Reviewed on: SoundStage! Solo, September 2022
I measured the Sivga SV023 headphones using laboratory-grade equipment: a GRAS Model 43AG ear/cheek simulator/RA0402 ear simulator with KB5000/KB5001 simulated pinnae, and an Audiomatica Clio 12 QC audio analyzer. For isolation measurements, I used a laptop computer running TrueRTA software with an M-Audio MobilePre USB audio interface. For most measurements, the headphones were amplified using a Musical Fidelity V-CAN amplifier; I used a Schiit Audio Magnius amplifier for distortion measurements. 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.
This chart shows the SV023s’ frequency response. This looks pretty straightforward for headphones of this type, with no anomalies that catch my eye.
Here we can see the difference in the headphones’ response when a high-impedance (75 ohms) source is substituted for a typical low-impedance source (5 ohms). There’s almost no difference, just a boost of about 0.5dB below 100Hz. This is rare for dynamic drivers; they’re usually more affected by source impedance.
This chart shows the SV023s’ right-channel response compared with a few other open-back models (including the Dan Clark Audio Æon 2s with perfed pads, which are the planar-magnetic headphones I’ve found come closest to the Harman curve). Again, there’s nothing unusual—at most, slightly less energy in the treble and bass relative to some similar models.
The SV023’s spectral decay is one of the cleanest I can remember seeing, with no significant resonances.
Here’s the THD vs. frequency chart, measured at 90dBA and 100dBA (both levels set with pink noise). The distortion here is on the high side, topping out at about 8% THD at 20Hz, although because the distortion is mostly in the bass, it won’t be so audible because the distortion harmonics are low in frequency and mostly outside the most sensitive range of the human ear.
In this chart, the external noise level is 85dB SPL (the red trace), and numbers below that indicate the degree of attenuation of outside sounds. The lower the lines, the better the isolation. The SV023s’ isolation is a little better than average for large, open-back headphones, probably because they use a 50mm driver rather than the 100mm drivers common to planar-magnetic models.
The impedance of the SV023s mostly averages around 330 ohms, with a fairly flat phase response (especially for a dynamic driver).
Sensitivity of the SV023s, calculated for 300 ohms impedance and averaged from 300Hz to 3kHz, is 104.2dB, plenty enough to get a useable volume from most source devices.
Bottom line: Other than some bass distortion, which it’s unlikely you’ll notice, the Sivga SV023 headphones’ measurements show nothing to worry about.
. . . Brent Butterworth
brentb@soundstagenetwork.com
Reviewed on: SoundStage! Solo, September 2022
I measured the Soundcore Sport X10 earphones using laboratory-grade equipment: a GRAS Model 43AG ear/cheek simulator with KB5000/KB5001 simulated pinnae, and an Audiomatica Clio 12 QC audio analyzer. I used a Reiyin WT-HD06 Bluetooth transmitter to get signals into the earphones. I used the supplied medium silicone tips for all measurements because they fit best in the ear simulator. These are “flat” measurements; no diffuse-field or free-field compensation curve was employed. Note that I’m unable to do spectral-decay measurements on most true wireless earphones due to the latency. Due to scheduling issues I wasn’t able to do noise-canceling measurements; we’ll add those at a future date. If you’d like to learn more about what our measurements mean, click here.
This chart shows the Sport X10s’ frequency response in the default Soundcore Signature EQ mode. It’s obviously pretty bassy. If the bass was toned down by about 6dB, it’d be a lot closer to normal. There’s a little more energy in that 5.5kHz peak than we might normally see, so I suspect these earphones might have a subtly bright top end.
This chart shows how the Sport X10s’ tonal balance changes when ANC is switched on. There’s not much difference, although the sound with ANC on would be noticeably brighter.
This chart shows the Sport X10s’ right-channel response (again, in Soundcore Signature mode) compared with various earphones—including the KEF Mu3 and AKG N5005 earphones, both of which stick pretty close to the Harman curve. Again, you can see the excess bass and the extra little zip in the mid-treble, but there’s no reason a little EQ’ing couldn’t bring these earphones into the range of normal.
