We’re going to be taking a dive into the new Tube Mini from Woo Audio, a portable DAC/tube amp retailing at a surprisingly attainable $500. If you know of Woo Audio, you might know them for their flagship WA33 tube headphone amp, the more affordable WA6, or their other portable tube amp/DAC, the WA11 Topaz. With the Tube Mini, Woo Audio is giving plebian audiophiles like myself a glimmer of hopeful curiosity. Can you really get a bonafide tube amp for $500 – and in such a small package? Let’s get into some of the Tube Mini’s design and technicals, what it’s like to actually use it, and some subjective impressions of my listens.

What’s In the Box?

• Woo Audio Tube Mini
• Semi-firm Carrying Case
• USB cable (female USB-A to male USBC)

The Basic Functions and Features of the Woo Audio Tube Mini

• An unbalanced 3.5mm output
  A balanced 4.4mm output
• A play button
• Volume up and volume down buttons
• A switch to flip between balanced and unbalanced outputs.
• USB-A male connector.

Technical Overview

The Woo Audio Tube Mini is an all-in-one DAC and amp. The core of it’s technical performance is what Woo Audio calls Mighty Drive; in short, Mighty Drive combines the power provided by solid state designs with the tonal warmth of traditional vacuum tubes.

Woo Audio isn’t cutting corners on the tubes, which they say are military-grade and can last through several thousands of hours of play time. On the structural design side of things, the tubes in the Tube Mini are suspended on springs, which serve as a shock mount that partially negates traumatic impacts as well as some of the microphonic effects of movement (more on that in the next section).

Set Up and Using the Woo Audio Tube Mini

“Ah why did it pop? Why is it ringing? Why is it crackling?” – Things you will probably say if you eagerly skipped reading the instructions for Woo Audio’s Tube Mini.

The Tube Mini is a bit finnicky, but I ultimately find it hard to hold that against it for reasons that I’ll get into in a moment.

If you move the amp, you’ll likely hear a moderate ringing in your headphones. If you plugged your headphones directly into the active output when powering it on, or before powering it on, or when, you’re going to hear an unpleasantly loud pop. And if you’re listening to streamed music on a cellphone with the amp right next to your device, you might even hear moments of background static.

So, why am I not eviscerating the Tube Mini for these issues? Because Woo Audio is entirely up front about all of this in the provided instructions, and tells you exactly how to avoid these issues when listening with the Tube Mini.

The ringing from movement? Well, while the amp is certainly portable, it’s not a to-go sort of unit. You’re supposed to have the amp on a stable surface when using it.

The popping sounds from incorrectly connecting your headphones or changing between balanced and unbalanced outputs? Set the amp to the opposite setting your desired output, power it on, connected your headphones to the amp, then flip the switch to the output you will actually be using. This might be a bit unconventional for the people making the Tube Mini their first tube amp, but is it particularly cumbersome? No, I can’t say that it is – just a matter of remembering.

And finally, the background static when listening to streamed music? This is surely the tell-tale sign that something is wrong, right? Not really, Woo Audio covers this as well. The vacuum tubes are particularly sensitive to electromagnetic interferences from cellular signals, and Woo reccomends listening to offline music with the Tube Mini.

So if you were thinking that the Tube Mini was a fun little piece you can throw in your pocket for some portable vintage coloration on the go – nah, we’re not not quite there yet. The Mini’s appeal lies more in the ability to take it with you wherever you go, and then quickly and easily setting it up once you’ve reached a more stable environment at your destination. In other words, take it out when you get to your office – not on the commute. Be nice to the Tube Mini and the Tube Mini will be nice to you.

Is the Woo Audio Tube Mini Powerful?

Woo Audio touts the Tube Mini as being able to drive the most demanding headphones – even the HiFiMAN Susvara.

Hopefully you can forgive me for not being able to get my hands on the Susvara to put the Mini to a direct test. Instead, I tested the Tube Mini’s power with other hard-to-drive pairs of headphones: Dan Clark’s Expanse, Sennheiser HD800 S, and the 600 ohm Beyerdynamic DT880. Let me cut to the point: Woo Audio wasn’t lying. The Tube Mini packs a wallop, and was able to adequately drive all of the headphones I threw at it. Even without considering the tubes in the unit, the power output alone is a very impressive feat at this size and price point.

Woo Audio Tube Mini Sound Impressions

Again, I’m going to be a little brief here. Rather than getting into the particular sonic idiosyncrasies and specific tube personality of the Tube Mini, I’m going to address what I think is a better question for a product like the Mini: does it actually – actually – deliver tubular goodness?

Again, the answer here is a simple but definite yes.

I even played the Mini for a friend of mine who had never before heard a tube amplifier. This is some one who I’ve shown higher end dongles like Astell&Kern‘s HC2 and the Questyle M15, and who was eager to tell me they heard absolutely no difference in sound quality. With the Tube Mini, however: “What makes this one sound so good?”

Tubes, Leon. It’s the tubes.

Look, tube amps are one of the snobbier arenas in this hobby – no offense to the tube enthusiasts. I went into this review ready to say that the Woo Audio Tube Mini is simply a good tube for beginners. I still say that, but want to add that the Tube Mini is a great piece for the tube heads who want to keep a seriously solid tube tone in their pocket. Is it going to sound as good as your WA33? No, you psycho, but it delivers all the hallmarks of the tube sound: warm low ends, lush midranges, rounder sound stages, smoother treble, etc.

I also want to note that incorporating the Tube Mini into my current at-home set up yielded the best tonal results. Running the Tube Mini into a headphone amp allowed me to max out the tube amplification, thus maximizing saturation, while controlling my listening levels through the amplifier. But to be clear: you don’t need to do this to hear all the nice things the Woo Audio Tube Mini is doing. Listening directly through the Mini, even with easy-to-drive headphones like my personal Meze 109 Pro, provided apparent timbre enhancements.

Overall

Woo Audio’s Tube Mini pulls off the very impressive feat of being a tube amp that’s as affordable as it is portable. Better still: it’s not a gimmick, as it actually sounds fantastic. It’s combining the best of the new (a high res DAC with DSD and MQA functionality) with the old (vacuum tube analog warmth). Though using the Tube Mini takes a little extra care and mindfulness than your standard dongle or desktop DAC, the benefits are abundantly worth it. Props to Woo Audio for bringing high quality tubes down to a price point that the mid-fi crowd can afford, and to a size that the HiFi crowd can take with them.

Order the Woo Audio Tube Mini here from Audio46.

The post Woo Audio Tube Mini Amp/DAC Review: Portable Tubes for the Noobs and Pros appeared first on Major HiFi.

While impatiently waiting to get my hands on the HiFiMAN Arya Organic for review, I’ve been listening to the HiFiMAN Arya V3 a few hours a day in the meantime. Let me be upfront: not without its faults, the Arya is one of my favorite headphones in the $1000 to $2000 range. I have some pretty high expectations for HiFiMAN’s new Arya Organic and eagerly hope that some of my minor criticisms for the V3 are smoothed out in what is now the 4^th generation of the popular planar open-back. Let’s see if the new build is all it’s cracked up to be, what differences HiFiMAN is making in the headphone’s driver, and most importantly, the differences you can expect to hear between the two Aryas.

Fit and Build

It’s pretty apparent that HiFiMAN is making a statement with the Arya Organic’s build. Though I’ve never personally had issues with build quality from HiFiMAN products, the company has seen scattered criticisms from some customers in this category. Whether or not it was intentional, the upgrades we see in Arya Organic’s physical design seem like a direct response to such criticism. Its new, sophisticated wooden details offer a bold textural contrast to the black “window shade” driver covering that is also featured on the Arya V3.

While I find the Arya V3’s build acceptable, the Arya Organic borders on exceptional with its inclusion of sturdier, wooden materials. Though the Organic’s wooden design finds a little more heft than the plastic design of the Arya V3, the fit, and comfort are about the same, perhaps a pinch looser. Same breathable earpads, same manual adjustment suspension headband with notched adjustments. Fine by me; I found the Arya to be a pretty comfy and spacious headphone prior to the release of the Organic. No need to fix what isn’t broken.

Technical Design

The HiFiMAN Arya V3 set itself apart from its predecessors with its inclusion of stealth magnets in the driver design. The Arya Organic takes things a step further by including stealth magnets as well as a driver diaphragm that is a single nanometer in thickness. This design element was borrowed from the Susvara, HiFiMAN’s open-back planar flagship headphones. With the recently released HiFiMAN Ananda Nano sharing the same upgraded design, it seems like this nanometer diaphragm will be the defining hallmark of HiFiMAN’s current and ongoing generation of headphones. I certainly hope it yields the same improvements in sound quality that it did for the Nano, which was a pretty big hit here at MajorHiFi.

It’s worth noting that while both the Arya V3 and Arya Organic have 32-ohm impedances, their low sensitivities will likely require that a listener use an amp to sufficiently drive them.

