A LONG ABSENCE
Apart from getting 20 yards away from a bear, accidentally descending down a snow-packed couloir (via a controlled* 50-foot slide) at Denali NP, and driving on a seriously questionable road somewhere above the Arctic Circle, I’ve been fine. Mostly. Yes, I’ve been in Alaska for a month, putting myself in precarious situations and generally relying on "hold my beer" logic to survive; I almost qualified for several Darwin Awards as a result. Naturally, I was absent, for the most part, from the audio world. But I've returned, and in fairly good time. The number of reviews I’ve built up is certainly not insignificant, and it seems that a lot has happened since I was last in the Lower 48. Those who have been keeping up with the Sony MDR-Z1R thread will know. But that’s old news, and this certainly isn’t the Donna Reed show – so let’s get going.

*To the extent that sliding through waist-deep snow is "controllable".

INTRODUCTION, PROPER
My interest in Campfire Audio actually began a while ago at the first Canjam Singapore after a fellow audio enthusiast insisted that I audition his Jupiter. It sounded good, but lacked that je ne sais quoi that would have otherwise made me leap. Needless to say, I was interested in Campfire Audio’s various developments, and I wrote to them regarding covering their lineup. Well, a year later, I’m privileged to have finally gotten the chance to cover Campfire Audio’s flagship models. The good folks at CA are busy, and rightfully so, because they are certainly producing excellent earphones. But wait! One of the flagships is a dynamic too. EX1000 fans may now take a moment to briefly reminisce about the days of old.

For those of who are still (somehow) in the dark about Campfire Audio, here’s a quick primer. Based out of Oregon, Campfire Audio was actually a project conceived by the good folks at ALO Audio. Ken Ball and team have clearly set their goal on producing high quality UIEMs capable of competing with the best, all while introducing new driver materials and featuring a rather unique design philosophy. It’s an approach that stands in stark contrast with the increasingly astounding (and pricey) contenders of the ongoing driver count race. Nicely done, I must say. Interestingly, Campfire Audio’s product offerings are split into two lineups. One is comprised primarily of BA driver earphones, while the other features more varied dynamic/ hybrid offerings. I think it is fairly safe to conclude that the latter mixes sound signatures up a bit, but I’ll discuss that more when I compare the Vega and Andromeda.

A little while back, I mentioned the importance of flow in my reviews. This long trip certainly has given me more than a couple of ideas for future pieces and the fresh makeover of Head-Fi is good reason to do some spring cleaning. Prepare yourself as I attempt to break up an otherwise rigid review format and go on hopefully entertaining tangents. And watch as none of this comes to fruition (50% chance, give or take, especially if it’s a Monday). I’ll also be introducing my measurement rig in this review. I’ve been working on it for a while and I do have decent confidence in its capabilities as of now. It’s a rather big section, and for those who are not interested please do feel free to skip it. It is an interesting recap of the process and hopefully articulate enough to be helpful.



DISCLAIMER
The Campfire Audio Andromeda and Vega were provided directly by the CA team for the purposes of this review. I am neither a paid affiliate nor an employee of Campfire Audio. As always, I do reserve the rights to the media in this review, so if you would like to use the photography/ videos please do drop me a line (at the very least please provide an appropriate attribution). I dislike watermarks on photos and would rather not use them. It’s been a blast putting these two earphones through their paces. It’s also been a great time for me to push forth on my measurements of IEMs (my expedition in headphones having temporarily reached a “satisfactory” point, as I await further findings). Once again, a big thanks to Campfire Audio for this opportunity and I hope you enjoy reading this review as much as I did writing it.

Editorial Note 1: Have posted a thread as well as a "review"- still don't fully understand the new showcase system yet and text formatting system, so I'm sticking to the tried and true thread post.
Editorial Note 2: Some of these photos had to be posted lower-res than I had initially wanted due to the fact that I can't seem to locate the "resize" function in the new editor. Thus, manually resized in Photoshop. If there's a workaround, please let me know immediately.


Quality! These are excellent products to unbox. The packaging is both functional and sensible, leaving little in terms of material waste. Arriving in a star-studded (literally) cardboard box and sealed in with plastic wrap, the Campfire Audio IEMs are nestled inside a leather carrying case. The interior lining is definitely a nice thought, and the case shuts compactly enough to the point where the earpieces will not be sliding and scratching each other. As added protection, the Vega features two earpiece pouches. Strangely, this is not present on the Andromeda (and it should be). Apart from that, the general package is fairly comprehensive and complete. A full list of items is provided in the description below the photo.

The build quality on the Campfire products is quite commendable. It is certainly a highlight that must be mentioned. The Andromeda is made in the USA, and features a machined aluminum body with an anodized finish (Zirconium blast treatment). Some have asked if the earphone is really as green as it looks in the photos - the answer is yes. However, the carefully milled facets of the housing lend a very nice colored gradient to the earphone that changes with various lighting conditions. I suppose I know this because I spent too much time on the photography in this review. Other key design features include the 5-balanced armature drivers (2 low, 1 mid, 2 high) and a proprietary "tuned acoustic expansion chamber".

The Vega is comprised of parts from Taiwan and made in China. That said, the earphone's build is still high quality. It features a liquid alloy metal housing with a PVD (physical vapor deposition) finish. It's a type of finish achieved by evaporating a solid/liquid into gaseous form and depositing it back onto the target surface as a thinly applied coating. The nozzle is plastic, and there is indeed a faint injection mold line on it (more sanding?). A tuning port can be found at the top of the housing. Throughout my time with the Vega, I did notice driver flex manifesting itself as a crinkling sound depending on how I inserted the earphones. It has been mentioned on the forums that there is no danger of damage from this flex though. The Vega's driver is an 8.5 mm dynamic driver made from ADLC (amorphous diamond-like carbon).

Stock cable is very nice and is a silver plated copper litz wire in medical grade PVC jacket. There's a sturdy 3.5 mm plug with good strain relief, and the y-split is also quality, if not prone to scratching. Cinch is made from clear transparent plastic. The real star of the show is the ear guide, which blends heat shrink with a guide wire - it's simply the best of both worlds. MMCX connector is made from beryllium copper.

Those who have read /been following my reviews will remember that we discussed, at some length, my personal headphone measurement rig/ process in the Sony Z1R review. It is fairly obvious that the results of non-standard measurement rigs are far from absolute, and should generally be applied in relative comparisons for best effect. Given these various limitations, one may ask why we, as enthusiasts, should even be bothered to develop measurement systems at all, considering that we are generally unable to match industry-standard equipment, and can in fact potentially mislead ourselves with erroneous results. The answer is two-fold and quite practical in my mind. First, it is an undoubtedly enjoyable process. The ability to quantify the qualitative (i.e. subjective) is gratifying (and equal parts, frustrating). But in general, it provides us with a better understanding of the devices we are measuring, and this comprehension can make the pursuit of audio far more enjoyable. Second, when applied effectively, decent measurements can provide objective insight – and allow for many meaningful, tangential explorations. Did you ever wonder just how “distorted” distortion is? If yes, a rig can help in the understanding of that area of sound. The list continues. Furthermore, it allows us to avoid the serious issues that can arise from purely subjective descriptions and misunderstandings. In my mind, certain descriptors can be directly correlated with measurements, giving us very substantive evidence to assist in descriptions. This isn’t to say that numbers are everything, but when applied appropriately, they can account for much indeed. Henceforth, I leave this open to interpretation, and for use as the reader sees fit.

Editorial Note 3: I wrote the above section of the review a little while back as I was reflecting on the process. That is to say, over a month ago. Given the recent discussion about measurements, I've decided not to edit this section at all - this is, and has been, my perspective on measurements for a long time.

I use the UMIK-1 from MiniDSP, a measurement microphone with an onboard soundcard. It is quite convenient and comes with its own calibration file. There is, to my knowledge, a 3rd-party company called Cross-Spectrum offering further, more extensive calibration services, albeit at an increased cost. It’s certainly worth a look for those investing in a measurement microphone. Microphone aside, the coupler is probably the next most important aspect of a working system. As I describe my own system, do note that this isn’t meant to outline the construction of the definitive measurement system. Instead, it is an objective look at the capabilities of my system, its shortcomings, and what I feel confident in assuming/ sharing.

There are three factors that I ran into quite frequently in assembling the rig – coupling distance, seal, and resonance. In describing the modifications/ build of my own measurement system, I will go over the issues I encountered with each of these elements and how they can be resolved. Let’s start with the microphone. It is very much possible to detach the head of the microphone from the body. Clasp it with a vice and give the body a hard tug. Have your soldering kit ready, because from personal experience, it is easy to snap the wire off the solder point. In fact, I had to re-solder two points on the microphone (one broke and needed repair, the second broke in the process of the repair). To detach the microphone from the head, push gently using a soft object (pencil eraser, etc.). The microphone capsule should come off easily. As per recommendation, I’ve applied a ring of glue around the microphone capsule. Do note that depending on the glue used, you could potentially make it impossible to remove the capsule from the head, so do take caution with those soldering joints. I’ve thought about it, and in fact it may not be a bad idea to put some hot glue down, sealing the microphone permanently to the microphone headphone compartment and more or less securing the solder joints. There were pieces of white foam that came out the head compartment as well, and looked rather skimpy. To replace that, I cut a foam tip and pushed it directly behind the microphone. It seems to be a needed upgrade. You’ll also notice a large tangle of wires that came out from the body as well. When putting everything back together, use a pencil to push the tangle back in, as opposed to pushing on the microphone head. You will break the wire (especially at the solder point) doing this.

The next step in the process is to build a coupler. I’ve got close to 10 iterations of “coupling” devices lying around. The one I’ve more or less settled on is shown in the pictures. I’ve used electrical tape to create a ring (just thick enough) such that the slightly larger ½ inch PVC tube can be sealed very completely with a bit of a push. The end of the chamber features a plastic flange that forms the PVC tube and enables better fits with certain types of IEM tips. This is where coupling distance really comes into play. As I will demonstrate in a graph below, it is very important that the coupling distance is correct, otherwise you’ll notice key FR landmarks (peaks, dips, etc.) in wrong places. I’d take a generally accepted uncompensated FR, and adjust your coupling distance such that the peaks align where they should. I’ve found that this will float in the ballpark of 1-1.5 cm depending on how you couple the IEM to the microphone. The further you couple your earphone away from the microphone, the more you see artifacts in the higher frequencies (repetitive peaks, and such). Resonance from the coupler discounted most forms of thin metal coupling for me. I’d stick with PVC and plastics for enthusiast measurement systems. Now, the Andromeda/ Vega present a very unique opportunity to adjust one’s rig. This is because Ken @Campfire Audio has provided uncompensated measurements that we can do comparisons against. Considering that his is a well calibrated, industry standard rig, I find this to be an interesting proposition. I do not believe my measurements to be better, so feel free to take note of the differences. And it is always fruitful to discuss your measurement techniques with other individuals - it provides insight/ means of improvement. One last mistake I made – don’t rush to take a bunch of measurements of tons of earphones, find one IEM to work with and go from there. Otherwise, you’ve but just a pile of fairly unhelpful numbers. IEM measurement is unforgiving, and can be more difficult than headphones in fact, so do take your time.

Some things I noticed for the Andromeda – subbass attenuation feels like it should be 1-2 dB less. The region past from 1K-4K as measured is not perfectly flat, but has some dips and artifacts. I should note that higher frequencies, when measured on this rig, aren’t particularly accurate – best that the reader look and evaluate him/ herself. Third harmonic distortion exists on the Andromeda, but this is may be an attributable characteristic to the BA driver itself. Other measurements seem to support my measurements, at their current distortion levels. Overall, most things seem to check out fairly nicely. Vega came through generally unscathed and the difference between these two should be obvious.No smoothing has been applied in any of these measurements.



The Andromeda is a superbly balanced earphone, made even better by choice ear-tips. Bass performance is responsive and tight, but not lacking. Sub-bass is rendered as needed with detail cues demonstrating the reproduction capabilities of the earphone. Mid-bass is expectedly inoffensive. The midrange is linear and connects to the higher frequencies without a hitch. Upper frequencies are naturally well-extended and liquid without ever coming off as tiresome. Detail retrieval is excellent and soundstage and imaging are spot on. A touch of coolness tints the Andromeda’s tonality, and it’s certainly something that resonates with me. As a long time ER4 user, I’m truly impressed (I’ll explain a little later). This isn’t an earphone for specific genres or songs or setups. It’s a transducer that reveals and navigates almost all source material.

The Vega is certainly the Danny Zuko of the Campfire Audio line up. Featuring a prominent bass response that makes full use of the earphone’s dynamic driver, the Vega digs deep and hits hard. It’s a heck of a lot of fun to listen to. In certain ways, the Vega reminds me of the Sony Z1R in earphone form, the comparison being rather crude, of course. Given this, it is surprising that the Vega doesn’t suffer much bass spill, and midrange generally comes through intact. Higher frequencies are well-extended, but do fall behind the Andromeda. Overall technicalities of the Vega are slightly behind the Andromeda. Instrumental timbre was one of the Vega’s weaker points. That said, the Vega moves in ways the Andromeda doesn’t. I can’t emphasize it enough, but the Vega is simply tons of fun.

Together, these two headphones could complete a collection, providing a versatile toolkit that will satisfy even the most dedicated of enthusiasts. It is a rather refreshing look at IEMs, considering that recent developments have been marked by increasingly pricey offerings prompted by the informal driver count war. I’m not thrilled by all of these offerings – and some of my experiences with large multi-BA drivers have been quite negative. I’m not convinced that more is better, and I’ve tried some extremely expensive earphones where crossover points were audible and general coherency was atrocious. I’ve never quite given up on the merits of a properly executed single dynamic driver earphone, and the Vega has satisfied in this regard. In the course of this review, I’ve utilized the Onkyo DP-CMX1, theBit Opus#1, Teac HA-P90SD, and borrowed the Chord Mojo and Questyle QP1R from a fellow newly-converted audiophile. Sounded pretty good out of all of these sources. The earphones do have very low impedance though (Andro 12.8 ohms @ 1K, Vega 17.6 ohms @ 1K) so damping factor can be an issue. The sensitivity of the Andromeda means that noisy sources will be punished!

SELECTED LISTENING IMPRESSIONS
I’ve often been asked to be more narrative in my approach to reviews, and I do think that providing comparisons and walking through specific pieces of music will allow readers to get a better sense of what I’m addressing. I’ve picked moderately complex compositions that provide opportunity to showcase interesting aspects of each earphone, and will conclude on some general observations.


The Planets, op.32, Venus
Gustav Holst, conducted by Karajan and performed by BPO

The opening (00:00) features a horn call comprised of four ascending notes. It’s a smooth, haunting motive that is also texturally detailed. The timbre of the horn is appropriately rendered on both the Andromeda and ER-4S. However, the Vega portrays a mellower, smoother sound that reminds me less of a horn and more of a euphonium. Not exactly accurate. At 00:10, the second horn call is answered by a combination of oboe and flute chords. There’s a certain clarity conveyed by the Andromeda/ ER-4S – the reedy sound of the woodwinds being clearer and more incisive than on the Vega. At 00:37, the gentle rumble of the bass hints at a larger orchestration. The Vega and EX-800ST both deliver satisfying performances, while the Andromeda tends toward a more balanced portrayal. The ER-4S falls on its face. The violin solo at 02:05 is poignant and chilling. There’s a lack of bite from the Vega that reduces the realism of sound. The theme that begins at 03:15 is fantastically grand on the Vega though. Spot the celeste at the 07:36 mark. You'll notice that the Andromeda has more sparkle. I imagine that Karajan may have preferred the Vega. The smoother, more rounded sound, exemplifies the musical vision of the “emperor of Legato”. However, from a technical standpoint, I find the Andromeda to be better for classical music in general – it simply presents instrumental timbres better.

Time Out, Take Five
The Dave Brubeck Quartet

A jazz classic, Take Five features an instantly recognizable tune in the uncommon 5/4 time. The start of the piece (00:00) provides easily accessible comparison material. With Joe Morello on the drums alone, it’s clear that reproduction on the Vega and Andromeda differ greatly. The bass drum kick is emphasized, while the cymbal ride is smoother and less brassy compared to the Andromeda. Snare drums seem about the same. Beginning at 00:20, Paul Desmond enters with the alto saxophone, and here we have yet another point of analysis. The left/center/right recording method with single mic means that each of the instruments is panned hard to a side spatially. While modern methods may dictate this as being less than ideal, it does provide an opportunity to test the soundstage/ imaging of our transducers. Perceived width and depth on the Vega is still smaller (but not small) than on the Andromeda. At 02:30 where the drum solo begins in full, the Vega proves once again that while it may not be as technically proficient as its sibling, it can be great fun to listen to.


Others
It should be no surprise that the tonal balance of the Andromeda favors midrange performance over that of the Vega. Listening to Diana Krall’s East Of The Sun (West Of The Moon), there’s a certain spaciousness that pervades Krall’s voice. Appropriate rendering of vocal texture and linearity aid in the easiness of sound. It’s a fuller (and slightly wetter) sound than the ER-4S, which is a good thing. The Vega’s mids are smoother, and are slightly less defined and present. It’s well-executed considering the earphone’s impressive bass, but for those who listen exclusively to vocals the Andromeda is the go-to.

CHOICE OF EARTIPS

I've begun work on eartip measurements, though I do not yet feel confident in utilizing them yet. Here's a quick look at my general measurements (but should not be relied upon!). I urge readers to use the subjective impressions below.

• Spinfit (Baseline) – I’ve chosen this as the baseline for observations as they seem to be one of the most popular, and I do find myself returning to them a fair bit. Tends to yield a brighter character to the earphone with a nice zing. Extension is excellent. Spinfit can be unpredictable between user-to-user, if not by its whole premise alone.
• Spiral Dot – Another excellent choice. Doesn’t have the same sonic edge as the Spinfit, but doesn’t lack in extension and certainly adds extra weight to sound. Many will find this to be a nice and pleasant ear tip, provided it fits. I recommend buying ½ a size smaller than your usual as the diameter on these eartips is fairly large due to its wide bore design.
• Sony Stock Silicones – Not bad, but between the Spinfits and Spiral Dots, I really don’t see what these do better. Higher frequency extension is weaker than the Spinfits, and lower frequencies are less clear. Vocals are less immediate too. Deeper fit brought housing into contact with the ear, which was uncomfortable.
• Sony Isolation Hybrid – Clear improvement over Sony Stock Silicones. Brings extra isolation, slightly improved bass response, all while maintaining comparable extension and clarity. It’s a nice flavor. Fairly comfortable to wear, if not a little difficult to fit onto the nozzle.
• Sony Foams – Available in Japan only (I think). If you need foam tips and have access to Japanese products (import/export, etc.) I’d use these. Featuring a foam eartip with a silicone backing, these eartips tend to last longer than Comply tips, are far less prone to ripping, and generally less icky. Complies do seem to isolate and seal better though. Similar to the hybrid tips, but adds slightly more warmth and bass. Highs less extended?
• Stock Silicones – Somewhat similar to the Spiral Dot in terms of bore and insertion depth. Sound isn’t remarkably different, but I find the fit to be slightly less agreeable. Those who prefer a softer ear tip will probably enjoy the stock silicones better. They do tend to bring the housing closer (and into contact with the ear) too.
• Comply – I don’t really like the way Comply eartips fit and feel. They wear out fast, have a tendency to rip, and just annoy me. That said, Comply eartips do offer a decent amount of isolation, and for me increase the bass. It should be noted that Comply eartips affect sound based on the amount that they are compressed. More compression leads to better seal, which in turn can increase bass and treble. Less compression can result in the foam attenuating the highs, etc. I’d suggest going with the former in most cases.