Even at the extremely loud level of 100dBA (measured with pink noise), the Sport X10s’ distortion is very low. Some true wireless earphones can’t even reach 100dBA, so that’s impressive.
Bottom line: The Sport X10 eaphones seem well-engineered, even if their EQ at the Soundcore Signature setting is way too bassy.
. . . Brent Butterworth
brentb@soundstagenetwork.com
Reviewed on: SoundStage! Solo, August 2022
I measured the Phiaton 900 Legacy headphones using laboratory-grade equipment: a GRAS Model 43AG ear/cheek simulator/RA0402 ear simulator with KB5000/KB5001 simulated pinnae, and an Audiomatica Clio 12 QC audio analyzer. A Reiyin WT-HD06 Bluetooth transmitter was used to send signals from the Clio 12 QC to the headphones. For isolation measurements, I used a laptop computer running TrueRTA software with an M-Audio MobilePre USB audio interface. 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.
This chart shows the 900 Legacy headphones’ frequency response with the Bluetooth connection and noise canceling on—the mode I expect they’ll most often be used in. There appears to be a modest surplus of mid-treble (5 to 10kHz) energy relative to the usual peak at about 3kHz, and the bass looks a little pumped-up.
This chart shows the difference in response between the Bluetooth/ANC mode and the wired mode with the power off. In the wired more, there’s not as much bass, and the mids seem muted, but this is not that far off from what I measure with many planar-magnetic audiophile headphones.
This chart shows the 900 Legacy headphones’ response in Bluetooth mode with ANC on compared with the Bose QC45 and PSB M4U 8 MkII headphones (both with ANC on), and the AKG K371 passive headphones, which are said to be very close to an ideal Harman curve response. Yep, the 900 Legacy headphones do seem a little on the bassy side, but the rolloff starts only slightly above 100Hz, so it’s unlikely these will have that annoying bloated upper-bass sound many headphones have.
The 900 Legacy headphones’ right-channel spectral-decay plot (measured with the wired connection) looks very clean, with no significant resonances.
Here’s the THD vs. frequency, measured using the wired connection at 90dBA and 100dBA (both levels set with pink noise). It’s very low, even at the extremely loud 100dBA level.
In this chart, the external noise level is 85dB SPL (the red trace), and numbers below that indicate the degree of attenuation of outside sounds. The lower the lines, the better the isolation. This is impressive—the 900 Legacy headphones come close to some of the class leaders in noise-canceling performance, but because they don’t have as abrupt a shift in noise-canceling effect going from 100Hz to 1kHz, they don’t produce as much eardrum suck as some competitors do.
Latency, measured with the Reiyin Bluetooth transmitter in aptX HD mode averaged about 275ms, which is high. So these probably won’t be your first choice for gaming or video watching.
The impedance magnitude, measured in wired mode with the power off, averages about 32 ohms, roughly double the rated 16 ohms.
Sensitivity with the wired connection, calculated for 16 ohms rated impedance, averages 92.2dB from 300Hz to 3kHz, which is about 10dB less than I’d expect. These might not play quite loud enough for you when you plug into the inflight entertainment system on the decrepit airliner you’re flying that doesn’t yet give you free movies on your phone through Wi-Fi.
Bottom line: The Phiaton 900 Legacy headphones’ measured performance is generally excellent. They might be a little on the bassy side for some, but they won’t sound boomy or dull, and their noise-canceling performance is great.
. . . Brent Butterworth
brentb@soundstagenetwork.com
Reviewed on: SoundStage! Solo, July 2022
I measured the Technics EAH-A800 headphones using laboratory-grade equipment: a GRAS Model 43AG ear/cheek simulator/RA0402 ear simulator with KB5000/KB5001 simulated pinnae, and an Audiomatica Clio 12 QC audio analyzer. A MEE Audio Connect Bluetooth transmitter was used to send signals from the Clio 12 QC to the headphones. For isolation measurements, I used a laptop computer running TrueRTA software with an M-Audio MobilePre USB audio interface. 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.
