor USB-A(f) to Apple Lightning are offered in the package.

No coax, optical nor analog input available. hip-dac2 (or hip-dac) can’t be used as a pure amplifier.

Two phone outputs are available: single ended (S-balanced, actually – more on this below) 3.5mm and balanced 4.4 mm.

No line-out analog output is available, which means that hip-dac2 (or hip-dac) can’t be used as a “pure DAC”, plugged into a downstream amp device. It still can be further amplified but the internal amp section will anyhow be involved as a “pre-amp”.

The internal battery cannot be charged via the digital input USB port. A separate charge-only USB-C port is dedicated to charging (a short USB-A to USB-C cable is included in the package). This is good as it cuts on much of the source-incoming noise typically carried by an active VBUS line. On the other hand it means that even when USB-connected to (say) a laptop the hip-dac2 / hip-dac will always only take power from its internal battery, and will eventually run out of juice.

Battery autonomy as always depends on usage (highres files and high volume listening consume more of course) but you can count on some good 6-7 hours of “common spec” listening. A full recharge takes like 3 hours.

When referring to similarly priced portable DAC-AMP devices, hip-dac2 / hip-dac’s power specifications are nominally impressively high vs high impedance loads (6.2V vs 600 ohm, just wow!) and a good step above average vs mid impedance loads (400mW vs 32 ohm).

iFi doesn’t table specs vs low impedance loads (< 16ohm) though, nor hip-dac2 / hip-dac’s output impedance on either of its phone out ports is declared.

Similar to what happens for most if not all of their devices, iFi offers a selection of easily user-installable firmware alternatives for Hip Dac 2 – ultimately yielding into alternative choices in terms of digital reconstruction filters.

Lastly, the device offers a manual High Gain button (labelled “Power Match”) and an XBass+ button. More on these later.

How does it sound: DAC performance

Considering hip-dac2 / hip-dac lack a proper Line Out, DAC performances are only partially assessable as some will be influenced by the integrated amp stage.

It is nevertheless quite evident that hip-dac2 / hip-dac’s voicing is very good when looking at pretty much any other similar portable DAC-AMP on this level of budget. Auditioned from its Balanced output port (more on why later) range is very well extended both towards the bass and the highs. Bass notes are well bodied, not particularly enhanced. Treble is smooth while more than nicely airy, and mids are quite evidently the best developed section.

There’s a quite evident warm tonality – difficult if not impossible to say which section (DAC and/or AMP) contributes to that most. But it’s there. If I have to compare with my experience with other iFi devices offering Line Out options (Nano iDSD Black Label, Micro iDSD Signature) I am ready to bet this is mostly AMP-related but again… it’s a guess.

Good DAC performance doesn’t come by chance. iFi adopts high-standard components even inside their budget products like hip-dac2 / hip-dac, and this is surely one good first step – but this often happens on many chi-fi devices, which on even or very similar “internal stuff list” condition in the end sound apparently much worse. The real key is engineering competence, really – and that can’t be so easily “cloned”.

One aspect: a fundamental requisite to obtain good performances from a DAC device is avoiding interferences on the incoming digital data. Not talking about human-audible interferences, of course. You might want to read this other article of mine to get a flavour of what I’m talking about. As already mentioned above, hip-dac2 / hip-dac don’t take power from the USB data cable, this way apriori cutting a lot in terms of noise “collection”.

Another aspect: unlike the overwhelming majority of the other budget mobile devices, hip-dac2 / hip-dac offer an analog volume control, not a digital one. The reason why this is way better for DAC performances is quite technical (check here for a good, reasonabe vulgarly-explained article) but putting it very simply: digital volume controls act upon the digital stream before it reaches the DAC, and deliver a “integral” digital data to the DAC only at their end-scale position (so at “100% volume” position); intermediate volume levels are realized by applying attenuatin to the digital data which de facto corresponds to reducing their digital resolution.

An analog-volume device like hip-dac2 / hip-dac always feeds its DAC chip at full digital resolution, and attenuates the analog output aposteriori only. Why not every device has this ? Quite simply because analogue volume controls are more expensive to implement and more complicated to design

Firmware options

Like most if not all other iFi DAC devices, hip-dac2 / hip-dac can run a range of firmware variants, each offering different features or optimisations. Firmware packages and the apps required to flash them are freely available on iFi’s web site, here.  The flashing process is really easy and straightforward, at least on Windows platform.

The 3 significant versions to choose from for hip-dac2 are:

For the original hip-dac a very similar option is available although it may be interesting to note here that there have been two hip-dac sub-versions, one tagged with serial numbers beginning with 54010 and the other with serial numbers beginning with 54040. The latter generation accepts the same 7-generation firmware packages as hip-dac2 (labelled respectively 7.2, 7.2c and 7.2b), while the former older generation accepts older versions of the same packages ( labelled respectively 5.3, 5.3c and 5.2).

DSD is a very interesting standard but I don’t de facto currently own nor plan to own music files sampled above DSD 256, so the two options which get my attention are 7.3 and 7.3c.

Their fundamental difference is one only but a significant one at that: with 7.3c iFi’s own GTO (Gibbs Transient Optimised) filter replaces Burr Brown’s native reconstruction filters.

I strongly recommend you read iFi’s whitepaper about why and how this may be technically desireable, or not.

The paper focuses on throughly illustrating GTO’s output features while leaving another important aspect in the background: with 7.3c hip-dac2 will systematically upsample all digital input coming from the USB port up to 32 bit / 384KHz resolution prior to feeding the DAC chips. For what I seem to have understood this is fundamentally required for the GTO filter itself to work as intended.

I already experienced iFi’s GTO implementation in conjunction with Micro iDSD Signature and Nano iDSD Black Label. Simply put: on Nano iDSD BL the GTO option “sounds worse” than the native ones – for my tastes at least. Oppositely, GTO performance on Micro iDSD Signature is very significant, offering important analog reconstruction improvements on redbook-standard (16bit / 44.1KHz) tracks compared to the non-GTO firmware option.

Very similar is my experience on hip-dac2 / hip-dac, and this is one of the few notable differences between the two generations.

hip-dac2 GTO implementation (fw 7.3c) offers a very good alternative option compared to non-GTO (fw 7.3).

Oppositely, when I tested this on a first-version (ser# 54010xxxxx) original hip-dac I got a very similar result as the one I got with the Nano iDSD BL: GTO firmware is basically not worth for me. I didn’t have an opportunity to test a latter-generation hip-dac (ser# 54040xxxxx).

MQA

This is quite evidently the most important aspect about which hip-dac2 represents a significant upgrade from hip-dac: MQA reconstruction performance is evidently better.

MQA royalties and consulting fees apart, as one may easily imagine different enabling hardware makes a big difference on such a computing intensive process as MQA unfolding. Newer generation iFi models (hip-dac2, Diablo, ZEN DAC v2 etc) carry a 16 core XMOS chip with a much higher capacity and computing power (2X the clock speed, 4X the internal memory, latest USB standards compliance) so – simply put – it can “do more at the same time” than the predecessor model.

The improvement in the audible result is quite evident, and totally in line with theory. When applied to MQA-authenticated tracks hip-dac2 reconstructs a much airier, defined and detailed sound compared to the job done by hip-dac as mere Renderer on the very same tracks.

On the other hand, though, I think it’s worthwhile here to remember that – like it or not – MQA is not any sort of magical way to make a DAC sound better then it technically could when applied to a non-MQA, full resolution version of the same track.

A very easy comparison example for me is with Apogee Groove. While of course hip-dac2 will reconstruct/reproduce an MQA-master track at a higher level of audible detail and resolution compared to what Groove will do when connected as a non-MQA DAC on the same track, on the other hand Groove’s range extension, dynamic range, bass and treble control stay on a superior level even in such an “handicap-started” race. Even more evident is the DAC reconstruction quality difference of course when applying hip-dac2 to a given MQA-authenticated track, and Groove to a high-res non-MQA version of the very same track.

Long story short, I guess it all boils down to a quite trivial conclusion: MQA is no magic wand, it’s got no “hardware upgrade power”. Of course.

How does it sound: AMP performance

Based on experience I stopped expecting that low budget devices offer similar amping quality results from both their single and balanced ended outputs. It fundamentally never happens.

The fact is that in these cases balanced amping architecture is primarily adopted as an inexpensive, easy-implementable way for many manufacturers to offer a decent or above-decent output quality (cleanness, transparency, dynamic range) off of apriori difficult situations such as small / ultrasmall and low price tier pocketable devices.

Clean amping is mostly dependent on high quality power management, and in a small and/or relatively inexpensive “box” there is little “room” (physical and virtual) to fit appropriate power management circuitry. Clean power is a challange on amps of any size, and a very steep one the smaller the form factor and the budget get.

As size & cost go up it starts to be possible to encounter devices e.g. the Micro iDSD Signature whereon Single Ended and Balanced phone outs present a power difference, but negligible quality differences. Below that size and budget, I just encountered white flys. Groove, to name one, which Single Ended output is a few times over cleaner, more transparent and dynamic-extended than any other Balanced-equipped device below $300 I happened to hear. Another good case is Sony NW-A55. I have a serious hard time naming a third.

From this point of view, hip-dac2 / hip-dac follow the mainstream. Do not expect wonders from their Single Ended outputs, as in facts you won’t get any. The other way around is rather true: hip-dac2 / hip-dac’s Single Ended output is unimpressive – dull, compressed, closed-in. This, in spite of the good deeds of their S-Balanced tech.