To me, the Andromeda and Vega are excellent earphones. The Andromeda's balance is very pleasant to me, and the Vega offers a similarly well executed signature that features a tonal balance that is indeed rather hard to pull off. Couple that with the excellent build quality of these IEMs, and it's just hard to argue with these earphones. If you're in the market for a new pair of high-performance IEMs, you definitely need to do yourself a favor and at least give the Vega and the Andromeda a try.

A LONG ABSENCE
Apart from getting 20 yards away from a bear, accidentally descending down a snow-packed couloir (via a controlled* 50-foot slide) at Denali NP, and driving on a seriously questionable road somewhere above the Arctic Circle, I’ve been fine. Mostly. Yes, I’ve been in Alaska for a month, putting myself in precarious situations and generally relying on "hold my beer" logic to survive; I almost qualified for several Darwin Awards as a result. Naturally, I was absent, for the most part, from the audio world. But I've returned, and in fairly good time. The number of reviews I’ve built up is certainly not insignificant, and it seems that a lot has happened since I was last in the Lower 48. Those who have been keeping up with the Sony MDR-Z1R thread will know. But that’s old news, and this certainly isn’t the Donna Reed show – so let’s get going.

*To the extent that sliding through waist-deep snow is "controllable".

INTRODUCTION, PROPER
My interest in Campfire Audio actually began a while ago at the first Canjam Singapore after a fellow audio enthusiast insisted that I audition his Jupiter. It sounded good, but lacked that je ne sais quoi that would have otherwise made me leap. Needless to say, I was interested in Campfire Audio’s various developments, and I wrote to them regarding covering their lineup. Well, a year later, I’m privileged to have finally gotten the chance to cover Campfire Audio’s flagship models. The good folks at CA are busy, and rightfully so, because they are certainly producing excellent earphones. But wait! One of the flagships is a dynamic too. EX1000 fans may now take a moment to briefly reminisce about the days of old.

For those of who are still (somehow) in the dark about Campfire Audio, here’s a quick primer. Based out of Oregon, Campfire Audio was actually a project conceived by the good folks at ALO Audio. Ken Ball and team have clearly set their goal on producing high quality UIEMs capable of competing with the best, all while introducing new driver materials and featuring a rather unique design philosophy. It’s an approach that stands in stark contrast with the increasingly astounding (and pricey) contenders of the ongoing driver count race. Nicely done, I must say. Interestingly, Campfire Audio’s product offerings are split into two lineups. One is comprised primarily of BA driver earphones, while the other features more varied dynamic/ hybrid offerings. I think it is fairly safe to conclude that the latter mixes sound signatures up a bit, but I’ll discuss that more when I compare the Vega and Andromeda.

A little while back, I mentioned the importance of flow in my reviews. This long trip certainly has given me more than a couple of ideas for future pieces and the fresh makeover of Head-Fi is good reason to do some spring cleaning. Prepare yourself as I attempt to break up an otherwise rigid review format and go on hopefully entertaining tangents. And watch as none of this comes to fruition (50% chance, give or take, especially if it’s a Monday). I’ll also be introducing my measurement rig in this review. I’ve been working on it for a while and I do have decent confidence in its capabilities as of now. It’s a rather big section, and for those who are not interested please do feel free to skip it. It is an interesting recap of the process and hopefully articulate enough to be helpful.



DISCLAIMER
The Campfire Audio Andromeda and Vega were provided directly by the CA team for the purposes of this review. I am neither a paid affiliate nor an employee of Campfire Audio. As always, I do reserve the rights to the media in this review, so if you would like to use the photography/ videos please do drop me a line (at the very least please provide an appropriate attribution). I dislike watermarks on photos and would rather not use them. It’s been a blast putting these two earphones through their paces. It’s also been a great time for me to push forth on my measurements of IEMs (my expedition in headphones having temporarily reached a “satisfactory” point, as I await further findings). Once again, a big thanks to Campfire Audio for this opportunity and I hope you enjoy reading this review as much as I did writing it.

Editorial Note 1: Have posted a thread as well as a "review"- still don't fully understand the new showcase system yet and text formatting system, so I'm sticking to the tried and true thread post.
Editorial Note 2: Some of these photos had to be posted lower-res than I had initially wanted due to the fact that I can't seem to locate the "resize" function in the new editor. Thus, manually resized in Photoshop. If there's a workaround, please let me know immediately.


Quality! These are excellent products to unbox. The packaging is both functional and sensible, leaving little in terms of material waste. Arriving in a star-studded (literally) cardboard box and sealed in with plastic wrap, the Campfire Audio IEMs are nestled inside a leather carrying case. The interior lining is definitely a nice thought, and the case shuts compactly enough to the point where the earpieces will not be sliding and scratching each other. As added protection, the Vega features two earpiece pouches. Strangely, this is not present on the Andromeda (and it should be). Apart from that, the general package is fairly comprehensive and complete. A full list of items is provided in the description below the photo.

The build quality on the Campfire products is quite commendable. It is certainly a highlight that must be mentioned. The Andromeda is made in the USA, and features a machined aluminum body with an anodized finish (Zirconium blast treatment). Some have asked if the earphone is really as green as it looks in the photos - the answer is yes. However, the carefully milled facets of the housing lend a very nice colored gradient to the earphone that changes with various lighting conditions. I suppose I know this because I spent too much time on the photography in this review. Other key design features include the 5-balanced armature drivers (2 low, 1 mid, 2 high) and a proprietary "tuned acoustic expansion chamber".

The Vega is comprised of parts from Taiwan and made in China. That said, the earphone's build is still high quality. It features a liquid alloy metal housing with a PVD (physical vapor deposition) finish. It's a type of finish achieved by evaporating a solid/liquid into gaseous form and depositing it back onto the target surface as a thinly applied coating. The nozzle is plastic, and there is indeed a faint injection mold line on it (more sanding?). A tuning port can be found at the top of the housing. Throughout my time with the Vega, I did notice driver flex manifesting itself as a crinkling sound depending on how I inserted the earphones. It has been mentioned on the forums that there is no danger of damage from this flex though. The Vega's driver is an 8.5 mm dynamic driver made from ADLC (amorphous diamond-like carbon).

Stock cable is very nice and is a silver plated copper litz wire in medical grade PVC jacket. There's a sturdy 3.5 mm plug with good strain relief, and the y-split is also quality, if not prone to scratching. Cinch is made from clear transparent plastic. The real star of the show is the ear guide, which blends heat shrink with a guide wire - it's simply the best of both worlds. MMCX connector is made from beryllium copper.

Those who have read /been following my reviews will remember that we discussed, at some length, my personal headphone measurement rig/ process in the Sony Z1R review. It is fairly obvious that the results of non-standard measurement rigs are far from absolute, and should generally be applied in relative comparisons for best effect. Given these various limitations, one may ask why we, as enthusiasts, should even be bothered to develop measurement systems at all, considering that we are generally unable to match industry-standard equipment, and can in fact potentially mislead ourselves with erroneous results. The answer is two-fold and quite practical in my mind. First, it is an undoubtedly enjoyable process. The ability to quantify the qualitative (i.e. subjective) is gratifying (and equal parts, frustrating). But in general, it provides us with a better understanding of the devices we are measuring, and this comprehension can make the pursuit of audio far more enjoyable. Second, when applied effectively, decent measurements can provide objective insight – and allow for many meaningful, tangential explorations. Did you ever wonder just how “distorted” distortion is? If yes, a rig can help in the understanding of that area of sound. The list continues. Furthermore, it allows us to avoid the serious issues that can arise from purely subjective descriptions and misunderstandings. In my mind, certain descriptors can be directly correlated with measurements, giving us very substantive evidence to assist in descriptions. This isn’t to say that numbers are everything, but when applied appropriately, they can account for much indeed. Henceforth, I leave this open to interpretation, and for use as the reader sees fit.

Editorial Note 3: I wrote the above section of the review a little while back as I was reflecting on the process. That is to say, over a month ago. Given the recent discussion about measurements, I've decided not to edit this section at all - this is, and has been, my perspective on measurements for a long time.

I use the UMIK-1 from MiniDSP, a measurement microphone with an onboard soundcard. It is quite convenient and comes with its own calibration file. There is, to my knowledge, a 3rd-party company called Cross-Spectrum offering further, more extensive calibration services, albeit at an increased cost. It’s certainly worth a look for those investing in a measurement microphone. Microphone aside, the coupler is probably the next most important aspect of a working system. As I describe my own system, do note that this isn’t meant to outline the construction of the definitive measurement system. Instead, it is an objective look at the capabilities of my system, its shortcomings, and what I feel confident in assuming/ sharing.

There are three factors that I ran into quite frequently in assembling the rig – coupling distance, seal, and resonance. In describing the modifications/ build of my own measurement system, I will go over the issues I encountered with each of these elements and how they can be resolved. Let’s start with the microphone. It is very much possible to detach the head of the microphone from the body. Clasp it with a vice and give the body a hard tug. Have your soldering kit ready, because from personal experience, it is easy to snap the wire off the solder point. In fact, I had to re-solder two points on the microphone (one broke and needed repair, the second broke in the process of the repair). To detach the microphone from the head, push gently using a soft object (pencil eraser, etc.). The microphone capsule should come off easily. As per recommendation, I’ve applied a ring of glue around the microphone capsule. Do note that depending on the glue used, you could potentially make it impossible to remove the capsule from the head, so do take caution with those soldering joints. I’ve thought about it, and in fact it may not be a bad idea to put some hot glue down, sealing the microphone permanently to the microphone headphone compartment and more or less securing the solder joints. There were pieces of white foam that came out the head compartment as well, and looked rather skimpy. To replace that, I cut a foam tip and pushed it directly behind the microphone. It seems to be a needed upgrade. You’ll also notice a large tangle of wires that came out from the body as well. When putting everything back together, use a pencil to push the tangle back in, as opposed to pushing on the microphone head. You will break the wire (especially at the solder point) doing this.

The next step in the process is to build a coupler. I’ve got close to 10 iterations of “coupling” devices lying around. The one I’ve more or less settled on is shown in the pictures. I’ve used electrical tape to create a ring (just thick enough) such that the slightly larger ½ inch PVC tube can be sealed very completely with a bit of a push. The end of the chamber features a plastic flange that forms the PVC tube and enables better fits with certain types of IEM tips. This is where coupling distance really comes into play. As I will demonstrate in a graph below, it is very important that the coupling distance is correct, otherwise you’ll notice key FR landmarks (peaks, dips, etc.) in wrong places. I’d take a generally accepted uncompensated FR, and adjust your coupling distance such that the peaks align where they should. I’ve found that this will float in the ballpark of 1-1.5 cm depending on how you couple the IEM to the microphone. The further you couple your earphone away from the microphone, the more you see artifacts in the higher frequencies (repetitive peaks, and such). Resonance from the coupler discounted most forms of thin metal coupling for me. I’d stick with PVC and plastics for enthusiast measurement systems. Now, the Andromeda/ Vega present a very unique opportunity to adjust one’s rig. This is because Ken @Campfire Audio has provided uncompensated measurements that we can do comparisons against. Considering that his is a well calibrated, industry standard rig, I find this to be an interesting proposition. I do not believe my measurements to be better, so feel free to take note of the differences. And it is always fruitful to discuss your measurement techniques with other individuals - it provides insight/ means of improvement. One last mistake I made – don’t rush to take a bunch of measurements of tons of earphones, find one IEM to work with and go from there. Otherwise, you’ve but just a pile of fairly unhelpful numbers. IEM measurement is unforgiving, and can be more difficult than headphones in fact, so do take your time.

Some things I noticed for the Andromeda – subbass attenuation feels like it should be 1-2 dB less. The region past from 1K-4K as measured is not perfectly flat, but has some dips and artifacts. I should note that higher frequencies, when measured on this rig, aren’t particularly accurate – best that the reader look and evaluate him/ herself. Third harmonic distortion exists on the Andromeda, but this is may be an attributable characteristic to the BA driver itself. Other measurements seem to support my measurements, at their current distortion levels. Overall, most things seem to check out fairly nicely. Vega came through generally unscathed and the difference between these two should be obvious.No smoothing has been applied in any of these measurements.



The Andromeda is a superbly balanced earphone, made even better by choice ear-tips. Bass performance is responsive and tight, but not lacking. Sub-bass is rendered as needed with detail cues demonstrating the reproduction capabilities of the earphone. Mid-bass is expectedly inoffensive. The midrange is linear and connects to the higher frequencies without a hitch. Upper frequencies are naturally well-extended and liquid without ever coming off as tiresome. Detail retrieval is excellent and soundstage and imaging are spot on. A touch of coolness tints the Andromeda’s tonality, and it’s certainly something that resonates with me. As a long time ER4 user, I’m truly impressed (I’ll explain a little later). This isn’t an earphone for specific genres or songs or setups. It’s a transducer that reveals and navigates almost all source material.

The Vega is certainly the Danny Zuko of the Campfire Audio line up. Featuring a prominent bass response that makes full use of the earphone’s dynamic driver, the Vega digs deep and hits hard. It’s a heck of a lot of fun to listen to. In certain ways, the Vega reminds me of the Sony Z1R in earphone form, the comparison being rather crude, of course. Given this, it is surprising that the Vega doesn’t suffer much bass spill, and midrange generally comes through intact. Higher frequencies are well-extended, but do fall behind the Andromeda. Overall technicalities of the Vega are slightly behind the Andromeda. Instrumental timbre was one of the Vega’s weaker points. That said, the Vega moves in ways the Andromeda doesn’t. I can’t emphasize it enough, but the Vega is simply tons of fun.

Together, these two headphones could complete a collection, providing a versatile toolkit that will satisfy even the most dedicated of enthusiasts. It is a rather refreshing look at IEMs, considering that recent developments have been marked by increasingly pricey offerings prompted by the informal driver count war. I’m not thrilled by all of these offerings – and some of my experiences with large multi-BA drivers have been quite negative. I’m not convinced that more is better, and I’ve tried some extremely expensive earphones where crossover points were audible and general coherency was atrocious. I’ve never quite given up on the merits of a properly executed single dynamic driver earphone, and the Vega has satisfied in this regard. In the course of this review, I’ve utilized the Onkyo DP-CMX1, theBit Opus#1, Teac HA-P90SD, and borrowed the Chord Mojo and Questyle QP1R from a fellow newly-converted audiophile. Sounded pretty good out of all of these sources. The earphones do have very low impedance though (Andro 12.8 ohms @ 1K, Vega 17.6 ohms @ 1K) so damping factor can be an issue. The sensitivity of the Andromeda means that noisy sources will be punished!

SELECTED LISTENING IMPRESSIONS
I’ve often been asked to be more narrative in my approach to reviews, and I do think that providing comparisons and walking through specific pieces of music will allow readers to get a better sense of what I’m addressing. I’ve picked moderately complex compositions that provide opportunity to showcase interesting aspects of each earphone, and will conclude on some general observations.


The Planets, op.32, Venus
Gustav Holst, conducted by Karajan and performed by BPO

The opening (00:00) features a horn call comprised of four ascending notes. It’s a smooth, haunting motive that is also texturally detailed. The timbre of the horn is appropriately rendered on both the Andromeda and ER-4S. However, the Vega portrays a mellower, smoother sound that reminds me less of a horn and more of a euphonium. Not exactly accurate. At 00:10, the second horn call is answered by a combination of oboe and flute chords. There’s a certain clarity conveyed by the Andromeda/ ER-4S – the reedy sound of the woodwinds being clearer and more incisive than on the Vega. At 00:37, the gentle rumble of the bass hints at a larger orchestration. The Vega and EX-800ST both deliver satisfying performances, while the Andromeda tends toward a more balanced portrayal. The ER-4S falls on its face. The violin solo at 02:05 is poignant and chilling. There’s a lack of bite from the Vega that reduces the realism of sound. The theme that begins at 03:15 is fantastically grand on the Vega though. Spot the celeste at the 07:36 mark. You'll notice that the Andromeda has more sparkle. I imagine that Karajan may have preferred the Vega. The smoother, more rounded sound, exemplifies the musical vision of the “emperor of Legato”. However, from a technical standpoint, I find the Andromeda to be better for classical music in general – it simply presents instrumental timbres better.

Time Out, Take Five
The Dave Brubeck Quartet

A jazz classic, Take Five features an instantly recognizable tune in the uncommon 5/4 time. The start of the piece (00:00) provides easily accessible comparison material. With Joe Morello on the drums alone, it’s clear that reproduction on the Vega and Andromeda differ greatly. The bass drum kick is emphasized, while the cymbal ride is smoother and less brassy compared to the Andromeda. Snare drums seem about the same. Beginning at 00:20, Paul Desmond enters with the alto saxophone, and here we have yet another point of analysis. The left/center/right recording method with single mic means that each of the instruments is panned hard to a side spatially. While modern methods may dictate this as being less than ideal, it does provide an opportunity to test the soundstage/ imaging of our transducers. Perceived width and depth on the Vega is still smaller (but not small) than on the Andromeda. At 02:30 where the drum solo begins in full, the Vega proves once again that while it may not be as technically proficient as its sibling, it can be great fun to listen to.


Others
It should be no surprise that the tonal balance of the Andromeda favors midrange performance over that of the Vega. Listening to Diana Krall’s East Of The Sun (West Of The Moon), there’s a certain spaciousness that pervades Krall’s voice. Appropriate rendering of vocal texture and linearity aid in the easiness of sound. It’s a fuller (and slightly wetter) sound than the ER-4S, which is a good thing. The Vega’s mids are smoother, and are slightly less defined and present. It’s well-executed considering the earphone’s impressive bass, but for those who listen exclusively to vocals the Andromeda is the go-to.

CHOICE OF EARTIPS

I've begun work on eartip measurements, though I do not yet feel confident in utilizing them yet. Here's a quick look at my general measurements (but should not be relied upon!). I urge readers to use the subjective impressions below.