HiFiMAN Arya Organic vs. V3 Soundstage

While I never got a chance to listen to the first two editions of the Arya, The HiFiMAN Arya V3 might have been the first time I ever understood what people mean by a soundstage that is “too big.” This is more of a personal preference than a serious criticism, as I’m nonetheless seriously impressed by the enormous stage that the Arya V3 has going for it. Its vast width affords the headphone a hyper-detailed sensitivity to stereo positions. Certain basslines that I had always heard in mono placements on other headphones have their tiniest, 2-degree pan placements put on blast by the Arya V3. While this will certainly delight plenty of listeners, the ruthlessly exposing scale of the V3’s stage was nearly too detailed for me; it might sound silly to say I was distracted by the detail (specifically in its width), but that is ultimately my (highly subjective) take away. However, it’s impossible to deny that this stage size was also responsible for an epic height and depth that created clean, articulate, and vividly entertaining layering. Lingering reverb decays, for example, are all the more realistic due to the V3’s endlessly cavernous quality.

While I find the Arya Organic to possess a slightly smaller stage, this is a quality that I welcome in the headphone. While center placements seemed to teeter and gravitate slightly towards the left or right on the V3, the Organic has a much easier time establishing a solid and unified front-center image. Though more intimate and direct than the stage I heard on the Arya V3, fear not: HiFiMAN is still delivering gigantic spatial qualities with the Arya Organic.

HiFiMAN Arya Organic vs. V3 Balance Comparison

If you don’t already know, HiFiMAN’s Arya headphones have a reputation for packing in a bold treble profile on top of an otherwise flat and balanced tuning. I have a penchant for brighter signatures and generally love what the V3 had to offer in its balance. But in the midst of its brightness, I was regularly impressed with what I heard coming from the mid-bass on the Arya V3. Though fairly even-keeled in their amplitudes, low-end parts took on an incredibly tight and controlled quality that punch down the middle of the Arya’s atmospheric stage. Midrange parts presented with a highly natural quality, but gave me the illusion of high mid emphasis that was informed by the airy upper treble lift further up in the balance.

It’s hard for me to really dig into the Arya V3 with a critic’s ear because as I’ve already said, I like the headphone quite a bit. But alas, for the purposes of comparing the V3 with what I heard when listening to the Arya Organic, I’ll have to get the tweezers and magnifying glass out for some nitpicking.

My only small criticism for the Arya V3’s balance stems from a part of its tuning that I’m otherwise generally appreciative of its treble profile. At times, the V3’s bold mid-treble has a quality I would venture to describe as, well, a bit crashy and splashy. At high intensities, cymbals, hi-hats, and higher-pitched electric snare drums can come off a little coarse. Rather than tss, the Arya V3 sometimes goes cccsh. To be more general and maybe phrase it in a more relatable way, the V3 has some minor issues with peakiness. After even a brief period of mental burn-in with the headphone, this wasn’t something that stayed on the forefront of my mind during my listens. This characteristic is a bit more noticeable when I return to the Arya V3 after listening to another headphone for a longer period of time.

Maybe you already see where I’m going here. The Arya Organic presented a much smoother treble profile without sacrificing its predecessor’s intensity. The traces of scratchiness that the V3 exhibited on cymbals and parts of the like was entirely absent when listening to the newest iteration of the Arya.

There’s significantly more control in the Organic’s sound; not only in the treble, but all across the spectrum. The Arya V3’s tight mid-bass finds even further refinement on the Organic, punching with just a touch more sub-bass reinforcement.

But overall, I don’t think it’s balance adjustments that are making the biggest difference between the two versions of the HiFiMAN Arya. Rather, there’s a noticeable difference in speed. Though the Arya V3 is very far from being a blunted-sounding headphone, the Arya Organic attacks note with a ferocity that makes the V3 sound rounder by comparison. So, while I might call the Organic a more aggressive upgrade from its predecessor, this has much more to do with its delivery than its balance.

Overall

It can be frustrating to see a manufacturer come out with new versions of a popular model with negligible differences and a higher price tag. HiFiMAN, however, is not a guilty party. The HiFiMAN Arya Organic retains the familiar frequency response of the Arya V3, and its vast spatial qualities, with a newfound speed and forwardness. What’s more, we see a $1300 price tag on the model, which is $100 less than the Arya V3’s initial retail value. With the Arya V3 now at $999, HiFiMAN is finessing the $1000 tier as well as they are the $500 tier. 2023 is shaping up to be a pretty great year for the company as they again inject the market with yet another model that radiates high-effort upgrades, impressive performance, and a fair value.

You can purchase the HiFiMAN Arya Organic here from Audio46.

You can purchase the HiFiMAN Arya V3 here from Audio46.

The post HiFiMAN Arya Organic vs. Arya V3 Stealth: Worth the Upgrade? appeared first on Major HiFi.

FiiO may have made their name in DACs, DAPs, and amps, but they still find time to make the occasional foray into headphones. The FiiO FT3 is a $300 open-back dynamic release from the company that has been capturing a lot of buzz and positive reviews as of late. Can FiiO’s FT3 compete with a well-established class of reference headphones under $500? Let’s take a look inside its box, talk some design and specs, and most importantly, talk about what the FT3 really sounds like.

What’s In The Box?

• FiiO FT3 Open-Back Planar Headphones
• Hard Leather Carrying Case
• Soft Carrying Pouch
• Suede Earpads (default)
• Protien Leather Earpads (included)
• 3 Meter Headphone Cable with Nylon Insulation
• 3.5mm Unbalanced Jack
• 4.4mm Balanced Jack
• 6.35mm Unbalanced Adapter
• 4-Pin XLR Adapter

Fit, Feel and Comfort

Right off the bat, FiiO is obviously looking to impress in the accessories department. They’re giving a lot, and everything is surprisingly high quality. I’m into the cable situation: durable, soft, and lengthy, with an all-included selection of jacks and adapters. This is the first time I’ve seen a headphone at this price point include a 4-pin XLR adapter; I personally don’t have a need for it in my set up, but I like seeing it nonetheless.

But the stars of the show in the accessories might be the two pairs of suede and protein leather ear pads, which offer subtle differences in fit and sound signature. With its sturdy yet lightweight aluminum alloy frame and suspension headband…hold on, am I talking about the FT3 still or the $5000 Yamaha YH-5000SE? From the interchangeable pads, to the aluminum alloy frame, to the headband, to just the overall look of the headphones, there are some striking similarities here between the two. Pretty cool to see the nice features of a $5000 headphone in a $300 unit.

So, the FiiO FT3 looks quite cool, if you ask me. I like headphones that derive their style from a serious, techy sort of aesthetic. I’ll let you look at the pictures and be your own judge for that.

And finally, for fit and comfort, the FT3 gets top marks here, especially with the suede earpads. A well calibrated, automatically adjusting suspension headband distributes the headphone’s mass gracefully – “not that there’s much mass to distribute.” I left that last part in quotes because I wrote it before looking up the FT3’s weight, which I was shocked to see is nearly 400 grams. It’s not heavy, nor is it light. But based only on how the FT3 feels on my head, I was fully expecting to see a number much closer to 290 to 300 grams. It’s an airy headphone, with a gentle clamp pressure just firm enough to produce a good seal – but loose enough to wobble a bit if you give your head an intentional shake. In short, it feels awesome, and I can tell I’m not going to have issues wearing it for the next several hours.

Technical Design

FiiO equipped the FT3 with a 60mm dynamic driver – significantly larger than the usual 40 or 50 millimeters we see for most dynamic drivers. This large driver allows for greater output potential and should, in theory, lead to a realistic and accurate low end response. FiiO had to make special material considerations for a diaphragm material that could support the plus-size driver, and ended up going with a Beryllium plated gasket and DLC (diamond-like carbon) diaphragm. Beryllium is always promising to see included in a driver design for its light weight and high rigidity. In fact, this may be the first time I’m seeing Beryllium included in the design of a $300 headphone.

We also see a specially designed .035mm thick voice coil made from ultra-fine Japanese copper-clad aluminum. This lightweight and highly conductive coil results in faster and more accurate driver movements. If this wasn’t already enough, an N52 neodymium magnetic array is responsible for providing the voice coil with electromagnetic stability.

Between the curiously advanced technical design and hedonistic supply of accessories, FiiO really seems to be going all in here for their new $300 headphone. Hopefully the FT3 performs as well as it looks on paper.

Last thing I’ll mention: the FT3 runs with a pretty high impedance of 350 ohms. You’re going to want something with a little extra power to run it.

Soundstage

The FiiO FT3 performs fair to its price tier in terms of its staging and imaging. It’s not huge, it’s a bit linear and flat, but it’s dead on accurate and makes stereo placements simple and easy to detect. The FT3 is, so far, presenting itself to me as a really excellent reference headphone that would be great to use for mixing – a point I’ll expand on further when I get into the balance. Its spatial character is a bit cut and dry, displaying modest moments of depth in its peripherals, but keeping mono parts pressed up close against my face. This isn’t to say the FT3 feels compressed or claustrophobic – quite far from it. It simply seems to take stereo placements very literally: “Do you want it in the left or in the right?”