Different story for the Balanced Ended 4.4mm output, which comes accross evidently airier, better bilaterally extended, with a very good level of control on bass and smooth trebles, and most of all a quite nice dynamic range and good microdynamic rendering. In a word, the solid impression is that on hip-dac2 / hip-dac BE out is the sole one with enough cleanness and transparency as to offer some justice to the preceding DAC stage.

As I already mentioned above, there’s a distinct warm coloration. Is this coming from the DAC or the AMP? Difficult to determine as hip-dac2 / hip-dac don’t offer a pure Line Out option, and thus a chance to use a third-party amp like it happens on other iFi models like Nano iDSD BL or Micro iDSD Signature is precluded.

A small difference can also be identified between hip-dac2 and hip-dac’s overall output quality, namely the former being a bit more sparkly in the highs, and just a whiff less intimate as far as soundstage goes.

I didn’t mention soundstage yet, which is definitely not a shiny aspect for hip-dac2 nor hip-dac. Quite narrow, really. Is this due to scarce spatial reconstruction skills at the DAC level or due to unclean AMPing? Again, impossible to say due to the lack of a Line Out option – and after all useless to know either, as it’s not something the user can do anything about.

Lastly, I think it’s worth noting that some hiss is picked by very sensitive loads (CA Andromeda, anyone? ). While definitely an imperfection taken per se, I guess it should be conceded to hip-dac2 / hip-dac that it’s a very common one, almost irregardlessly of the device budget.

Extra features

There are two toggle-buttons beside hip-dac2 / hip-dac’s volume knob, named Power Match and XBass.

Power Match is nice attempt at a layman-friendly naming for a Gain switch. Activating Power Match puts hip-dac2 / hip-dac in High Gain mode, which is of course recommended (only) when a low-sensitivity driver is connected. Attention though: on low-sensitivity and low-impedance devices the suggestion is flipped – Low Gain is typically a much better option.

XBass behaves like what an EQ expert would call a low shelf positive filter. By ear it pushes lows up by 2dB-ish from 100Hz down. Might occasionally turn out to be handy to help some bass-shy drivers, or as a compromise to compensate for some drivers requiring a higher level of current delivery than what hip-dac2 / hip-dac can deliver to express their best on their bass lines.

Notable pairings

You find some significant pairing impressions reported in Kazi’s article, which I already mentioned above.

I find myself totally in line with what Kazi wrote when referring to final Sonorous-III and Dunu ZEN / ZEN Pro which I also had a chance to directly test with hip-dac2 and hip-dac. Ditto for my experience with a pair of high-impedance cans, which is HD600 in my case – ultimately showing that hip-dac2 / hip-dac’s nominal 6V @ 600ohm spec is less effective than it may seem when put to the real work.

Let me just add a few other experiences here.

final E3000

Biasing-wise the pair is technically good, insofar as hip-dac2 and hip-dac both definitely deliver enough current to E3000 to open them up properly, keeping their bass transients controlled and delivering a good sense of space. The unavoidable down side is that due to E3000’s fixed cable it’s impossible to exploit hip-dac2 / hip-dac’s best amping output (the Balanced one) so the forced-single-ended pair is bound to unavoidably suffer from some dullness and lack of dynamics.

final E5000

Even when paired on the Balanced output hip-dac2 and hip-dac don’t seem to deliver enough current soon enough to brighten-up E5000’s bass line. The result is an overly thick presentation which is what very commonly one gets on E5000 from budget-tier sources.

Ikko OH-1S and Tanchjim Oxygen

Although different, the two IEMs react very similarly to hip-dac2 / hip-dac pair. Both get turned on very nicely by the balanced output, delivering much of their competence in terms of technicality. Both get “warmed up” by hip-dac2 / hip-dac’s coloration, which may be a welcome variation to many in comparison to their otherwise slightly-bright/neutral tonality. Hip-dac2 pushes both’s highmids up, luckily without passing the glare limit. Nice ones.

final Sonorous-II

Similarly to what happens on Sonorous-III, the pair has lights and shadows. Good is bass (a case where the XBass switch delivers a pleasant alternative at the user’s fingertip), and microdynamics. Less good is high-mids which get a bit too hot.

Shure SRH-1840

This is a really good pair. Power available on Low Gain is already more than enough to make SRH-1840 sing pretty well, and there’s no overdoing on the high-mids. Some treble extension is lacking. General warmth may be considered bearable in this case due to the fundamental pure neutrality of the phones taken on their own. Too bad for the narrow stage, but at this price level I’ve yet to find a better pair for SRH-1840 if I exclude Groove.

Notable comparisons

Again, some notable comparisons are already mentioned on Kazi’s article, which I once again encourage you to read. I do share his opinion about hip-dac2 vs hip-dac entirely.

vs Apogee Groove

The comparison is apriori dishomogeneous as Groove is a high-power-demanding dongle with a unique, not-general-purpose amping architecture while hip-dac2 and hip-dac are designed with full-horizontal applicability in mind. Performance differences found between the two devices should be put in the correct perspective.

That said, Groove’s DAC and AMP refinements, where applicable, are significantly better compared to hip-dac2 / hip-dac.

Hip-dac2’s DAC reconstruction prowess does challenge Groove’s resolving power exclusively when applied to MQA-authenticated tracks. On such very tracks, hip-dac2’s Full Decoder capabilities deliver superior resolution and air, while on the other hand still falling short vs Groove on range extension, bass control and treble vividness. On non-MQA material there’s no game instead.

vs Hidizs S9 Pro

Another dishomogeneous therefore “unfair” comparison, which I’m mentioning basically only due to S9 Pro’s popularity. Similarly to Groove, Hidizs S9 Pro is a battery-less dongle featuring a high host-power demand. Different from Groove, it carries a general-purpose amping architecture free from apriori pairing limitations.

Like hip-dac2 / hip-dac, S9 Pro also comes with dual phone outputs (Single Ended and Balanced Ended), and again similarly in both cases the Single Ended option, well, might also be omitted, for how underwhelming they are compared to their Balanced Ended alternatives.

That said, the sound quality difference between the two devices is nothing short of dramatic. Hip-dac2 / hip-dac are better resolving, have better estension, better dynamics and better features. Last but not least, when connected to a “noisy” host (e.g a laptop) S9 Pro degrades its cleanness and spatial reconstruction performance quite evidently, and benefits of a noise filter adoption (e.g. an iFi iSilencer or an AudioQuest Jitter Bug), while hip-dac2 / hip-dac is much more resilient off the bat.

S9 Pro costs 35% less than hip-dac2, that must be noted, too.

vs iFi Nano iDSD Black Label

Similarly priced and after all not so differently-sized, the two devices do behave similarly.

Overall, hip-dac2 comes out ahead when used as a complete (DAC+AMP) system, even more so if applied to MQA material as Nano iDSD Black label is a mere Renderer not a Full Decoder. On the flip side, Nano iDSD Black Label offers a pure Line Out option which is the big “missing bit” from hip-dac2 / hip-dac, which allows the user to “upgrade” the device with an external amp – possibly a desktop one? – and fully exploit the really nice quality of its internal DAC.

Considerations & conclusions

Hip-dac2 is an outstanding device, quite evidently the best sub-200$ battery powered pocketable DAC-AMP on the market today. It delivers very good DAC reconstruction capabilities, significant amping power, and remarkable cleannes, dynamics and air from its Balanced Ended headphone output.

Compared to its preceding version, hip-dac2 offers MQA Full Decoding which represent a solid further improvement for Tidal fans. Apart from that, its features are identical and its sound quality are so close to the preceding version that a current hip-dac owner may safely hold on to his existing investment in case Tidal Master is not his streaming service of choice.

Disclaimer

As always, a big thank you to iFi for the continued opportunity they offer me to keep assessing their products.

Our generic standard disclaimer.

The post iFi hip-dac2 Review (2) – Still The Best appeared first on Audio Reviews.

Cons — Campfire Honeydew have plastic shells
– Hard-hitting bass
– Recessed midrange
– Not the most resolving in treble
– Might appear overpriced

INTRODUCTION

Campfire Audio has a penchant for “big-bass” IEMs. They are never to shy to add some hefty dose of low-end to most of their models. The Solaris, Polaris, Comet, even the Andromeda 2020 – all of them have a robust low-end presence as part of the tuning philosophy.

Campfire Audio Honeydew aims to be the entry-level basshead IEMs in Campfire’s lineup, and one of the de-facto basshead IEMs under USD $300. I have been using the Honeydew for almost 5 months now, so this will be a long-term evaluation. Let’s see if Campfire Audio could reach the goals they set of themselves.

DISCLAIMER

Note: the ratings given will be subjective to the price tier. Ken Ball of Campfire Audio was kind enough to send me the Honeydew for evaluation.

Sources used: Sony NW-A55, Hidizs AP80 Pro
Price, while reviewed: $250. Can be bought from Campfire Audio’s Official Website.

Our generic standard disclaimer.

PHYSICAL THINGS AND USABILITY

PACKAGING AND ACCESSORIES

The unboxing experience is the signature Campfire Audio style: it feels like you are unwrapping a gift box. The accessories provided are the same as the ones with Campfire Satsuma, with the carrying pouch sporting a darker olive hue. The cable is again the Smoky Lite SPC 4-core cable with Beryllium-Copper connectors.