• Spinfit (Baseline) – I’ve chosen this as the baseline for observations as they seem to be one of the most popular, and I do find myself returning to them a fair bit. Tends to yield a brighter character to the earphone with a nice zing. Extension is excellent. Spinfit can be unpredictable between user-to-user, if not by its whole premise alone.
• Spiral Dot – Another excellent choice. Doesn’t have the same sonic edge as the Spinfit, but doesn’t lack in extension and certainly adds extra weight to sound. Many will find this to be a nice and pleasant ear tip, provided it fits. I recommend buying ½ a size smaller than your usual as the diameter on these eartips is fairly large due to its wide bore design.
• Sony Stock Silicones – Not bad, but between the Spinfits and Spiral Dots, I really don’t see what these do better. Higher frequency extension is weaker than the Spinfits, and lower frequencies are less clear. Vocals are less immediate too. Deeper fit brought housing into contact with the ear, which was uncomfortable.
• Sony Isolation Hybrid – Clear improvement over Sony Stock Silicones. Brings extra isolation, slightly improved bass response, all while maintaining comparable extension and clarity. It’s a nice flavor. Fairly comfortable to wear, if not a little difficult to fit onto the nozzle.
• Sony Foams – Available in Japan only (I think). If you need foam tips and have access to Japanese products (import/export, etc.) I’d use these. Featuring a foam eartip with a silicone backing, these eartips tend to last longer than Comply tips, are far less prone to ripping, and generally less icky. Complies do seem to isolate and seal better though. Similar to the hybrid tips, but adds slightly more warmth and bass. Highs less extended?
• Stock Silicones – Somewhat similar to the Spiral Dot in terms of bore and insertion depth. Sound isn’t remarkably different, but I find the fit to be slightly less agreeable. Those who prefer a softer ear tip will probably enjoy the stock silicones better. They do tend to bring the housing closer (and into contact with the ear) too.
• Comply – I don’t really like the way Comply eartips fit and feel. They wear out fast, have a tendency to rip, and just annoy me. That said, Comply eartips do offer a decent amount of isolation, and for me increase the bass. It should be noted that Comply eartips affect sound based on the amount that they are compressed. More compression leads to better seal, which in turn can increase bass and treble. Less compression can result in the foam attenuating the highs, etc. I’d suggest going with the former in most cases.

To me, the Andromeda and Vega are excellent earphones. The Andromeda's balance is very pleasant to me, and the Vega offers a similarly well executed signature that features a tonal balance that is indeed rather hard to pull off. Couple that with the excellent build quality of these IEMs, and it's just hard to argue with these earphones. If you're in the market for a new pair of high-performance IEMs, you definitely need to do yourself a favor and at least give the Vega and the Andromeda a try.

Feliks Audio Elise​

---

---

---

The Right Stuff
Roll credits.  Well, not exactly -but the point is that the Feliks Audio Elise is a darned good piece of equipment. And with its recent update, this cult favorite has only gotten better.  The 2017 Elise features reduced background noise and a new three-year warranty, two very welcome changes to an already excellent product.  Those who have read my reviews in the past will know that this isn’t my first encounter with Feliks Audio.  This Polish audio company previously impressed with a budget tube offering in the form of the Espressivo, a smaller 6N5P/6N1P tube setup that predates the Elise.  Featuring a musical and dynamic sound with good punch, the Espressivo offers an immediately entertaining house sound that was quite captivating.  Needless to say, the Espressivo made a big impression at its then $349.00 USD price point (currently retails at $449.00 USD) and received deserved praise.  There were several points of note though.  The Espressivo’s sometimes hot upper range, mediocre detail retrieval (and smallish soundstage) were limiting characteristics.  The Sennheiser HD 800 pairing, as some mentioned, was not particularly noteworthy -partially due to the fact that the Espressivo failed to realize some of the headphone’s key qualities.  In this sense, there was room for improvement.
 
First released in late 2014, the Elise is a single-ended, OTL tube amp successor to the Espressivo, featuring a better stock setup of 6AS7G(6N13S)/ 6SN7 tubes and an upgraded transformer.  It has amassed a dedicated community following (which can be found at this most recent thread).  The thread contains exhaustive notes on tube-rolling and modifications, as well as links to past threads/ collections of information. The Elise also has the rather unique distinction of being hailed as one of the best-pairing amplifiers with the Beyerdynamic T1 headphones.  The latter point is of particular interest to me, as I am indeed a fan of the Beyerdynamic T1 Gen. 1 (21,000+ serial).  My thoughts are surmised in the confident conclusion that this is one of best T1 pairings I’ve heard to date.  Before proceeding with this review, it is worth mentioning that failing to use a recommended tube combination can lead to damage to the amplifier, which may void its corresponding warranty. The Elise is currently available at $849.00 USD with the standard Tung Sol Drivers or at $999.00 USD with the upgraded Psvane tubes, with both options being offered directly by Feliks Audio. It will take 4-6 weeks for a typical order to be fulfilled (lead time will vary, from my understanding). Shipping is handled via EMS. Poczta Polska in Poland, and local carrier upon arrival.  Email communication is responsive and helpful, so feel free to contact Feliks Audio before making your order.
 
Disclaimer
As with the Espressivo, the Feliks Audio Elise was provided directly from Lukasz @ Feliks Audio for the purposes of this review.  I have once again been told that I can keep it, and have now had it on hand for over a month.  Some technical issues delayed the release of this review, and the folks over at Feliks Audio have been very patient imdeed!  I do apologize to those whom have been waiting for this review to come out -it’s been a while in the making.  As always, I am neither a paid affiliate nor an employee of Feliks Audio.  In addition, I do reserve the rights to the media used in the review, so do contact me if you wish to reproduce any part of the writing or photography seen here.  Apart from that, I thoroughly enjoyed this amplifier, and hope that you will come away from this review with a sense of what the Elise can do.  Do feel free to comment below - I try to stay updated, but if for some reason you cannot reach me, just shoot me a PM and I will try my very best to answer your questions.  Sometimes things get lost/ I accidentally miss emails, so following up never hurts.
 
 

---

The Elise arrived in a heavy cardboard box, once again sealed with black tape bearing the company logo and name.  Opening the box will reveal the amplifier encased in Styrofoam and loose marshmallow bits, with tubes stowed away in the hollow center area.  The tubes are wrapped individually in Styrofoam and none of mine were damaged during the shipping process.  There was just a slight bit of oxidation on one of the tubes, which was fairly quickly resolved with a good old eraser.  There is also a small hand-signed card to add a personal touch, and a short manual to get started with.  Overall, nothing too complex and the amplifier should be up and running within a matter of minutes.  A power cord is included.
 

---

The Feliks Audio Elise is a great looking headphone amplifier. Cutting a svelte figure in black, the Elise tucks away nicely in almost any setup.  Whether it’s meant to operate in the background as a pre-amplifier, or as a centerpiece in a headphone-based chain, the Elise looks suitably great in almost all situations.  It’s an understated but nonetheless elegant look that simply works.  Starting from the top, users will find a chrome plaque featuring the Feliks Audio logo and name.  It is an improvement over the brass one found on earlier iterations of the amplifier, as it now matches the reflective portions of the upgrade Psvane tubes for greater aesthetic continuity.  The transformer enclosure stands at 9.00 cm tall with an associated cross-sectional area of 10.5 cm (width) x 17.5 cm (length).  Corners are slightly rounded with smooth leading edges.  At the base of the transformer enclose are a set of six 3.70 cm x 2 mm slits, paired in three groups of two and evenly spaced apart.  The depth of these slits also indicated that the aluminum enclosure was about 1 mm thick. The first row of tubes (positions 2 and 3, manual) should be equipped with the power tubes, and the second row (positions 1 and 4, front) with the driver tubes. Driver sockets are secure without excessive amounts of play.  The face plate is 1.00 cm thick.  Appropriately balanced and far from being gratuitous.  On the front is a single headphone output (quarter-inch) and the volume pot.  Operation is indicated via a single blue LED, and the model name/ Feliks logo can be found engraved as well.  The rear of the unit features a single set of RCA inputs, a single set of RCA line outputs, and a power switch/ fuse socket for AC power connection.  Overall weight is 4.5 kg, and general dimensions are 31.0 cm x 20.5 cm x 17.0 cm.  The unit is elevated by a set of polished metal feet, and flipping the unit over reveals a ventilation cut-out in the shape of the Feliks Audio logo.
 
Overall the aluminum chassis on the Elise is a great improvement over that found on the Espressivo.  Gone is the odd font and slightly quirky design of the Espressivo and in its place, a more mature looking amplifier. There are no glaring problems on my unit -but there are quibbles.  The volume pot is scuffed (perhaps a B-stock unit), and rotating it does cause it to rub against the face plate at times.  The latter point does not produce an unacceptable amount of friction though, and it does not seem to permanently scratch the faceplate.  On the topic of the faceplate, the block is a bit of a fingerprint magnet, and because it seems to have been finished slightly differently from the rest of the chassis, this does become apparent after a while.  Feature wise, noticeably absent on the Elise is the option to have multiple inputs.  Granted, this hasn’t been a major issue for me personally, but for those using multiple DACs, switching inputs will be a little bit of a hassle. I'm hoping to see this feature perhaps reintroduced in future iterations/ models.
 

---

The first order of business here was to determine the output impedance, since this specification isn’t stated on the website.  In comparing the voltage output unloaded/ loaded for given signal, I found that the output impedance of the Elise ranges in the 54-ohm region. Previously mentioned output impedance numbers on community forums have been 40 ohms/ 50 ohms, which is generally in line with initial expecatations. This isn’t an entirely surprising finding, considering that this is a single-ended OTL tube amplifier.  As name suggests, output transformerless amplifiers lack an output transformer.  The design philosophy here being that forgoing the output transformer will result in lower distortion.  One of the considerations then is impedance matching and the effect of dampening factor, especially for dynamic driver headphones that can at times seem visible (and audible) FR changes as a result.
 
 
The Elise is a rather efficient amplifier from my understanding, and will drive low impedance loads as needed.  I had mixed success using low impedance headphones/ earphones, and I’m sure that given the large inventory of headphones most users here have, it’ll be up to the individual to determine what works and what doesn’t.  I tend to stick to the1/8^th rule for simplicity’s sake (headphone impedance should safely be 8 x the output impedance), so both the Audio-Technica R70X and Beyerdynamic T1 come away squarely in this sense (FR isn’t visibly affected for either of these headphones).  For the record, none of my impressions will be based off of IEMs/ low impedance headphones -doing so doesn’t accurately portray the Elise’s intended design goals in my mind. I’ve seen reviews/ posts where IEMs like the Noble K10s were plugged into this amplifier.  Not my intention to be contrary -but this does not constitute a wholly fair evaluation of a great piece of equipment in my opinion.  For those who are indeed curious about my general thoughts regarding the use of IEMs with this amplifier – noise floor may be an issue for the more sensitive ones, and what seems like transformer hum can be heard softly in the background.  Listening subjectively – I found some pairings to be oddly tizzy and harsh, with sub-bass roll off and a lack of general cohesiveness.  No such issues persisted with the higher impedance headphones. 
 
I’ve done some basic RMAA measurements as well, nothing too surprising here. RMAA results are only as good as the equipment used to perform the tests, and there has been a decent amount of coverage on its limitations and weaknesses. Currently, I am utilizing an Asus Xonar U7 external sound card (line-in mode). The ADC is a Cirrus Logic CS5361-KZZ that is capable of 24/192 w/ a 114 dB dynamic range. It uses a 5th order MBT Delta-Sigma Modulator, and attains low levels of noise and distortion. For those curious, the DAC is the equally capable CS4398-CZZ. Please find my results below. The 32 ohm load is the Samson Z55, 470 ohm load is the Audio-Technica R70X, and the 600 ohm load is the Beyerdynamic T1.
 

---

At A Glance
I plugged the Beyerdynamic T1 in with high expectations (and a certain degree of impatience).  In fact, I recall the tubes still tingling slightly when I gave the Elise its first go (not recommended).  Needless to say, I was quite immediately impressed -the hype had delivered.  Tempering my initial excitement, I sat myself in a chair and listened. And listened.  A hundred album playthroughs later, my original impressions came through mostly intact.  The Elise is an incredibly pleasant amplifier with an easily likable house sound.  It carries a touch of warmth, especially through the midrange, with well-extended highs (tad bit of sparkle) and a solid lower frequency performance.  This isn't a sloppy tube amplifier - in fact, it does rival my LC in terms of speed (though the difference becomes more apparent with balanced output).  Staging is excellent, and this is an amplifier that I believe would pair very nicely with a lot of different pieces of kit.  Headphone recommendation wise – it worked splendidly with the Beyerdynamic T1 (and I imagine the HD800 wouldn’t be too far behind either).  Lending a pinch of warmth to the midrange and more depth to the lower-end makes for a great combination.  Upper frequencies a tad softer than my usual preference.  The Audio-Technica R70X, which has quite a markedly different tonality than the T1, also worked very nicely, a further indication that this was a generally balanced amplifier.  Once again, the midrange was delivered upon, but the bass was a touch slow.  Apart from that, it was still a very respectable pairing.  I did also notice that the Schiit Bifrost Multibit was well represented with this amplifier. The somewhat exaggerated staging of the multibit DAC became better connected through the Elise.  The image is “continuous” and cohesive, and the general soundstage is wide with good depth.  This stands in contrast with other pairings, especially with the iFi iCAN, where the sound was occasionally presented as coming from the extreme sides with a strong but nonetheless singular center image.  As far as tube-rolling goes, there have been simply too many variations and experiments conducted thus far to be easily surmised.  If you’re planning on getting an Elise look to the thread linked in the introduction for a jumping off point.
 
Soundstage And Imaging
Unlike the Espressivo that preceded it, the Elise has a comfortably large soundstage with good width and depth.  This is a significant improvement over the Espressivo, and reason enough to consider entertaining the notion of an upgrade.  Returning to Vangelis’ "The Tao of Love", the panning sequences are well-executed and provide a great sense of height as well.  There was no clipping in terms of width, which comes as a great relief.  Synthesized melodies aside, more traditional orchestral standards such as Bizet’s "Carmen, Act 1 (Prelude)" performed by the Slovak Radio Symphony Orchestra put on display the capabilities of the Elise. Separation between the respective sections is excellent and imaging is good.  Even in the more difficult sections, the Elise was able to discern between sonic components as needed.  This is more or less due to the Elise’s respectable levels of detail retrieval, which is a clear improvement over that of the Espressivo.  Macrodynamics on the Elise are however are not as pronounced as on the Elise, most like owing to the softer bass and less sparkly highs.  This is an acceptable trade-off and one that comes out in favor of the Elise for most situations.
 
Bass
The Feliks Audio Elise has a reliable and predictable bass section.  It definitely has more mid/upper-bass emphasis than sub-bass, and qualitatively tends toward being a little softer.  With the T1, this adds a bit more heft in the lower frequencies, which is a welcome addition to the otherwise tight and resolving sound.  Bossa Nova tracks like "Wave" by Antonio Carlos Jobim felt adequately presented and engaging, and Sebastiao Neto’s bass lines are heard clearly through the rest of the composition.  Sub-bass extension is okay, but not breathtaking.  While spending time with Jean-Efflam Bavouzet’s excellent interpretation of "La cathédrale engloutie" (Debussy), I noticed that the sonore sans Dureté was not as visceral as I would’ve liked.  It was by no means poor, but having explored this section in great depth in the past (especially via the TH-900/ Z1R), I knew there was more information that could be conveyed with greater presence.  Textural quality in the sub-bass region was correspondingly normal.
 
Midrange
The Elise really starts to shine in the midrange.  I think a term that has been used before by users is “euphonic”, and I have to agree.  The sound is liquid, with slight warmth and good body. It’s overwhelmingly pleasant, and quite addictive. Starting with the lower midrange, I began my evaluation with several tracks from Tony O’ Malley’s Audiophile Selection.  Before I endure the collective wrath of music enthusiasts, I will clarify that I did not get this album simply because it said audiophile on the front but rather because I felt that it would make for some great evaluation standards, and also because I appreciate Tony O’ Malley’s rougher, guttural voice.  It is a smooth listen, though certain textural cues aren’t as emphasized as I would like.  It has a slightly rounded taste, though by no means does it have the “Z1R treatment”.  Female vocals are a simple joy with the Elise.  Once again returning to Antonio Carlos Jobim’s "Aguas de Marco", I am utterly impressed by the energy of the sound, and the Elise’s ability to maintain good levels of clarity while delivering a smooth sound.  It leaves an impactful and lasting impression.  The way Jobim’s breathy timbre contrasts with the almost glossy, unified sound of the vocal support is a positive indication of the Elise’s rendering capabilities.  Norah Jones entered and exited with grace, in what could only be described as one of the most soothing listening sessions I've had.
 
Highs
The highs on the Elise have a touch of sparkle, but never come off as being hot.  This point is important when considering the  on the Espressivo (especially with certain choices of tubes).  The opening of Paradise City is a head-banging experience.  The guitars have a nice electrical sheen and Axl Roses’ distinctive falsetto/full-voice combination (not going to open up that can of worms) powers through the track.  This kind of flexibility in the Elise is very much welcome, especially for people like myself who tend to listen to a wide variety of music.  Looking into other genres, violins such as those found in Schubert’s String Quintet in C Major have good bite, and do convey an aggressiveness fitting for the piece.  The bow lifts are choppy and abrupt, but positively so as the piece does indeed call for this style of playing.  In general, the Elise delivers on sparkles as needed without becoming tiring. There is a nice amount of air at any rate, and the amplifier certainly does not suffer from congestion and resulting incoherence.
 
And What Am I Listening To?
This isn't necessarily reflective of the albums that I find to be best suited for this amplifier.  It's more of an eclectic mix of whatever I find queued up in my playlist at the time of writing.  I certainly found it entertaining to write about at any rate.  It's a candid look at just what high-performance audio gear is being used for (for better or for worse).
 

This is one of the best ACJ albums in my opinion, and an excellent demonstration of Jobim’s breadth as an artist.  In a carefully reinventive fashion, Jobim brought Bossa Nova into the modern era with a polished production featuring trombones, saxophones, acoustic guitars, and that ever-present bass.  It is a combination that would have fit right into a chic 70's cocktail party replete with odd fashions and strange drinks.  Not to mention a nonstop whirlpool of classy cigarette smoke.  I’m happy to have been able to secure a Blu-Spec CD release from the CTI Supreme Collection while in Japan -it is the best version I have come across thus far.  This album is a great way to enjoy the Elise in my opinion.  The opening track “Tereza My Love” is rendered excellently with the amplifier’s staging coming into play as the interestingly mixed instruments come into play.  "Brazil" is a simple joy as the T1/ Elise combination powers through with fluidity (and resolution).​

 ​

The rest of the pieces fall into place as the amplifier traversed through with smooth ease and good weight.    
 

---

The incredibly successful art rock album from the well-regarded Arcade Fire is an example that rock is still alive (maybe not so well) in this day and age.  The imaging and soundstage work to the amplifier’s benefit on title track “Reflektor”, with the vocal panning being hauntingly well done.  The Haitian rara influences are present and definitely accounted for, and the fairly complex composition has been done justice via the Elise, which doesn't fail to handle complex sections.  If there was one complaint, it would be that the tracks could use just a little more edge, with more impact in the lower frequencies.  The Elise's euphonic qualities aren't exactly optimized for this genre of music.  “We Exist” was a certain blast – I had a great time picking my way through the guitars, vocals, piano -all while being able to appreciate the melody as a whole. It's simply good.
 

---

Yes, I listen to Calvin Harris as well.  What? Crappy recording quality (which for the record, isn’t all that bad)?  Not audiophile enough?  Go away, this guy churns out summer anthems faster than an audiophile can switch gear.  And fairly good ones, too - if their generic nature can be discounted.  My favorite track from this album has to be “Pray To God”, featuring HAIM.  The Elise definitely did not disappoint -the drop has weight and decent intensity.  For house that is. Okay, trance and dubstep fans can stop laughing and excuse themselves now.  The weight of this judgement is getting to be oppressive. The vocals have nice presence and the work of the Haim sisters certainly isn't going unnoticed.    “Faith” is another nice track coming from Harris himself.  It has a little bit of edge, but then again any respectable amped-up EDM album needs a semi-reflective piece doesn't it?  And we certainly couldn't conclude without mentioning that Ellie Goulding is still "Outside".   Quick, someone open the door!  I should also mention that the R70X-Elise combination on this album is really lots of fun.
 