Balance

What the FiiO FT3 is not: lush, warm, emotional, grooving.

What the FiiO FT3 is: analytical, sharp, pristine, airy.

I have to say, FiiO made quite the cold little headphone out of the FT3. Everything from the stage to the balance is screaming some reference-headphone hallmarks at me.

But let’s start with the low end. The FT3 is giving perfectly adequate bass amplitudes with a bit of a sub bass roll off. While its low end seems just as flat as its mid range, it presents itself as though it’s quieter than it really is; a case of bass being heard more than it’s felt. I tried feeding it some bombastic bass lines like the one in the song “Twice” by Charli XCX. It was extra clean and perfectly distinct from the mid range, but lacked the slam, vibration, and general oomph that some listeners might be looking for. It may be a more audible bass response than something like Beyerdynamic, but has the same quality of showing you bass rather than really giving it to you.

When it comes to midrange, there’s not a ton to go over here: the FT3 is ruler flat. However, the more dramatic amplitudes in its treble give the illusion of a tuning that favors high mids. Vocals sound perfectly natural with a nice and even weight between their fundamental tones in the center and low mids and their chesty overtones in the upper mids, with more than a few moments of crispy character in their treble. The even mids balance coupled with the flat-sounding low end lays the groundwork for a very open and uncluttered signature.

The FT3 digs in and finds some distinct character in its treble profile. My first impression listening was the FT3, in fact, was that it was a moderately bright headphone. This compliments the rest of the signature, as it adds a lifting and revealing nature to the otherwise ultra-flat tuning – and with that, I will try my best to stop using the word flat to describe the FiiO FT3, though it might be difficult.

Though I didn’t find the FT3 sibilant, cymbal swells could come off sounding a bit too cacophonous at times, and that’s really the only complaint I have the overall sound. The trade offs for this tuning seem well worth it: airy and clean vocals, high resolution reverb decays, cleanly emphasized harmonic profiles – all the things you want to see from a good reference headphone.

Overall

The FiiO FT3 is not a headphone for everyone with its analysis-oriented bass response and crispy treble intensities. It’s not fun and bouncy and colorful – it takes itself very seriously, aiming for ruthless dissections and accuracy above all else. I sit here now mulling whether or not I should take the plunge and get the FT3 for my own mixing purposes, as an open-back compliment to the Beyerdynamic DT 770’s that I usually use. But the point I want to emphasize here is that FiiO accomplished an incredible amount for $300: a box spilling with high quality accessories, two types of earpads, a metallic-yet comfortable build, and…the headphone actually sounds good? If you’re looking for a cut and dry, no-nonsense sound signature with all the extra fixings in this price point, it’s going to be hard to beat what the FT3 from FiiO is delivering.

You can purchase the FiiO FT3 here from Audio46.

The post New Reference Headphone on the Block: FiiO FT3 Review appeared first on Major HiFi.

I’m no stranger to Sivga’s over-ears; I recently had a pretty good time reviewing the newly released Sivga Luan. But this is the first Sivga in-ear that I’ve had the opportunity to try. Looking at the tiny, wooden housing of the $250 Sivga SW001 right now before having listened to it, my curiosity is piqued. Is this a gimmick? Or does Sivga have something special here? Let’s take a look inside the box, talk about the Sivga’s SW001’s fit and design, and finally, get into what it sounds like.

What’s in the Box?

• 2 MMCX Cables, one with a mic and one without
• 3 Pairs of Silicon Tips
• 2 Pairs of Foam Tips
• 1 Pair double-flange silicon (medium size)
• Pocket sized, semi firm leather carrying case

Fit, Accessories, and Style

Sivga’s SW001 is small – in fact, it’s tiny. It’s safe to say no one is going to find it too big and burdensome for their ears. While earphones this size can sometimes be tedious to handle, I didn’t have issues with the SW001. The face of the earphones have carved indents that are a perfect size and shape for a fingertip, making the initial process of getting them into my ears pretty easy and fuss-free. The light weight, small housing, and rounded edges makes listening with the SW001 a particularly comfortable experience. No complaints yet.

We also see a fairly generous assortment of accessories that come with the SW001. I like seeing the little-bit-above-average braided cable, the inclusion of an extra cable with a microphone, and the double flange silicon tips along with the standard foam and silicon tips. And finally, a classic Sivga carrying case: russ brown leather, semi firm, and 100% classy. So, while I have to admit that the external packing/presentation is a little kitschy and dated, this book is best not judged by its cover. Once again, the Sivga SW001 is checking the right boxes.

And finally, how the SW001 looks. Not everyday you see wooden earphones, am I right? (cue laugh track).

It’s unique, maybe polarizing – I’m fine with it. It wouldn’t be Sivga if it wasn’t wooden. Be your own judge.

Technical Design

Soundstage

Some surprisingly nice qualities to go over. While the Sivga SW001 doesn’t aim for a large or ethereal stage, there’s some vivid dimensional presence within its more insular character. What may have impressed me the most was the SW001’s depth. Pans passed fluidly a few inches in front of my face with a rounded character. Height isn’t a persistent or dominant quality, but at times I was distinctly aware of feeling hi-hats present themselves a few centimeters above my eye brows. Mono vocals perched themselves dead center, and were intimately positioned as if they were a few inches inside of my head.

The staging and imaging isn’t insane, but its present, pleasant, and tasteful. Earphones at this price point often come across as sounding flat and linear in their spatial character, so the SW001 is faring this review pretty well so far.

Balance

Props to Sivga for including the frequency response graph with the earphones. Let’s talk about it.

I’m liking what we see in the low end: a bass boost concentrated on subs and the lower mid bass region from 20 – 100 Hz, with more modest high bass amplitudes at 200 to 300 Hz. Low-center mids are moderately tented between 300 and 500 Hz with an amplitude peak at 400 Hz, while the remaning center mids from 500Hz to 1kHz roll off into semi-recessed high-mids from 1 kHz to 2 kHz.

There’s a dynamic impact and fatness to the bass that finds clarity and separation thanks to the carved out high bass frequencies. While the tenting we see in the low mids is perhaps a little unusual, I hear what Sivga is doing here: giving listeners a warm low mid tone that isn’t smudging and blending with overdone high bass. Keeping firm low end and mid range seperation can be tricky with warm signatures, but the SW001 does a great job in this regard. Strong bass, rich mids, and a nice distinction between the two – pretty ideal for an easy listening oriented signature, which is obviously Sivga’s angle with the SW001.

The SW001 brings some spark in its lower treble, which is the big bold spike we see spanning for 2 to approximately 4 kHz. While this serves the function of bringing a welcome lift to the otherwise soft and warm signature, the lift is unusually concentrated and at time leads to some odd dynamics in the upper frequencies. The specific issue is that the SW001 can be a little peaky with an occasional glaring quality in its low treble. On the other hand, the low treble emphasis brings out a nice drive on acoustic and electric guitars a lot, which pairs well with their meaty, low mid fundamentals. A similar thing can be said for vocals on the SW001: moderately emphasized fundamentals in the low mids, balanced with more driving, chest-y sort of overtones.

Occasional low treble peaks aside, the SW001 pulls off a relaxing and non-fatiguing signature that was easy for long, casual listens.

Overall

I’m starting to think that my favorite side of Sivga comes from the headphones and earphones that aren’t trying to show off, but rather do the a great and safe job on the basics. This is as true for the SW001 as it is for the over-ear Luan. The Sivga SW001 is unlikely to blow your mind – it’s more concerned with providing you with a fun and easy time. A pretty solid performance from Sivga.

Purchase the Sivga SW001 here from Audio46.

The post Sivga SW001 Review: Sivga Keeps it Casual appeared first on Major HiFi.

In my recent video review for the Kinera Imperial Loki, I asserted that Kinera’s new flagship has what it takes to go toe-to-toe with the top IEMs from the Empire Ears catalog. By a stroke of serendipitous chance, I have access to both the Empire Ears Odin and Kinera Loki today. Let’s see if I have to eat my words, or say “I told you so.” As usual, we’ll be peaking inside their boxes, going over their fit, comfort and technical design, and most importantly, comparing what these two premium IEMs sound like.

What’s In Their Boxes?

