![]() ![]() Frankly, I’d take the Starfield or KXXS over pretty much anything else under $200 on the basis of preference. ![]() There’s something highly alluring about the way the Starfield shifts its perceived weaknesses into strengths, the way it straddles that line so neatly for my preferences, and it’s something I can’t get enough of each time I listen to it. Hell, Moondrop’s own SSR gives the Starfield a run for its money in the technical department! Still, you know, I don’t really mind. Dynamics are generally compressed, imaging is only slightly above average, and layering is pretty “meh” hence the aforementioned congestion issues. It’s a respectable technical performer for its price, sure, but it’s light years away from touching a lot of flagship stuff, much less top-tier stuff. Of course, let’s not pretend that the Starfield is some technical savant or anything of the sort. Stack on the pillowy-ness in the bass, and a minor peak at around 12kHz that lends treble to a pleasant haziness in the decay, and you have a recipe for terrific timbre and – argh, I hate to use this word – a highly musical presentation. And indeed there is: You can take all those criticisms and flip them on their head. Not unlike the 64 Audio U12t, the Starfield toes the line between being intangibly pleasing and slightly neutering resolution with its soft, blunted transient attack decay is equally oh-so-natural. Somewhat rolled-treble and extended bass shelf in-hand, the Starfield is, accordingly, a considerably warm IEM with a tendency to delve into congestion on more complex tracks.įor an IEM I like so much, I’ve already cited quite a few issues, right? But surely, you say, there’s a catch. Treble is about equal parts milquetoast, rolling off fairly linearly post-5kHz with a tad bump in the mid-treble at around 8kHz and in the bottom air frequencies. Interestingly, the KXXS actually has slightly more energy around this region, lending to a slightly brighter, “edgier” presentation. The midrange of the Starfield is Harman-inspired, peaking at around 3kHz with a tad too much emphasis at around 4kHz which some might find bright initially I know I certainly did on the KXXS. Transient attack is fairly soft – there’s no way around it – and dynamic slam is pretty lackluster with an oft-cited “pillowy-ness” to the way hits are articulated. The bass on the Starfield is about equal parts sub-bass and mid-bass – considerably above neutral – and honestly, it’s not very good. At least not according to the metrics with which I’d normally qualify good bass. The main deviation would be in the bass which slopes out further, lending some extra note-weight to male vocals (not at all a bad thing) the Harman target is a good deal more incisive at around 200hZ by comparison. Sound AnalysisĪ lot of people say that the Starfield is Harman-tuned, and eh, sure, I can see the resemblance. If you’ve read my reviews before, then you’ll know I don’t really care to cover the accessories, build, etc. Of course, this review isn’t about the KXXS it’s about the Starfield, which promises comparable sonic performance at close to half the price. That alone should probably be a testament to how much I like the KXXS, and I have well over a couple hundred hours on my unit. In this time, I’ve been lucky enough to try and review dozens of IEMs, some very expensive ones, and yet, the KXXS remains a staple of my small collection. I’ve owned the KXXS (the Starfield’s more premium brother) for more than a year at this point. I have a Starfield on loan right now from Super*Review so I figured I’d drop a quick review.īut first, a quick spiel. ![]()
0 Comments
Leave a Reply. |
AuthorWrite something about yourself. No need to be fancy, just an overview. ArchivesCategories |