Supplied eartips include Final E-type (5 pairs), foam tips (3 pairs), and Campfire silicone tips (3 pairs). There’s also the Campfire lapel pin. I have no qualms at all regarding the stock accessories, esp at this price point.
5/5

BUILD QUALITY

The shell is ABS plastic, which is not my favorite material overall. Plastic is fragile and metal shells or resin shells will last longer. The spout is stainless steel though. The bright yellow color of the shells are quite a looker and I find them unique. Your mileage may vary.

There is a single vent on the face-plate for pressure equalization. The housings have mmcx termination which has been robust for me over 5 months of use. One thing I can’t get over is the seam where the shell pieces join. It’s no big deal but something I notice. As was my conclusion with the Satsuma, I would’ve preferred a metal or resin shell here.
3.5/5

COMFORT, ISOLATION, AND FIT

The Honeydew are very comfortable to wear due to their lightweight and ergonomic fit. Isolation is average though as the vent on the back lets some noise in.
4/5

SOURCE AND EARTIPS

Most of the listening was done on the Sony NW-A55 as I found it to be one of the best pairings. Stock cable and Spinfit CP-100+ tips were used, as the stock E-type tips made the bass overbearing.

DRIVER SETUP

Campfire utilized a single bio-cellulose diaphragm (probably mixed with PET) in a dual-cavity setup for the Honeydew. They also have their 3D-printed acoustic chamber that acts as wave-guide and suppresses resonance. It’s refreshing to see more single-dynamic IEMs in the midrange market.

TONALITY AND TECHNICALITIES

The Campfire Honeydew have a strongly V-shaped, basshead tuning. Contrasting to the Satsuma which were rather bass-lite, Campfire Audio put the low-end front and center here.

Speaking of bass, there is a massive +15dB boost in the sub-bass region that starts from around 300Hz. Sub-bass notes cast a haze over the mid-bass, upper-bass, and even some lower-midrange fundamentals as a result. This can be too much for many so an audition is advised. Do note that the bass doesn’t sound as overbearing if you’re listening while commuting (the engine noise etc. cuts down the sensation of the bass).

When it comes to the bass quality, it is a bit of mixed bag. Mid-bass notes lack texture due to the sub-bass haze. However, sub-bass itself is dense, hard-hitting, rumbles with authority, and rather agile thanks to a faster driver-diaphragm. Those looking for sub-bass emphasis will feel at home here.

Sadly, the midrange takes a back seat here, at times even taking the very last seat in the auditorium. Lower-mids sound drowned out and upper-mids are repressed. Fortunately there are no annoying peaks or shoutiness in the mids (not that it was on the cardsdue to the sub-bass boost). Male vocals do not sound wrong, fortunately, but the higher-pitched vocals and female vocals lack energy and articulation. String instruments fare similarly with lower-level details getting lost in the mix in bass-heavy tracks.

The treble response is characterized by a lower-treble peak around 5.5KHz that adds some brilliance to the signature. Cymbal hits sound a bit distant but there is some sparkle to them. Upper-treble is muted and there is a lack of air in general. Cymbal hits sounded fine for the most part, but in some tracks there was a hint of splashiness in the highs. In fast paced tracks with lots of cymbal and hi-hat hits, they tended to get smeared at times. In short: decent treble response, but nothing to write home about.

When it comes to imaging and spatial cues, the Honeydew perform surprisingly well. There is no “gap” when instruments or vocals are panning from left-to-right, and even ordinal imaging (things happening on top-left/top-right etc.) was good. Staging is somewhat narrow but sounds “deep” due to recessed vocals. Stage height is about average. Instrument separation was pretty good as well even though the bass would somehow blur the outlines of certain instruments, e.g. pedals.

Dynamics are also another strong suite. Macrodynamic punch was authoritative with the satisfying bass slam adding to the experience. Microdynamics (subtle changes in volume) are very good as well, though falls slightly behind a few competitors. Lastly, timbre is heavily affected by the sub-bass haze but there is no metallic sheen to the sound unlike some metal-deposited single-DD IEMs.

Bass: 4/5
Midrange: 3.5/5
Treble: 3/5
Staging: 3/5
Imaging and Separation: 4/5
Dynamics and Speed: 4.5/5

FREQUENCY RESPONSE GRAPH

SELECT COMPARISONS

vs Final E5000

Final’s E5000 are notorious for two things: their power-hungriness, and the sheer amount of sub-bass that they can deliver when properly powered.

In terms of build and design, I am partial to the E5000. They are also more comfortable for me as I prefer bullet-style designs. The Honeydew are very comfortable as well so no extra points to Final. Isolation is slightly better on the Final due to deep fit but it also leaks more sound. Finally, accessories wise the Honeydew wins due to a larger eartips collection.

As for the sound, it’s basshead vs basshead. Honeydew have even more sub-bass emphasis whereas the E5000 have a more impactful, slammy mid-bass punch. The sheer amount of texture in E5000’s mid-bass make them a delightful listen. Vocals are less recessed on the E5000 and have a lush, soothing presentation that has great articulation as well. Honeydew fall behind in the mids as a result.

Treble is where the Honeydew have more presence. E5000 have somewhat darkened treble even though upper-treble response is better than the Honeydew. Staging is better on the E5000 whereas imaging has more precision on the Honeydew. Separation is good on both but Honeydew does it a bit better.

E5000’s Achilles Heel is their source requirement. Few sources can do them justice and the cheapest one (Apogee Groove) costs $200. In that regard, Honeydew is very easy to drive and should better fit those without good sources.

CONCLUDING REMARKS

Campfire Honeydew is slightly more expensive than the Satsuma but have far more character in their sound signature. They aim to be basshead IEMs and Campfire Audio has achieved that target I’d say. It’s not for everyone and the recessed mids will be a point of contention. I am not a big fan of the at-times narrow staging and the lack of mid-bass texture vs some of the competition too.

That being said, I still prefer the Honeydew for commuting over my other IEMs. Their lightweight nature makes them great for long-listening sessions and the extreme sub-bass shelf gets toned down a lot due to attenuation.

I can cautiously recommend the Honeydew as a pair of EDC (everyday carry) IEMs, especially for listening while commuting. For more analytical or technical/tonally correct listen, better to look elsewhere.

MY VERDICT

3.75/5

Contact us!

PHOTOGRAPHY

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

The post Campfire Audio Honeydew Long-Term Review – Unabashedly Basshead appeared first on Audio Reviews.

At-a-glance Card

Full Device Card

Test setup

Apogee Groove / Sony NW-A55 mrWalkman / Questyle QP1R / Ifi HipDac / Cowon Plenue 2 – donut foam covers – lossless 16-24/44.1-192 FLAC tracks.

Signature analysis

Technicalities

Physicals

Specifications (declared)

Comparisons

vs K’s Earphone Bell-LBs (€59,00 street price)

By design K300 indeed offer a different tuning compared to Bell-LBs: warm and V-shaped vs neutral. K300’s sub bass is very audible and delivers nice rumble, on par with quite a few IEMs actually, and unlike Bell-LBs where it is just hinted. Mid bass is more elevated, bloomier, denser on K300 vs Bell-LBs’ leaner, faster, punchier one.

Mids are obviously recessed and also leaner on K300, vs unrecessed bodied and organic on Bell-LBs. Highmids and trebles are similarly elevated on both, but obvsiouly cleaner, sparklier, airier on Bell-LBs, and brushed, warmed and inoffensive on K300.

Soundstage casting is very similar, in both cases absolutely holographic, a further bit more extended on K300. Imaging and separation are evidently much better on Bell-LBs as a direct consequence of much faster transiets all over the spectrum. K300 is somewhat harder to drive due to its 300 ohm impedance, and less expensive.

Considerations & conclusions

K300 are another definite hit by K’s Earphone, the same makers of BELL-LBs. They deliver a very well calibrated warm-bass tonality and a stunning holographic very extended stage, offering a really pleasing, relaxing musical experience.

Our generic standard disclaimer.

The post K’s Earphone K300 Review – Warm Relaxing Pleasure appeared first on Audio Reviews.

Here’s my analysis of K’s Earphone “Bell-LBs” model, which I recently personally purchased for € 59,00

At-a-glance Card

Full Device Card

Test setup

Apogee Groove / Sony NW-A55 mrWalkman / Questyle QP1R / Ifi HipDac / Cowon Plenue 2 – full foam and donut foam covers – lossless 16-24/44.1-192 FLAC tracks.

Signature analysis

Technicalities

Physicals

Specifications (declared)

Comparisons

vs Rose Mojito (was $ 259,00 – now discountinued)

Both are designed for with a neutral presentation in mind, but when directly compared Bell-LBs comes out “flatter-neutral” while Mojito sounds a bit more “balanced”.

Mojito delivers more sub-bass and a modest rumble vs just a hint of that on Bell-LBs. Midbass are similar in note body, Mojito offering a bit more elevation. Mids and vocals are equivalently refined and organic, very difficult to tell which is better. On both, male are “just good”, female are “wonderful”.

Neither driver ever scants into sibilance, but Bell-LBs do occasionally concede to shoutyness, which Mojito is totally free of. Stage casting is similar, Bell-LBs being just a bit deeper.

Imaging and separation are surely better on Mojito mainly thanks to the absence of treble shoutiness. Bell-LBs are way easier to drive and pair.

vs Rose Masya (was $ 129,00 – now discountinued)

Masya offer a bright-accented presentation vs a virtually pure-neutral coming out of Bell-LBs. Both buds deliver a just hinted sub-bass, with barely audible rumble. Midbass are similar, with Masya showing a bit more elevation.