---

The Elise is a great amplifier.  At its current price for both the base and upgraded versions, it really is hard to find something that does so much right.  The build quality on the Elise is excellent, and the  well finished and machined chassis makes for a great talking piece.  The current tube setup opens up serious rolling options, and near endless modding opportunities (proceed at your own risk!)  Perhaps the greatest draw for me has been the well-executed Feliks house sound, which is pleasant and well-balanced with a touch of warmth.  It's a clear step up over the Espressivo, providing obvious improvements in key areas such as the treble, soundstage, and general resolution.  I will conclude by saying that if you've a Beyerdynamic T1, it would be absolutely criminal to not give this amplifier a try!  
 
 
 

Lindemann musicbook:10 DSD​

---

---

---

Angles of Approach
There’s always been a certain connotation attached to “all-in-one” devices.  After all, it would seem inconceivable that a single solution could achieve a level of performance previously requiring two or more discrete components. And yet, we are reminded that this misconception isn't –offerings like the Questyle CMA800i, Teac UD-503, and Schiit Jotunheim indicate that there is merit to be had in compact minimalism.  Cue the musicbook:10 DSD.  Standing in contrast to the list mentioned previously, the musicbook:10 DSD is clearly a horse of different color.  Based on a surface-level appraisal, it simply looks different. The smooth metal enclosure cuts a svelte figure with its OLED display and subtle jogwheel, and the included remote pays homage to its hi-fi roots.  It would seem, then, rather odd that this device should somehow find itself in the world of head-fi, surrounded by counterparts that are far less refined and elegant-looking.
 
We begin this review with a quick look at Lindemann’s historical involvement in the audio industry.  It’s a German company with over 30 years experience in the design and manufacture of audio solutions.  I use this term because Lindemann has handled a wide range of products in the past – from loudspeakers to small USB-DACs to everything in between.  In addition, it might also be well worth noting that Lindemann was among the first to arrive on the SACD scene –a clear indication of the company’s longstanding interest in high-resolution formats like DSD. The current Lindemann lineup is comprised of fairly compact devices (USB-DACs, network players, and power amps) all falling under the musicbook name. But what’s the connection?  In a recent update, the Lindemann musicbook:10 DSD has become an extremely versatile combined option –with an upgraded diamond-buffer circuit, full DSD support (up to 256), high-res USB input, and aptX, it is easily one of the most fully stocked packages.
 
Disclaimer
Some of you may be wondering – wasn’t the Kennerton Odin your last review?  Well yes, it was.  For lack of a better excuse, I’ve mixed up the posting order, so this did come afterwards.  I received this unit directly from Lindemann (shipping via Singapore distributor – Modular Audio).  I have now had it on loan for close to 3 weeks, and have certainly enjoyed it quite a bit.  This review took a little while in the coming, as the previous user of the unit happened to remove certain screws from the unit, making it impossible to access certain connections on the back panel. Lindemann did handle the fix very professionally, and it is good to see that the company was so involved in the review process.  In addition, I did have the chance to clarify certain aspects of the musicbook:10 DSD’s design directly with CTO Norbert Lindemann, and that was indeed a very unique opportunity.  I appreciate the fact I was fully equipped with specifications and hardware details for this review -it is always reassuring to see that a manufacturer has the confidence in their product to share what goes on inside.  I do reserve the rights to the media in this review, so if you would like to use the photography/ videos please do drop me a line (at the very least please provide attribution).  I dislike watermarks on photos and would rather not use them. As always, I do hope you enjoy this review! 
 
Also, feel free to post any comments and questions below.  However, I am slow with checking the comments section, especially on older reviews.  In such situations, just send me a PM.  I really do try my best to answer all the PMs I get (and if I don’t, as far as is reasonable, send me another).
 

---

The musicbook:10 DSD comes in a sleek, modern package that is in fact rather reminiscent of those seen on technology giant Apple's various products.  The box is covered with a large matte sleeve, plastered with slick photos of the device on the respective faces of the box.  Removing the sleeve reveals a large white cardboard box, which opens up to some very elaborate packaging.  Foam rollers are attached to the top of the box, while 4 corner pieces pad the device from the trials of international shipping, thus leaving very little chance for the unit to be damaged.   A smaller, second box contains the remote and its associated accessories. For a brief look at what is included within the package:
 

1. Power Cord
2. Infrared Remote Control
3. USB Cable (1m)
4. IR Charging Cable (1m)
5. Wireless Antenna
6. Product Literature

 
There’s certainly a very close attention to detail that has been applied to the musicbook:10 DSD, and this certainly is one of the most complete product packages that I’ve encountered.  Overall, it is very pleasantly executed, and nothing felt missing.  The remote control is a nice touch, though it is essential to have it charged and available for the proper operation of the unit.  While the multi-function control wheel located at the top right corner of the device is capable of executing a decent number of commands, it cannot access is the menu, which as mentioned before, makes the remote a necessity.  A comparatively small point, but you do occasionally run into the classic early-20^th century issue of having to find the TV remote, and it certainly doesn't make it very convenient for those involved in smaller, desktop personal audio setups.
 
 

---

The build of the musicbook:10 DSD is impeccable.  The entire chassis is made completely of 6.5mm thick metal, and is well put together.  The front face of the device features a reflective deep blue glass panel with an OLED graphic display in yellow.  The aesthetic contrast is spot-on.  There’s a single 3.5mm jack located underneath the multi-function control wheel, blending subtly into the front face of the device.  On the topic of the multi-function wheel, rotating left and right adjusts the volume, while a short depression will mute the device.  Depressing and rotating simultaneously the wheel will toggle input selection.  However, this is the extent of the functionality of the multi-function wheel, and the rest of the settings need to be adjusted via remote control.   The unit does feature a stand-by button in the top left corner, which is a convenient function to have on hand.
 
 
 
On the rear panel, there are two analog inputs into the device (RCA).  Digital options include optical and coaxial inputs, with a resolution of up to 24/192.  A USB-B port allows for further playback of 32/384 and DSD files, and is an appropriate demonstration of Lindemann’s focus on computer audio.  Output options are available in the form of a balanced (XLR) and unbalanced (RCA).  There are also two additional two digital outputs allowing for optical and coaxial connection.  The musicbook:10 DSD is a versatile device, and is capable of operation with speakers and headphones alike. Apart from the build quality on the unit itself, I was also pleasantly surprised to see that the included remote control was made out of metal, with glass paneling on the front.  Buttons are tactile, and the remote, unlike some of its counterparts that I’ve tested, doesn’t feeling like a complete afterthought.
 
The musicbook:10 DSD is now centered entirely around a dual mono implementation of AKM’s AK4490 chip (there are two, for a differential balanced system in the very literal sense).  The original musicbook:10 had an implementation featuring the AK4490 (for USB interfacing) and the Wolfson (CL) WM8742 (rest of the digital inputs), though the latter has now been removed due to its lack of support for higher bitrate files/ DSD playback.  As Mr. Norbert Lindemann explained, the AK4490 measures well with low distortion figures and very good noise performance.  Three-stage voltage regulation in the musicbook:10 helps to further achieve low noise on reference voltage inputs of the D/A converters, and the output filter stage sees the use of a J-FET amplifier from Burr Brown. 
 
One of the questions that I did have for Mr. Lindemann was regarding his thoughts were on DSD, in particular, the growing trend related to upsampling of PCM to DSD.  As mentioned before, Lindemann has had a fairly length involvement with this format, which started with the introduction of the D680 SACD-player in 2001 and later on with the 820S.  Playback for DSD has always been handled natively on Lindemann devices, and the resultant playback is supposedly a more natural and open sound, with more colors and better treble/ bass rendering.  In implementing DSD playback, the DAC chip is used simply as a 100 kHz lowpass filter.  The perceived advantage of taking PCM files and up-sampling it is that it lends these files a less “digital” signature.  One of the most recently revamped parts of the musicbook:10 include its amp section, which now features a Class-A diamond buffer output stage with no overall feedback.  Output voltage is selectable via the menu –with 1V, 2V, and 4V options.  Output impedance is measured at 33 Ohms fixed.  I also ventured to inquire about the possibility of adding a balanced output, but Mr. Lindemann felt that that would have been more appropriate for a standalone device.
 
 

---

Lindemann is forthright with the specifications of their products, including fairly detailed measurements at specific temperatures.  This is a good sign, and certainly a demonstration of the manufacturer’s confidence in the competency of their own product.  The following has now become a disclaimer of sorts.. RMAA results are only as good as the equipment used to perform the tests, and there has been a decent amount of coverage on its limitations and weaknesses. Consider it as a broad proof-reading of published technical specifications. Currently, I am utilizing an Asus Xonar U7 external sound card (line-in mode). The ADC is a Cirrus Logic CS5361-KZZ that is capable of 24/192 w/ a 114 dB dynamic range. It uses a 5th order MBT Delta-Sigma Modulator, and attains low levels of noise and distortion. For those curious, the DAC is the equally capable CS4398-CZZ. Please find my results below. The 470 ohm load is the R70X, and the 39 ohm load is the MH40.
 

FR Measurement For 39 Ohm Load​

-Seeing slight interactions, but nothing significant.​

​

 ​

​

FR Measurement For 470 Ohm Load​

-Very slight boost in lower frequencies​

​

 ​

SOUND​

​

---

At A Glance
I spent hours listening to the musicbook:10 DSD out of the Beyerdynamic T1.  While I have never heard the original musicbook:10, it is clear that the updated amp section is not so much a convenient value added as it is a dedicated means of output. This is indeed very good news for those involved in both head-fi and hi-fi, as it really increases the utility of the device.   Despite being single-ended, it is capable of driving the Beyerdynamic T1 with relative power and authority.  As a DAC, the musicbook:10 DSD brings a slight sense of musicality while still maintaining a high level of resolution.  And yes, I did also enjoy the Sennheiser HD800 pairing quite a bit too. Practical considerations do exist –the Lindemann musicbook:10 DSD has a relatively high output impedance at 33 ohms.  This may preclude certain modern lower-impedance headphones from being paired successfully with the unit due to possible interactions arising from damping factor.  Needless to say, headphones falling into the same category as the T1 and HD800 will benefit greatly.
 
Soundstage, Imaging,  Technicals
As mentioned, the amp section does not fail the DAC section when it comes to realizing sonic resolution and dynamics, and captures a full spectrum of sound.  This is a very positive thing –as it makes the musicbook:10 DSD rather complete as a system.  Generally speaking, soundstage is comfortably spacious and detail retrieval is truly noteworthy.  Listening to 3 Na Bossa’s rendition of the famous bossa nova standard, Wave, instruments were well placed with a sense of excellent depth and layering, and separation was very good.  Charlie Haden & Pat Metheny’s Cinema Paradiso was yet another well-executed track.  The texture of sound was realistic, and the subtle nuances of the guitar came through nicely.  The Questyle CMA600i features similarly good detailing, but is far from sounding as refined in its execution, and also has some weird grain. musicbook:10 DSD does the same, but with great smoothness and ease.  The end result is that the musicbook:10 DSD sounds very holographic and controlled. 
 
Bass
The way the musicbook:10 DSD handles bass reminds me slightly of the Teac UD-503.  It has a subtle emphasis that provides just a fuller, more engaging sound.  Extension is excellent, and the opening cue on Sadao Watanabe’s Fire Fly (slightly different from the album version) was executed very handily.  However, there is no sense of distinct droning or unnatural emphasis, and when needed the musicbook:10 DSD is capable of providing good body and impact, portraying tracks like Daft Punk’s Fragments of Time nicely. While the musicbook:10 DSD’s amp section certainly cannot match better current-mode offerings such as the CMA800i in terms of speed and dynamics, (CMA600i doesn't sound quite right to my ears, and is not competitive), it adopts a slightly more laid-back approach and is certainly more natural at times.  The voltage-amp is certainly more easily paired than its current-mode counterpart, which I find to be a little finicky at times.
 
Mids
The mids are well done, and for me the textural quality is about right.  There’s an open clarity to the mids, and this comes through on vocal intensive tracks. Sheer vocals are rendered with power and authority, all while maintaining an even-handness that features good body and impact.  While I regard the Teac UD-503 highly, in terms of raw performance, it loses out in this area significantly. In an attempt to achieve a smoother sound, it ends up rounding off in a manner that drops details and textures, and in this sense the Lindemann really comes through.  I really enjoyed the way the musicbook:10 DSD handles transitions between frequency bands, and nothing sounds disjointed or broken.  
 
Highs
Treble on the Lindemann is excellent, featuring a gentle sparkle and a very nice fluidity. On synthesized tracks such as Vangelis' Tao Of Love, it navigates the piece with a fair amount of speed and articulation.  This performance does also carry through nicely to natural instruments, and in Schubert's String Quartet No. 14 "Death And Maiden", I find that there happens to be just the right amount of bite on instruments like the violin.  I did want to add that despite having textural quality, it doesn't have an unnatural grain that would distract from the overall performance.  It goes without saying that this plays excellently into the Beyerdynamic T1's forte, and I cannot help but to think that this was indeed a natural pairing.
 

---

The Lindemann musicbook:10 DSD is an incredibly versatile device capable of fitting perfectly into most systems.  Despite it being a predominantly more hi-fi oriented device, it is capable of running with some of the best current head-fi all-in-one offerings currently available.  If you're looking for a new DAC/Amp with excellent polish, one that will support a wide range of connectivity options and fit comfortably into both desktop personal audio and hi-fi setups, then I definitely consider the Lindemann musicbook:10 DSD.
 
Thanks for reading,
Ken
 

Kennerton Odin​

---

 

---

The Odin is a headphone under improvement, and Kennerton is providing constant support/ updates to its design.  This is a very positive thing.  To my understanding, here's what has changed over the course of the Odin's production lifespan.

1. ​6.3 mm (1/4 inch) termination on the cable.
2. Softer lambskin earpads!  This is a great plus as far as comfort goes.
3. FUTURE - New OCC cable with cotton sleeve and 6.3 mm termination.
4. FUTURE - Redesigned packaging.

Sony NW-WM1Z/ NW-WM1A​

---

 | PREVIOUS REVIEW | REVIEW INDEX | NEXT REVIEW |​

---

Sony NW-WM1Z/ NW-WM1A​

---

 | PREVIOUS REVIEW | REVIEW INDEX | NEXT REVIEW |​

---

Sony MDR-Z1R​

---

 | PREVIOUS REVIEW | REVIEW INDEX | NEXT REVIEW |​

---

---

Find Your Way Back
April 1981 saw the release of Modern Times by Jefferson Starship.  Now a largely forgotten album, Modern Times did in fact represent a critical juncture for the band.  Singer Grace Slick’s return would not only secure the band’s financial viability, but also lend a certain je ne sais quoi that would help to keep it in good standing with both critics and audiences.  Moreover, it provided much needed direction to Mickey Thomas’ efforts, laying the foundations for an evolution that ultimately produced hits like “Sara” and “We Built This City”. And some terribly awkward music videos as well.   Unfortunately, not all were impressed. In fact, this highly productive period ultimately resulted in founding member Paul Kantner’s departure over disagreements on artistic direction. Regardless, it was clear that a fundamental change had occurred.
 
In many ways, the MDR-Z1R is a watershed moment in Sony audio development.  In keeping with today’s trends, Sony has revisited high-end in what is shaping out to be nothing short of an audio tour de force.  The first indication that something rather significant was in the works came earlier this year when news of invites (and leaks) started rolling in from multiple sources.  Cryptic shots of a dimly lit lineup sparked conversation and cautious curiosity.  However, in spite of the growing momentum, no one really knew what to expect.  A brief retrospective look is informative.  Late 2014 saw the release of the MDR-Z7 –the first noteworthy Sony flagship to have been released since the company’s departure from the high-end scene in 2011.  Critical response was somewhat mixed, with most citing the sound signature as being the primary point of contention. Further complicating matters was the predictable expectation for nothing short of extraordinary –a precedent set by the MDR-R10 and, to a lesser degree, the Qualia 010.  
 
And yet there was a sense of hopeful optimism. Jumping forward to minutes before the audio release at IFA 2016.  Everyone’s flipping through the product notes like it’s a new Dan Brown thriller.  I for one was scrambling to memorize the product names –MDR-Z1R, NW-WM1A, NW-WM1Z, and TA-ZH1ES. The last one was a good challenge.  Going in, there had been an intimidating number of questions from the audio community.  Everyone was trying to size up the Z1R.  The turning point for me lay in the inclusion of the magnesium dome.  It was more or less an acknowledgement of the Z7’s shortcomings (tuning wise), and a very positive first step for the headphone. 
 
The Z1R is a headphone for modern times.  Sony has acknowledged the demand for high performance personal audio equipment, and the Z1R is their answer. Make no mistake – this headphone isn’t meant to be the R10, or 010, or anything in between.  It is, very simply, the Z1R.  Embodying the best of Sony’s current audio philosophy and technology, the Z1R is a valid contender in the flagship market.  Just how valid –we’ll examine this in greater depth through the course of the review.
 
 
Disclaimer
You can also find the review here on my blog!  The MDR-Z1R was provided by Sony for the purposes of this review.  I have now had it on loan for close to 3 weeks.  I am neither a paid affiliate nor an employee of Sony.  As I conclude this review, I would like to thank the Sony team for extending this unique opportunity to cover their new flagship.  It’s been quite the journey since I first found out about the Signature Series a couple of months back, and since then I’ve come to have a much better understanding of the considerations, challenges, and beliefs that went into shaping the various components of the Signature series.  I do reserve the rights to the media in this review, so if you would like to use the photography/ videos please do drop me a line (at the very least please provide attribution).  I dislike watermarks on photos and would rather not use them.  I hope that this was informative, or perhaps even entertaining!
 

---

The MDR-Z1R is without a doubt a statement piece.  The product packaging is large, and not exactly subtle, especially when considering the two large pictures of the MDR-Z1R plastered on its front.  Opening this main cardboard box reveals a black mesh fiber bag.  Sliding the bag out of the cardboard box uncovers a heavy headphone case niftily stored inside the bag. How heavy?  Well, close to 4 kg for the case alone.  When I reached this step in the unboxing, my entire room was flooded with a heavy “new car” scent.  That’s because the MDR-Z1R headphone case is made completely out of leather.  A solid metal clasp holds the case together, and has “MDR-Z1R” etched onto its surface.  The following entire package will contain the following accessories:
 

1. Leather Carrying Case
2. One Single-Ended Cable (3m)
3. One 4.4 Standard Balanced Cable (1.2m)
4. 3.5 to 1/4th Adaptor
5. One Large Mesh Bag (Case)
6. One Small Mesh Bag (Cables)

 
So there's nothing missing in the Z1R's package.  However, wow factor aside, I am not exactly thrilled by the usability of the leather case.  It's huge, even bigger than the T1 aluminum case, and can't store the headphones with the cables connected and headband extended.  In that sense, it's not really practical at all.  Also, there's nothing available to assist in the transportation of this headphone -not even a leather pouch.  I ended up using the nifty Audioquest Nighthawk carrying case for this very purpose.  Slightly disappointing for such an expensive product.  
 

