Reviewed on: SoundStage! Solo, June 2019
Except as noted below, I measured the EN700 Pro earphones using laboratory-grade equipment: a G.R.A.S. Model 43AG ear/cheek simulator/RA0402 ear simulator with KB5000/KB5001 simulated pinnae, and a Clio 10 FW audio analyzer. For isolation measurements, I used a laptop computer running TrueRTA software with an M-Audio MobilePre USB audio interface. The headphones were amplified using a Musical Fidelity V-CAN. These are “flat” measurements; no diffuse-field or free-field compensation curve was employed. If you’d like to learn more about what our measurements mean, click here.
The above chart shows the EN700 Pros’ frequency response with tip 1. Note that this is the first set of earphones I can remember measuring that did not fit into the KB5000 simulated pinna; I had to use the RA0402’s stainless-steel coupler to measure the EN700 Pros. This shouldn’t change the frequency response measurement much, but it does support the fit problems I had with these earphones. Measured in the coupler, the EN700 Pros have a “by the book” frequency response.
Here you can see how the frequency response changes when tip 2 is used. It’s a subtle difference, with about 1dB less treble at 8kHz with tip 2 (which could be perceived as more bass).
This chart shows how the EN700 Pros’ tonal balance changes when they’re used with a high-impedance (75 ohms) source, such as a cheap laptop or some cheap professional headphone amps. Using the higher-impedance source reduces the treble by about 1dB at 3kHz, which will make the EN700 Pros sound slightly warmer.
This chart shows the EN700 Pros’ right-channel response compared with two other earphones in their price range, the Campfire Comets and 1More Quad Drivers. I also included the AKG N5005s, which when used with their reference filter are the earphones said to best conform to the so-called “Harman curve,” the response that research shows delivers the most natural sound. The EN700 Pros look pretty close to the Harman curve, although with slightly less bass and more treble.
The EN700 Pros’ spectral decay (waterfall) chart shows no significant resonances.
The EN700 Pros’ measured total harmonic distortion (THD) is unusual. It doesn’t vary with level -- it’s basically the same at 90dBA and 100dBA. It’s also worse in the mids than in the bass; normally the reverse is true. From about 250Hz to 3kHz, the distortion runs between 2% and 3%. For a transducer, that’s not really all that high, but still, something a little different seems to be going on here.
In this chart, the external noise level is 85dB SPL, and numbers below that indicate the degree of attenuation of outside sounds. Isolation of the EN700 Pros (shown with the small tips, which are the ones that best fit the KB5000 pinna) is unremarkable, although if you’re able to get a good fit with these earphones (something I couldn’t really do with the ear/cheek simulator), you may get better blocking of environmental noise than I measured here. For perspective, I included isolation curves of the Campfire Comet earphones (with silicone and foam tips), as well as the Bose QC20 noise-canceling earphones.
The impedance magnitude of the EN700s is almost dead flat at 17 ohms (the rated impedance is 16 ohms), with essentially flat phase response.
Sensitivity of the EN700s, measured between 300Hz and 3kHz, using a 1mW signal calculated for 16 ohms rated impedance, is 108.0dB -- quite a bit higher than the rated 101dB. Even measured at the industry standard 500Hz, sensitivity is 105.2dB. You will have no problem getting loud volumes when plugging the EN700s straight into a smartphone or tablet.
. . . Brent Butterworth
brentb@soundstagenetwork.com
Reviewed on: SoundStage! Solo, May 2019
I measured the E1026BT-I 1More Stylish True Wireless earphones using laboratory-grade equipment: a G.R.A.S. Model 43AG ear/cheek simulator/RA0402 ear simulator with KB5000/KB5001 simulated pinnae, and a Clio 10 FW audio analyzer. For isolation measurements, I used a laptop computer running TrueRTA software with an M-Audio MobilePre USB audio interface. A MEE Audio Connect Bluetooth transmitter was used to send signals from the Clio 10 FW to the earphones. These are “flat” measurements; no diffuse-field or free-field compensation curve was employed. Note that because of the latency introduced by Bluetooth, I wasn’t able to do a spectral decay measurement, and of course my usual impedance and sensitivity measurements are irrelevant for wireless earphones. If you’d like to learn more about what our measurements mean, click here.