This chart shows the EAH-A800s’ frequency response with the Bluetooth connection, noise canceling on, and EQ off—the mode I expect they’ll most often be used in. There’s a lot of bass, and also a little less energy around 3kHz and more energy between 5 and 10kHz than I might normally expect to see.
For this chart, which shows the effects of some of the EQ modes, I switched to a real-time analyzer display with a white-noise signal played from my phone—it’s the only way I could reliably evaluate all the different EQ modes in the app. I also added a measurement of my preferred settings in the Custom mode; obviously I preferred a lot less bass than any of the stock EQ modes offered.
This chart, also produced using Clio’s real-time analyzer with white noise, shows how the response differs with noise canceling on and off, in Ambient mode, and in wired mode. The response is definitely very similar with noise canceling or Ambient on, and very different in the other two modes.
This chart shows the EAH-A800s’ response in Bluetooth mode with NC on and the EQ off, compared with the Bose QC45, the Edifier Stax Spirit S3, and the right-on-Harman-curve AKG K371 headphones. Obviously, the EAH-A800s are very bassy out of the box, and need to be EQ’ed.
The EAH-A800s’ right-channel spectral-decay plot (measured with the wired connection) looks mostly clean, although there’s clearly some resonance in the bass that’s inherent to the acoustics of the headphones.
Here’s the THD vs. frequency, measured using the wired connection at 90dBA and 100dBA (both levels set with pink noise). It’s very low, even at the extremely loud 100dBA level.
In this chart, the external noise level is 85dB SPL (the red trace), and numbers below that indicate the degree of attenuation of outside sounds. The lower the lines, the better the isolation. We’ll start by showing the differences among the headphones’ different listening modes: noise canceling on and off, and Ambient.
This chart compares the isolation of the EAH-A800s (set for max NC) with three other noise-canceling headphones: the Bose QC45, the Soundcore Life Q35, and the PSB M4U 8 MKII. Clearly the EAH-A800s’ noise canceling is competitive with other top performers.
Latency, measured with the MEE Connect transmitter (which has aptX and aptX Low Latency, but not AAC or LDAC), averaged about 288ms, which is high—more like what we’d expect to see with true wireless earphones, which have extra latency because they have to “talk to” each other. So these won’t be great gaming headphones, but you weren’t going to use them for that, anyway.
The impedance magnitude, measured in wired mode with power off, averages about 17.5 ohms, roughly half the rated 34 ohms—although that’s of no concern, because even 17.5 ohms isn’t tough for a cheap headphone amp chip to drive.
Sensitivity with the wired connection, calculated for 34 ohms rated impedance, averages 104.7dB from 300Hz to 3kHz, so these should play plenty loud even if you’re plugged into the armrest of a beat-up old 737.
Bottom line: The EAH-A800s’ noise canceling is excellent, and none of the more technical measurements reveals any engineering concerns—but there’s no question that they’re tuned to be very bassy out of the box. These headphones seem to be a firmware update away from potential greatness.
. . . Brent Butterworth
brentb@soundstagenetwork.com
Reviewed on: SoundStage! Solo, July 2022
I measured the Edifier Stax Spirit S3 headphones using laboratory-grade equipment: a GRAS Model 43AG ear/cheek simulator/RA0402 ear simulator with KB5000/KB5001 simulated pinnae, and an Audiomatica Clio 12 QC audio analyzer. A MEE Audio Connect Bluetooth transmitter was used to send signals from the Clio 12 QC to the headphones. For isolation measurements, I used a laptop computer running TrueRTA software with an M-Audio MobilePre USB audio interface. 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.