Mids are better tuned on Bell_LBs which deliver thicker tone body and higher organicity. Vocals are hands-down better on Bell-LBs, female even more than male. Both drivers present a tendence to (occasional) shoutyness on trebles on some tracks, Masya more than Bell-LBs.

Technicalities are also very similar, with Bell-LBs showing just a bit more stage depth in comparison. Bell-LBs are much easier to drive and pair.

vs K’s Earphone K300 (€58,14 list, € 29,10 street price)

By design K300 indeed offer a different tuning compared to Bell-LBs: warm and V-shaped vs neutral. K300’s sub bass is very audible and delivers nice rumble, on par with quite a few IEMs actually, and unlike Bell-LBs where it is just hinted.

Mid bass is more elevated, bloomier, denser on K300 vs Bell-LBs’ leaner, faster, punchier one. Mids are obviously recessed and also leaner on K300, vs unrecessed bodied and organic on Bell-LBs.

High mids and trebles are similarly elevated on both, but obvsiouly cleaner, sparklier, airier on Bell-LBs, and brushed, warmed and inoffensive on K300.

Soundstage casting is very similar, in both cases absolutely holographic, a further bit more extended on K300. Imaging and separation are evidently much better on Bell-LBs as a direct consequence of much faster transiets all over the spectrum.

K300 is somewhat harder to drive due to its 300 ohm impedance, and less expensive.

vs VE Monk SM (Slim Metal) (€ 22,39)

Monk SM tonality is bright-neutral vs Bell-LBs being almost pure neutral. Both have just hinted sub-bass. Mid-bass is similar on both, a bit more elevated and organic on Bell-LBs.

Mids and especially vocals are monumentally better on Bell-LBs, whereas Monk SM sound deeply artificial, in addition to lean and untextured.

High mids and trebles are also arguably much more organic on Bell-LBs, shouty and fatiguing on Monk SM. Monk SM cast a deeper but narrower stage.

Detail retrieval on Monk SM is not as bad as their high mids and treble lack of refinement might imply, but Bell-LBs keep the lead with good margin. Microdynamics are also evidently better on Bell-LBs.

Both drivers are quite easy to bias power-wise, but Monk SM is way more capricious in terms of pairing (some sources excite their highmids making them sound like a portable transistor radio from the ’70ies).

Considerations & conclusions

K’s Earphone BELL-LBs are a pair a earbuds that acoustic and vocal music lovers may easily fall in love with.

They tick so many boxes at once: neutral tonality, spot-on timbre, comfortable fit, high resolving power, holographic stage casting and good technicalities, all paired with decent driveability and an affordable price.

Sure there is better at higher budget levels, but I couldn’t find anything remotely close in terms of sound quality on an almost purely neutral tonality at such a modest cost.

Our generic standard disclaimer.

The post K’s Earphone Bell-LBs Review – Budget Neutral Reference appeared first on Audio Reviews.

Cons — None.

Executive Summary

The ddHiFi MFi06 and TC03 are digital cables that are well conducting, well insulated, built rugged and priced right. And they add optical appeal to our devices.

Introduction

ddHiFi have been favourites of our blog for quite some time. They produce very well designed, functional AND optically appealing audio accessories and even earphones.

I have tested their TC25i and TC28i adapters, their Carrying Case C-2020 as well as their Janus E2020A and Janus E2020B earphones. And I purchased a few of their audio adapters. For their accessories, the whole company is attached to our Wall of Excellence.

In this article, I am analyzing the MFi06 and TC03, two USB cables in the broadest sense. Both have a USB-C connector on one and, the MFi06 has a lightning plug on the other, and the TC03 a micro USB plug.

And all USB cables are equal, right? Zeros and ones transfer the sound, the stock cable is as good as the snake oil ones at $$$.

Erm, stop. Not always. The signal carried by the cable is not only zeros and ones (which are actually transmitted as voltage fluctuations), there may be some noise riding along the lines that affects sound quality. Two kinds of noise exist, “Electromagentic Interference” (EMI) and “Radio-Frequency Interference” (RFI).

If the data line is not effectively shielded, nearby electrical components (e.g., switching power supplies, other fluctuating electrical/magnetic fields from computer circuitry) can contribute to EMI that might pollute the USB data.”

Running power and data lines (from a phone or computer) through a single USB cable can cause additional interference and exacerbate the issue. Decrapifiers such as the AudioQuest JitterBug FMJ act as filters to reduce such pollution, but a “good” USB cable adds to this effect, too.

“Good” does not refer to the wire (that’s where the snake oil is) but to the insulation of the power and data lines against each other. In other words, a quality cable does not add anything, it makes sure that nothing is taken away from the signal quality.

A well-known example of the positive effects of insulation is the EarMen Sparrow dongle, that, when operated with a phone, can show strong interference in the shape of intermittent buzzing and clicking (subsides when switching the phone function off). The culprit is the stock cable, and a good third-party cable strongly reduces (but might not completely eliminate) the problem.

One measure of the shielding effectiveness of different cables, the resistance of shield terminations, was investigated in this thread.

Good-quality, well-shielded USB cables do not have to be expensive. USB audio pioneer Gordon Rankin reported very poor $$$ USB cables to me. It is all about the cable’s design, not the price.

ddHiFi are a company that offer a large range of imaginative, well designed, and well built accessories….and even a couple of earphones.

Physical Things

Both cables are 8 cm long. Wire material is high-purity silver-plated OCC copper.

Four strands of separately insulated wire serve as conductor. The inner insulation is teflon. The outer insulation is thermoplastic polyurethane imported from Germany. The aluminum alloy connector are cased in stainless steel to minimize external interference.

Thermoplastic polyurethane (TPU) is any of a class of polyurethane plastics with many properties, including elasticity, transparency, and resistance to oil, grease, and abrasion. Technically, they are thermoplastic elastomers consisting of linear segmented block copolymers composed of hard and soft segments.

As it appears, these cables are technically sound. They feature good conductors and sufficient internal and external insulation. Sonically, they are indistinguishable from the OEOTG cable and one other brand of which I could not identify (see photo at the bottom of this article).

Haptically, the MFi06 and TC03 are vastly superior over the typical stock cables and the Apple Camera Adapter. The connectors feel rugged, the cable is flexible and the shiny, pearly white TPU is dirt and grease resistant.

And, let’s face it, these cables also add a jewelry effect to our gear. Yep, they don’t just feel good between the fingers, they also look good.

All good so far, only one worry remains: the MFi06’s battery consumption.

MFi06’s Battery Consumption

The MFi06’s lightning connector features a decoding chip which draws current from the phone. The question is how much it contributes to the phone’s battery drain.

I measured battery consumption of different dongles (AudioQuest DragonFly Red, Shanling UA2 single ended, Hidisz S9 Pro single ended) with the Apple Camera Adapter vs. the MFi06. I then repeated these tests with two other Lightning to USB-C cables (OEOTG and an unknown brand) for comparison purposes. All tests were performed under identical conditions. The absolute values are meaningless, what is important are the relative values.

.

Results:

1) The Apple Camera Adapter has by far the lowest power consumption.

2) In my 3 h tests, the 3rd-party MFi chip in the ddHiFi MFi06 cable consumed between 130 and 220 mAh (23%-36%) more (for my specific test parameters) than the one in the Apple Camera Adapter.

3) All three tested 3rd-party cables appear to have the same MFi chip (approx. same battery consumption with Shanling UA2).

4) Battery consumption of the ddHiFi MFi06 cable varies vastly between dongles. It is much lower for the DragonFly Red that consumes by far the least battery with the Apple Camera Adapter.

In summary, the MFi06’s power consumption is acceptable for today’s ever increasing phone battery capacities.

Concluding Remarks

The ddHiFi TC03 and MFi cables do what they are supposed to do: they work as promised while adding appeal to our devices. And they don’t break our piggy banks.

Until next time…keep on listening!

Contact us!

Disclaimer

THE MFi06 and TC03 cables were supplied by the ddHiFi for my review – and I thank them for that.

Get them from the DD Official Store

Our generic standard disclaimer.

About my measurements.

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

Gallery

The post ddHiFi MFi06 and TC03 Digital Cables Review – Unplugged appeared first on Audio Reviews.

INTRODUCTION

Final Audio’s E-series IEMs are their most popular model, by far. All of them have a cylinder/bullet-like shape, they all come with the famous E-type tips, and they all sport a 6mm dynamic micro-driver.

Naturally, this raises confusion among potential buyers as to which one they should get. I have personally purchased five different E-series IEMs so far, and extensively tried the remaining one (E2000). This post would be a short summary of the E-series IEMs, their relative strengths and weaknesses, and which one may fit particular preferences.

Thus, without further ado, let’s get straight into the comparison.

Note: all the IEMs are either purchased by me or given as a loaner (E2000) so no strings attached to them.

Sources used: Questyle QP1R, LG G7, Cowon Plenue R2, Sony NW-A55
Price: between $20 – $280

GENERAL SUMMARY

At first, I’d summarize the general sound signature or specialty of each of the E-series IEMs. Later on, I will provide a short comparison (based on my personal impressions, of course). I won’t provide measurements here since this post is meant to be a short summary of things instead of a comprehensive analysis, which you can read in the reviews of the IEMs.

A few bullet points regarding the IEMs:

• All E series IEMs use the same driver diaphragm but the driver assembly is different
• Only E4000 and E5000 have separate bass reflex chamber behind the housing
• Only E500 and E1000 have plastic shells, rest are metal
• All of them come with the same 5 pairs of E-type tips
• Only E4000 and E5000 come with detachable cable
• There are “C” variants of E1000, E2000, and E3000. The C stands for communication and basically means they have an inline mic. Sound is unchanged.
• E500 and E1000 do not come with any carrying case or pouch.
• When measuring, all E-series IEMs show some degree of channel variance or imbalance. This is expected apparently and while listening you mostly don’t notice it.