Kinera Imperial Loki

• Kinera Imperial Loki In-ear monitors
• One Effect Audio UP-OCC Cable, EA 4.4mm
• Second IEM Cable with Nylon Insulation 4.4mm
• Final Type E Eartips x 5 sets (SS/S/M/L/LL)
• AZLA SednaEarfit Crystal Eartips x 3 sets (SS/MS/ML)
• Spinfit CP145 Eartips x 3 sets (S/M/L)
• Symbio F Foam Tips x 2sets (S/M)
• Genuine Leather Carry Case
• Cleaning Brush
• User Manual
• Other Literature

Empire Ears Odin

• Empire Ears Odin In Ear Monitors
• Bespoke Stormbreaker UPOCC Copper Litz Cable 4.4m
• Empire Ears Premium Product Card
• 5 Pairs of Final Audio Type E Silicone Tips
• Hard Metal Travelling Case
• Soft Mesh Carrying Pouch
• Literature

Fit, Comfort, Accessories

To what should be to the suprise of no one, both the Kinera Imperial Loki and Empire Ears Odin are chunky in a way that’s typical of IEMs in this price tier. I imagine the designers and engineers had similar lines of thought: “Stuff it with drivers, round out all the edges, pray that it’s not uncomfortable.” Luckily, both IEMs do in fact handle their size well enough. While you won’t find me raving about their unbelieveable comfort, neither are what I would call uncomfortable or fatiguing. I had no issues wearing either for a few hours at a time, and I’m fine leaving it at that.

As for what you get with each, The Kinera Imperial Loki is tough to beat. Empire Ears always impresses me with their classy and high quality accessories, particularly their extra protective metallic carrying cases. The Loki, however, borders on hedonism when we open the box: two premium cable options, and 4 ear tip type options that include some genuinely unique varieties (like the AZLA Crystals and Symbio Type F foams). So, while the Empire Ears Odin is certainly offering enough high quality extras to satisfy most buyers, the Kinera Imperial Loki is looking to completely spoil its future owners with the contents of its box.

Finally, I’ll take a second to say that both the Kinera Imperial Loki and Empire Ears Odin are beautiful, flashy, sparkly IEMs that are visually appealing in distinct yet similar ways. You can take a look at the pictures and be your own judge.

Technical Design

The Kinera Imperial Loki features 12 drivers. Of special note is the inclusion of a bone conduction driver, which transmits soundwaves to a listener’s auditory nerve by bypassing the ear drum and vibrating the ossicles (inner ear bones). In theory, this gives an extra physical quality to low frequency vibrations, and actually expands our hearing range below 20 Hz (and above 20 kHz as well, for that matter).

The Empire Ears Odin sees 11 drivers in its configuration, with the stars of the show being its 2 W9+ subwoofers featured on either side. These drivers feature longer internal coils that enable larger diaphragm movements.

In short, both the the Loki and Odin seem to be putting the ringers of their technical designs into their low end performances.

Soundstages

There are some pretty significant differences in staging and imaging to go over here. The short answer to this part of the review is that the Kinera Imperial Loki has a much wider stage than what I heard on the Odin. This isn’t to say that the Odin has a small stage by any means; this is rather a testament to the Loki’s considerable wingspan. But putting size aside, there’s a quality to the Odin’s forward facing imaging that feels more fluid and holographic than what I heard on the Loki. Again, the Odin seems to have a slightly smaller spatial dimension here, but parts feel as though they originate from a couple of feet away from me and then reach out to brush my face. It’s specifically the Odin’s imaging rather than its staging that, to me at least, lends to its exceptional and genuinely unique spatial character that creates stacks of layers in its depth, width, and height alike. There’s enough size and shape present to create a distinct headspace ambiance, yet there’s an intimacy to it that makes it feel as interactive as it is complexly holographic.

There’s also a lot to be said for the Loki’s imaging, which I called “surgical” in my video review. While the Odin feels like you’re sticking your face into a swirling mass of liquid energy, the Loki has more of what I’ll call a cavernous quality to it. The far corners of its stage that seem to lie and wait in darkness are illuminated by the echos of dense reverbs and airy vocals. Parts also find particularly firm placements in there left-to-right stereo dimension, making even subtle pans pop out with a spatial presence.

For one last catergorization with a little more intution and a less hair-splitting description: the Empire Ears Odin felt like parts were densely (yet articulately) angling in towards me, while the Kinera Loki gave me the feeling that parts were pushing out and away from me.

Balance

Let’s start with what both of these IEMs seem to be putting front and center: big, dominant, and deep low ends. In terms of sheer power, the Empire Ears Odin comes out on top. When listening to orchestral strings, the Odin was quick to bring the subs out of double-basses and press them down the center of my head with a commanding force. You may likely already be aware of the Odin’s reputation in its low end coming into this review, and I can confirm that the stories are true. It’s nothing short of intoxicating, packing a phantom-felt physical sensation of a giant effotlessly pressing down on your head with a massive finger tip. Within its rumbles and vibration, its low frequency energy can become so intense that, at times, it feels like its growling at you. The Odin has been out for about three years now, but still offers one of the most powerful and concentrated low ends you can find in the entire IEM market.

Though not quite as driving and forceful in the low end as the Odin, The Kinera Imperial Loki is still packing in its subs and mid bass, promising to satisfy the greediest of bass heads. What impressed me with the Loki’s low end over the Odin’s, however, was its ruthless dedication to the details of sub and mid bass timbres. No other IEM that I’ve tried has pulled apart the sub-centric album “Halo” by Juana Molina quite like the Loki, which parsed through its constant dueling bass lines and even showcased their wave characters within chaotically thunderous soundscapes. So while there’s a pure hedonistic joy to be had from the Odin’s sub and mid bass profile, there’s a more analytical pleasure found in the depths of the Loki.

When it comes to center frequencies and treble, the Loki has pretty flat and balanced character – until we hit upper treble, at which point the Loki shoots for the stars. The Loki’s treble-heavy character is unique in this way: it’s high treble amplitudes dont apply to the frequency regions that make vocals shouty, electric guitars harsh, or strings shrill. Instead, it’s breezy and sizzling, servicing the overall balance with extra lift through airy vocals, whispy cymbals, and extra pronunciation on transients. Acoustic guitars, for example, present with a mostly natural quality, but find emphasis in their washboard-like strummy transients.

While the high-treble flourishes in the Kinera Imperial Loki’s lead to a more general, textural affect on its balance, the Odin is placing a significant emphasis on lower and mid treble, as well as its upper mids. This gives it a denser high frequency profile, and effects more specific parts of the balance – electric and acoustic guitars, for example have a more driving and crunchy quality to them than the more mellow sounding Loki. While grand pianos on the Loki had their more percussive and striking qualities brought out of them, they took on a richer and more aggressive harmonic intensity on the Odin.

To sum it up, the both the Loki and the Odin have balances that go hand in hand with their soundstages.
The Odin is dense, intense, driving and pushy; the Loki, more delicate, detailed, spacious and whispy. But don’t let these contrasting adjectives distract from an underlying commonality: the bass responses on both Odin and the Loki will kick your ass, each in their own way.

Overall

I stand by my statement that Kinera’s Imperial Loki has what it takes to go head-to-head with an established top shelf IEM like Empire Ears’ Odin, but the two showcase very different sonic qualities. For ultra premium IEMs like these, I don’t have descisive victor in mind here. I’ll sum things up with this: the Loki and Odin aren’t infringing on eachothers territory, so far as they hold significantly distinct appeals as I’ve outlined above. Some one who has found divine love in the Loki may not be so thrilled with the Odin, and vice verse. And for the psychos thinking about dropping more than $6000 and getting both, I have to say, you’re not at risk of redundancy – I can see them serving as premium bookends in the spectrum of a high end collection.

Purchase or read more about the Kinera Imperial Loki here from Audio46.

Purchase or read more about the Empire Ears Odin here from Audio46.

The post Kinera Imperial Loki vs. Empire Ears Odin: A Divine Comparison appeared first on Major HiFi.

HiFiMAN offers an open-back planar for every occasion, at just about every price point. HiFiMAN’s most recent release, the Ananda Nano, sits at $600, curiously close in price to the original Ananda V1 ($700) and the HiFiMAN Edition XS ($500). Anyone who wants a slice of the signature HiFiMAN sound under $1000 has a pretty tough decision to make here – but if you ask me, it’s hard to go wrong with the crop we’re discussing today. Let’s jump into it and see what differences in design, fit, and sound HiFiMAN is offering in this now-crowded price range, and how their values stack up.

What’s In The Box?

Look and Feel

Let’s get the easy part out of the way: the Ananda Nano comes with a decent carrying case. Not a common move to see from the company, especially in this price range. Hopefully, this is a sign of HiFiMAN putting a little more consideration into their accessory game in future products.

If you’ve worn one of HiFiMAN’s egg-shaped open backs before, nothing here will come at much of a surprise. The most notable difference we have to go over in the fit and comfort department is the Ananda Nano’s significantly firmer clamp pressure than what is felt on the Edition XS and original Ananda. Some might prefer the looser fits on the XS and OG Ananda, but I prefer the Nano’s tighter fit and slightly smaller chamber as it fixed issues I had with getting a good head seal on the other two pairs. Worth noting that those who wear glasses (like myself) might run into a little obstacle here with the Nano’s firm clamp.