This chart shows the S3s’ frequency response with the Bluetooth connection. The bass response is not really this rolled off—that appears to be an artifact of the gating used to compensate for Bluetooth’s latency. The interesting thing here is that the response looks somewhat like what I usually measure from planar-magnetic headphones, with mostly flat bass and a large peak centered at 3kHz, so that’s good. However, nothing I tried could fix that volume mismatch between the left and right channels; if it’s an issue with the headphones, my guess is that this could be due to somewhat mismatched drivers.
Here I’ve switched to a real-time analyzer display with a white noise signal played from my phone—it’s the only way I could reliably evaluate all the different modes these headphones offer. This chart shows the effect of the different EQ modes in the app. They’re all the same above 3kHz. Classic is bassier, Hi-Fi is treblier, and Stax splits the difference—it has the same bass response as Hi-Fi mode, but adds some extra midrange oomph. These are subtle and sane choices for EQ modes.
This chart (shown with the Y/dB scale zoomed in for greater clarity) shows the difference in response with the different earpads and earpad compensation modes available in the app. The compensation modes make the two sets of pads similar, except that the leather pads and mode have a few dB extra zip in the mid-treble, between 6 and 9kHz, and a dip in the lower mids centered at 400Hz. My “hack” mode, using the fabric pads with the Leather EQ mode, resulted in less treble output with some extra kick in the midrange, between about 300 and 600Hz. Not what I’d expect I’d like, but trust your ears, as they say.
This chart shows the difference in response between the wired and Bluetooth modes, with leather earpads installed and the appropriate mode activated, along with the Classic EQ mode. (I couldn’t line them up perfectly because of the relatively crude volume steps available on the headphones and on my phone.) Although it looks like the bass and treble are boosted with the Bluetooth connection, I think a better way to look at it is that the mids are boosted between about 450Hz and 1kHz with the wired connection.
This chart shows the S3s’ response in wired mode compared with the right-on-Harman-curve AKG K371s and the HiFiMan Deva Pros. (This is a little crude because I had to use a real-time analyzer instead of my normal log chirp tones, because results through the Bluetooth connection weren’t as reliable.) Although it’s hard to tell because I normalized the curves at 1kHz (you gotta pick something!), the Deva Pros are the trebliest, the K371s are the bassiest, and the S3s fall somewhere in between.
The S3s’ right-channel spectral-decay plot (measured with the wired connection) shows the same kinds of high-Q resonances between about 1.5 and 5kHz that we usually see with planar-magnetic models. In my experience, these don’t add tonal coloration, but may correlate with a more spacious sound.
Here’s the THD vs. frequency chart, measured using the wired connection at 90dBA and 100dBA (both levels set with pink noise), although remember that the internal amp is always on. Distortion is very low, as expected from planar-magnetic drivers.
In this chart, the external noise level is 85dB SPL (the red trace), and numbers below that indicate the degree of attenuation of outside sounds. The lower the lines, the better the isolation. The S3s’ noise isolation is very typical for standard-sized, closed-back headphones. I also added the HiFiMan Deva Pros and the PSB M4U 8 MKIIs, so you could see how they compare with open-back and noise-canceling headphones, respectively.
Latency, measured with the MEE Connect transmitter (which has aptX and aptX Low Latency), typically ran about 215ms in Bluetooth mode; I guess the transmitter and the headphones somehow didn’t communicate that they both have aptX Low Latency. Very frustrating, but sadly common; it appears Qualcomm has some work to do here. There’s a bit of latency with the wired connection, too, because of the internal DSP—typically about 28ms.
The impedance magnitude, measured in wired mode but with the amp active (the headphones don’t work otherwise), runs about 6.6k ohms, as is the case with most active headphones with an analog input. It won’t be sensitive to the output impedance of the source device.
Bottom line: The Edifier Stax Spirit S3s don’t present any concerns from a technical standpoint.