FINAL E500

The most specialized Final Audio IEMs in the E-series. These look similar to E1000 but costs about $5 to $10 less (depending on region). Many buy the E500 simply to get the supplied E-type tips and I myself got them for that reason at the first time. What I did not realize back then is how good they sound when watching movies, listening to binaural tracks, or just gaming in general.

E500 are basically the best gaming IEMs until you go into the VR3000 price-range (which cost four times more). With binaural tracks, they can render the sense of space convincingly with precisely positioning each element in the stage. Yes, there are far more expensive IEMs that do these better, but that is beside the point. What you get for $20 or so is such insane value that it boggles my mind. The tips alone cost $15, so you are getting the best “gaming” IEMs for… $5?

A no-brainer.

FINAL E1000

The most neutrally-tuned Final Audio IEMs. They have a frequency response graph that is the best kind of neutral: uncolored without being dry. The driver is limited in technicalities but again, at this price, that’s not what I am after.

The E1000 do not have good bass extension, or spectacular imaging/staging/separation like some of their brethren. They do one thing well better than the rest in the lineup: an uncolored presentation that is perfect for monitoring and mastering. An excellent “beater” IEM if you are into video editing or podcasting.

FINAL E2000

The staging is what you notice the most when you listen to them. The vocals are slightly recessed (making them a bit V-shaped) and coupled with the open-back nature and mid-bass quantity you get a quite immersive soundstage. The bass response is mid-bass heavy and lacks sub-bass rumble/impact. Midrange is its special suite as the male and female vocals sound sublime.

The E2000 have the most peaky treble among all E-series IEMs and can potentially get slightly sibilant on some highly susceptible tracks (Under Pressure by David Bowie, for example). Considering the peers though, treble tuning on E2000 is quite good. Imaging performance is decent, but not the best in its price class or among other E-series stuff. I’d personally rank them the second lowest among E-series IEMs.

FINAL E3000

The dark horse of the E-series, and also my second most favorite E-series IEM. Instrument separation esp air between instruments is the best among all E-series IEMs, yes, even the E5000. Bass has more rumble and impact than the E2000 but still rolled-off at the extreme end. Midrange is almost similar sounding to E2000 but has less focus on upper-harmonics resulting in an even smoother midrange rendition. Treble is delightful and portrays all the details without ever imposing itself.

If the E2000 is cottage cheese, the E3000 is creamy Gouda cheese. Soundstage is massive, falling behind to only two other <$100 IEMs that I’ve heard. Imaging is also fantastic in the price-class. Things get all the more impressive when you realize that Final tuned the E3000 to have a similar presentation to their flagship: Final D8000. Yes, only Final can try and capture literal lightning in a bottle, and you do get a glimpse of the D8000 signature in the E3000. For the price – I can’t ask more.

FINAL E4000

Add more sub-bass extension to the E2000, add a bit more vocal-presence and you get the E4000. A very balanced tuning that doesn’t excite anyone right out of the gate but you appreciate it the more you listen to it. I usually recommend it to the mature listener, someone who knows his preference well and wants something no-frill that will be solid with most genres at a budget and won’t have the imaging/soundstage/fit issue of the Etymotics.

I don’t like the stock cable though, I’d recommend getting a third-party one if possible. Also this one requires a good source, ideally with high current output (>200mW @ 16ohm).

FINAL E5000

Final E5000 are objectively not the best IEM and many downright label them as overpriced, but this hits all the right chords with me. I never knew I was a closet bass-head until I listened to them, and the bass on these are world-class, being better than most <$1000 stuff out there barring a certain LegendX, maybe the Hyla CE-5. They are the only IEMs ever that made me fall asleep while listening to Machine Head’s The Blackening. The soundstage is cavernous, and while the imaging is hazy the little strums of guitar and intimate pluckings are so well picked out and placed – it gets addictive. The vocals meanwhile make them indispensable for me.

I’m a sucker for the HD650 vocals and these are the one of the few IEMs (<$1000 bracket) that get close to said level of precision be it female or male vocals. I do not mean they sound like the HD650, they just evoke the same feeling of midrange liquidity, if that’s the term.

The Final E5000 are not for everyone, but once you start appreciating it – it becomes really hard to let go of. The treble has excellent upper-treble extension and while it’s not as on-your-face as on the E4000/E2000, it’s the most refined treble in the whole lineup once you focus on the attack/decay pattern of cymbal hits and hi-hats.

It does have the most absurd source requirement, in typical Final fashion. The sources that I have found to work best on them (listing the portable ones here): Questyle QP1R, Cowon Plenue R2 (balanced out), Cayin N6ii (E01), Lotoo PAW Gold Touch, Cayin C9, Apogee Groove. The E5000 are indeed tough nuts to crack.

COMPARATIVE RANKING

Finally, my own ranking of the E-series based on their specialty:

Bass: E5000 >>> E4000 >> E3000 > E2000 > E500 > E1000
Mids: E5000 >> E3000 = E4000 > E2000 > E1000 > E500
Treble: E5000 > E4000 > E3000 > E1000 > E2000 > E500
Soundstage: E5000 >> E3000 > E4000 > E2000 > E500 > E1000
Imaging: E3000 (E500 in binaural tracks) > E5000 > E4000 > E2000 > E1000 > E500 (this one really suffers in non-binaural tracks)

CONCLUDING REMARKS

To conclude, I present my very biased –
Final ranking: E5000 > E3000 > E4000 > E1000 > E2000 > E500 (a specialty item with limited use-case unfortunately).

It’s not straight forward to pick the “best” Final E-series IEM. The most expensive one might not be suitable for you, or you might get something you can’t drive with your current sources. I suggest the E1000 and E3000 as relatively “safe” bets. They are inoffensive in tuning and the E1000 especially don’t need very powerful sources. The E3000 do scale well with better sources and provide spectacular separation, unlike anything in their price range.

I believe every IEM enthusiast need to try or own at last one pair of E-series IEMs. They are going strong for over four years now and that kind of longevity is rarely seen in the modern portable audio scene.

Contact us!

The post Final Audio E-series Earphones Roundup appeared first on Audio Reviews.

Subsequently followed by other models named Masya and Maria, all of these including the original Mojito are now discountinued to leave the field to the latest iteration called Maria II, which is the sole Rose Technics earbud model currently available.

I’ve had a chance to extensively audition both Mojito (originally priced at $259,00) and Masya, both being privately owned samples, and this article is about my experience with the former, with some comparison notes to add hints about the latter at the end.

At-a-glance Card

Full Device Card

Test setup

Sources: Apogee Groove + Burson FUN + IEMatch / Questyle QP1R – stock full foams – Stock cable – lossless 16-24/44.1-192 FLAC tracks.

Signature analysis

Technicalities

Physicals

Specifications (declared)

Comparisons

vs Rose Masya ($ 129,00 – discontinued)

Masya is the model released by Rose Technics just after Mojito, and can be considered its economical (50% lower priced) version in a sense.

Unlike Mojito, Masya offers a bright-accented presentation to begin with, with a tint of warmth added to the lowmids to counterbalance a bit. Sub bass is almost entirely absent, while it’s very present and generating nice rumble on Mojito. Midbass are similar on Masya and Mojito, with Masya showing a somewhat less note body there.

Mids are more forward on Masya, I would say equivalently detailed and organic as on Mojito, and still free from any sibilance of sort, but Masya’s high mids do have a tendence to get shouty, and trebles are sometimes even slightly splashy on Masya, which does not happen at all on Mojito. Technicalities are also similar: Masya presents just a bit less of stage depth, and its instrument separation capabilities, especially on trebles, are limited on the upside when the driver goes shouty.

vs K’s Earphone BELL-LBS (€ 59,00 street price)

Bell-LBs are the sole example of almost purely neutral tuned earbuds which come at least somewhat close to Mojito’s refinement that I could find (at a fraction of Mojito’s asking price).

Sub-bass rumble is indeed present on Bell-LBs, but at an evidently lesser elevation compared to Mojito. Midbass on Bell-LBs and shares the same speed and punchyness with Mojito, but notes are a bit leaner and less textured (on Bell-LBs). Mids and vocals behave very similarly – ob both drivers females are better than males, which sound leaner and somewhat hollower. Female vocals and highmids some rare time get somewhat close to sibilance on Bell-LBs, which never happens on Mojito.

Trebles are well refined on Bell-LBs, there’s no shoutyness that I can assess much like it happens on Mojito. Treble balance in the general presentation economy is more prominent on Bell-LBs, which sound airier nonetheless. Technicalities are very similar, with the sole notable difference being that Bell-LBs cast a less deep stage.

Considerations & conclusions

Rose Mojito are no doubt, and by far, the most refined sounding earbuds I have ever auditioned. So much so that it’s not even appropriate to “compare” them with the overwhelming majority of the “most popular” earbuds, with which the sole real common part is frankly just the form factor category itself.

Oddly enough, if I had to define and introduce Rose Mojito to someone never having heard them I would say: consider them as a pair of openback headphones… in miniature size. Mojito deliver a spectacularly extended holographic sound field, high-end resolving power and superb instrument separation on a virtually pure-neutral presentation, and a 100% organic acoustic timbre. Listening to acoustic music on Mojito is nothing short of pure pleasure.