---

The Sony Z1R's build quality is simply exquisite, with an amazing attention to detail.  The headband is made of an extremely supple leather, soft to the touch and very comfortable.  The titanium headband is both flexible and can easily be shaped to the individual needs of the user.  There's a very tactile click for each adjustment on the headband, and it certainly stays in place.  The yoke and enclosure sides are made of metal, and feel solid to the touch, offering good range of motion.  The earpad is also leather, and very plush.  However, the area available for the ear is somewhat close-fitting, and it does heat-up after extended use.  This is something to consider for those living in warmer climates.  The one gripe that I do have are with the integrated cable connecters.  In resting position, the screw-on part of the cable termination rests one on top of the other, and can be easily scuffed if pressure is applied to the top termination. Not exactly a brilliant tradeoff for better aesthetics.  
 
LCD-2 – $995 USD
LCD-XC – $1,799 USD
LCD-X – $1,699 ISD
 
Okay let’s hit the ground running.  Bass-wise, the Audeze cans lean toward powerful impact with good speed with variations on this general theme. LCD-2 bass sounds fuller and richer, but isn’t as well controlled as the X/XC.  Extension on all three cans is good.  However, is clear that Z1R is is able to retrieve much more detail from the lowest frequencies, articulating them with better body as well. Unfortunately, the Z1R is correspondingly slower in comparison.  The LCD-X/XC comparison stands out in particular.  My personal preference for a general listening can would rest somewhere in between these two types of bass.
 
My opinion on the mids of the Audeze line has slowly changed through the course of my testing.  I do feel that LCD-2 mids have better body than the LCD X/XC, and its slightly smoother and richer tone is enticing.  To this extent, there is an odd thinness (and grain) that is present on certain tracks for the X/XC.  In addition, the XC seems to have a minor glare in the upper mids.  These aspects aside, there is sheer power and clarity to the X/XC mids, and all three cans perform better than the Z1R. Male vocals, specifically.  
 
The treble on the LCD 2 isn’t articulate and extended, and loses out solidly to the Z1R.  The X/XC fare better, but also lack in refinement, coming off as sometimes “hot”. Soundstage is really not too impressive for the LCD-2, and point largely amended on the X/XC.  The separation and air present on the X/XC is better than the Z1R, but imaging does come behind.  At any rate, the primary deal breaker for me is not the sound on either of the cans.  In fact I was rather pleased with the LCD-X despite some of its issues.  The thing is –these cans are really heavy, and are uncomfortable for longer listening sessions. The XC really suffered ergonomically when compared to the Z1R.  As I mentioned to a fellow enthusiast, if the Sony engineers had set out to build a headphone this large/ heavy, the sonics would probably have seen a large leap in performance. I understand that there is a new headband system available though, and I sincerely hope that it’ll come stock with future models.  This could close the perceived gap in usability between the headphones.
 
Beyerdynamic
T1 - $500 USD - $1000 USD (Varying Prices)
MDR-Z1R – $2,299 USD (US pricing)
 
The T1.1 was my first flagship headphone, and is still one of my favorites.  While not as a flashy or as expensive as some of its more “modern” competitors, it is reliable and sounds great. As some may know, I tend to talk a lot about this headphone.  Perhaps I am one of the few remaining believers stuck in the crumbling Teutonic castle mentioned on the Schiit homepage.   For the record, I am using a late serial T1.1 (right before baffle-revision).  I do not enjoy the T1.2, and will not be opting for this upgrade path.  The added bass can be seen as being akin to putting lipstick on a hippo.  It isn’t the Beyer sound, and can easily be achieved via proper pairing without sacrificing the 1.1’s flexibility.
 
At any rate, I was recently reminded of the sheer potential in the T1 sound when I received the Lindemann musicbook:10 DSD for review earlier this month (review is coming up soon).  Too often the T1 is remembered as being a treble-happy, somewhat peaky headphone.  However, this is certainly an oversight.  The bass section on the T1, when amped appropriately, is actually competitive.  Quantity wise –it strikes a good balance, and the decay is right on point.  The Z1R’s subbass extends much deeper though and is generally more involved and visceral. I wish there would be a midpoint between these two headphones.  The vocals on the T1 are clear, authoritative, and present.  While lacking in coloration, sweetness, etc., it has a clarity and accuracy that makes it simply enjoyable. The greatest aspect of the T1 (at least my T1) are the liquid highs, but I was rather impressed by the fact that the Z1R was no slouch in this regard either.  Overall, I enjoy both headphones a lot.
 
Focal
Elear – $999 USD
Utopia – $3,999 USD 
MDR-Z1R – $2,299 USD (US pricing)
 
My local headphone store Zeppelin & Co. happens to have demo units for both the Focal Elear and Utopia, and I have since spent quite a good amount of time with both of these new cans.  I do enjoy them thoroughly, and the Utopia has more or less become my benchmark for dynamic driver headphones.  The Elear is actually quite competitive with the Z1R, and both cans do have an emphasis on bass (note open vs. closed).   In discussing subbass, extension on the Z1R is superior, being able to draw more detail and texture than the Elear.  Do Jeito Que Sei by João Donato features a wonderful bass guitar backing that exemplifies the Z1R’s capabilities in this regard.  However, the midbass on the Z1R isn’t as fast as the Elear’s, putting the bass section behind in overall speed.  The Elear is also tighter, and doesn’t have the same diffuseness that occasionally crops up on the Z1R.  Having said this, the Z1R does have a very physical, immersive aspect to its bass that the Elear cannot match.  
 
Lower mids on the Elear are better, aided primarily by a cleaner transition from the bass to the midrange.  As stated before, lower mids are not the strength of the Z1R.  However, I do find the upper mids to be more pleasant on the Z1R, and the sweetness certainly helps (yes, I do have an infrequent bias towards this).  Staging characteristics are similar for both headphones. Separation and airiness are better on the Elear, but imaging wise, weaker.  I’ve found in the past that the Elear does have odd placement on certain tracks.  This is all the more evident when propped something as proficient as the Z1R.
 
The Utopia and Z1R comparison isn’t exactly the fairest of setups, and it plays out fairly predictably.  The one thing that the Z1R does have to its advantage is its tonality.  In my conversations with other enthusiasts, it is clear that not everyone is onboard with the Utopia sound, some citing a lack of bass and a perceived metallic sheen to the highs.  In this sense, the Z1R is a viable alternative.  Jumping into the comparison – bass extension on the Utopia is akin to that of the Z1R, though subbass quantity is less.  General focus is different –Utopia has a tight punch whereas the Z1R has the unique “big” bass.  What it lacks in visceral impact the Utopia makes up for in far superior control and speed.
 
Mids are a clear win for the Utopia, with easy clarity and authority that the Z1R lacks.  The rendering on the Utopia is much improved, making the Z1R seem slightly laidback and relaxed in comparison.  The Z1R doesn’t hold up particularly well when put directly against the accurate and natural Utopia.  The tonal quality of the Utopia is simply of another level.  Also, the Utopia doesn’t have the upper mid sibilance that can be heard on the Z1R.  Highs on the Utopia are airy and pristine, with better extension and eloquence.  When it comes to technicals like the soundstage, imaging, and detail retrieval, the discriminating Utopia does it better in almost all situations.  Once again, we are looking at two different classes and types of headphones. 
 
 
Fostex
TH-900 -$1,299 USD (MK1), $1,500 USD (MK 2)
MDR-Z1R – $2,299 USD (US pricing)
 
When I first heard the Z1R, I had a hunch that this would be one of the key comparisons for the review.  Very few “audiophile” headphones approach the levels of bass that can be found on these two cans, so naturally, it was only a matter of time before a comparison would be made.  I do own the TH-900, and am a big fan of its sound.  I admire its design aesthetic, and have spent hours trying to capture the way the lacquer cups light up with a soft gradient.  I’m kidding…but not really.  
 
The fantastic Debussy piece from Book No.1 of the Preludes, La Cathédrale Engloutie, comes in handy when gauging bass performance.  In discussing subbass, both cans have very similar levels of extension, with the TH-900 edging out ever so slightly as far as detail retrieval is concerned. Midbass is more rounded out on the Z1R quantity wise, and on certain tracks provides much more slam than the TH-900 does.  Control on the TH-900 however is better, and I feel that it is still the speedier of the two bass sections.  Ultimately, the focus is quite different.  Whereas the TH-900 seeks to emphasize its extension, the Z1R is more concerned with providing a fuller sounding, more dramatic, segment.  One quick note though- I feel that the TH-900 is still slightly more accurate.  With certain orchestral and classical tracks, I did feel that the Z1R gave a bit too much emphasis to the bass section. While it certainly made for a good, theatrical experience, it wasn’t entirely true sounding. As a cello player who’s played in orchestras, I can’t say I’ve ever heard a bass section in such force.
 
Mids on the TH-900 simply don’t compare against the Z1R.  The latter features a more even, smoother sound, with greater clarity and better timbre.  Z1R mids aren’t as peaky as TH-900 mids, and are just much more pleasant in general.  Highs on the Z1R are clear and articulate, but without the fatiguing aspect that occasionally sets in with the TH-900.  Soundstage and separation are better on the TH-900, and the sense of air is immediately apparent when switching between the two.  On a practical note, the Z1R has much better isolation and leakage control, but tends to get warm after prolonged use.  My conclusion is that the Z1R is a far better balanced headphone than the TH-900, and if you are choosing either as your primary driver I would go with the Z1R.  However, there are still aspects of the TH-900 sound that I find to be more agreeable, and if you're picking one up as a secondary use can, it'll be up to your personal preference.
 
Hifiman
HE-1000 - $2,999 USD
Edition X - $1,299 USD
MDR-Z1R – $2,299 USD (US pricing)
 
*It would seem that I forgot to include my Hifiman impressions in my initial publication, and I do apologize to all readers for the inconvenience caused.  
 
The Hifiman headphones in fact err towards a softer sound as well.  I will admit, I’m not a huge fan of Hifiman’s present higher-end offerings.  I found the old HE-1000 to be rather soft, and hence I do think that this comparison may be slightly biased.  The Edition X V2 is the first headphone that I shall compare.  Granted, it is a headphone of a very different price range, and so the following statements should be put into perspective.  I feel that the sub bass isn’t altogether dissimilar from the Z1R, but the detailing on the HEX lacks detail .  While the sub bass does have decent presence and extension, it doesn’t have the same level of retrieval as the Z1R.  Midbass is tight and fast on the HEX, but does not replicate impact found on the Audeze can.  Overall, the bass section is unobtrusive, but also uninspiring.  
 
The lower mids on the Edition X are sort of on par with the Z1R, being kind of smooth and not exactly detailed.  It’s a close call on this one. I feel that the upper mids of the HEX are slightly less energetic, and seem to have a mild tint on them.  As far as upper end extension is concerned, the HEX falls short, with a perceived roll-off and lacking a “bite” required to be realistic in terms of tonal quality.  The HEX’s rendition of the Schubert Quintet In C Major is one such example.  The timbre of the violins isn’t quite right, being too smooth at times.  This is especially apparent for the 1st Movement (Allegro Ma Non Troppo), where aggressive playing is the key to achieving success in the piece (I know this, because I've played it).   Perceived soundstage is decent, and separation better than the Z1R.  However, general detail retrieval level is still less than its closed counterpart. 
 
The HE-1000 more or less returns in much greater force.  Bass is much improved, and more capable than the HEX technically.  I find that it can indeed compete with the Z1R as far as extension is concerned.  Quantity is less, but this is not to be seen as a negative. Mids are a clear sweep for the HE-1000.  The lower mids have  a more realistic textural quality, and the upper mids are still less colored.  I really hesitate on the treble, because it doesn’t seem to me that the HE-1000 does all that much better than the Z1R in this regard.  Once again, I return to certain classical tracks, such as Schubert’s  Quartet No. 14 (Death Of A Maiden), I’m not taken aback by its rendering of the HE-1000's rendering of string instruments.    However, when it comes to soundstage, separation, and air, the HE-1000 is clearly the better of the two.  The HE-1000’s open back characteristic proves its ability in this sense.  
 

---

It would be a lie to say that returning this headphone didn't make me just a little bit sad.  The Z1R is really one of the finest closed back headphones available on the market today.  To start, it simply gets a lot of things right - the build quality is spectacular, and the design is well thought out and almost impossible to fault.  Ergonomics and general usability rank among the highest in my experience.  Packaging, while not being the most practical, is certainly very unique. Sonically, it may not be the most technical of headphones, but the Z1R is immersive and involving.  Overall, the attention to detail and the completeness of the headphone is nothing short of stunning. This is a standard for how products should look on release, and is definitely a benchmark for future closed headphones.  Congratulations, Sony.
 

Hifiman Supermini (And Megamini)​

---

 | PREVIOUS REVIEW | REVIEW INDEX | NEXT REVIEW |​

---

---

And Then There Were Two
Interesting ten (or was it thirteen?) days this has been. Currently priced at $399 USD and $249 USD (post-Indiegogo) respectively, these new compact DAPs are certainly interesting value propositions. Their main selling points are a small form factor and an extended battery life. In this sense, they are pretty successful! If this had been 2014, things would’ve been very smooth sailing for the Supermini and Megamini. However, with companies like AK descending into the entry-level market, it would be an understatement to say that the game has changed. There are expectations to meet on multiple fronts, in addition to sound quality – build and UI are some of the few that come to mind immediately. I will explore these factors and how they apply to the Supermini/Megamini in this review.
 
There’s an uncanny resemblance between the new DAPs and the HM700. Form factor wise, both the Supermini and Megamini have taken many visual cues from the HM700. Fortunately enough for users, the headphone jack is no longer inaptly placed on the side of the player’s body. Internally, little is known about the Supermini and Megamini. All that has been released is that the new players are using a lower power-consumption controller chip. This isn’t exactly a far cry from the SigmaTel STMP3700 used on the HM700, though the STMP3700 was a bit more powerful in the sense that it was a SoC, if such things are to be taken at face value. At any rate, the idea of pushing a non-dedicated chipset to its extremes remains. Point is, this isn’t an entirely new concept –and it is, to a certain extent, dated.  With that in mind, let’s jump into the review and see how these two hold up.
 
 
Disclaimer
 
The Supermini and Megamini were both provided directly from Hifiman for the purposes of this review.  You can also find this review here on my blog. I had originally only expected to conduct a review for the former, but when I received the package I found the latter neatly stowed inside as well. I have had these for thirteen days, and the stipulated terms of the review included finishing this piece within a timeframe of ten days (yikes). Very tight schedule –and I apologize for taking a little longer (I was sick, and things slowed down a little). I won’t be keeping these units and will be sending them back to Hifiman post-review. I do reserve the rights to the media in this review, so drop me a line if you intend on reproducing any part of the writing, photography, or video in this review.  A short note on the star rating – I do not like giving stars via the current rating system.  It just doesn’t make sense to me –how do you quantify a star?  But for those wondering anyways I’d say the Supermini is 4 stars and the Megamini is 3.5 stars.  This is based on my general sense of perceived performance. Once again, thanks to Hifiman for offering me this unique opportunity!
 
 

AudioQuest NightHawk​

---

 | PREVIOUS REVIEW | REVIEW INDEX | NEXT REVIEW |​

---

---

A Very Different Kind Of Blue
Different. It’s the AudioQuest NightHawk, in a word. A combination of rather unique design elements and aesthetics, this entry byAudioQuest is indeed an unconventional looking and sounding headphone. When I first auditioned the NightHawk, I was left with a positive impression and a piqued interest. I did feel that there was more to be had though – and hence I reached out to Stephen at AudioQuest, seeking to conduct a review and a longer-term examination of the headphones through equipment I was more familiar with. A couple of weeks and one IFA later, and I finally got around to completing the final draft of the review.

Let’s start first with some short observations regarding AudioQuest's history. Known for its high-end audio cables, the company has, as of late, been expanding its product range. It has entered the portable DAC/Amp market with the well-regarded Dragonfly series, and as of last year has become actively involved in headphone development as well. I think that this is indeed reflective of the incredible growth in the personal audio industry. However, this wasn’t some poorly conceived, opportunistic expedition into the wilds of Roanoke. Instead, the NightHawk presents itself as a look at headphone design from a ground-up perspective, one that seeks to incorporate several new technologies coherently into a meaningful package. I will summarize and explain these aspects in greater depth in a later section of the review.

To me, the Nighthawks were a very interesting pair of headphones to review. There’s been a lot of polarized community discussion on these –and it did indeed take me some time formulate a solid perspective on these headphones. After quite a bit of consideration, I do believe that these headphones are good, but have a unique sound signature and steep appreciation curve that will make it hard for some to get into.    You'll also notice that this is indeed my first video review.  Yes, it was hard being on camera and there were definitely things to work on.  However, I hope y'all find it at least reasonably entertaining and I do think it makes for a great complement to the writing.

Disclaimer
The AudioQuest NightHawk was provided by AudioQuest through Unicorn Sound & Vision for the purposes of this review. I’ve now had it on loan for about 3 weeks (perhaps more, I can’t quite recall). I’d like to thank AudioQuest for this unique opportunity. You can also find the review here on my blog.  In addition, I do reserve the rights to the media used in the review, so do contact me if you wish to reproduce any part of the writing, video or photography seen here. Apart from that, I hope y’all have as much fun reading this as I did have writing the review.

Feliks Audio Espressivo​

---

 | PREVIOUS REVIEW | REVIEW INDEX | NEXT REVIEW |​

---

 

iFi Pro iCAN​

---

 | PREVIOUS REVIEW | REVIEW INDEX | NEXT REVIEW |​

---

 

---

iFi's Bid To Define A "Flagship Amplifier"​

The Pro iCAN. An understated name for a product that politely seeks to be the alpha and omega of flagship headphone amplifiers.   The fully packed, bright red PCB is illustrative; according to iFi there is simply “no more ‘real estate’ left to develop” on the Pro iCAN.  Consider it an embodiment of the iFi philosophy.  One will not find a slick webpage for the Pro iCAN –instead be prepared to be confronted with a smorgasbord of tech and hardware specifications. Making a return at the top of the page is the rounded rectangle proclaiming the glorious 14,000 mW output power rating of the amplifier.  It’s all very impressive, in a uniquely iFi way. 
 
It’s no secret that the Pro iCAN has been cooking for quite some time.  Well, at least one of the various iterations of the device. The development history of the iFi Pro devices (including the sister iDSD Pro) can be found in bits and pieces on the 87-page long thread here.  A more recent, dedicated thread for the Pro iCAN can also be found here.  Going through the pages, I realized just how much effort and time had gone into designing the Pro series.  In fact, the iDSD Pro went through an almost complete redesign in its still continuing development.  It’s a testament to just how far the iFi team will go to get it right.  There’s a lot of ground to cover in this review, and we’d better get started.  
 