. . . Brent Butterworth
brentb@soundstagenetwork.com
Reviewed on: SoundStage! Solo, June 2022
I measured the AXS Audio Professional Earbuds using laboratory-grade equipment: a GRAS Model 43AG ear/cheek simulator with KB5000/KB5001 simulated pinnae, and an Audiomatica Clio 12 QC audio analyzer. (To save space in the chart legends, I’ll refer to the earphones in the charts by the model number, e.g., “AXSE01.”) For isolation measurements, I used a laptop computer running TrueRTA software with an M-Audio MobilePre USB audio interface. I used a MEE Audio Connect Bluetooth transmitter to get signals into the earphones. I used the supplied large silicone tips for all measurements because they fit best in the ear simulator. These are “flat” measurements; no diffuse-field or free-field compensation curve was employed. Note that I’m unable to do spectral-decay measurements on most true wireless earphones due to the latency. If you’d like to learn more about what our measurements mean, click here.
This chart shows the Professional Earbuds’ frequency response. This looks pretty standard for a product like this, although the peak in the 3kHz region is a couple dB higher than we might normally see, which corresponds precisely with what I heard. (BTW, I had already finished writing the review when I did these measurements, and my Clio analyzer can’t read, so it couldn’t have been influenced by my opinions.) I also tried taking these measurements with the volume on the earphones set at four different levels, ranging from maximum to -29dB, to see how much difference in response there was at different volume levels, but the frequency response did not change significantly—it was up only about 1dB in the bass at the two lower settings.
This chart shows how the Professional Earbuds’ tonal balance changes when they’re in Voice Through, ANC on, and ANC off modes. This is impressive—there’s effectively no difference.
This chart shows the Professional Earbuds’ right-channel response compared with various earphones, including the KEF Mu3s, which of all the true wireless earphones I’ve measured, are the ones that come closest to the Harman curve. You can see that the Professional Earbuds have a narrow, higher lower-treble peak in the 3kHz range, and they also have the excess upper bass I recently complained about in my monthly column—but this time, I didn’t notice the bass bloat, probably because the lower-treble peak counteracted it.
Distortion in the Professional Earbuds is very low, even at the extremely loud level of 100dBA (measured with pink noise). That’s impressive, because some true wireless earphones can’t even reach 100dBA.
In this chart, the external noise level is 85dB SPL, and numbers below that indicate the degree of attenuation of outside sounds. The lower the lines, the better the isolation. With all the earphones whose isolation is shown here, the measurement was taken with the noise canceling on. The Professional Earbuds’ noise canceling isn’t a standout, but it’s enough to provide a much more pleasant listening experience when you’re flying.
This chart shows the effect of the Voice Through mode, and how good the passive isolation of the Professional Earbuds is. These are both typical responses.
Latency, measured with the MEE Audio Connect transmitter (which is equipped with aptX and aptX Low Latency), ran consistently in the range of 235ms. This isn’t what I’d call low-latency operation, but it’s not bad, because many true wireless models run over 300ms.
Bottom line: Other than the subtle frequency-response anomalies pointed out above, I’d consider the engineering of the Professional Earbuds better-than-average for true wireless earphones.
. . . Brent Butterworth
brentb@soundstagenetwork.com
Reviewed on: SoundStage! Solo, June 2022
I measured the T3 Plus earphones using laboratory-grade equipment: a GRAS Model 43AG ear/cheek simulator/RA0402 ear simulator with KB5000/KB5001 simulated pinnae, and an Audiomatica Clio 12 audio analyzer. For isolation measurements, I used a laptop computer running TrueRTA software with an M-Audio MobilePre USB audio interface. The earphones were amplified using a Musical Fidelity V-CAN amplifier. I used the supplied medium-sized silicone tips for all measurements because they best fit in the ear simulator. 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.
This chart shows the T3 Pluses’ frequency response. This is pretty much a by-the-book tuning, except there’s a little more output between about 100 and 300Hz than the Harman curve mandates, and the response above about 6kHz is a hair on the soft side.