The ear pads that come with all three pairs seem identical in design. The surface that touches the sides of a listener’s head are made out of a porous nylon, while the rest of the pads’ surfaces are made from synthetic leather. The internal pad stuffing is composed of a plush, lightweight, semi-firm memory foam. They’re inoffensive, breezy, and highly unlikely to result in excess heat build up. No issues here; HiFiMAN plays the pad game well.

As for the headbands and yokes on each pair, we unsurprisingly see nearly identical designs on the Ananda Nano as what we see on the original: an exposed metal bracket with a fixed suspension headband. Adjustments are made by sliding the length of the sturdy metallic yokes at notched intervals. The only minor difference between the two is that the yokes on the Nano are a bit more rounded out, perhaps contributing to its more aggressive clamp pressure – you can get a better idea of this by looking at some of the pictures.

The Edition XS is the outlier when it comes to physical design. Instead of the bracket and suspension headband mechanism, we see a more traditional headband padded with firm and cushy memory foam encased in synthetic leather. Like the other pairs, adjustments are made by sliding the metal yokes. The one trait the XS seems to have going for it over the other two pairs in its physical design is the small amount of wiggle room afforded by its sliders, unlike the rigid yoke sliders on the Ananda and the Nano that offer nothing in the way of horizontal adjustments.

It’s no secret that HiFiMAN usually makes some pretty comfy headphones. I think that it’s unlikely that very many are going to be too disappointed by what they find in this department, regardless of which pair they going with – unless you simply find the Nano’s clamp force too biting.

Technical Design

HiFiMAN Edition XS

Featuring a stealth magnet and a NEO Supernano Diaphragm (NSD) that is 75% thinner than what’s found in the original version of the headphone.

HiFiMAN Ananda

Not as much to go over here, but to be fair, the Ananda V2 saw some noteworthy upgrades, such as a stealth magnet and the NEO Supernano Diaphragm (NSD) featured in the XS and other HiFiMAN technical designs.

HiFiMAN Ananda Nano

Features a stealth magnet design and an even thinner diaphragm than the NSD that is a single nanometer thick. This ultra thin diaphragm borrows its design from the ultra-high-end HiFiMAN Susvara headphone.

Ananda Nano Soundstage Comparison

While there are some surprising similarities to go over when it comes to balance, the Ananda, Ananda Nano, and Edition XS all have rather distinct staging and imaging characteristics.

HiFiMAN Edition XS

The smallest stage of the three pairs. Parts find considerable width, while depth feels shallow and more on-the-face than the two Anandas. Height isn’t as forward and persistent of a quality either. Regardless, spatial separation and layering is actually about as impressive as what I hear on the original Ananda, though less wondrous and expansive due to the smaller stage. Noisy tracks are impressively dissected with a reference-style accuracy. When compared to other headphones in the $400 to $500 range, the Edition XS is truly exceptional in its spatial character; however, the Ananda and the Ananda Nano are killers in staging and imaging department, and the XS reveals itself as the more “economy” option here between the 3 pairs. If there’s one element that increases with each price jump, I would pin it on stage size – specifically width.

Ananda Nano

Though not as expansive as the original Ananda, the Nano is the sharpest and most precise of the three headphones when it comes to its layering and placements. It’s stage is also the most forward-facing of the three, which works together with its ruthless imaging to provide a very realistic “in-the-room” sensation to listens. Cymbals find a height that manages to wrap around the top of my head, but the distinct “coming-from-below” character that jumps out to me with the original Ananda isn’t quite there, which I think has something to do with the Nano’s slightly smaller chamber size. So while the Nano’s stage may be around the same general size (if not shape) as the Editon XS, I found it to be the clear winner specifically when it comes to imaging. If xacto knife layering and zippy, kinetic imaging is what you’re after, the HiFiMAN Ananda Nano is a very tantalizing option.

HiFiMAN Ananda V1

It’s interesting to come back to the original Ananda 5 years since its release. In some ways, it shows its age: I don’t find its imaging that much better than what I heard on the more affordable and more recently released Edition XS. Parts don’t snap into their placements with the same 4k resolution that I heard on the Ananda Nano. At least one spatial trait that has stood the test of time with the Ananda V1 is the expansive width and height of the stage. While I found the Ananda V1’s particularly lengthy chamber to give me some minor issues in the fit department, it’s hard to deny that it contributes to some awesome vertical dimensions. Sound waves slather a wide area around my ears, extending themselves beyond my jaw and felt noticeably on my neck. One of my favorite traits about the Ananda’s spatial character is its propensity to send parts shooting up at me from below, something that the Ananda Nano and Edition XS don’t pull off in quite the same way. So while perhaps a little dated when it comes to fast and firm imaging, it stands triumphant in the sheer size of its stage – particularly its height.

Ananda Nano Balance Comparison, Resolution and Other Notes

I guess what we can call my thesis here is the following: the Hifiman Edition XS and Ananda V1 have more traits in common than what we hear with the Ananda Nano. I have nothing more than a gut feeling that the Ananda V1 may soon be discontinued, leaving the more affordable Edition XS to fill its place and the Ananda Nano to continue its legacy.

I have some mixed feelings when it comes to balance and resolution on the Ananda V1, which, as I already said, seems remarkably similar to the Edition XS. While neither are anywhere close to lacking in treble amplitudes or extension, I don’t find their emphasized treble to produce the lift and detail that I’m looking for from this kind of signature. I can look on paper all I want at how trebly the Ananda (and XS, for the matter) should sound, but there’s nonetheless a certain blunted quality to it- especially when I compare it to what I heard in the Nano.

In general, detail retrieval, resolution, tightness – whatever you want to call it – is checkered on the Ananda V1. Some of what I was saying about the shortfalls of its treble lift seem to effect the consistency of its mid range articulation. When I was listening to electronic tracks, like the album “Women World Wide” by Justice, I was very pleased with the low mid articulation that cut through busy, bass dense tracks on its own distinct layer. Other times, when I was listening to some indie rock like Japanese Breakfast, low and center mid articulation seemed…veiled? Hidden? Just not entirely pronounced with the sharpness and clarity I would want from a $700 headphone – more so lingering around the mix with a somewhat indistinct energy.

This brings me to mentioning that the Ananda V1 is technically a $700 headphone, but frequently sees sales and price drops that bring it to, in my opinion, a more fair value by today’s standards. The Edition XS shares most of the qualities I just described for the Ananda V1, but at $500, and especially in light of sales that bring it to $450 or $450, I feel a lot less critical towards it. I’ve even bought it as a gift before. My real criticism here for the Ananda V1 is one of value, which as I already mentioned, is perhaps a negated criticism due to the sale price it frequently sees.

All of this leads us to the Ananda Nano, and all I have to say is wow. But I guess you’re looking for more words than that.

Though linked to the original Ananda in name, the Nano is the result of such massive and welcome adjustments and improvements that it strikes me as more of a super-powered mutant grandchild of the original. It’s snappier, punchier, faster and tighter. Though some people may say it sounds more sterile than the original Ananda with some of its new tuning adjustments, I think the benefits are obvious. Low mids seem to find greater attenuation, giving more presence to mid bass and high mids. This gives a strict and stark distinction between mid range and low end, and in a way brings extra clarity to the low mids precisely because of their attenuation. Prominent treble extension brings some snappy, zappy lift and revealing pronunciation to the overall balance that I was missing on the Ananda V1.

The extra amplitude in the mid bass and high treble, as well as the smoothed-out, high-mids oriented mid range gives the Ananda Nano a much leaner sound than what we hear on the V1. This tuning finds a great synergy with the new ultra-thin and fast diaphragm, giving parts like kick drums and hi hats a satisfying, staccato-like quality in the midst of their exaggerated impacts.

There’s only one, very specific quality I liked a little more with the original Ananda V1 that I didn’t get out of the Nano, and that was the distinct sensation of feeling the driver movements through the earpads. Yes, the Nano has a superior driver as a result of years of innovations from HiFiMAN. While its thinner driver and stealth magnets are no doubt contributing to all of the tight and speedy qualities that I quickly fell in love with during my listens, I suspect these improvements may also be responsible for the diminished haptic-like sensation I experienced through the pads from the thicker diaphragm featured in the original Ananda.

Ananda Nano: Overall Comparison

I’m curious to see what HiFiMAN does with the Ananda V1 in the midst of their crowded mid-priced catalog: the Ananda, V1, the V2, the Nano, the Edition XS – why so many? Anyway, if you’re trying to parse through HiFiMAN open-backs in this price point, here’s my advice, take it or leave it:

If you’re looking for a good price-to-quality value buy, the Edition XS and the Ananda Nano are excellent options at their standard $500 and $600 price points – especially the Nano, which I am genuinely surprised HiFiMAN didn’t list for at least $700 (I hope I don’t regret saying that). The Ananda V1 finds a bit of redundancy with the Edition XS, but still stands above all three pairs discussed in this review when it comes to the sheer width – and especially height – of its encompassing stage. For that reason, the Ananda V1 still holds a pretty sensible value when it sees a price drop.