Disclaimer
The iFi Pro iCAN was provided by iFi through Stereo for the purposes of this review.  I have now had it on loan for close to 3 weeks.  I am neither a paid affiliate nor an employee of iFi.  I’d like to thank the iFi team for this opportunity, and for answering my various questions.  In addition, I’d like to offer a shout out to @HiFiChris and @ClieOS, who both respectively helped aid my understanding of the finer points of RMAA measurements, especially the implications of its non-absolute nature and the scaling tendencies of the program.  It’s been a great experience with many things learnt. The Pro iCAN is truly an immense product –and one of the reasons why it took comparatively longer for me to get this review out was because there were simply so many features and combinations to test, and I didn’t want to formulate a representative opinion without first attaining a certain level of familiarity with the amp.  Thanks for reading folks, and I hope that at least some of y’all will find this helpful and/or meaningful.  Can also find it on my blog here.
 
Fairly standard stuff.  The iFi Pro iCAN comes in nice matte box with a high quality photo on the front.  Opening it up, one sees the amplifier packed nicely into medium density foam.  It's nice to see that there is also foam on the box cover, and that the amplifier is fairly well shielded against the trials and tribulations of general shipping. included accessories are fairly straight forward:

1. RCA Interconnects
2. Power Supply
3. iFi+ Native DSD Free Albums
4. User Guide

 

---

One would be hard pressed to find an amplifier that captures the spirit of utilitarian practicality better than the Pro iCAN.  The first thing that struck me out of the box – the amplifier was pretty darned heavy.  Okay, maybe not as heavy as the Feliks Audio Espressivo sitting next to it, but a heck of a lot heavier than the Micro iCAN.  Think Rocky Balboa vs Ivan Drago.  The design of the amp is immediately striking –the wavy top surface collides with the concentric arcs around an off-centered magnified viewing window. It’s something that looks like it came straight out of my old multivariable calculus textbook.   My only gripe is that the front panel has not been machined to match the cross section of the “waves” on the side panels.  It’s a small detail.

 
The front panel is symmetrical and absolutely packed with knobs and switches.  It’s hectic –and yet it all makes sense.  On the far left is input selection, followed by the XBass selection (off, 10Hz, 20Hz, 40Hz).  Directly underneath the XBass selection is the amplification mode switch (SS, Tube, Tube+).  In the center are a total of 5 headphone output options. For balanced outputs there are 2 x XLR 3-Pin, 2 x 6.3 mm TRS (iFi’s Single-Ended Compatible system), 1 x XLR 4-Pin, 1 x 3.5 mm TRRS (AK style).  For single-ended outputs, there are 2 x 6.3 mm TRS (XLR 3-Pin doubles up), and a 3.5 mm TRS.  On the far right is the volume pot, and on its left is the 3D Holographic selection (off, 30/+, 60/30+, 90/60+), with the gain switch right below it.   The back panel of the iFi Pro iCAN houses an equally impressive number of input and output options.  There’s a balanced input, 3 x unbalanced inputs (RCA), a balanced line output, and an unbalanced line output.  In addition, there is also a DC Loop-Out and a connector for iFi’s Electrostatic Add-On Module (for Stax users).
 
 
The Quad-Damped Isolation Base Mount seriously had way more engineering in it than I had expected.  It features a 4-layer sandwich comprised of dual layer elastomers (fancy talk for a polymer with elastic properties, i.e. a rubber-like material) and a dual-layer of metal alloys.  Specific details about the composition of these layers can be more easily found on the iFi Pro iCAN user-manual.   However, I second an observation brought up by @Koolpep his respective review of the amplifier.  This brick slides around far too easily. Heavy weight and low friction on a smooth desktop surface are not necessarily the best characteristics to have together, especially not in an expensive flagship amplifier.
 
Starting up the amp is fairly simple.  There's various glowing colors, and a protection circuit will be activated if something were to go seriously wrong. Glaring issues – none, except the remote control for the volume pot.  This bothers me.  Now, I’ve used Beyerdynamic’s flagship amp, which I believe has a solid implementation of the remote control idea.  The iFi Pro iCAN on the other hand has some issues.  For example, it takes me close to 15-16 separate clicks to traverse 18 degrees on the volume pot.  That’s about 75 – 80 separate clicks to traverse from 9 o’clock to 12 o’clock!  In case you’re wondering, holding down the button doesn’t do much either.  Now I’m not sure if this is because the remote is for fine-tuning, but this isn’t workable by any stretch of the imagination. I do believe that other users have reported similar issues with their units, and I hope that this will be resolved soon.  As a final note –this amp runs hot (not that this should be surprising).  

 

---

The iFi Pro iCAN is filled with a fair bit of technology.  Let’s start with the balanced capabilities of the amplifier. I’ll preface this by saying that for this review, I did not have any balanced headphones to run the Pro iCAN with. My Fostex TH-900, Audio Technica R70x and Beyerdynamic T1 are all currently wired for single-ended use. That said, I’ve gotten excellent results out of the single-ended output on the iFi Pro iCAN (more on that later), and if experience is anything to go by, the balanced will be just as good, if not better than the single ended option.  Returning to the matter of balanced circuitry, iFi is quick to point out that they have implemented a “true differential balanced” system for the Pro iCAN.  That is to say, there is no combining of signals into a single-ended path post amplification, and then splitting again for the output.  Instead, the Pro iCAN maintains two separate signal paths from end-to-end.  It’s a straightforward implementation that keeps fidelity in mind.
 
 
At the heart of the iFi Pro iCAN is the ability to switch between the tube/ solid-state modes almost instantly.  Granted, prolonged use in solid-state mode will cause the amplifier to turn off the tubes to prolong operational life. One of the questions that I had was regarding what had changed between the Micro iCAN and the Pro iCAN from a technical perspective.  Like one concerned member brought up (and I paraphrase), it wouldn’t have been okay for a Micro iCAN to be combined with an iTube and put into a fancier enclosure.  Rest assured, no such thing occurred. The tech guys at iFi explained that the Pro iCAN is a ground-up, fully discrete design.  The Micro iCAN on the other hand utilizes a discrete gain-stage followed by a monolithic IC as a current buffer.  Passive components are shared, but that’s where the similarities end. From a sonic perspective, the difference is fairly obvious (more on that later).   The tube of choice employed in the iFi iCAN is the GE 5670.  Its implementation is also unique in the sense that there are two-individual input circuits for solid-state and tube operation.  But it’s no gimmick.  This isn’t a two-for-one that achieves nothing overall.  Consider it a refinement of operation.  Also returning are the XBass and 3D functions, which I’d like to cover in greater depth in the sound section of the review.
 
Now for some basic RMAA results. RMAA results are only as good as the equipment used to perform the tests, and there has been a decent amount of coverage on its limitations and weaknesses.  Consider it as a broad proof-reading of published technical specifications.  And in this sense, the iCAN achieves, checking out fairly comfortably given the limitations of my rig. THD was 0.0048% and IDM + Noise at 0.013 %. Currently, I am utilizing an Asus Xonar U7 external sound card (line-in mode).  The ADC is a Cirrus Logic CS5361-KZZ that is capable of 24/192 w/ a 114 dB dynamic range.  It uses a 5^th order MBT Delta-Sigma Modulator, and attains low levels of noise and distortion.  For those curious, the DAC is the equally capable CS4398-CZZ.  At any rate I’ll get to it below.
 
 

---

The Pro iCAN is a subtle and perceptive amp in my mind. It’s powerful, and yet humble in its sonic presentation. Why do I say this?  The Pro iCAN is a resolving and clean sounding amp, one that prefers to be authentic rather than dramatic in its presentation of sound.  Switching between the solid-state and tube modes, you never get the sense that you’re listening to three different amplifiers.  In my listening experience, the changes were more often than not, subtle.  And this is a very good thing.  It indicts a strong sense of sonic direction, that the team at iFi knew just how they wanted their amp to sound.  The feature set, while extensive (XBass, 3D, etc.), always complements the Pro iCAN in an intuitive manner, and represents why they cannot be discounted as gimmicks. 
 
The XBass functionality has returned in both 10, 20, and 40 Hz options.  It relies on analog signal processing (no DSP), and provides a minimum 12 dB boost at the previously stated levels (see RMAA results).  It is a clean boost that depending on the level can add a slight to moderate emphasis at subbass levels.  It’s well-executed, and can make some tracks significantly more fun to listen to. 
 
The 3D Holographic System (also no DSP) makes a return as well on the Pro iCAN, and is even better implemented than before.  In a retrospective comparison, the Pro iCAN’s implementation makes that of the Micro iCAN look a tad unrefined and even a bit brash.  The 30˚ Loudspeaker Angle simulates narrow loudspeaker placement, and it really works on some of the crazier stereo recordings.  Running ACJ’s Stone Flower, I found that it worked decently to tame the rather extreme placement of instruments (my right ear is ever thankful).  The 60˚ Loudspeaker Angle is meant to simulate an equilateral triangle placement and I often found that it was a good center ground to listen at.  The 90˚ Loudspeaker Angle is quite impressive.  While listening to the Vangelis’ Antarctica OST on this setting, I encountered an overwhelming spatiality that made for an awesome experience.  Of course, it won’t be suitable for all recordings, and one shouldn't expect it to do so either.
 
 
What follows are my general observations on the differences between the Pro iCAN’s various operation modes.  To start, the perceived difference between the SS and Tube modes was less immediately obvious than between the Tube+ mode. The Tube+ mode reduces negative feedback, and thus allows the musical even order harmonics that play nicely on tubes to take precedence.  Naturally, there is a corresponding increase in distortion.  I think that it is important to note that you will not encounter any major roll-off on either end of the frequency spectrum while using the Pro iCAN in both of its tube modes (see RMAA).  The SS mode was obviously the cleanest, and represented an excellent mix of dynamics and resolution.  It is speedy and responsive, and sounded excellent.  Compared to the Micro iCAN, it sounds much more refined, airy, and generally more transparent.  Consider this to be the pinnacle of the “iFi sound”.  Switching over to the Tube state, the tonality more or less remains the same.  There is a weightier bass and a slightly increased mid-range presence.  The way I’d describe this increase in presence is as if the “shadows” of sounds had increased in size (a little abstract I suppose).  In other words, the sound space had been “filled up”. The Tube Plus mode was interesting.  It’s perhaps the “tubiest" of the three states.  It’s a luxurious, smooth sound that still maintains the resolution and soundstage performance of the prior two settings. In a bit of a wildcard match up, I threw the Feliks Audio Espressivo into the mix.  I feel that the latter has excellent synergy with the T1, and I was interested to hear how it would fare against a much more expensive Pro iCAN.  This is where I felt the iCAN could have used a slightly more dramatic presentation.  Compared to the Espressivo, the iCAN sounded at times a bit too smooth and even restrained.  Granted, it wins squarely on technical performance and soundstage/ imaging, but the result isn’t quite as powerful sounding as the Espressivo.  I recognize that there is a need to stay within certain sonic boundaries (and I mentioned this as a strength at the start of this section), but there is a lingering feeling that just a bit more shine could’ve been added.  Overall, I loved the SS and Tube modes, and occasionally did enjoy dipping into the Tube+.
 
Now are some of my thoughts on how the Pro iCAN performed with a selection of tracks.
 
Orchestral - Princess Mononoke OST (Joe Hisaishi)
The Pro iCAN did stunningly on this.  The sound is very big, and the lower frequencies have great presence and physical impact.  The highs are not in the least bit limited and it feels like I've managed to hit the limit of my T1's vertical soundstaging capability.  Trombones are brought to life with an excellent portrayal of the instrument's ability to sound incredibly metallic and dramatic when played at forte. Similarly, the traditional Japanese Koto never lost its place in the mix with the help of the Pro iCAN's detail retrieval/ separation.  I found presentation to be mostly on par between the three modes with slight variances in line with my original impressions above.
 
Bossa Nova/ Jazz - So Nice (Wanda Sa)
The bass line is very tight, and well-controlled with just enough quantity. Wanda Sa's voice is nicely textured, and contrasts well with the rest of the band.  I did not enjoy this on Tube+ as much though. The lower frequencies, while being quite lush, almost felt a tad too bloomy.  The slight edge on the instrumentals, especially the plucking on the bass, was lost and it demonstrated an instance where the Tube+ didn't do as great as I'd have hoped for.  
 
Chill-Out/ Downtempo - International Flight (David Snell, Thievery Corporation)
This is a congested track if not properly handled.  There are simply a lot of instruments playing at once.  However, the Pro iCAN navigated it brilliantly. Between the drums and the harp, the Pro iCAN simply breezed through the track, keeping the bassline at a comfortable distance and placing just the right amount of emphasis on the harp.  The one thing I did note was that in SS mode, the harp tended to get a slight bit peaky, especially on the T1.  But apart from that , it was a great showing from the Pro iCAN.
 
Pop - Goodbye Stranger (Super Tramp)
Hey, you can't beat some cheesy pop from the 1970s/80s.  The wonderful synth tracks were well executed, and the vocals felt clean and clear amidst the Wurlitzer Piano, electric/ bass guitars, keyboards, and percussion.  The one thing that I did note was that the sound in SS wasn't as euphonic as I would've liked, but switching into the Tube modes fixed this.  It wasn't a huge difference, but it helped "push" the Pro iCAN nicely in a direction that I wanted it to go while still maintaining its base performance/ core sound signature.
 

---

This is a great amplifier.  I really don't have much else to say, except that if you enjoyed iFi's previous offerings, this will definitely be a hit with you.  It's got a clean, resolving, and technically excellent signature which can be adjusted ever so slightly with a myriad options, ranging from a simple bass enhancement (XBass) to completely changing the core operation of the amplifier from solid state to tubes.  And speaking of XBass, the traditional iFi set of features has returned in this new amplifier in a refined and upgraded form. As a flagship, the iCAN Pro has got just about everything that I'd expect and hope for, and if you put aside its remote control issues and its tendencies to slide around, you have a real winner.  Congrats iFi!
 

SONY H.EAR IN WIRELESS​

---

 | PREVIOUS REVIEW | REVIEW INDEX | NEXT REVIEW |​

---

 
INTRODUCTION
 

The Latest In The h.ear Series​

The Sony h.ear in Wireless (sic) is a refreshing product from Sony in the realm of the general consumer audio market.  Like the h.ear on/ h.ear in, the h.ear in Wireless represents the latest in a vastly updated Sony product line.  Gone are the boring business professional designs from yesteryear.  Instead, welcome an eccentrically catchy design that features just enough “hip” colors to impress even your most judgmental high-school student. Cinnabar Red, anyone?
 
Capitalization and punctuation were the first casualties of this review.  The wordplay in the product name, while being incredibly striking and edgy, made it both difficult to read and edit properly.  Luckily, the ominous product number (MDR-EX750BT) made a return to rescue my inner Connor from an angry Robert Patrick (Microsoft spellcheck).  In the subsequent iterations of this review, “h.ear in Wireless” was edited out in favor of the clunky but grammatically sound “MDR-EX750BT”.  Apologies to those who were expecting an easy read. 
 
In all seriousness though, I would like to thank Sony for helping to coordinate this review, and for putting up with my hectic and constantly changing schedule. The uniform professionalism of the team here has always impressed me, and it has been a pleasure reviewing the MDR-EX750BT. The usual review disclaimer follows below.
 

Disclaimer​

The MDR-EX750BT was provided by Sony for the purposes of this review.  I have now had it on loan for close to 3 weeks. I am neither a paid affiliate nor an employee of Sony. I do reserve the rights to this media, so do contact me if you wish to reproduce any part of the writing or photography seen here.  Review can also be found here on my site.
 

PACKAGING/ ACCESSORIES​

 
Opening up the fairly standard matte box reveals another nicely colored box with the headphones inside.  Sony is still a master of industrial product packaging, always striking a nice balance between economy, style, and practicality. Flipping open the front flap, one encounters the MDR-EX750BT encased within white blister packaging. Removing the blister package reveals the included accessories, which are listed below:
 

1. Micro-USB cable (charging, 50cm)
2. Hybrid Silicone Rubber Earbuds (5 pairs, 2 x large)
3. Dedicated headphone cable (1m)
4. Carrying pouch (not included in my package)
5. Shirt clip (not included in my package)

 
Overall, a fairly complete product package. The extra pair of large tips was certainly a well-considered move.  However, the one thing the MDR-EX750BT could have really used was a carrying case.  If the budget Beyerdynamic DTX-501P can come with a hard-shell EVA case, I don’t see the inherent difficulty in including one for the pricier and more delicate MDR-EX750BT.  Hard pouches are really a necessity for portable items, and it would be nice to see more manufacturers include these.
 

 
At a Glance
The one word that I’d use for the MDR-EX750BT is safe.  Like the earlier MDR-ZX770BN that I reviewed close to a year ago, the MDR-EX750BT is tuned to be pleasing and mostly inoffensive. Which is good for general listening but otherwise discounts these headphones from being particularly high fidelity, or as Sony calls it, Hi-Res.  For this review, the basis for sonic references was the Etymotics Research ER4, which I use extensively.   I will address the wireless capabilities in much greater depth below, but it is overall very good.
 
LDAC/ Bluetooth
At the heart of the MDR-EX750BT is Sony’s relatively new LDAC Bluetooth Codec.  According to Sony, LDAC is capable of achieving bit-rates of up to 990 kbps (there are three transmission levels - 330, 660, 990).  Current SBC can only reach close to 328 kbps in “High Quality” mode, which gives the LDAC a 3-fold lead in terms of data streaming ability.  At the same time, Sony has also confirmed that it is possible to send 24-bit/96 kHz files losslessly via LDAC.  24/96 produces a bit rate of 4.608 mbps (sample rate x bit depth x channels), meaning that Sony has managed to achieve a lossless compression factor of about 4.65 x. This is extremely impressive, and has been a subject of discussion on some audio sources. Despite initial doubts regarding the numbers, Sony has confirmed that these specs are indeed valid. However, this vast advantage is immediately lost if the source device does not support the LDAC codec, which is definitely something to keep in mind when purchasing the MDR-EX750BT.  Make sure you have a LDAC-compatible device in order to harness the full advantage of the codec.
 
Throughout my time with the MDR-EX750BT, I didn’t suffer a single major dropout and the overall consistency of LDAC coverage was very good.  Battery life is also rated to be close to 7.5 hours, and I certainly didn’t have any problem with the MDR-EX750BT’s endurance while on the go. A slight quirk that I noticed was that when I used wired mode on my MacBook Air, the volume became fixed and was not adjustable.  Now some may be expecting a comment on whether the Bluetooth capabilities can match wired performance.  To put it simply, it’d be an unfair conclusion given the technical performance of the MDR-EX750BT.
 
So let's attempt to frame the sound
 
Soundstage And Imaging
The soundstage on the MDR-EX750BT is small.  I started out with the binaural recording of “When The Saints Go Marching In” as a shot in the dark to get a rough idea of the how the headphones would perform.  What I found was that both depth and width were fairly restricted on the MDR-EX750BT.  Instruments ended up sounding uniformly flat and muted in an attempt to recreate distance perception, and it just wasn't a very successful spatial rendering.  This sense of space was further restricted by the lack of separation between instruments.  Detail retrieval wasn’t great, but imaging came through mostly intact.  However, this positive only accentuated the previously mentioned concerns.
 
Bass
Bass on the MDR-EX750BT is prominent.  While casually browsing through the Outernational Sound by Thievery Corporation, there were many tracks where the mid-bass took center-stage, often at the expense of other components of sound.  While I do concede that the album is one of the more bass-heavy in my collection, I enjoy it because through proper equipment the complexity of composition and interesting bass lines can make for an atmospheric and exciting listening experience.  The MDR-EX750BT does create this exciting experience on occasion, but for the most part focuses its energies on plowing through tracks with its powerful bass. To that extent, the subbass on the MDR-EX750BT was mostly masked by the bloomy mid-bass, and didn’t extend particularly low either.  An artificial reverb from the mid-bass also leaked casually into the lower-midrange.  The resultant sound is a sometimes fun, but mostly tiring, extended listen. 
 