This chart shows how the T3 Pluses’ tonal balance changes when they’re used with a high-impedance source, such as a cheap laptop, some tube amps, or some professional headphone amps. There’s no audible difference.
This chart shows the T3 Pluses’ right-channel response compared with various earphones, including the AKG N5005s, which are said to be the passive earphones that come closest to the Harman curve. Except as previously noted, these earphones are well within industry norms.
The T3 Pluses’ spectral-decay plot looks pretty clean, although it seems like there’s a bit of resonance below 300Hz. Possibly it’s the cause of my impression that the T3 Pluses sometimes sounded slightly on the bassy side.
There’s effectively no measurable distortion at the testing levels I used. This is an excellent result for a set of earphones.
In this chart, the external noise level is 85dB SPL, and numbers below that indicate the degree of attenuation of outside sounds. The lower the lines, the better the isolation. In the 43AG ear/cheek simulator, the T3 Pluses, to my surprise, achieved better isolation with the silicone eartips than with the foam eartips. With the silicone eartips, isolation is perhaps a little better than average for the category.
The impedance curve of the T3 Pluses is mostly flat, running at 31 ohms through most of the audio range, and the phase response is very flat.
Sensitivity, measured between 300Hz and 3kHz, using a 1mW signal calculated for 32 ohms rated impedance, is 111.6dB, which means the T3 Pluses will play loudly from any source device.
Bottom line: These are very well-engineered earphones.
. . . Brent Butterworth
brentb@soundstagenetwork.com
Reviewed on: SoundStage! Solo, June 2022
I measured the Periodic Audio Mgv3 earphones using laboratory-grade equipment: a GRAS Model 43AG ear/cheek simulator/RA0402 ear simulator with KB5000/KB5001 simulated pinnae, and an Audiomatica Clio 12 audio analyzer. For isolation measurements, I used a laptop computer running TrueRTA software with an M-Audio MobilePre USB audio interface. The earphones were amplified using a Musical Fidelity V-CAN amplifier. I used the supplied medium-size silicone single-flange tips for all measurements because they fit best in the ear simulator. (Unfortunately, I wasn’t able to compare the response with 5- and 75-ohm source impedances, because I recently moved and haven’t yet located the resistor box I use for that test. Nor was I able to measure sensitivity. We’ll try to add these at a later date.) 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.
This chart shows the Mgv3s’ frequency response. It’s fairly normal, but rather “smiley,” with boosted bass and a broader midrange dip than might be expected.
This chart shows the Mgv3s’ right-channel response compared with the other models in Periodic Audio’s line. Clearly, the Mgv3, Bev3, and Cv3 earphones are similar-sounding, but the Tiv3 earphones vary considerably from the others.
Here’s how the Mgv3s’ response compares with that of some other passive earphones I’ve measured—including the AKG N5005s, which are probably the passive earphones that best reflect the characteristics of the Harman curve. You can see how boosted the bass is, and how there’s less energy in the mids between about 1 and 2kHz.
The Mgv3s’ spectral-decay plot looks extremely clean. Maybe there’s something to that Tritan stuff.
Measured harmonic distortion is extremely low, even at the very loud level of 100dBA (measured with pink noise), which bears out another of Periodic Audio’s performance claims.
In this chart, the external noise level is 85dB SPL, and numbers below that indicate the degree of attenuation of outside sounds. The lower the lines, the better the isolation. (All models were measured with medium-size silicone tips.) The Mgv3s’ isolation is typical for earphones of this design. I also threw in a true wireless model from 1More so you can see how a model with active noise canceling compares.
The impedance curve of the Mgv3s is fairly flat, running around 35 ohms through most of the audio range, with a wrinkle centered at 2.3kHz that’ll probably slightly boost the upper mids if the earphones are used with a high-impedance source, such as a tube amp or a cheap laptop.
Bottom line: Except for the frequency-response anomalies noted, these appear to be well-designed earphones.
. . . 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.)