Ultimately, while all three headphones in this review were a genuine pleasure in their own unique ways, the HiFiMAN Ananda Nano is a step above the rest. I fully expect it to appear on a lot of “Best Headphones of 2023” lists – I’m certainly keeping it in mind when that time of year rolls around.

You can purchase the HiFiMAN Ananda Nano here

HiFiMAN Edition XS here

HiFiMAN Ananda V1 here

and the Ananda V2 here from Audio46.

The post HiFiMAN Ananda V1, Nano, or Edition XS? Stiff Decision, Close Price Points appeared first on Major HiFi.

We’re going to be comparing two of the best headphones from Sivga to date: The SV023, released in 2022, and the Luan, released just a few weeks ago. The SV023 received a MajorHifi Gold and the Luan a Silver, but see a semi-significant difference in price: the SV023 goes for $450, and the Luan $300. Let’s see what angles Sivga is playing with these two open-back headphones, and which one might be right for you.

What’s in Their Boxes? 

Sivga Luan

• Hard Leather Carrying Case
• Sivga Luan Open-Back Planar Headphones
• Cable with 3.5mm Unbalanced Jack
• 3.5mm to 6.35mm Adapter

Sivga SV023

• Hard Leather Carrying Case
• Sivga SV023 Open-Back Headphones
• Cable with 3.4mm Unbalanced Jack
• 4.4 to 3.5mm Adapter

Look and Feel

Sivga has built a reputation for their wooden designs, and both the Luan and the SV023 showcase the company’s craftsmanship in this regard. The Luan may be Sivga’s sleekest and most modern looking headphone to date, featuring a steely-colored metallic headband frame and yokes that lend some extra sturdiness to the overall build. And of needless to say, the wooden housing is about as elegant as always.

I’m also happy to say that the Luan feels as good as it looks, with big, plush, velvet pads and a lightweight frame coupling with the manual adjustment suspension headband for a well balanced and comfortable fit. My only small criticism is the amount of heat build up that occurs with the velvet pads even in the midst of the Luan’s open back design. Honestly though, I think the trade off is worth it; the Luan may not have the best pads for a hot summertime listen, but they’re extremely cozy and I was nonetheless very happy wearing them.

The SV023 features a lightweight walnut wood housing, and seemingly identical yokes and headband structure to the Luan that comes in black instead of steely grey. The ear pads have the same sort of velvety texture on the surface that makes contact with a listener’s head, but are otherwise made of perforated memory foam. The perforated qualities, along with the drivers sitting a further distance from a listener’s ear, make heat build up much less of a problem with the SV023. While the Sivga Luan’s appeal lies in its cozy insulation, the SV023 finds its high level of comfort in being more lightweight and airy.

Unsurprisingly, both headphones come with premium, hard leather carrying cases –  something of a Sivga staple at this point. Lastly, we see a pretty basic stock cable coming with the Sivga Luan, while the SV023 comes with a copper colored, braided, and well insulated cable that seems like an exceptionally high end accessory to see included with a headphone retailing under $500.

Design and Specs

Both headphones see open-back designs, but the similarities more-or-less end there.

The SV023 features a 50mm dynamics driver with a beryllium plated diaphragm. Beryllium provides extra driver rigidity, and should in theory improve the speed and general clarity of the SV023.

The Sivga Luan sees a 50mm Planar driver and a diaphragm that features nickel plated edges. Macromolecule organic carbon fiber materials were used for constructing the driver dome, serving to absorb excess resonance – similar reasoning as to why we see the beryllium coating on the SV023’s diaphragm, just a different means of getting there.

Last difference worth highlighting is the Sivga SV023’s 300 ohm impedance versus the Sivga Luan’s 38 ohm impedance. Though 300 ohms isn’t terribly high, listener’s may want to use even a basic headphone amp to drive the SV023. As for the Luan, it’s safe to say that phones, laptops, and consumer devices in general will be supply it with a perfectly sufficient amount of power.

Soundstage

The Sivga Luan is able to spread itself out and show expansively wide placements on the far sides of its stage. Depth and height are more insular; I primarily felt these dimensions as if parts were being placed directly on top of my face. However, I found more notable traces of depth on parts with 45 degree pans, but this depth would diminish towards the center of the stage. Despite the more linear, left-right spatial qualities offered by the Luan, I found its layering genuinely impressive, offering a level of clarity that worked with and aided its articulate balance. It finds firm spatial placements of parts that negate risks of obfuscation and congestion.

The imaging and staging on the SV023, on the other hand, is simply exceptional. It’s highly realistic and immersive, and while not quite enormous, offers vivid sensations in its width, depth, and height alike. On the one hand, it can showcase more artistic and ethereal qualities on spacey and ambient tracks. Yet on mixes with more traditional band arrangements, parts become snapped into place with an accurate decisiveness. It’s a distinctly analytical stage, but manages its stereo movements with a speedy fluidity that also makes it entertaining and engaging.

The Luan has a perfectly solid and satisfying stage for the price tier in which it finds itself, while the SV023 has a genuinely impressive stage that sets apart from the Luan – and many headphones closer to its price, for that matter.

Balance Comparison

Both the Sivga Luan and SV023 have tunings that can be generalized as balanced, yet find some very notable differences.

The Luan finds a little more color than the SV023. Though subs present as though they’re being subtly rolled off, a prominent mid bass punches through the balance. This gives a little extra pop and emphasis to kick drums, and adds a smattering of warmth to its overall sound. I’m appreciative of this low end balance that derives its warmer qualities from mid bass rather than high bass, as it preserves a clean articulation and separation between low end and mid range frequencies.

The Luan’s mid range seems mostly flat, and presents warm-yet-natural vocal balances that might be the star of the show. This by-and-large neutral mid range also offers a clarity and mix-intended character to supporting, driving instrumental parts of compositions such as drums, guitars, and pianos.

For treble profile, we see a fairly standard Harman-like tuning, perhaps with a little extra bite. This snappy quality may not be an outright balance detail; the Luan’s planar driver gives it a distinct speed in its high end that expresses hi hats and transients with some extra impact, and offers some relatively impressive resolve for reverbs, cymbal decays, and vocal rasp.

The SV023 comes through with more of a reference quality – it does, in fact, seem like a great pair for mixing and producing. We see a similar light sub bass attenuation to the Luan, though without its mid-bass boost. It’s certainly a less bassy balance, but doesn’t come anywhere close to sounding cold or empty. A common theme all through out this part of the comparison is the SV023’s superior detail and resolution to the Sivga Luan, and this is especially true for the low end. While the Sivga Luan goes for a chubbier and warmer bass tone, the SV023 keeps things lean and detailed, and in the process exhibits vividly accurate low end timbres.

In terms of mid range differences, there’s less to go over here, and I’m okay with that. The SV023 is by and large uncolored in its mids, affording it the same benefits that I described for the Luan: natural vocals, uncluttered rhythmic arrangements.

More notable differences are in the treble, where the Sivga SV023 exhibits a little extra high treble extension than what we hear in the Luan. The SV023 isn’t at all what I would call an outright sizzling headphone, but there’s a noticeable lifting effect that adds to its analytical character. The SV023’s treble emphasis that I’m describing here isn’t overly pronounced, but was particularly noticeable in my A-B comparisons between the two headphones. It occurs in the uppermost frequencies – likely above 10 kHz – and offers more of an effect on timbre – airy, lightweight – than tone.

Overall

The Sivga SV023 and the Sivga Luan are currently my two favorite headphones from the company. Both are offering variations of the Sivga house sound with their own unique twists. The Sivga Luan is, frankly, an extremely chill headphone. It sounds as comfortable as it feels, offering a subtle, bopping warmth that doesn’t detract from its overall clarity. It serves as an awesome choice for anyone looking for a cozy pair of cans. The Sivga SV023 is more of a “serious” sounding pair with its analytical qualities, and showcases its premium nature in its accurate, spacious, and energetic stage. This isn’t a review that Ill end calling one better than the other; both are offering a high value performance for different use cases.

You can purchase the Sivga Luan here, and the Sivga SV023 here from Audio46.

The post Sivga Luan vs. Sivga SV023: Comparing the Best Sivgas to Date appeared first on Major HiFi.

We’ve been passing around Kinera‘s new flagship IEM the Loki here in the office for review, and yeah, we’re all pretty impressed, to say the least. But at $3100, its price tag is a leap and a bound away from Kinera’s now ex-flagship, the Baldr 2.0, which goes for $1400. So what’s up – thinking about throwing down extra for the Loki, but wondering if it’s really worth it over the Baldr 2.0? I like the way you think. We’ll be going over and comparing their fits, physical and technical designs, and most importantly, what they sound like. But first let’s take a look at what you get with each.