Mids
The mid-range of the MDR-EX750BT was often covered by the bass, which is why I put the headphones through some older Bossa Nova tracks in an effort to uncover its singular performance.  On Águas de Março by Antonio Carlos Jobim with Elis Regina, I discovered that the MDR-EX750BT did indeed have some slightly sweet mids.  Unfortunately, it lacked body and was also rounded off at times.  The resultant mids can actually sound good, if it wasn’t for the striking sibilance that seemed to jump in all too frequently.  EQ’ing away the bass to emphasize the mids is thus not recommended for the MDR-EX750BT.
  
Highs                                                                                   
Highs are laid back. On the Antarctica soundtrack by Vangelis, I found that the twinkling synthesized tracks instead sounded flat and lacked texture or bite. In most cases, the upper registers rolled off quietly, instead of establishing a presence that would've helped contrast with the lower frequencies. It’s something of a missed opportunity.  Had the highs been given the same emphasis as the bass, a much more interesting, V-shaped signature could have been obtained, and would have in fact made the MDR-EX750BT a much more viable option for EDM and the like. 
 
FINAL THOUGHTS
 
The MDR-EX750BT is a quirky earphone.  It’s got a striking design, for one.  Depending on how you intend on using, or more accurately, wearing it, the MDR-EX750BT may just fit in perfectly with the rest of your lifestyle accessories.  It’s also comfortable and convenient.  Rather importantly, the Bluetooth connectivity is great, with the LDAC codec being among the best currently available.  Sound however is only fair, and there were definitely aspects of the MDR-EX750BT’s sonic performance that could’ve been greatly improved.  If you’re looking for a pair of earphones with an easy listening signature, good comfort, and consistent Bluetooth capability, the MDR-EX750BT may be what you’re looking for.
 

---

 | PREVIOUS REVIEW | REVIEW INDEX | NEXT REVIEW |​

---

 

---

All-in-one DAC/Amp for 500?  Correction – make it 398.  Well, what is the HUD-DX1?  Made by Korean audio company Audinst, the HUD-DX1 currently represents the pinnacle of the Audinst DAC/Amp development tree.  It’s just about packed everything possible into its rather small 104 x 120 mm industrial metal enclosure –including the latest (and depending on who you ask, the greatest) means of playback.  Yes, native DSD/DXD. Let’s not also forget the list of other fairly impressive features and components.  But wait you say–it’s more than twice the price of the original MX1!  And here is where I do apologize.  I’ve never had the opportunity to try the HUD-MX1 or MX2, so I can’t say with certainty how much of an improvement it is over these older models.  But it is an opportunity to look at the HUD-DX1 from an independent perspective.
 
Disclaimer: This unit was provided by Audinst for the purposes of this review.  I am neither an affiliate nor an employee of Audinst.  All media rights reserved.

---

 

---

The Audinst HUD-DX1 comes in a small, unassuming white cardboard box with glossy photos on the front.  Fairly standard fare.  Inside is the unit along with the power supply unit, USB cable, Allen key, metal feet, literature and a EU plug adaptor.  All the electronic components came nicely sealed in clear plastic bags, along with a pack of desiccant for the main unit.  It’s a thoughtful and extremely nice touch on the part of Audinst.  Overall, nothing particularly difficult to understand, and the DX1 was up and running in less than five minutes.  

---

 

---

---

---

---

 

---

As a somewhat regular visitor to Stereo (audio store here in Singapore), I’ve caught more than a few glimpses of iFi’s sleek product lineup.  Svelte metal enclosures, tactile switches, and the wonderful iFi logo all exude an air of premium utility.  Packed within these enclosures are trickle down components and technologies from AMR’s (Abbingdon Music Research) higher-end products.  Rather compelling indeed –surprising that I hadn’t given these an extended audition. Until now, that is.  Sitting on my desk are the original iCAN and the iCAN SE.  Before going further, I’d like to thank iFi Audio and Stereo Singapore for providing me with a loaner unit of the iCAN SE for this now overdue piece.  The iCAN was purchased subsequently, and might I add, independently.  As before, I am neither an affiliate nor an employee of iFi or Stereo, and all media in this review is owned by me.  If you’d like to reproduce it, or have any questions in general, feel free to drop me a line. 

---

 

---

The iCAN is a Class A “Tubestate Amplification” hybrid (or as iFi likes to call it, tri-brid) amplifier.   It is currently available in two models: the standard and special edition.  There are several differences between the SA and SE editions.  The SE features boutique components, an updated “sound signature”, refined XBass and 3D Holographic Sound, increased output power (from 400 to 4000 mW), new gain settings, and a brand new iPower.  Rest assured, I’ll cover how the standard and SE compare in the coming paragraphs.   
 
 

---

---

Packaging wise, the iCAN comes absolutely stocked right out of the box. Rubber feet, matching RCA cables, a 3.5 to 3.5 cable, jack adaptor, small screwdriver, quick start manual, warranty information, and the unit itself.  The overall unboxing experience feels premium, and is reminiscent of the excellent product packages made more commonly for Mac products.  The best part though is that all the accessories are well thought out and have good grounding in utility, and there’s nothing excessive or wasteful about it.
 
The design of the unit is similarly excellent.  The rectangular metal enclosure is non-obtrusive and well made, but is also surprisingly light.  Without the included rubber feet, the unit slides around quite easily, which is somewhat troublesome.  The switches are well-made, with a solid click to them.  However, the volume pot doesn’t feel quite as substantial as the rest of the unit, especially when compared to my DACmini.  The upside is that the iCAN is easily transportable.  Keep in mind that it will require a wall outlet for operation (look to the Nano series for battery-based portable devices), but if you’re looking for an amplification solution that is also both discrete and space-conscious, the iCan is the right way to go.  Overall, the iCAN is a well-made piece of kit that succeeds both packaging and design wise.

---

 
 

---

iFi Audio has packed a ton of features into the iCAN.  This wide array of options is rather intimidating, and filled with extravagant terms like XBass and 3D Holographic Sound (sounds more like something you’d fine on a soundcard aimed at gamers).  Don’t be put off though. The iCAN is strictly business, and I found a number of its various features to be impressive.  I’ll cover them one by one, and share some insights on their respective utilities and functionalities.  Nearing the end of my review though, I did notice that my iCAN SE started giving off a “buzzing” sound.  I do suspect that this is just an issue with my unit, as my own iCAN did not have this.  I will have to check more closely on my power supply, though I don’t think that’s the source of the problem.  Nevertheless, I was able to get a fairly good sense of the unit's capability prior to this, and with music playing didn't notice it all that much.  
 
XBASS
 
Let’s tackle the XBass first.  After all, everyone could use just that little extra bass in their lives.  I found the XBass to overall be a rather impactful, but tactful bass bump.  It focuses on the lower-mid to subbass region, providing more of a grumbling “under-your-skin” boost that plays well with most headphones.  Both levels worked equally well, and it simply depends on the listener’s sound signature preference.  The standard edition has a more forward XBass boost, but one that is lesser in quantity and less enveloping than that on the SE. For me, there really wasn’t all that much need for bass boost anyways, but it'll come down to personal preference.
 
3D HOLOGRAPHIC SOUND
 
I was somewhat skeptical when I first came across this setting –especially about its efficacy.  A small introduction for those who are unfamiliar with the feature.  The idea behind 3D Holographic Sound isn’t entirely new –at its heart, it is iFi’s take on crossfeed application in a headphone amplifier system.  Crossfeed is the blending of right and left channels to create a more cohesive sound image, something that is naturally occurring in most speaker systems, but rather limited in headphone settings due to the physical structure.  Older implementations often featured disruptive digital processing, something iFi is quick to point out.  In contrast, the iCAN utilizes only analog processing.  The first setting for the 3D Holographic Sound didn’t stand out that much to me.  The center image was quite strong, and it was obvious that there was blending going on.  However, the iCAN shined when put to the second setting. Headspace becomes an empty vacuum, and the general image is expanded forward and around the listener.  The end result is excellent, as the sound image becomes an audio panorama (excuse the rather unwieldy comparison).  Ensemble jazz/classical pieces work great with this feature.  Vocal tracks are for the most part, excellent as well.  One never gets the sense that items are too far apart on the soundstage, and I left this feature on most of the time.
 
I will say that I preferred the SA’s 3D Holographic Sound feature to that on the SE.  I found it to be airier and more spacious, whereas the SE was smoother but less immediately striking. It didn’t quite have the same sense of expansion as the SA does. Both implementations (on the second setting) are excellent though, and I would heartily recommend purchasing an iCAN simply to give the 3D Holographic Sound a spin.

---

 

---

The iCAN is a clean, albeit slightly warm, amplifier.  It features an excellent amount of power, driving the T1 to fairly uncomfortable levels very easily (at around 1 PM is enough to make one cringe).  It also played very nicely with my R70X and M50X, especially with the 3D Holographic Sound which opened up the sound signatures of these two relatively “closed” headphones.   Do not be fooled by the unit's diminutive size -it drives with serious authority. I personally found that the iCAN SE was more closed, intimate, and fuller sounding, whereas the iCAN standard was more strident and airy.  It’s more a matter of personal preference, but I found both amplifiers to be very agreeable with most headphones.   Both amplifiers will work with IEMs, though there is noise on the more sensitive ones and you do get very little play on the volume pot.

---

 

---

I did enjoy my time with iFi quite a lot. It's a great amplifier, and its features are truly well implemented and do provide a meaningful value added.  If you're looking for a new headphone amplifier, I'd heartily recommend the iCAN.  It's discrete, well-built, and most importantly, sounds excellent. I must say that a purchase to test out the 3D functionality alone would be warranted.  Put simply - there's a lot going on at a highly reasonable price point, and iFi did a job well done with this amplifier.

---

KLIPSCH'S XR8i

---

 

INTRODUCTION

---

Klipsch is a company that really doesn’t need an introduction.  From its beginnings in the loudspeaker business to its entry into the IEM market in 2007, Klipsch continues to produce some of the most popular and well-received audio products in the consumer market today.  For this review, I’ll be looking at the XR8i, a hybrid earphone from Klipsch’s fairly new Reference X-series of in-ear headphones.  This lineup of 4 new earphones will be replacing the previous X-series, with newly redesigned bodies, upgraded build materials, and most importantly, updated sound signatures.  In short, a very interesting new lineup that seems to have the trappings of an audiophile-grade products. 
 
Before I go further, I’d like to thank Klipsch for helping to coordinate this review and for providing me with a sample of the XR8i.  As always, I am neither an affiliate nor an employee of Klipsch.  All the media seen in this review is owned by me.  If you’d like to reproduce and/or use any part of this review, just drop me a line and I’d be happy to help.  Once again, I hope you enjoy reading this review!
 
SPECIFICATIONS 

---

TYPE: Hybrid (KG-2365 AcuPass(R) Two-Way Hybrid)
SENSITIVITY (1MW): 110 dB
IMPEDANCE: 50 ohms
WEIGHT: 25 grams

 
PACKAGING/ INCLUDED ITEMS

---

 
 
I had some trouble with the fit of these earphones.  Using the same patented oval eartips found on other Klipsch earphones, I found that only the large eartip would give me an adequate seal, and even then it was one that was not particularly strong.  The problem arises from the fact that the XR8i, unlike it sleeker cousins, is a shallow fit earphone, making the smaller oval eartips an imperfect fit.  I’m sure there are some DIY solutions that might be able to remedy this, but I think a simple widening of the existing oval eartips by Klipsch would do just fine.  For the record, I’m not aware that I have particularly odd shaped ears.             
 
SOUND QUALITY

---

 

The XR8i is a hybrid design featuring an Acupass unit comprised of two modified Sonion drivers –a KG-065 Dynamic Woofer and a KG-723 Balanced Armature Tweeter.  Designed to bring “room-rattling home theater sound” through powerful bass while still maintaining clarity in the mids and highs, it is clear what kind of sound Klipsch aimed to create with the XR8i. For reference, I did have the chance to briefly audition the rest of the X-Series lineup at Canjam Singapore 2016, and I can tell you that the XR8i is perhaps the most “Klipsch-sounding” of the entire lineup.  It does what it promises, delivering rumbling bass, albeit at a cost.
 
The XR8i has bass with great potential.  In terms of subbass extension, the earphones reach very deep, and at times even rival the ER4.  There is texture and detail in the subbass, and on certain bossa nova tracks this becomes fairly evident.  The midbass is a heavier than I’d like it to be, but has good punch and presence.  This can occasionally become problematic as the midbass does overshadow the subbass on certain tracks.  Overall speed is moderate.  The end result is a visceral bass section with significant power, but one that occasionally feel bloated and slightly uncontrolled.  In addition, the lower frequencies often bleed into the lower mids, a point that I will come to later.  I feel that the XR8i with a tightened bass section would be truly impressive.  A point to note is that the XR8i’s subwoofer driver is somewhat insensitive to volume control, meaning that at lower playing volumes it scales rather poorly and the bass has the tendency to become significantly over-emphasized.  Just something to note for those who listen to music at lower volumes.
 
The mids are somewhat recessed and glossed due to the bass section.  Listening closely though, I do have to say that the mids are very smooth and generally quite comfortable to listen to.  Though there’s no hint of sibilance, there is enough texture to provide an enticing bite to the XR8i’s sound.  I feel that perhaps the XR8i could have benefitted BA driver, like the DN2000, as this would have improved the mid-range presence and generally made for a more “balanced” sound.    
 
The XR8i’s highs are somewhat weak in terms of presence.  Given the strong bass section on this earphone, I would’ve expected the earphones to be tuned to a “v-shaped” sound signature.   However, the highs instead roll-off, and don’t quite provide enough contrast to the lower frequencies.   That said, the highs are very organic sounding, and what is there is very good. There’s absolutely no artificiality, and I feel that with more extension and emphasis, the upper registers would be a sure hit.  Soundstage is kind of small on these earphones, lending a very intimate feel to the SQ. Imaging is okay, but hampered by the small soundstage.  Overall, these aren’t the right IEMs for those looking for an airy and neutral sound.  

 
FINAL THOUGHTS

---

 

The Klipsch XR8i is a very well-built earphone with excellent materials and packaging.  Personally, the XR8i user experience was one of the best in my opinion, as everything leading from the unboxing to general use felt well thought out and refined.  However, the sound quality of the XR8i wasn't exactly my cup of tea.  These are some powerful and bass-emphasized earphones that do sacrifice some performance in the mids and the highs to achieve visceral lower frequency performance.  If you are into bass and like the Klipsch sound, then these are the right pair of earphones for you.
 
Happy listening and thanks for reading,
Thatonenoob

SAMSON'S Z55 

---

 

INTRODUCTION

---

The ATH-M50/X is perhaps one of the most widely recommended headphones for entry-level and portable use.  And it’s not a huge mystery why–a fairly engaging sound signature combined with good technical performance is a definite crowd-pleaser.  But that’s fairly old news.  Let’s talk about something that’s new, something that’s a viable alternative to the M50X in the sub-200 dollar range.  Let’s take a look at Samson’s flagship Z55 Professional Reference Headphones.
 
In the audiophile community, Samson is best known for its utilitarian offerings that provide good sound quality performance at highly affordable prices.  Headphones like the SR850 have been known to punch well above their weight class by embracing a hardware centric design philosophy. When the Z55 was released, I was naturally rather interested in finding out what Samson could do with a two hundred dollar budget. In the course of the review, I had the chance to meet with Alan from Samson.  I came to learn that the Z55 was produced with the goal of creating studio level sound quality, without the premium demanded by many other similarly styled products.  I was also informed that a new manufacturer (not Superlux, mind you) with prior experience working with some well-known audio companies was handling the production of these new headphones. Naturally, all this was shaping out to be very positive.  And let me tell you, the Z55 did for the most part, deliver.  
 
Before going any further, I’d like to thank Samson for helping to set up this review and providing me with a sample unit of the Z55.  As always, I am neither an affiliate nor an employee of Samson.  I do reserve the rights to the photos that I took in this review (PM me if you wish to use/ reproduce the media).  Otherwise, sit back and enjoy this little piece.  I hope you enjoy reading it as much as I did writing it!   In the coming weeks/ reviews, I will probably be changing around a few aspects of my reviews to be less text-oriented and more graphics based.  It's a bit of a work in progress, but I guess it's something to look out for.
 


SPECIFICATIONS

---

TYPE: Over-ear, closed back dynamic (45mm)
SENSITIVITY (@1kHz) db/W: 98 dB
MAX INPUT POWER @1kHz: 1000mW
FREQUENCY RESPONSE: 10 Hz-25kHz
IMPEDANCE: 32 ohms
 
PACKAGING

---

 
The Z55 comes in a simple cardboard box with a glossy photo of the headphones on the front.  Opening this rather plain box, one encounters some product literature and a cardboard flap that lifts up to reveal the headphones.  The Z55s are stored in a rather suspect egg-carton esque shell. I think in this respect Samson could definitely have taken a cue from Audio-Technica, a brand that always seems to strike a sensible balance when it comes to packaging on a budget.  The included accessories are three cables –a 1.2 mm cable replete with a microphone, a 3m straight cable, and a 3m coiled cable.  Also included is a 3.5mm to ¼ inch adaptor.  Overall, not the most impressive and refined unboxing experience, but it’s good to see that most of the budget went into the hardware of the headphones.
 

 
The earcups are plastic with a metal accent plate on the front.  Earcup size is good, but depth is somewhat lacking.  The strong clamping force only further accentuates this issue.  One thing I did notice is that the yoke does rub against the earcups at times, buffing it somewhat.  You can easily smooth this out to return the surface back to its original black color, but this is inconvenient and problematic.  Hopefully part tolerances are fixed so that this doesn't appear in future models. The earpads are made out of lambskin, and are comfortable.  However, due to the clamping force, they tend to heat up just as fast as regular pleather pads.  Overall, the design aesthetic of the Z55 is clean and elegant, and I get the sense that these headphones were built to last for a long time.
 
SOUND QUALITY

---

 
The Z55’s sound signature is where the headphones really shine.  Keeping with the theme of practicality and utility, the Z55’s SQ focuses heavily on coherence and detail. While it is marketed as studio tool, the Z55 is also tuned to allow it to extend into the general consumer market fairly easily. I say this because the Z55 has certain tendencies towards a more engaging and “fun” sound. I’m not much of an audio engineer, so I cannot, with certainty at least, comment on how well the Z55 would do for studio applications. However, what I can say is that the Z55 isn’t perfectly neutral.  But this isn’t necessarily a bad thing, as the sound that the Z55 does have is most excellent.
 