I wish I had the opportunity to audition their currently marketed evolution: Rose Maria II. You never know what may happen…

Our generic standard disclaimer.

The post Rose Mojito – Honorable Progenitor appeared first on Audio Reviews.

At-a-glance Card

Full Device Card

Test setup

Sources: Apogee Groove / Sony NW-A55 mrWalkman / Questyle QP1R / Ifi HipDac – foam tips – Stock cable cable – lossless 16-24/44.1-192 FLAC tracks.

Signature analysis

Technicalities

Physicals

Specifications (declared)

Selected comparisons

Vs Tin P1 ($169,00)

P1’s uber-neutral tonality sounds obviously sterile compared to Timeless, which at first impact come accross more engaging and vivid, especially due to the ostensibly more elevated bass line. That said, P1 are significantly better in terms of resolving power, midbass texturing (quite terrible on Timeless), instrument separation and organic timbre.

Both are quite underwhelming in regards to stage drawing, with Timeless a bit better in terms of width, and P1 easily better in terms of depth (easy win there). Both are tip-capricious, P1 more of the two. P1 require higher amping power.

Vs Ikko OH10 ($199,00)

This comparison seems particularly meaningful to me due to very close pricing, and very similar presentation tuning on the two products, based on totally different technologies: single planar for Timeless vs hybrid DD+BA for OH10.

OH10’s sub bass is more extended, more elevated, while still very clean. OH10’s midbass is waaaay better in terms of resolution and texturing, so much so as to not sound offensive let alone invasive in spite of its even higher elevation. OH10’s mids are more recessed – V shape for OH10, U shape for Timeless – yet male vocals in particular sound roughly on par vis-a-vis Timeless’ (relatively) leaner note body there.

OH10’s high-mids and presence trebles are fuller, sparklier, more organic and most of all way more refined than those coming out of the Timeless. Unlike Timeless’, OH10’s timbre never scants into artificial. In spite of their hybrid driver structure OH10 do not loose points in terms of horizontal coherence vs Timeless – if something it’s actually the other way around, due to Timeless midbass’ lack of refinement facing their often shouty, somewhat artificial timbred trebles.

OH10 are no soundstage size monsters, yet they still draw a bit bigger space than Timeless, definitely deeper, while they excel hands down in terms of imaging and most of all instrument separation. Neither IEM require huge amping power.

Considerations & conclusions

I remember when I was a young IT enthusiast playing with my Apple II, back in the 80ies. I was so in love with technology that I just “assumed” that pretty much everything was going to be automatically “better” for the very sole reason of being processed in such innovative ways.

Sadly – or not even sadly, actually – of course my assumption was wrong. There were very selected tasks for which my Apple II was unbelievably brilliant, while quite a few if not most of the other things I insisted on doing with it would arguably have been much better, easier, and faster done “the traditional way”. Woe to those who dared pointing this out to me though! I would promptly call them ignorant, obscurantists, or both. The more so if they had my mother’s face, of course

Technology is still enthrilling 40-something years later, more and more so indeed, and legions of people (not necessarily youngsters …) fall into the same pithole everyday that I was in back then. There’s a new piece of technology. There’s a couple of really brilliant products / application based on that. Ergo: all products based on such technology will be superior. No, it’s indeed a non sequitur.

I’ve yet to hear a really outstanding planar magnetic IEM below $500 which is worth its money. To clarify, by “worth its money” I mean “producing sensibly better results than similar priced products based on alternative technologies”.

7Hz Timeless IEMs are no exception.

Sure they deliver a vivid and engaging presentation, departing from other too algid same-tech competitors.

Yet, simply put they are technically lacking when compared with similarly priced non-planar alternatives: mid bass lacks texture, timbre has a slight but annoying artificial tint, and trebles are too often shouty and fatiguing. Good intent, lacking realization. Maybe we should long for a future iteration ?

In the meanwhile, it all comes down to the purpose of the game as always. Die-hard technology enthusiasts should give Timeless a spin, no doubt: depending on their tastes, their musical preferences, and their gear they will probably find it better, or even much better than other “inexpensive” planar alternatives. Music lovers looking for they highest quality IEMs in the $200-ish region, instead, should keep referring to our Wall of Excellence.

Our generic standard disclaimer.

The post 7Hz Timeless Review (1) – Nice Try But… appeared first on Audio Reviews.

Gear of the Year: 2021 marks the blog’s third year and the second with 8 contributors. We collectively published almost 200 articles, mainly product reviews, but also technical information. Apart from receiving review units from manufacturers and sellers, we also purchased a lot…and we borrowed from audiophile friends and colleagues.

We are a heterogeneous bunch not pressed into templates by commercialism. Each of us enjoys maximum freedom. None of us gets paid. And it is this variety that makes this blog interesting. Two of us, Baskingshark and Kazi, have been drafted to also write for Headphonesty, which gives them more exposure and also access to very interesting gear.

We are currently experimenting with generic advertisements to recover our operating cost (Paypal does not work at all)…any money raised will go back into the blog. We remain non commercial.

Our main focus has traditionally been on earphones – we have reviewed almost 300 – but particularly DACs and amps also caught our attention this year.

As at the end of the previous years, we list our our personal favourites of 2021 – the portable audio we personally enjoyed most. There are no rules, we just tell you what we like. After all, the gear we use most is our best. And we attached some of this gear to our newly created Wall of Excellence, which averages all our opinions.

Enjoy this read and we wish you a happy and successful 2023!

We thank

Most of our reviews would have not been possible without our 2021 cooperating partners. We thank:

ADV, Allo, Apos Audio, Astell & Kern, AudioQuest, Azla, Blon, BQEYZ, Burson Audio, Campfire Audio, Cayin, CCA, Dekoni, Dunu, ddHiFi, EarMen, Easy Earphones, Fiil, Helm Audio, Hidizs, HifiGo, ifi Audio, IKKO Audio, KBEAR/TRI Audio, Keephifi, Khadas, Knowledge Zenith, Meze, Moondrop, Musicteck, NiceHCK, OneOdio, Penon Official Store, Pergear, Sennheiser, Shanling, Shenzhenaudio, Smabat, Snake Oil Sound, SpinFit, Tempotec, Tin Hifi, TRN Official Store, Unique Melody, Venture Electronics, Whizzer Official Store, Yaotiger Hifi Audio Store. Don’tkillusifweforgotyoujustsendusanotandwefixit. 

For the companies: you can check for your products/yourself in the search field on the right-hand side.

We also thank the private sources that supplied us with loaners.

And here we go…that’s what we enjoyed in 2021…

Alberto Pittaluga…Bologna, ITALY

I’ve come accross quite a few interesting pieces of gear in 2021, mixed / hidden amongst piles of shameful crap. Nothing new, is it ? I’ll try to make a succint list of the most significant stuff I auditioned here. Most of these devices are also now part of my operative audio gear.

IEMS

Dunu ZEN (discountinued, was $ 699,00) : beyond spectacular microdynamics, resolution, layering and technicalities in general. A masterpiece.

iBasso IT07 ($899) : the sole real “direct upgrade” to Ikko OH10 I encountered as of yet. Same presentation, twice the refinement, at more than four times the price.

Oriolus Isabellae ($ 599) : somewhat “more V-shaped” alternative to Zen, delivering very similar technical prowess.

Ikko OH1S ($143) : a potential new join into the our World of Excellence roster as a sub-200$ allrounder

Headphones

Final Sonorous-II  (€ 300) : arguably by far the best neutral-tuned closebacks in their price category, staging and imaging easily compete with many lower tier openback alternatives.

Sennheiser HD600 (€ 310) : not a novelty for anybody but me, I’m sure. Quite simply: I got my first HD600 pair in 2021 and that’s why I’m listing it here. I presume no one needs a description. Do you?

Earbuds

Rose Mojito ($259) : superbly neutral-tuned high end earbuds with strong bilateral extention, beyond spectacular mids and vivid, refined highs in a fully holographic stage, with plenty of resolution and dynamics.

K’s Earphone Bell-LBS (€ 59,25) : mid centric buds delivering superbly organic vocals – both male and female – and very good trebles

K’s Earphone K300 (€ 28,59) : unreal sub-bass extension for an earbud, they deliver a very nice V shaped presentation while drawing an incredibly sizeable 3D stage. Presentation remembers a bit Ikko OH10, but in earbud form.

DAC/AMPs

Ifi Micro iDSD Signature (€ 749) : top sub-$1K mobile dac-amp. Very high quality DAC reconstruction paired with superbly transparent amping stage with power to spare for the most demanding planars and power deflation options to optimise low impedance IEM biasing. Truly a full step ahead of the competitors’ pack.

DAPs

Cowon Plenue 2 MK-I (€ 835) : hopped on this recently when I found a impossible to turndown openbox deal. Starting from my direct experience proving that there’s pretty much no game between proprietary-OS DAPs vs commercial-OS (read Android) DAPs, the former being in by far better position to achieve superior output sound quality, Plenue 2 represents a great companion to my QP1R offering a different / alternative optimal pairing opportunity for a few of my preferred IEM drivers.

DAC/AMP Dongles

This year’s experience proved to me that exclusively higher-tier (and price) dongles are able to deliver sound qualities worth the comparison with battery-equipped alternatives. Simply put: pretty much nothing until an Apogee Groove ($200) is really worth the price difference compared to the super-cheap Apple Dongle ($9), and even on the Groove some caveats apply (power needs, amp stage competibility).  That said, I really had pick one device “in the midfield” I’d pick the :

Questyle M12 ($139,99): while still not worth an inclusion on our Wall of Excellence, yet M12 runs circles around pretty much all similar or lower priced competitors I assessed in terms of extension, note weight, clarity and technicalities.