What’s in Their Boxes?

Kinera Imperial Loki

• One pair of Kinera Imperial Loki In-ear monitors
• One Effect Audio UP-OCC Cable, EA 4.4mm
• Final Type E Eartips x 5 sets (SS/S/M/L/LL)
• AZLA SednaEarfit Crystal Eartips x 3 sets (SS/MS/ML)
• Spinfit CP145 Eartips x 3 sets (S/M/L)
• Symbio F Foam Tips x 2sets (S/M)
• Genuine Leather Carry Case
• Cleaning Brush
• User Manual
• Other Literature

Kinera Baldr 2.0

• One pair of Kinera Imperial Baldr in-ear monitors.
• One 4 cores 6N OCC with gold plated cable with 4.4mm termination plug.
• Five pairs of Final Audio Type E ear tips.
• Six pairs ( RS-B45 & JH-FY009-B ) of Kinera Custom ear tips.
• Two pairs of Foam tips.
• Premium Storage Case.
• 4.4mm to 3.5mm & 2.5mm adapter.
• Cleaning Brush.

Look and Feel

Let’s start with the easy part: both the Loki and the Baldr 2.0 are beautiful in their own unique ways. The Baldr 2.0 may be the only IEM I’ve ever tried with wooden housing – oak, to be specific – and looks like an acoustic guitar molded into the shape of an IEM. The Loki has a bit more flash with its sparkly housing and marbled, red and blue faceplate.

Greater differences emerge when it comes to fit. While the Baldr 2.0 has what I’ll generalize as an “average” nozzle width, Kinera’s Loki has a beefy nozzle that measures 6mm in width. Some might prefer the fit on the Baldr for this reason alone, but I can’t say that it bothered me much. My personal IEMs also have a 6mm nozzle, so I’m already accustomed to this physical trait. Just pointing this part out for those with smaller ear canals – or for the sticklers.

Also worth noting is the fairly significant size difference between the two Kinera IEMs. The Loki is a chunker, while the Baldr 2.0 is somewhere between standard sized and large. Fair enough – the Loki is packing twelve drivers in each IEM while the Baldr 2.0 sees six. While the difference is definitely noticeable, I didn’t find the Loki’s size to detract from its comfort. Both IEMs feature ergonomic shapes and softly rounded edges that put them at minimal risk of straining a listener’s outer ears.

Lastly, it’s worth talking about the accessories that come with each. Both offer an impressive tip selection, but the Loki might have the most eclectic and unique ear tips I’ve ever seen. Of special note, for me personally at least, is the inclusion of Symbio Type F foams, which are a bit puffier and firmer than the more common Comply foam tips. We also see the unusual but welcome inclusion of two premium cables with 4.4mm balanced terminations on the Loki. While the Baldr 2.0 still has great accessories that won’t leave you feeling like you’re missing out, the Kinera Loki simply crushes it in this department.

Technical Design

For twice the price as the Baldr, Kinera’s giving us nearly twice as many drivers in the Loki. Of particular note is the inclusion of a bone conductor driver in the Loki that works together with its 6mm dynamic driver to amplify its bass and sub-bass frequencies. Bone conductor drivers bypass the ear drum and transmit vibrations through the bones in our inner ears, and are a somewhat rare and premium feature to see included in an IEM.

Sound Comparison

The main differences between the balances of the Baldr and the Loki lie in the extremes of their tunings. The Loki puts a lot of stock in its subs and mid bass, which supply impactful slams and rumbles. Though its low end is certainly one of its defining features, it avoids swallowing the signature thanks to a well balanced, more reserved high bass balance. This keeps its dominant low end well separated from its center frequencies and results in an awesome articulation in the midst of its bassy excitement. What I liked about the Loki’s low end even more than its bold amplitude was its extreme attention to detail, providing rich and precise layers within its bass – particularly its sub bass. Listening to sub dense albums – electronic or otherwise – was surprisingly revealing. Quieter low details are capable of peaking out of the folds of dense, throbbing mixes.

On the other side of things, the Loki has a very particular treble tuning. Low and mid treble see moderate amplification, but the star of the show here is the upper treble. Frequencies between 10 and 20 kHz find levels that aren’t exactly for most tunings. A couple of high treble-heavy IEMs have come out this year – specifically, Letschuoer’s Cadenza and ThieAudio’s Prestige. I would venture to add the Loki to that list, but clarify that it pulls off its wispy sizzle with a more natural and revealing quality.

Overall, the Loki is a very colorful IEM that adds exciting flourishes while keeping an eclectic character.

Though there are some similarities to be found with the Baldr 2.0, it’s quite apparently approaching things from a different angle. While it’s colorful in its own way, it exhibits something a little closer to a balanced response than the Loki. It’s a little bassy, and certainly bassier than the original Baldr, but its low end boost is more subtle than what’s heard on the Loki. It brings some satisfying substance to listens, but doesn’t demand to present itself as a foreground component. Like the Loki, high bass and low mids find more natural levels while most of the erngy comes from mid bass and subs.

The Baldr sees a little more of a conventional treble tuning – high treble isn’t nearly as prominent as it is on the Loki. Instead, my attention was brought to it’s fairly bold mid treble. This brought a level of intensity to the rattle on snare drums, and an extra intensity to guitar harmonics and vocal fry. On less intense mixes, like singer-songwriter acoustic arrangments, I was appreciative of the lifting quality this tuning could have. However, listening to more treble heavy music with feminine singers and twangy electric guitars, such as Cocteau Twins or The Sundays, this mid treble could sometimes take things too far and run the risk of being harsh.

But in a nutshell, the Loki is going for a more colorful tuning that brings out details by any means necessary, while the Baldr is in more of a balanced camp with idiosyncratic touches peppered in.

Overall

I find the Loki to be in an entirely different league from the Baldr 2.0 – and at more than twice the price, it should be. While the Baldr strikes me as a solid choice for its price point, the Loki had me listening with enthusiasm, eagerly throwing my favorite songs at it just to see what it would do with them. People may have been surprised when Kinera announced a $3100 flagship IEM, as its an unprecedented price tier from the company. But I feel confident in saying that the Loki is Kinera’s ace-in-the-hole, and worthy of the top shelf upon which it finds itself.

You can order the Kinera Loki here from Audio46.

The post Kinera Imperial Loki vs. Kinera Baldr 2.0 Comparison Review appeared first on Major HiFi.

We have a fresh wireless adapter release from ifi to go over today: the GO Pod. Seeing its $400 price tag has me wondering: what is it offering that you can’t get in FiiO’s UTWS5, going for a fraction of the price at $140? Both units are designed to bring a wireless experience to your favorite pairs of otherwise wired IEMs. Let’s take a look at the ifi GO Pod’s design, its premium features, and address the question at hand for a lot of readers: should you get the UTWS5 or the GO Pods?

What’s In The Box

• ifi GO Pod wireless adapters
• Charging case
• USB to USBC charging cable
• MMCX Connectors
• .78mm 2 Pin Connectors
• Guide

Look and Feel

The GO Pods themselves are just slightly larger than the UTWS5 from FiiO, but the charging case is significantly larger than the one that comes with the UTWS5. It’s a bit too bulky for me to truly call it pocket sized, but will fit easily in a small bag. In terms of fit, I found the GO Pods very comfortable. The connection stems wrap around the ear and structurally serve as ear hooks, positioning my IEMs (ThieAudio Oracle MKII) in a way that seemed to line the nozzle up with my ear canals – something I frequently struggle with when I’m going wired.

Though larger than the UTWS5, I find they offer a little more comfort as they offer greater support around my ears. But overall, not a huge difference is emerging between the two – yet.

Technical Design

The highlight of the GO Pod’s technical abilities is it’s use of the LDAC codec, allowing it to receive 96 kHz / 24 bit audio. It uses a QCC5144 chipset, making it compatible with Snapdragon and Qualcomm High Speed. We also see 4 different digital filters, automatic impedance matching, and a built in, fully balanced amplifier.

A major appeal of ifi’s GO Pod is the compatibility it offers with MMCX and .78mm 2 Pin IEM connections alike. While FiiO’s UTWS5 came in either MMCX or 2 Pin, the GO Pod features interchangeable stems of both varieties. The process of changing the between the two types of connectors is quick and easy, and offers a lot of convenience and value for those with an IEM collection that they want to take wireless.

Connectivity

This part is easy: the ifi GO Pods have excellent connection strength with their use of Bluetooth 5.2. When walking in a straight line away from my phone that was transmitting music to the GO Pods, I was able to clear about 60 feet of space without a cut out. It was only when I turned corners into another room at this distance that I could force a drop from it. When walking into a different room that was 20 feet away from my phone and shutting the door, the connection stayed perfectly in tact. When taking them outdoors on a busy midtown street in Midtown Manhattan, likely with tons of potential electrical interferences swirling in the air, I only experienced one very brief cut out in the left ear that fixed itself nearly immediately.