Starting with the bass, it’s fairly obvious that the Z55 does have an enhanced lower frequency range.  The quantity of bass will easily satisfy most listeners.  Bass impact and punch lie mainly with the mid-bass, lending the Z55 a more engaging sound.  On tracks like Wrong Club by the Ting Tings (Super Critical was an awesome album by the way), the bass really hits hard and brings a foot-tapping level of excitement to the song.  The sub-bass is fairly good too, but it lacks the presence of the mid-bass, meaning that whatever gains it has in extension are mostly overshadowed.   Normally, most headphones with the above description could probably be written off as being bass-heavy, but not the Z55.  The beauty of the Z55 lies in its ability to control most of the lower frequencies with authority through excellent speed and detail.  In a similarly surprising fashion, the Z55’s bass doesn’t bleed particularly much into the mid-range either, making for a pleasingly smooth transition.
 
The mid-range on the Z55 is best described as sweet sounding and full-bodied. There is very little “peakiness” to be found, which creates an overall presentation that is both smooth and very natural.  While the bass performance does at times take center stage, the mids aren’t veiled and can display good presence when required.  That said, those looking for a more mid-centric sound may be disappointed.  The treble performance is sparkly and well separated, but without coming across as being particularly tinny or artificial.  There is little harshness and the treble can be easily appreciated.  One of the cornerstones of the Z55 is its fairly resolving sound that features a good amount of micro-detail.  This helps to bring the many components of the Z55’s SQ together into a very coherent package.  If there’s one aspect that lets the Z55 down though, it is definitely the soundstage and imaging.  The soundstage is somewhat small, and this isn't aided by the Z55's rather personal imaging, which is also somewhat inaccurate.  Larger, more complex compositions do not realize their potential with the Z55s.  
 
Compared to the M50X, I found that the Z55 was definitely more refined and smooth, and generally more agreeable with a wider array of genres.  While the Z55 may initially feel like it is lacking in bite compared to the M50X, for prolonged listening sessions, I ultimately found the Z55 more comfortable to use.  The detail present in the Z55 means isn't much of a slouch either.  I'd say for pop / genres featuring more natural sounds, the Z55 easily comes out on top.  However, with EDM, etc, the M50X still trumps the Z55. 
 
FINAL THOUGHTS

---

 
The Z55 may not be the most technically accurate headphone, nor the most neutral in its class.  It doesn't have the best soundstage either.  But what it does is provide a highly coherent sound that works seamlessly throughout the entire frequency spectrum to deliver a smooth and yet detailed sound.  It's an extremely enjoyable listening experience, one that rivals that of the ATH-M50X, and in some cases, surpasses it as well.  Combined with a sturdy build, the Z55 is fast becoming one of my favorite portable choices.  If you're in the market for a sub-two hundred dollar headphone with an engaging and highly enjoyable sound signature, then I'd heartily recommend the Z55.  
 
Hope you enjoyed this piece and happy listening!
 
Thanks,
Thatonenoob

FIIO'S A1 AMP

---

 
 
INTRODUCTION

---

So Fiio’s on a bit of a budget audio mini-device roll right now.  First, the M3 –a solid DAP that’s no bigger (and heavier) than a large Lego block.  Okay, slight exaggeration but you get the point.  Now we have the A1, Fiio’s revamped version of the extremely popular E06 budget portable amp.  I’m fairly certain by now that most are familiar with Fiio.  But for those who’ve somehow missed out on it, Fiio is a Chinese company that focuses mainly on portable audio gear and is known primarily for its highly successful budget offerings.  The A1 itself hasn’t been released yet (it seems to be in pre-release stage) as the E06 is still up on the website.   I do believe that there are prototype models bundled with the EX1 earphones are on sale right now through their web store, so if you’re keen on getting those two together there’s always that option.
 
Before I go further, I’d once again like to thank Sunny @ Fiio for making this happen.  My usual disclaimers apply.  I’m neither an employee nor an affiliate of Fiio.  The photos in this review were taken by me and I do reserve the rights to them.  Feel free to drop me a PM at any time if you have questions concerning the review and the media inside.  I’ll be happy to answer.

 
SPECIFICATIONS

---

Incomplete as I only have Fiio's PR specs.  
 
OUTPUT POWER:  70 mW @ 32 ohms
THD: < 0.01% (1 kHz)
SIGNAL TO NOISE RATIO: "Over 100dB"
BATTERY: 160mAh, rated for 13 hours.
 
PACKAGING / INCLUDED ITEMS

---

 

 

The A1 comes in a quaint see-through plastic box with the usual blister packaging.  Even more basic than the M3 but it’s definitely price-appropriate.  Included is an amp, charging cable, two 3.5mm to 3.5mm headphone jack wires, a charging cable, and a spare plastic clip (which can be replaced with spare plastic cover).  Glad to see that Fiio took into account the likelihood that users would break the plastic clip.  I for one know that I’ve broken more than my fair share of pen caps.​

 ​

BUILD/ DESIGN QUALITY​

 

---

 
 

It looks like an iPod Shuffle.  Especially with its new metal closure, there’s no denying the obvious resemblance between the two.  And that’s a good thing.  The A1 cuts a svelte figure amongst other portable amps and weighs just 20 grams.  Apple users will be especially happy to find that it complements their existing devices remarkably well.  Starting from the top, we find the 3.5 mm port, volume control, and power button.  A black band on the top is where you slide in the detachable plastic clip (or plastic cover if you’d prefer).  On the bottom is auxiliary in and charging port.​

 ​

The three bass boast functions on the A1 are accessed by pressing the power button and seeing the appropriate series of flashing lights on the power button’s indicating LED.  I personally shy away from bass boast, but for those needing just a little extra bass response on IEMs there is always this option.  ​

 ​

Moving onto the numbers. The A1 has “up to 70mW output power at 32 ohms”. THD is stated to be only 0.01%.  The S/N ratio is stated to be “over 100”.   The A1’s battery clocks in at 160 mAh and has over 13 hours of playtime.  Haven’t had the chance to drain the amp to that point but I don’t doubt its long battery life.  The volume control comes in at 64 volume levels, which is pretty nice.  Better than the 12-step volume control found on most phones at any rate.​

 ​

BUILD/ DESIGN QUALITY​

---

 ​

I’m going to start by saying that the A1 is a budget portable amplifier that’s the size of a small sticky note.  A very small sticky note. It’s job scope is fairly clear – amp harder to drive IEMs and portable headphones.  In that respect, the A1 does a decent job.  It gives a fairly clean amp gain that'll drive most IEMs to fairly uncomfortable levels. With headphones however, the A1 is less impressive as the amp gain simply isn't that substantial.  EDIT: Yes, it will drive some to uncomfortable levels, but move a bit out of the portable range and the A1's limitations becoming increasingly obvious.  When pushed to its limit, the A1 suffers from distortion and loss of control over sound– but that isn’t exactly surprising. The A1 does well when double-amped with the average smartphone, much more so then one would expect in fact.  The bass boost is a fun feature to play with, but I found some of the modes excessive and heavy handed.  One annoying thing is that there is crackle when you plug it into your devices (my iPod touch responded particularly poorly).  You’re going to want to plug in first, and then turn on the A1.​

 ​

 I do suspect that the A1’s enticing price is going to make this one of the first go-to amps for budding audiophiles, so let’s try and address a few common questions here. ​

 ​

“I just got a pair of DT880s 600 ohms and I need something to amp it because the volume is really low.  Can I use these?”  Unfortunately, the A1 isn’t going to be able to do that.  You could scrape by with low-moderate volumes with 300-400 ohm cans depending on their sensitivity, but there’s going to be significant loss of control and resolution, and you should probably save up for a more dedicated amp/DAC. ​

 ​

“Will these improve the sound quality of my existing headphones?”  If you need more volume or control on portable pieces –go ahead by all means!  Will it make your music sound better –depends, but I’d suggest a DAC, especially if you’re trying to get more out of your existing source material (which makes the biggest difference).  Perhaps one of Fiio’s Amp/DACs might be the solution you’re looking for.​

 ​

For those with dedicated DAPs, you probably don’t need the A1.  I found that adding the A1 to my DX50 was redundant, as the DX50 can already drive my portable gear to very comfortable levels with solid control.  The A1’s sonic qualities compared to that of most dedicated DAP built-in amps is also debatable.  But if you’re on the go with a weaker smartphone, this is a small everyday carry piece of gear that you can pick up for almost nothing.​

 ​

FINAL THOUGHTS​

---

 

The A1 is a small, ultraportable amp that does a good job at providing extra juice to IEMs and portable headphones.  If you’re looking for an amp that looks very elegant with an extremely small footprint (and a correspondingly small price tag) and don’t need significant levels of amp gain, then the A1 is the right device for you.​

​

FIIO'S M3 DAP

---

 
INTRODUCTION

---

Okay –let’s talk Fiio.  It’s a fast growing Chinese audio company that seems intent on dominating the portable market.  Whether it’s the X7 or the budget X1, Fiio’s got something for everyone.  Cue General Motors of the audio world.   My last run-in with Fiio came in the form of the E11K, which left me fairly impressed with what the company was able to achieve with a hundred dollars (street prices float around sixty nowadays).  Fiio’s latest release is the M3 DAP with a casual fifty-five dollar price tag –for the record I did double check the price on Amazon.  Decent chipset set, color screen, backlit buttons, and even earphones included.  Skip a moderately expensive meal or two, and you too could be the proud owner of a new M3.  Color me intrigued –very intrigued for that matter.
 
Before I go any further, I’d like to thank Sunny @ Fiio for setting up this review.  Roll the usual disclaimers.  I’m neither an employee nor an affiliate of Fiio.  The photos in this review were taken by me and I do reserve the rights to them.  If you would like to reproduce them, please do send me a PM.   
 
SPECIFICATIONS

---

Just a couple...haha!
 
DIMENSIONS: 74 mm × 39.7 mm × 9.1 mm    
DISPLAY: 2.0", TFT screen with 240 x 320 pixels    
OUTPUT POWER:  50 mW @ 16 ohms
MEMORY: 8 GB, with 64 GB expandable 
DAC:  CS42L51 from Cirrus Logic

MSRP: $55.00 USD
WEIGHT: 40 grams
PACKAGING/ INCLUDED ITEMS

---

 
M3 comes in a very simple cardboard box with plastic blister packaging.  A bit Spartan –but good to know that the money was spent mostly on hardware.  There are the included earphones (more on that later), a charging cable, a couple of screen protectors, the player itself, and a carrying strap.   Overall, a very coherent package, with the exception of the rather confused carrying strap.  The strap itself is large enough to be worn around the neck, which makes its purpose questionable and use utterly impractical.  Unless you intend on wearing the M3 as a piece of jewelry.  Which wouldn’t be unjustified by Head-Fi standards.
 
EDIT: Fellow Head-Fier Brooko has pointed out that the M3 strap is actually meant to be used for wearing around the neck.  Thanks!
 
BUILD/ DESIGN QUALITY

---

 
The first thing that I noticed out of the box was just how light the M3 was.  Compared to my DX50, the M3 felt like a feather.  The overall design of the M3 is very nice.  As one member mentioned, the M3 with its red backlit buttons did indeed seem reminiscent of older Bang & Olufsen gear.  But design is one thing and an execution another.  The plastic body has a cream tinge and is not the snow-white IPod finish that the packaging would have you believe. The white M3 will probably experience yellowing as it gets older.  Some have said that the plastic is high quality, but I do politely beg to differ. The back plate is a yellowish gray and only emphasizes the off-white color of the player.  On the upside, the M3 does come with various color options –and if I were buying one myself I’d definitely go with the black option. 
 
The buttons are tactile and nice to the touch, but I did find that sometimes my clicks didn’t quite register.  The power button is tucked away on the left side and the lock button on the right.  On the bottom of the player is the headphone out, MicroSD slot, and charging port.  You’ve really got to use your fingernails to insert the MicroSD as the locking mechanism is pretty far into the player.  A minor annoyance but one that will probably be sorted out in later models.
 
A bit on the internals (information mostly from Cirrus’ website).  The DAP comes with 8 GB internal storage and is expandable up to 64 GB.  The DAC is a Cirrus Logic CS42L51, which is unsurprisingly aimed at reducing power consumption and minimizing device form factors.  For 16 ohm headphones, the CS42L51 is rated to deliver 46mW of power (Fiio's official specs put this at 50).  Battery life of the M3 is rated at 24 hours, which is very good compared to the power consuming monsters that are most DAPs nowadays.  Overall, a decent chipset configuration that’s focused more on form and overall design balance than purely no holds barred performance. 
 
Turning on the unit, I was greeted by a pleasant startup animation.  However, I did immediately notice that the screen was rather dim.  For active use outside in the sun, I do suspect that there’ll be more than a good amount of squinting done.  The UI itself is fairly simple and unobtrusive.  Those familiar with audiophile DAPs should have no problem navigating it.  The only thing that bugs me is the font, which is unsightly to say the least.  A little note – you do need to be on the music screen to access the settings (which is done by pressing and holding the upper left button).  Updating the player is easily done through the settings manual and can be completed in less than a minute.  Much faster than my iBasso DX50, which seems to struggle with updates (sometimes up to three minutes).  Not to mention that the DX50 has weird little stutters after fresh updates.  The M3 does have a bit of an organization problem though. Hopefully this'll be fixed in future firmware.   The player automatically has a fade-in and out between tracks, which can be turned off by once again accessing the settings menu.  
 
Basic functionality is excellent, and the M3 achieves admirably in this regard.  Very simply, it plays music –and that’s a good thing.  Far too many self-declared “audiophile” players have weird quirks or awkward designs that seriously hamper their ability to do even that.  On a small aside - the earphones are pretty good.  Nothing to write home about, but if you haven't got much lying around or need an expendable piece of listening gear, it'll do the job more than competently.
 
SOUND QUALITY

---

 
I’ll start by saying that the M3 sounds very good for its price.  It does a lot for very little.  Much more than something like the IPod Shuffle.  To put my following observations into perspective, I’m currently coming off the DX50, which is substantially higher priced than the M3.  To start, the M3 does have some grain when turned on and at rest.  It’s a far cry from the black background of my DX50.  Having said that, the grain goes away for the most part once music is played and is effectively covered up.  Not an ideal situation, but definitely not a deal breaker by any means.
 
In the bass department, the M3 definitely struggles a bit with extension and control.  Lower frequency micro details aren’t exactly present and this becomes increasingly obvious with headphones, where the M3 begins to lose control of the lower frequencies.  For fun, I did plug in my 470 ohm R70x, and the above issues were only magnified.  
 
The mids and the highs are slightly forward and this lends itself to a more immediately engaging sound, and I do have to say that the performance in the midrange is very impressive.  Slightly warm and sweet, I found this aspect of the M3 to be very agreeable to my ears.  The highs were at times a little too tinny and emphasized in my opinion.  Detail retrieval and clarity are good, and the so-called Cirrus house sound (and its existence is debated) is definitely there.    Soundstage is definitely moderately sized, which when combined with the mid and high characteristics can make for a somewhat tiring experience when sessions get longer.   Compared to the DX50, the M3 is more of an exciting listen, but one that is rough around the corners at times and overall not as smooth. 
 
FINAL THOUGHTS

---

 
Given the fifty-five dollar asking price for the M3, the SQ is definitely where it should be.  And while it doesn’t stack that well against more expensive players, the overall form and utility of the M3 makes it an extremely compelling purchase.  I'd say the M3 excels in its amazing blend of function and form.  I could see this being a great player for those who'd rather not lug around an audiophile power-brick but still need good sound on the go (think exercise).  If you’re in the market for a tiny DAP with awesome battery life and a solid SQ, and don’t want to break the bank, then the M3 is definitely the choice for you.   
 

HIDIZS' AP100

---

 
INTRODUCTION

---

Hidizs was founded in 2009 after a lengthy investigation of the audiophile DAP market.  Thus far, it has produced only a single offering: the AP100.  Entering into an increasingly saturated market occupied by bigger name players like Fiio, iBasso, HiFiMan, and at the higher end, Astell & Kern, Hidizs faces what can only be described as extremely steep competition.  In many ways, the AP100 not only needed to match existing competitors like the DX50/90 and X3/5 in terms of performance, but also surpass them in order to ensure its relevance in the audio world.
 
Before I go any further, I’d like to thank Louis at Hidizs for helping to coordinate the logistics of this review.  As always, I am neither an affiliate nor an employee of Hidizs, and all photos are owned by me.  Because I did not receive the original packaging for the AP100, I was unable to complete the packaging/ included items section that I commonly include in reviews. 
 
BUILD/DESIGN QUALITY

---

 
Let’s start by taking a look at the overall build of the DAP.  The Hidizs AP100 has a nice brushed metal finish, though the overall weight of the AP100 is still relatively light.  This leads me to believe that its frame is constructed out of plastic.  The screen is a 320 x 240 TFT display.  This is pretty low-resolution, and users can expect to see pixilation.  While some may not care much for the display, I personally quite enjoy being able to look at my album artwork.  Naturally, the 320 x 240 display was a slight disappointment.  
 
 
On the left side of the player is the button that changes EQ and SRC control.   On the right is a switch that locks the DAP’s functionality.  To the top are the line out and headphone jacks, as well as the sleep button, and on the bottom are the Micro USB, Micro SD, coax in, and coax out ports.  The controls are laid out in a fairly intuitive manner, though it does have a bit of a “legacy” look to it.  If there is one thing I’d change, it would be to toss the fast forward/ rewind buttons, and instead merge these controls with the next track/ previous track buttons (like old Apple iPods). Having said that, it is still fairly easy to maneuver the AP100 interface with a single hand. 
 
 
In addition to a solid build, the internals of the AP100 are fairly impressive as well.  Good hardware and a decent processor (okay, decent for DAPs) mean that the AP100 should perform fairly well in actual testing.
 
The user interface is pretty barebones.  It works well, and in some ways I am quite happy that fancy features weren’t just thrown onto the AP100 for no good reason.  However, with return of my DX50 (which I have just re-bought following my first DX50's dramatic death) I found the AP100 to be pretty lackluster,  especially when you have to actually press buttons to go through music.  That said, those who like legacy controls will be at home with the Hidizs DAP.   Turning the AP100 on, the user is confronted with two choices: red pill or blue pill.  Just kidding.   You can either go to the settings menu or the playback interface.  Nothing particularly ground breaking with either.  Now that firmware updates seems to have fixed most of the AP100’s software related problems, I found that it wasn’t half bad UI-wise.  However, you will notice more than a few quirks with the AP100, including a battery indicator that refuses to update a times, an odd mechanical noise going off in-between songs, and the unique customization features available (your choice of green or blue text). 
 
 
Overall, the AP100 has a good build.  While it certainly isn’t an elegant device by any means, it’s definitely a solidly constructed piece of equipment with a logical design behind it.  The AP100 certainly matches other Chinese DAPs in terms of build quality, and in some ways even surpasses them (X3 I’m looking at you).  
 
SOUND QUALITY

---

The AP100 does exactly what one should expect from an MP3 player.  Relatively uncolored, neutral sounding playback.  Soundstage and imaging are no problem for the AP100 either.  While I do have a soft spot for “flavored” pieces of audio equipment, the source, in my opinion, needs to be pure.  It should not be a place for experimentation or uniqueness.  Instead, it should be a solid launching pad for SQ customization through headphones, amps, and the like.  The AP100 delivers in this regard, and solidly at that.  
 
FINAL THOUGHTS

---

Hidizs has certainly produced a compelling piece of audio equipment.  While it may not seem like a “Dream Lover” to start, the AP100’s robustness and generally reliability (with new firmware) make it a good choice for those looking for a “legacy” DAP.