The above chart shows the E1026BT-Is’ frequency response measured with the KB5000 and KB5001 anthropomorphic simulated pinnae. This is a fairly normal result for earphones, although we might typically see the traces moved further to the left -- i.e., the bass bump centered closer to 100Hz, and the two treble peaks shifted down by about 1kHz. One note: the latency (which is seen in the impulse measurement used to calculate the frequency response) of these earphones with the MEE Connect is 319ms, the longest I can remember measuring from Bluetooth headphones or earphones. That’s no problem if you’re listening to audio-only material, but it’ll create lip-sync problems with video content and likely make playing certain games feel a little weird.
This chart shows the E1026BT-Is’ right-channel response compared with the Sennheiser Momentum True Wirelesses and the AKG N5005s (the N5005s are the earphones that currently best conform to the “Harman curve,” shown in research by Harman International to be the preferred in-ear headphone response for most listeners).
Because of the latency of the Bluetooth connection, I had to measure distortion the old-fashioned way, with discrete tones instead of a sweep. This chart shows distortion plotted at one-octave intervals. Even though this method is more demanding because the single tone is played continuously at a high level for several seconds per measurement, thus encouraging heat buildup in the driver’s voice coil and the amp, the E1026BT-Is’ distortion remains very low, staying under 2% even at the low frequency of 32Hz and the extremely high level of 100dBA.
In this chart, the red line indicates an external noise level of 85dB SPL, and numbers below that indicate the degree of attenuation of outside sounds. The E1026BT-I Stylish True Wirelesses’ isolation is the least of all the earphones included here, probably because they don’t fit as deep in the ear canal as typical passive earphones such as the 1More Quad Drivers and Campfire Comets do, and they’re not as bulky as the Sennheiser Momentum True Wirelesses.
. . . Brent Butterworth
brentb@soundstagenetwork.com
Reviewed on: SoundStage! Solo, May 2019
I measured the Matrix Cinema ANCs using a G.R.A.S. Model 43AG ear/cheek simulator/RA0402 ear simulator with the KB5000 and KB5001 anthropomorphic simulated pinnae, a Clio 10 FW audio analyzer, a laptop computer running TrueRTA software with an M-Audio MobilePre USB audio interface, and a Musical Fidelity V-CAN amp. For measurements in Bluetooth mode, I used a MEE Audio Connect Bluetooth transmitter to get the signal to the headphones. These are “flat” measurements; no diffuse-field or free-field compensation curve was employed.
The above chart shows the Matrix Cinema ANCs’ frequency response measured in what I expect will be its most-used mode: Bluetooth and noise canceling on, with the Dynamic Music mode selected. This curve is unusual mostly in that it’s tilted toward the treble, and the broad bass/lower-midrange hump below 1kHz will likely give the bass a somewhat boomy quality.
This chart compared the response of the Matrix Cinema ANCs using Bluetooth (with ANC on in Dynamic Music mode) versus using a wired connection with ANC off. As my listening experience suggests, the wired model with the processing off delivers the most balanced frequency-response measurement.
This chart compares the response of the four different CinemaEAR modes, and also shows the response with CinemaEAR bypassed.
This chart compares the response with Bluetooth on in Dynamic Music mode, with noise canceling on and off.
This chart shows the Matrix Cinema ANCs’ right-channel response with Bluetooth and noise canceling on in Dynamic Music mode, compared with other over-ear models (all in Bluetooth mode with noise canceling on). The only anomalous quality of the MEEs is that compared with the other headphones, they have a lot more energy above 5kHz relative to the level of midrange and bass, which should make them sound a little brighter than average.
The Matrix Cinema ANCs’ spectral decay (waterfall) chart -- measured with a wired connection because of Bluetooth’s latency -- is free of significant resonances.
The Matrix Cinema ANCs’ distortion is measured here with a wired connection; the internal amps of the headphones may add some distortion, but my analyzer can’t compensate for Bluetooth’s latency when doing distortion measurements. You can see that the distortion is present but fairly modest at the loud level of 90dBA, hitting about 2.5% at 100Hz and 7% at 20Hz. At the extremely loud level of 100dBA it gets high: 5% at 100Hz and 17% at 20Hz. These levels of distortion may seem scary compared with measured amplifier distortion (which is typically under 0.5%), but distortion in transducers doesn’t seem as noticeable. That said, I did notice some fleeting distortion at times when playing loud, bass-heavy music.
In this chart, the external noise level is 85dB SPL, and numbers below that indicate the degree of attenuation of outside sounds. The Matrix Cinema ANCs’ isolation is quite good in the “airplane band” between about 100Hz and 1kHz, reducing noise by an average of 17dB, and delivering surprisingly even noise reduction through this range.