Sound Impressions

I’m happy to say that the GO Pods prove their price tag in sound quality above all else. Most notably, sound stages a more or less perfectly preserved, even truly enormous ones like the one heard on Noble Audio’s Ronin. Overall, the sound is a testament to how far wireless audio has come, leaving balances colorful and articulated, virtually indistinguishable from how any of the IEMs listened with would sound with a wired connection. None of the wireless compression, dulling, or general “flatness” is present. One thing that I did notice was that the GO Pods seem to have the propensity to subtly brighten sound signatures. This mild treble boost seemed most prevalent in the highest frequencies, rather than in the mid treble. Tonal qualities are largely unaffected: distorted guitars aren’t at risk of sounding peaky for example. But timbre seemed to be the main vessel in which this sound character popped out: acoustic guitars had a little more percussive scratch to them, and a little extra rasp was brought out of feminine singers with airy voices. These changes weren’t particularly forward, but listeners will likely notice it over the period of a longer listen.

Direct Comparison to the UTWS5

So, you want to take your IEMs wireless, but can’t decide between the FiiO UTWS5 and the ifi Go Pods. Let’s start by listing the main extras you’re getting with the GO Pods that don’t come with the UTWS5

-2 pin and MMCX interchangeable compatibility

-LDAC Codec, allowing for 96 kHz/24 bit audio

-4 digital filters

And lastly, in my opinion, better sound quality, regardless of weather or not you’re listening to 96kHz/24 bit audio files via LDAC. The UTWS nonetheless sounds pretty great, and offers a high value with it $140 price tag, but still has some of the classic wireless audio staples lightly present: slightly narrower stage, and little more compression and a little less color; just a general dulling of whatever IEM you’re listening with. However, I still think it’s well worth it for people who own 200-$300 IEMs, as the sound quality will nonetheless prove better than most wireless buds.

But if you own higher end IEMs that you want to make your wireless pair, the GO Pods are definitely a worthy accessory to consider over the UTWS5. They preserve the finer details of audiophile oriented signatures, and offer the specs that will likely appeal to the $1000-and-up IEM crowd.

Overall

I have to say I was a little skeptical going into the ifi GO Pods, specifically for their $400 price tag vs. the UTWS5’s price tag. But wrapping things up now, I have to admit, they really are offering a lot more. I think they offer a similar price-to-value appeal as FiiO’s UTWS5, and the two will simply stand as the budget vs. premium option on the wireless adapter market. So, if you’re enjoying your Ronin or Odin or whatever else but want to take it wireless, the GO Pods could very well be an accessory worth your investment.

You can order the ifi GO Pod here from Audio46.

The post ifi GO Pod Review. Comparisons to FiiO UTWS5 appeared first on Major HiFi.

I finally got my hands on a unicorn of IEMs: the Vision Ears Phönix. The Phönix may be one of the most hyped ultra high-end IEMs to have come out in recency, and has even seen a limited edition re-release since initially hitting the market. The unit I’m reviewing today is the original version, which sees a cool and easy $3,900 price tag. As this unit of the Phönix has been loaned by a reader for this review, I won’t have pictures of the accessories that come with the in-ear monitor. But as usual, I’ll be going over the Phönix’s build, fit, technical design, and most importantly, what it sounds like.

What’s In the Box?

• Storage/display box
• Vision Ears Phönix in-ear monitors
• 1.2 meter braided cable (2 pin XLR to 4.4mm balanced)
• Spinfit Eartips
• AZLA Eartips
• Firm Leather Carrying Case

Fit and Physical Design

The Vision Ears Phönix is by and large flat on both faceplate and chamber side of the IEM, and features a fairly long acoustic nozzle structure. This led to a deeper fit in my ear canals; not as deep as some IEMs in this tier (like Noble Audio’s Ronin for example), but nonetheless, a significant degree deeper than average. Once fully inserted, it rested flush against my concha. Overall, this is a very firm and gripping fit that I found to offer a high degree of comfort, eliminating a need or temptation to fidget with the IEMs in my ears. As a teaser for the sound portion of this review, I was also very satisfied with the tactile rumbles and vibrations that were constantly flowing through the shells.

The Phönix’s housing is primarily composed of aerospace-grade carbon fiber, while the faceplate is made of a machined annodized aluminum and encased in sapphire glass. The style here isn’t over the top, but perhaps subtly regal with the gold, black, and red color scheme. There are beautiful marble-like swirls on the chamber-side of the IEM, apparently in a unique “fingerprint” for each unit of the Phönix made.

Overall, I’m a fan of the Phönix’s modestly classy style, and in love with the firm, hassle-free fit.

Technical Design and Specs

The Vision Ears Phönix features a 5 way passive crossover with 13 drivers: 4 balanced armatures for lows, mid, and highs alike, and an additional super-teeter balanced armature for the highest of frequencies. The included 4 wire 23 AWG silver-gold alloy and OCC-copper litz cable is a new design from Vision Ears, and was custom made specifically for the Phönix.

Vision Ears designed the Phönix as a revised and refined version of the ERLKöNIG, a previous high end release from the company that also proved itself to be one of the more popular high end IEMs for its time. Improvements primarily came in the form of lighter shells and a more revealing high-frequency tuning

Soundstage

The Phönix has a highly engaging and energetic stage. The size is considerable, and I found its depth to be its most impressive dimension. Panned parts had a strong tendency to pass left-to-right as if they were several feet in front of my face. The left and right channels are strikingly well connected, allowing for awesomely fluid movements all through out my listens.

But what may have impressed me more than the size of the stage was the precise and vivid imaging and spatial placements Vision Ear’s Phönix was capable of executing. While most of the stage had a wide but forward facing nature, parts of tracks took on three dimensional, angular qualities that cut across the width, depth, and height of the stereo image. This provided a very convincing holographic character that made for elegant, spacious, and wondrous listens.

Lows

The Vision Ears Phönix is a pretty balanced sounding IEM overall, but has a decisive warmth that stems from it bass and mid range balances. Subs have an easy and audible presence, rumbling through the shells and bringing a satisfying excitement to electronic tracks. However, more stock is placed on an air-tight mid bass and high bass, which gives the Phönix more slam and thump than rumble. Sound signatures with ample high-bass usually aren’t my style as I find they can injure low end and mid range separation, but the Phönix exhibits a control over its high bass that is nothing short of impeccable. Kick drums find extra oomph and body, while acoustic guitars find a highly articulate and colorful heft in their fundamentals. While this isn’t a low end that’s going to knock your head off, its colorful and artful, laying a firm and cozy foundation from which the rest of the tuning flowers.

Mids

Low mids find a distinct emphasis here as high bass amplitudes are still cooling off as we enter the mid range. Again, I’m usually not a big high bass fan, and when I hear tunings heavy in high bass and low mids alike, I’m usually not very enthused. But once again, the Phönix completely wins my respect and awe here as its masterfully controls its dense warmth without any veiling or muddy resonance. High mids find a gentle ramp in their amplitude, balancing the low mid density but leaving it as the dominant quality. Midrange vibrations course through the shells nearly as much as the lower frequencies, bringing a smooth, tactile excitement to vocals, drums, and rhythm guitars.

Highs

There’s a welcome peculiarity to the Phönix treble profile: it’s somewhat cautious in its amplitude, while simultaneously being highly resolving and detailed down to the most granular tips of the highest frequencies. There’s a quality here that goes beyond tuning that’s hard to put my finger on. Despite the lower treble amplitudes giving distorted guitar harmonics and cymbals a smoothed over character, the Phönix was constantly unfolding details in recordings: a chair moving in the background, high-frequency phaser effects on certain synth parts – easter eggs that I haven’t heard before, even on IEMs with much bolder and louder treble profiles. For me, this is where a ce rtain “magical” quality of the Phönix takes effect, providing a ton of presence to its uppermost frequencies sans painful or peaky treble spikes. I really can’t figure out what’s going on here, but can hear for myself how much appeal this part of the Phönix’s tuning can hold for treble heads and the treble sensitive alike.

Overall

The Vision Ear’s Phönix sits at an elusive crossroad of being both incredibly smooth and detailed. While the signature can be generalized as balanced, this isn’t to say that it’s neutral. Rather, it’s warm and rich, and bristling with colorful details. The vast stage and vivid imaging deliver a sense of grandiosity and wonder that further enhances the Phönix’s articulate clarity. So is the hype, and more importantly the price, really worth it? As much as I would like to be able to afford the Phönix for myself…I have to admit, the answer to both of those questions is yes. Vision Ears Phönix is nothing short of a modern classic, and asserts itself as an era-defining IEM that sets a new standard in the high-end market.

You can purchase the Vision Ears Phönix here from Audio46.

The post Vision Ears Phönix Review appeared first on Major HiFi.