Biodegraded…Vancouver, CANADA

Doesn’t have anything to report this year.

Durwood…Chicago, USA

Shozy Form 1.4 has still been my go to earphone due to it’s warm inviting nature, great technical abilities and it feels great in my ears.

7Hz Timeless is another good buy late in the year for me, it’s a little more sub-bass plus analytical counterpart to the Shozy that has nudged the BQEYZ Spring 2 out of the way. A more detailed review is coming.

I rediscovered the Senfer UES for a quick throw around set, was hoping the Senfer DT9 was a slight improvement, but alas the Senfer UES sticks around instead. Sony MH755 is also perfect for quick on the go usage where I don’t need the universal fit in-ears.

Tempotec impressed me enough to consider the Sonata E35 for when good phone DAP’s are finally dead. Other than that, dongles are not my thing, and I have issues with some of Sony’s GUI decisions on the NW-A55 mainly related to playlist creation and long text support.

Lastly, the Questyle CMA Twelve would be an awesome DAC/amp combo to have, but my needs are more mobile. Perhaps when life slows down, but there are other bucket list items such as the Burson Playmate 2, RebelAmp, the Ruebert Neve RNHP, or RME ADI-2 that look interesting as well. Maybe someone will loan me one in 2022?

Jürgen Kraus…Calgary, CANADA

Earphones have traditionally been our main trade and there’s not many that stuck with me this year. First and foremost, I was impressed by the immersive and engaging sound of the single DD Dunu Zen that further excel in microdynamics. They are still very popular within our team.

Moondrop finally got it right with their tuning in the smooth and very pleasant sounding Moondrop KATO single dynamic driver. This model is generally well received. The JVC HA-FDX1 are still my standard iems for equipment testing, and an honourable mention goes to the Unique Melody 3DT for the clean implementation of 3 (!) dynamic drivers.

Another iem that fascinated me is the Japanese Final E5000. On the market since 2018, and very source demanding, this iem can produce a bass texture beyond belief. I have become a bit of a Final fanboy, as their products are unpretentious and natural sounding…and they fit my ears very well. I also purchased the Final E1000, E3000, and A3000…which get a lot of usage. No surprise that our Wall of Excellence is decorated like a Christmas tree by quite a few of these Japanese earphones and headphones.

Expanding my horizon into other devices, the Sony NW-A55 is a user-friendly digital audio player with great sonic characteristics and signature-altering 3rd party firmware options. But, most of all, it updates its music library within a minute or two. For the ultimate portable enjoyment, I discovered the Questyle QP1R dap...sounds simply amazing with the Final E5000. Found the dap on Canuck Audio Mart.

Dongles, battery-less headphone DAC/amps that turn any cheap phone into a decent music player, were big in 2021. Around since 2016, the market caught on to these devices. But out of the mass of dongles tested, the 2019 AudioQuest DragonFly Cobalt was the most musical to my ears. I also like the AudioQuest DragonFly Red and the EarMen Eagle (replacing the EarMen Sparrow which I sent to Biodegraded). For earphone testing (and bigger cans), I still use the excellent Earstudio HUD100.

For my full-sized headphone needs with my notebook, I discovered the powerful Apogee Groove, a current-hungry dongle DAC/amp that has been around since 2015. I am even portable around the house. As to headphones themselves, I am still happy with the Sennheiser HD 600 and HD 25, but also with the Koss Porta Pro.

For my desktop setup, I identified the EarMen Tradutto as being a fantastic DAC in combination with the Burson Funk amp. Currently testing the Tradutto with my big stereo system.

In summary, I learnt a lot in 2021…

My Take Home this Year

• The latest is barely the greatest…many old brooms get better into the corners
• Influencers are not always right (…to say it nicely)
• Measurements are overrated
• Timbre (degree of naturalness of sound) is underrated
• Source is super important and also underrated
• Group pressure through hype may become a sobering experience
• That groomed YouTube stuff is boring

Kazi Mahbub Mutakabbir…Munich, GERMANY

This year was very educational for me when it came to audiophilia. I got the chance to try out truly summit-fi setups and realized how good a system can sound. This also resulted in a sense of yearning where you keep comparing the gears you own with the ones you cannot own, at least not yet. Nonetheless, without further ado.

Headphones: The one headphone that has stuck with me throughout the year is the Hifiman Susvara. They won’t flatter anyone with the build quality but when paired with the right amp they sound astonishing. One of the most natural sounding headphones out there with exceptional timbre. A must listen.

Honorable mention goes to the Final D8000. Supreme bass that’s pretty much unmatched. On the budget side, I really liked the Final Sonorous-III. They are underrated and under-appreciated.

IEMs: When it comes to in-ear monitors, I have a hard time picking any single one of them as all of them fall short in one area or another. Nonetheless, the one IEM I’ve used the most throughout the year is the Dunu Zen. There is something truly addicting about their sound that makes me come back to them time and again.

However, the Zen is not the best IEM that I have heard throughout the year. That would probably be the Sony IER-Z1R or the 64Audio U12t. In the relatively budget realm, the 7Hz Timeless took me by surprise with their planar speed and excellent bass slam.

Source: Instead of going with separate sections for amps, DACs and such, I will just consolidate them into one.

Best desktop amp I’ve tried: Accuphase E380. One of those rare speaker amps that sound great with headphones.

Best portable amp I’ve tried: Cayin C9. It is the only review loaner in the past year that I have wanted to buy with my own money. I probably will, soon, budget permitting.

Best DAP: Lotoo PAW 6000, even though it can’t power difficult loads.

Best dongle: L&P W2. The only dongle that I found to be good enough to replace some DAPs.

Best DAC: Holo May L2. The price is extremely high but so is the sound quality. Exceptionally natural and neutral tuning. Another must listen.

And that’s a wrap. Have a great Christmas, and see you on the other side!

KopiOkaya…SINGAPORE

Too many lists…I focus on eartips…

Best EARTIPS of 2021

Most versatile eartips: SpinFit CP-100+
Best budget eartips: Audiosense S400
Best eartips for bass: FAudio “Instrument” Premium Silicone Earphone Tips
Best eartips for vocal: Azla SednaEarFit Crystal (Standard)
Best eartips for treble: BGVP S01
Best eartips for soundstage: Whizzer Easytips SS20
Most comfortable eartips: EarrBond New Hybrid Design

Loomis Johnson…Chicago, USA

Gear of the Year (and other Favorite Things)

SMSL SU-9 DAC/Preamp—one of those pieces that makes you seriously question why anyone would spend more. A seriously good DAC which is even better as digital preamp.

Hidisz S3 Pro DAC/Dongle—lacks the juice to power challenging loads, but has an uncanny knack for enlivening and improving more efficient phones. Very refined, with impeccable bass control.

Cambridge Melomania TWS—ancient by TWS standards, and its rivals have more features and tech, but this may still be the best-sounding TWS you can buy.

Shozy Rouge IEM—like a really hot girl you get smitten by the beauty before you even delve into the substance. Properly driven, however, these sound just as good as they look, with estimable staging and clarity.

The Beatles, “Get Back” Documentary—as probably the only person on earth who hasn’t seen Lord of the Rings I was gobsmacked by how brilliant this film looked and sounded. The real surprise for me, however, was how natural  a musician John was—unburdened by technique, but soulful and  exploratory.  Poor George invokes your pity—a good writer forced to compete with two great ones– while Ringo wins the award for Best Attitude.

Bob Dylan, “Desolation Row”—I always found the lyrics impenetrable and a bit sophomoric, but the Spanish-influenced lead guitar part is incredible, with scarcely a phrase repeated throughout the full 11 minutes. I’d always assumed it was Mike Bloomfield, but it’s actually the harmonica virtuoso Charlie McCoy, who also plays the trumpet part of “Rainy Day Women”.

Reds, Pinks and Purples, “Uncommon Weather” In hope of finding something genuinely fresh I dutifully listened to the most-touted 2021 releases before fixating on this one, which (predictably) sounds exactly like 80s Flying Nun and Sarah bands.

And This Was The Previous Year:

The post Gear Of The Year 2021 – Our Personal Favourites appeared first on Audio Reviews.

Cons — Hip-DAC2 can feel unwieldy when paired with large phones
– Narrow staging
– Somewhat colored tonality won’t suit neutrality seekers
– Single-ended output is underwhelming
– A proper line-out would be perfect

INTRODUCTION

iFi Audio hit the homerun with the original Hip-DAC. It had excellent build, the design was unique, and the sound was different to most in the market with a warm, rich tuning that could power most reasonable headphones and IEMs.

The release of the Hip-DAC2 came as a surprise to me as I didn’t think the Hip-DAC was being outperformed by its peers. In fact, the Hip-DAC is still on of the best portable DAC/Amps under $250. On paper it appears that the Hip-DAC2 is mostly geared towards Tidal enthusiasts, having a major improvement in MQA decoding capabilities.

Let’s see if the Hip-DAC2 can prove itself to be just as good as its predecessor.

Note: the ratings given will be subjective to the price tier. iFi Audio was kind enough to send me the Hip-DAC2 as a loaner.