The Matrix Cinema ANCs’ impedance response in wired mode is typical for a closed-back, dynamic-driver model, averaging 33 ohms and with essentially flat phase response.
Latency of the Matrix Cinema ANCs used with the MEE Audio Connect transmitter was 34ms, which is typical for headphones using the aptX Low Latency codec. Thus, you will not experience lip-sync problems using them for video or gaming. Sensitivity of the Matrix Cinema ANCs with a wired connection with ANC off, measured between 300Hz and 3kHz using a 1mW signal calculated for the rated 32-ohms impedance is 105.9dB, which will deliver plenty of volume when you plug into an airliner’s inflight entertainment system.
. . . Brent Butterworth
brentb@soundstagenetwork.com
Reviewed on: SoundStage! Solo, May 2019
I measured the BT One headphones using a G.R.A.S. Model 43AG ear/cheek simulator/RA0402 ear simulator with the KB5000 and KB5001 anthropomorphic simulated pinnae, a Clio 10 FW audio analyzer, a laptop computer running TrueRTA software with an M-Audio MobilePre USB audio interface, and a Musical Fidelity V-CAN amp. For measurements in Bluetooth mode, I used a MEE Audio Connect Bluetooth transmitter to get the signal to the headphones. These are “flat” measurements; no diffuse-field or free-field compensation curve was employed.
The above chart shows the BT Ones’ frequency response measured in Bluetooth mode. This is an unusual result in many ways. The elevated plateau in the bass response from about 25 to 150Hz is reminiscent of the bass bump found in the Harman target curve. The midrange bump centered at 600Hz is extremely unusual; I’m sure I’ve measured a headphone with a similar peak at some point, but I sure can’t remember which one it might have been. The response peak centered at 3.5kHz is a common feature of headphone response, although about 500Hz higher in frequency than I usually expect to see it.
This chart compared the response of the BT Ones using Bluetooth versus using a wired connection. Interestingly, the midrange bump seen in BT mode vanishes in wired mode, and the response looks more typical.
This chart shows the BT Ones’ right-channel response compared with other over-ear models, including the AKG N60NCs (shown with noise canceling on; thes headphones come fairly close to the Harman target curve), the Beyerdynamic Aventho Wirelesses, and the Marshall Mid A.N.C.s (also with noise canceling on). These curves are normalized at 500Hz; if you elevated the BT Ones’ curve by a few dB, it would look a lot more like the others, except for its unusual peak at 600Hz.
The BT Ones’ spectral decay (waterfall) chart looks mostly free of resonances, except for a little bit below 400Hz.
The BT Ones’ distortion is measured here with a wired connection; the internal amps of the BT Ones may add some distortion, but my analyzer can’t compensate for Bluetooth’s latency when doing distortion measurements. You can see that the distortion is a little higher than average, hitting about 2.5% at 100Hz and 3.5% at 20Hz. Surprisingly, the distortion didn’t increase all that much when I went from 90dBA to 100dBA; it rose by an additional 1% on average between 100 and 600Hz. Note that distortion of headphones and speakers is not as audible as distortion of amplifiers, so it’s unlikely you’d notice this distortion unless you had the BT Ones cranked up all the way with bass-heavy material that features a lot of dynamic range compression.
In this chart, the external noise level is 85dB SPL, and numbers below that indicate the degree of attenuation of outside sounds. The BT Ones’ isolation doesn’t quite match that of the other on-ear headphones I included on the chart, but for small, non-noise-canceling headphones, it’s OK.
The BT Ones’ impedance response in wired mode is close to flat, averaging 37 ohms and with essentially flat phase response.
Latency of the BT Ones used with the MEE Audio Connect transmitter was 34ms, indicating that they include the aptX Low Latency codec, even though it’s not specifically stated on the BT Ones’ webpage. Thus, you will not experience lip-sync problems using them for video or gaming, provided you use a source device that has aptX LL. Sensitivity of the BT Ones with a wired connection, measured between 300Hz and 3kHz using a 1mW signal calculated for the rated 32-ohms impedance, is 109.0dB, so you are sure to get plenty enough volume when you plug into an airliner’s inflight entertainment system.
. . . Brent Butterworth
brentb@soundstagenetwork.com
Reviewed on: SoundStage! Solo, July 2019
I measured the Zvox AV50 headphones using a G.R.A.S. Model 43AG ear/cheek simulator/RA0402 ear simulator with the KB5000 and KB5001 anthropomorphic simulated pinnae, a Clio 10 FW audio analyzer, a laptop computer running TrueRTA software with an M-Audio MobilePre USB audio interface, and a Musical Fidelity V-CAN amp. For measurements in Bluetooth mode, I used a MEE Audio Connect Bluetooth transmitter to get the signal to the headphones. These are “flat” measurements; no diffuse-field or free-field compensation curve was employed.
The above chart shows the AV50s’ frequency response measured in what I expect will be their most-used mode: Bluetooth with noise canceling on. This is an unusual response. The large bass bump centered at 40Hz certainly grabs the eye. There’s also none of the usual peak centered at 2 to 3kHz, which is generally considered to make headphones sound more like real speakers in a real room, but there is a strong peak between 4 and 8kHz.
This chart compares the AV50s’ right-channel response in four modes: Bluetooth with noise canceling on and off, and wired with noise canceling on and off. Response in both wired modes is closer to what I usually measure from most over-ear headphones.
This chart compares the right-channel response from the previous chart with that of several other noise-canceling headphones, all with noise canceling on. These include the MEE Audio Matrix Cinema ANCs (which are the same price as the AV50s), shown in the Clear Voice mode, which is intended to serve the same function as the AV50s’ AccuVoice technology; the Bose QC35 IIs; and the AKG N700NCs, which are the headphones said to be the most faithful to the “Harman curve,” the response that research shows will deliver a sound most listeners prefer. It’s worth noting that the Matrix Cinema ANCs’ Clear Voice mode boosts sound between 2 and 3kHz, while the AV50s’ AccuVoice technology appears to boost sound between 4 and 8kHz.
The AV50s’ spectral decay (waterfall) chart -- measured with a wired connection because of Bluetooth’s latency -- shows a mild resonance below 300Hz, and a couple of very high-Q (i.e., narrow) resonances at about 1.5 and 2.2kHz, neither of which is likely to be audible.
The AV50s’ distortion is measured here with a wired connection with NC on and off. In wired mode, the distortion is typical for good dynamic-driver, over-ear headphones: negligible above 100Hz, and below 100Hz, about 2% at 90dBA and rising to as much as 5% at 100dBA. With NC on (employing the AV50s’ internal amps), the distortion is very low at 90dBA (a very loud listening level), but at 100dBA, the bass distortion rises abruptly below 70Hz, to a peak of about 37% at 35Hz. However, note that 100dBA is an extremely loud listening level, and the distortion, unusually, is confined to a very narrow band at low frequencies. If you listen to drum-and-bass, EDM, or rap at extremely loud (dangerously loud, in fact) levels, you’d almost certainly hear this, but at normal or even fairly loud listening levels, you’d enjoy very low distortion with NC on.
In this chart, the external noise level is 85dB SPL, and numbers below that indicate the degree of attenuation of outside sounds. This is what I consider a useful noise-canceling profile: strongest (-20dB) around 100 to 200Hz, which is where the low-frequency droning of jet engine noise leaking into an airplane cabin resides. There’s a fairly steep filter on the noise canceling circuitry, which you can see in action between 200 and 500Hz, which is why I felt just a slight amount of eardrum suck with these ’phones. Note that the identically priced MEE Audio Matrix Cinema ANC headphones can’t match the AV50s’ performance below 200Hz, but deliver better isolation above that frequency, largely because their passive isolation is better.
The AV50s’ impedance response in wired mode is basically dead-flat, at 38 ohms with NC off and 152 ohms with NC on, both with essentially flat phase response.
Latency of the AV50s used with the MEE Audio Connect transmitter, with an aptX connection, was 119ms, which is typical for headphones using the aptX codec. Sensitivity of the AV50s with a wired connection, measured between 300Hz and 3kHz using a 1mW signal calculated for 32 ohms impedance (my default for active headphones that have no specified impedance), was 99.4dB with NC off and 99.9dB with NC on. This should be adequate to deliver satisfying volume from most source devices.
. . . Brent Butterworth
brentb@soundstagenetwork.com
Reviewed on: SoundStage! Solo, April 2019
I measured the Empyrean headphones using laboratory-grade equipment: a G.R.A.S. Model 43AG ear/cheek simulator/RA0402 ear simulator with KB5000/KB5001 simulated pinnae, and a Clio 10 FW audio analyzer. For isolation measurements, I used a laptop computer running TrueRTA software with an M-Audio MobilePre USB audio interface. The headphones were amplified using a Musical Fidelity V-CAN and an Audio-gd NFB-1AMP. Except as noted, measurements were made using the leather earpads. These are “flat” measurements; no diffuse-field or free-field compensation curve was employed. If you’d like to learn more about what our measurements mean, click here.