Earphones/Headphones used: Dunu Zen, Dunu Zen Pro, Final FI-BA-SS, Campfire Andromeda 2020, Sennheiser HD650, Sennheiser HD560S, Final Sonorous III.
Firmware versions: 7.30, 7.3b
Price, while reviewed: 190 euros. Can be bought from WOD Audio.

PHYSICAL THINGS AND USABILITY

PACKAGING AND ACCESSORIES

iFi Audio went for a minimalist package with the Hip-DAC2. You get the essentials: a type-C to USB type-A female cable (for connecting to phones), a USB type-A male to female cable (for connecting with the PC), and a type-C to USB type-A male cable for charging.

There is an optional case that you can buy but it cost 29 euros extra.

BUILD QUALITY

Build quality of the Hip-DAC2 mimics that of the original Hip-DAC and it is excellent. The housing is sandblasted aluminium with a Sunset Orange color scheme (vs Petrol Blue on the original). The volume pot has a silver-gray finish this time around whereas the OG had a golden knob.

There are two buttons on the left side of the volume pot (xBass and PowerMatch respectively) and two headphone outputs on the right side (4.4mm balanced and 3.5mm single-ended). The bottom of the device houses a USB type-A male port for connecting to devices, and a type-C port for charging.

The volume pot also acts as a power button and has two LEDs on both sides to indicate remaining charge (white for >75%, green for >25%, and red for >10% capacity). These LEDs also show the current sample rate and file format. The following image shows all the colors and their corresponding sample rate or format.

Engaging either xBass or PowerMatch lights up the tiny white LEDs underneath the buttons. Overall, excellent build quality with no noticeable room for improvement.
5/5

HANDLING

The Hip-DAC2 is fairly lightweight at 125gm, but due to the 70mm width can be awkward to hold in hand. This becomes more noticeable when you’re stacking the DAC/Amp with a large phone (most modern phones are large anyway). As a result, I preferred to use the Hip-DAC2 with my laptop rather than on-the-go with my phone. Also, the aluminium shell is quite slippery, so not the best experience when using as a portable device.
3.5/5

BATTERY LIFE

Clocking at around 8hrs of playback time, the battery life on the Hip-DAC2 is decent if unremarkable. The 2200mAh battery pack could have been upgraded over the original but that would increase weight and thickness so it’s a compromise iFi has to make. Recharging takes about 3 hours on a typical phone charger.
3.5/5

INTERNAL HARDWARE

iFi Audio are most comfortable with using the BurrBrown chipset and here it appears again. The BB DSD1793 chipset offers native DSD encoding and with the updated XMOS controller can now decode MQA files at a hardware level. This feature, admittedly, is of little use to non-TIdal HiFi users but it doesn’t hurt to have an extra feature.

The potentiometer is fully analog, thus not facing some of the limitations that digital potentiometers may have. However, being analog in nature, it may degrade over time. The Global Master Timing clock has been upgraded here over the original Hip-DAC. The amp sections remains unchanged on paper, with quad JFET OV4627 op-amps (customized for iFi Audio). The amp circuit also uses a dual-mono design for the balanced output.

Other extras include the xBass feature which is an analog EQ and mostly aims to “fix” the sub-bass roll-off issue on open-back headphones. In reality, many open-back headphones suffer from distortion in those regions and applying an EQ might cause further distortion and clipping. The other feature is the PowerMatch button that acts as a gain switch for headphones (iFi advises keeping it off for sensitive IEMs).

Speaking of power outputs, the Hip-DAC2 outputs 0.4W @ 32ohms from the balanced out and 280mW @ 32ohms from the single-ended output (which also supports their proprietary S-balanced tech). The voltage swing can go as high as 6.3Vrms from the balanced out and this comes handy when driving high impedance dynamic driver headphones.

The PCB design is excellent and the components are high quality so I have no qualms about the internals of the Hip-DAC2. I would have loved it even more had it had a true line-out with fixed voltage output. Pairing the Hip-DAC with external amps could make it a great desktop solution. Maybe something for the Hip-DAC3.

TONALITY AND TECHNICALITIES

The general sound of the iFi Hip-DAC2 can be summarized as warm-neutral. It has the characteristic iFi Audio warmth with smooth treble and an engaging midrange. The bass is mostly neutral but can be pushed higher with the xBass switch.

One area where the Hip-DAC2 falls short of its peers is the soundstage width. You won’t have the stage width of some of the ESS chipset-based DACs in the price range. On the plus side, the imaging was precise for the most part, provided you have headphones/IEMs with good imaging. Treble also doesn’t exhibit the rather common “glare” you find in many dongles these days.

One thing to note is that changing the firmware can bring subtle changes to the sound due to changes in reconstruction filter. I used both the default 7.30 firmware and the 7.3b firmware. The former had a more laid-back treble and had a slightly wider stage, while the latter had sharper treble with more up-front upper-mids. Do note that these are subtle changes and won’t drastically alter the sound.

Overall transparency and resolution was good for the price point, though again I could hear some roll-off in the upper-treble frequencies and separation was nothing exceptional. Moreover, the background hiss is noticeable with sensitive IEMs, so if you want a very dark background the Hip-DAC2 will disappoint.

PAIRING NOTES

Sennheiser HD650

The Sennheiser HD650 is one of the few headphones that scale according to the source quality. On paper, the Hip-DAC2 has the required voltage swing to power it, but reality is a mixed bag. The HD650 got loud from the balanced out but lacked the dynamics it can display on a more powerful amp. Separation was not the best either. I would not recommend the Hip-DAC2 for such high impedance dynamic drivers if you want to maximize their potential.

Final Sonorous III

Final Sonorous III is a closed back pair of headphones and are very efficient. Despite the efficiency they are quite transparent to source quality. The Hip-DAC2 drove them excellently with no loss in dynamics and the bass was quite pleasant. The upper-mids had more glare than usual, though, and the treble extension was lacking somewhat. Nonetheless, I would call the Hip-DAC2 a good pairing for efficient dynamic driver headphones.

Hifiman Sundara

On the planar magnetic side, we have the Hifiman Sundara. With a 94dB @ 37ohms efficiency, these are not the easiest headphones to drive. The Hip-DAC2 did get them loud with good enough dynamics. Moreover, the xBass switch was handy to add some slam and physicality to Sundara’s otherwise flat, dry bass. I would call these two a good pairing, though Sundara can do better when paired with high end amps.

Dunu Zen and Dunu Zen Pro

The Dunu Zen and Zen Pro both exhibited hiss from the balanced out of the Hip-DAC. However, the overall sound was quite pleasant. The Hip-DAC2 was not as resolving as the Questyle CMA-400i or Lotoo PAW 6000 with the Dunu Zen and Zen Pro, but none of its $200 peers sound any better with these IEMs so there’s that.

In general, the Hip-DAC2 pairs well with moderately efficient IEMs and some inefficient ones. The warm signature complements somewhat analytical headphones and IEMs. On the other hand, I would not recommend it for power-hungry planar magnetic headphones and IEMs, or very high impedance dynamic driver headphones. Headphones and IEMs with a warm tonality might not be the best pairing as well, e.g. Final E5000.

SELECT COMPARISONS

vs iFi Hip-DAC

There is little to externally differentiate between the original Hip-DAC and the Hip-DAC2 other than the different paintjob. In terms of sound, the changes are mostly minor. The Hip-DAC2 has more transparency in the upper-mids (OG Hip-DAC sounded smoothed out in that region) and slightly wider stage. The imaging also seems somewhat more precise though I’m not too convinced about this improvement.

Most noticeable difference will be for those who believe in MQA. I am not an MQA user and these supposed improvements were thus untested. I mostly stuck with DSD and PCM files and for those, the OG iFi Hip-DAC is nearly as good as the newer version.

vs Apogee Groove

Apogee Groove has a very different amp architecture and is not really smartphone-friendly due to its higher power-draw and lack of internal battery. The amp architecture is also very different and has a very high output-impedance that messes with most multi-driver IEMs.

I found the Groove to pair really well with high impedance dynamic driver headphones, esp the HD650 and the likes. Some inefficient single-dynamic IEMs like the Final E5000 also pair excellently with the Groove. Unfortunately, the Groove is abysmal with low-impedance low-sensitivity planar magnetic headphones. They are also not as intuitive to operate as the Hip-DAC and lacks the xBass/PowerMatch features.

Overall, the Hip-DAC2 is more universal whereas the Groove is superb with a select few headphones and IEMs but below-par with the rest.

CONCLUDING REMARKS

Holistically, the iFi Hip-DAC2 is a minor improvement over the original. I don’t think existing Hip-DAC owners need to upgrade to the Hip-DAC2 unless they are fully into the Tidal ecosystem and appreciates hardware MQA decoding.

That being said, those who are looking for a battery-powered DAC/Amp for desktop or laptop use and occasional phone pairing, the Hip-DAC2 is pretty much one of the best under $200. The original Hip-DAC is still available at Amazon Germany and costs $20 less, but I think you can just get the newer version since the price increase is marginal.

The Hip-DAC2 remains one of the best portable DAC/Amps under $200 and rightly earns my recommendation for using with desktops and laptops. Sadly, it is still not a good pairing for sensitive IEMs and leaves room for improvement when powering planar magnetic headphones. Something’s gotta give, after all.

MY VERDICT

4/5

A minor upgrade to an otherwise great portable DAC/Amp.

Contact us!

DISCLAIMER

Get it from WOD Audio.

Our generic standard disclaimer.

PHOTOGRAPHY

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

The post iFi Audio Hip-DAC2 Review (1) – Subtle Improvements appeared first on Audio Reviews.