The above chart shows the Empyreans’ frequency response. This is flatter than I usually measure in large, open-back audiophile headphones. We can still see the typical broadband rise in the bass and lower mids, as well as the usual peaks in the 3 and 6kHz regions, but the magnitude of these rises is a few dB less than typical.
Here you can see how the frequency response changes when the velour earpads are used. The velour pads basically provide a broadband reduction of -1 to -4dB below 3kHz, which will make them sound more trebly.
This chart shows how the Empyreans’ tonal balance changes when they’re used with a high-impedance (75 ohms) source, such as a cheap laptop or some cheap professional headphone amps. Using the higher-impedance source produces a change only below 20Hz, which won’t be audible.
This chart shows the Empyreans’ right-channel response compared with two high-end open-back headphones (Audeze LCD-Xes and HiFiMan HE1000 V2s) and one high-end closed-back model (Focal Stellias). Interestingly, the Empyreans’ response is closer to that of the closed-back Stellias than it is to the open-back models.
The Empyreans’ spectral decay (waterfall) chart shows the same hashy, low-level (-40dB) midrange resonance I see in almost all planar-magnetic models (which is apparently caused by sonic reflections between the large, flat driver diaphragm and the flat plate of the ear/cheek simulator), but the lower-frequency resonances seem somewhat better-controlled than in most headphones I’ve measured.
The Empyreans’ measured total harmonic distortion (THD) is nearly zero within the audioband, even at extremely high listening levels.
In this chart, the external noise level is 85dB SPL, and numbers below that indicate the degree of attenuation of outside sounds. Isolation of the Empyreans is comparable to that of most other open-back audiophile headphones -- i.e., there isn’t much.
The impedance magnitude of the Empyreans is essentially flat at about 31 ohms (the rated impedance is 31.6 ohms), with a tiny rise to 34 ohms centered at 82Hz.
Sensitivity of the Empyrean headphones, measured between 300Hz and 3kHz, using a 1mW signal calculated for 31.6 ohms rated impedance, is 99.1dB -- basically right on the rated 100dB, and sufficient sensitivity to let you get loud volumes when plugging the Empyreans straight into a smartphone or tablet.
. . . Brent Butterworth
brentb@soundstagenetwork.com
Reviewed on: SoundStage! Solo, March 2019
I measured the AH-D7200s using laboratory-grade equipment: a G.R.A.S. Model 43AG ear/cheek simulator/RA0402 ear simulator with KB5000/KB5001 simulated pinnae, and a Clio 10 FW audio analyzer. For isolation measurements, I used a laptop computer running TrueRTA software with an M-Audio MobilePre USB audio interface. The headphones were powered using a Musical Fidelity V-CAN and an Audio-gd NFB-1AMP. These are “flat” measurements; no diffuse-field or free-field compensation curve was employed. If you’d like to learn more about what our measurements mean, click here.
The above chart shows the AH-D7200s’ frequency response. This is unusual in that there’s little or none of the usual peak centered near 3kHz that we see in almost all headphones. This peak is generally considered necessary to create a reasonable simulation of hearing real speakers in a room. Without such a peak, headphones are unlikely to create a natural sense of space, and are likely to sound dull. Note that these measurements are the ones that were most typical (i.e., roughly average) of numerous measurements taken of each channel with the earcups in slightly different positions on the ear/cheek simulator. In the right channel, I was occasionally able to measure a mild peak of a few dB in the 3kHz range, but in most measurements it didn’t show up. I never got it to appear in the left-channel measurements no matter how I positioned the earcups.
This chart shows how the AH-D7200s’ tonal balance changes when they’re used with a high-impedance (75 ohms) source, such as a cheap laptop or some cheap professional headphone amps. Using the higher-impedance source produces a slight extra kick in the bass -- a boost of about 1dB centered at 30Hz.
This chart shows the AH-D7200s’ right-channel response compared with two other high-end closed-back headphones (Audeze LCD2 Closed-Backs and Bowers & Wilkins P9s) and the Quad ERA-1s, which I consider a semi-open-back (or semi-closed-back, if you prefer) design. While the AH-D7200s are similar in many ways to the Audeze LCD2 Closed-Backs, they have 4 to 8dB less energy between 1.3 and 4kHz.
The AH-D7200s’ spectral decay (waterfall) chart shows practically no resonance at all across the entire audioband. There’s one resonance at 5kHz, but considering that it’s extremely narrow, and that it’s down to -40dB within about 2ms, it’s highly unlikely to be audible.
The AH-D7200s’ measured total harmonic distortion (THD) is near zero above 100Hz at the loud listening level of 90dBA, rising to just 3% at 20Hz. Predictably, there’s more at the crazy-loud level of 100dBA -- 2% at 100Hz, rising to 4% at 50Hz and 8% at 20Hz -- but because the distortion is limited to the bass, the distortion harmonics will be low in pitch and probably won’t be troublesome, especially considering that your ears will be begging for mercy at that listening level, anyway.
In this chart, the external noise level is 85dB SPL, and numbers below that indicate the degree of attenuation of outside sounds. Isolation of the AH-D7200s is comparable to that of the other closed-back models shown, and adequate to block most office chatter and light background music.
The impedance magnitude of the AH-D7200s is mostly flat at or near the rated 25 ohms, with a small rise to 32 ohms centered at 34Hz. That little rise is why the bass response varies with different source impedances. The impedance phase is very close to flat.
Sensitivity of the AH-D7200s, measured between 300Hz and 3kHz, using a 1mW signal calculated for 25 ohms rated impedance, is 99.7dB. That’s about 5dB below the rated sensitivity, but still sensitive enough that you can get plenty of volume when plugging the AH-D7200s straight into a smartphone or tablet.
. . . Brent Butterworth
brentb@soundstagenetwork.com
Reviewed on: SoundStage! Solo, March 2019
I measured the Momentum True Wireless earphones using laboratory-grade equipment: a G.R.A.S. Model 43AG ear/cheek simulator/RA0402 ear simulator with KB5000/KB5001 simulated pinnae, and a Clio 10 FW audio analyzer. For isolation measurements, I used a laptop computer running TrueRTA software with an M-Audio MobilePre USB audio interface. A MEE Audio Connect Bluetooth transmitter was used to send signals from the Clio 10 FW to the earphones. These are “flat” measurements; no diffuse-field or free-field compensation curve was employed. Note that because of the latency introduced by Bluetooth, I wasn’t able to do a spectral decay measurement, and of course my usual impedance and sensitivity measurements are irrelevant for wireless earphones. If you’d like to learn more about what our measurements mean, click here.
The above chart shows the Momentum True Wirelesses’ frequency response measured with the KB5000 and KB5001 anthropomorphic simulated pinnae. This is not terribly far from normal, although many earphones will have a bigger bump in the bass, and there’s less energy in the 5kHz region than we typically see.
This chart shows the Momentum True Wirelesses’ right-channel response compared with several other earphones, including the Jabra Elite Active 65t (another true wireless model), the Sennheiser HD Free (a wireless model with a cable connecting the earpieces), and the AKG N5005 earphones, the designs that currently best conform to the “Harman curve,” shown in research by Harman International to be the preferred in-ear headphone response for most listeners. You can see that while the Momentum True Wirelesses aren’t outliers, their response is generally flatter, with less bass output and somewhat attenuated response between 3 and 6kHz.
This chart shows the operation of the unusual tone control within Sennheiser’s Smart Control app. The dark blue line is the response with the tone control centered. (This is a measurement with a real-time analyzer and pink noise, so it looks much different than my usual frequency-response measurements, which are done with logarithmic chirp tones.) Note that a wide variety of tonal ranges are possible through the app. Although precise settings are not possible with this app, it has a range of about +4/-7dB in the bass and +/-6dB in the treble.
Because of the latency of the Bluetooth connection, it was possible for me to get a stable measurement of distortion versus frequency only at the extremely loud level of 100dBA. Even at this high level, distortion is typically around 1%, and peaks out at about 2.5%.
In this chart, the red line indicates an external noise level is 85dB SPL, and numbers below that indicate the degree of attenuation of outside sounds. The Momentum True Wirelesses’ isolation is about average for earphones fitted with silicone tips, although not as good as can be achieved with a model using over-ear cable routing, such as the Massdrop x NuForce EDC3s.
. . . Brent Butterworth
brentb@soundstagenetwork.com
The following categories containing listings of all product reviews published by the SoundStage! Network since 1995 from all of our online publications. The products are divided into categories and listed in descending order by date. There is no Search function within the listings, but you can search by bringing up the page with the appropriate list and using the "Find" command on your browser. (For Internet Explorer select: Edit > Find on this Page.)