They are possibly (for me and for those who are looking for a sound like the one I’m looking for) the best. Anyone can with a more expensive headphone in capabilities.
My question is, how much difference is there between them? In price there is a difference.
I am talking about:
-Moondrop Kato (shops in my country 245€, chinese shops 190€)
-Yanyinn Cannon (Chinese shops 320-340€)
-Dunu Est 112 (shops in my country 600 €, Chinese shops 430 €)
Thanks bros
Very short answer: something like Dunu SA6 or Moondrop Blessing 2 Dusk will be probably noticeably better than Kato, but 2 times more expensive IEMs never means 2x better performance (aka the law of diminishing returns)
Short answer:
Crinacle’s opinion: EST 112 B, Kato B+ ; Precogvision’s opinion: EST 112 5.15/10, Kato 5.8/10
Kato - safe pick, very positive reviews
Cannon - not a lot info about his model on forums,
EST 112 - other Dunu’s IEM SA6 has similar price and is higher rated by reviewers, also Dunu Vulkan is being released soon (probably similar price bracket)
Other models in the “from Kato to EST 112 price range” people would probably recommend you are:
Moondrop Blessing 2 Dusk, Xenns Mangird Tea 2, 7Hz Timeless,Letshuoer S12, Thieaudio Elixir.
Long answer:
Fact that you are posting on this forum makes me guess you have already seen ranking lists by reviewers, but just in case here are some links:
Crinacle’s ranking crinacle's IEM Ranking List – In-Ear Fidelity,
Precogvision’s list Precog's IEM Ranking List - Google Sheets ,
Antdroid’s list Antdroid IEM Ranking List
Always remember that headphones and IEMs are very subjective thing and every list like that should be treated like an advice, not like the definitive answer what is better
Regarding EST 112, I think it might be a better idea to wait for newer Dunu IEM - Vulkan (which is to be released soon) or choose different Dunu’s IEM SA6. SA6 was in general better rated than EST 112 by reviewers; also Vulkan’s reviews will be out there soon (not sure if I remember that right but I recall that Dunu told reviewers not to post Vulkan reviews before the release). EST 112 is definitely not a bad IEM by any means, but the repeating complaints about poor upper treble performance and fact, that other similarly priced IEMs (including Dunu’s own SA6) were higher rated should be included in your decision.
About Kato, it is worth to take a look at Thieaudio’s new IEM Elixir. Very similar frequency response to Kato, and also a DD.
To make my point clearer, on Crinacle’s list, Dunu SA6 I mentioned in my post was given A, 2 grades ahead of Kato’s B+; Precogvision gave Kato 5.8, SA6 6.5; on Gizaudio’s list Kato B+, SA6 A-.
So if you trust these reviewers and assuming that your impressions would not be very different, it is possible to assume that you will get 10-15 -ish percent better performance with 2 times more expensive than Kato
I am not trying to “shill” SA6 or say that it is the bes in the world or something, I used it as an example beacause it is generally very highly rated IEM similarly priced to EST 112.
Please keep in mind I based my post on a general consensus about IEMs, as always in audio - YMMV
This is super important, because while I respect all three of them, I disagree with things on each of their rankings, and I have a fairly limited exposure, since I have probably only tried out about 30 IEMs, and currently own about a dozen.
crinacle - Grading both the Tanchjim Tanya and Moondrop Quarks as better than many well known models seems odd, but might be a value play, even though he has a category for it. Also odd that the EJ07 is only a B in his book.
Precogvision - I don’t get his rankings at all. They seem inconsistent, since one review he values bass, the next timber, the next treble response. This is perplexing to the point that it seems like there is a roulette wheel somewhere. He ranked Air Pods Pro over Mangird Tea, which nearly disqualifies him as having ears in my book.
Antdroid - His rankings at least make sense, if there is a value adjustment factored in, otherwise the CCA CRA being ranked over the ER2SE seems very odd. When you factor in $15 vs $100 it makes sense.
I don’t mind reviewers that I never agree with, but I do value consistency, so I know that what they are assessing the score on. I find Precogvision useless as a reviewer because of this lack of consistency, which is sad, since I have no argument with his brutally high standards.
Crinacle isn’t easy on anyone, but at least I have a sense of what he is looking for, he likes neutral with some extra sub-bass. Super Review tends to like mid forward or even a bit bright, but not sibilant. When a bass heavy set works for both of them, it usually sounds very good. So their consistent view helps me.
I also find that HBB is correct the right IEM varies a lot with the music you listen too. Not a ton of reviewers talk about this, but I do think certain IEMs work far better for different genres of music. I tend to like a bit of bass, but I am a classic rock guy.
At the moment, based on my own experiences, I trust the ranking of vivir digital, nymz and audiofool and little else.
At least they seem to value what I value.
I don’t agree with crinacle. The one from gizaudio is a barbaric inconsistency and the one from precog better not even talk about it.
I hate pricing in Euro…cause the exchange rate for it into CAD is almost x2! >.<
I think some may have confused this thread with this one…
https://forum.hifiguides.com/t/good-audio-reviewers-and-ones-to-stay-far-far-away-from/2355/875
The most important thing is to understand what reviewers like and how that relates to you.
If you find a reviewer that like things similar to what you like use him. I find they all have biases but I do understand HBB and nymz. That is important. The other thing the Dunu SA 6 is Al ba’s. That different than a KATO.
Hey! I welcome constructive feedback about my reviews, and I’m under no illusion that my ranking list is completely consistent. The reality is that I don’t have the luxury of A/B-ing every set outside of certain models I keep on-hand for reference purposes, so there’s inevitably some discrepancies when I rank. There’s also the factor of time under which my preferences might change, I might listen to one set more than another, and my auditory memory fades.
That said, I do think my methodology is reasonably consistent. It’s always the same sources, the stock tips, the stock cables, the same music library, etc. With respect to what I value in reviews, I’m not sure if I understand what you’re saying. Tacitly, some IEMs will do some things better than others and vice versa, so I will highlight these points accordingly. I even usually follow the same “template”, so to speak, for most full reviews that are published. Perhaps you could clarify on this front!
I’d also like to clear up some misinformation. I do not have the Airpods Pro ranked above the Mangird Tea. They’re both sitting at the exact same score of 4.3 on my ranking list, for which the list sorts alphabetically after. I was actually more optimistic about the Tea than Crinacle. Crinacle ranked it as a C+ and the Airpods Pro as a B- which would ostensibly disqualify him from having ears according to you 
Crinacle doesn’t like anything that is darker in tonality, so his take on the original Tea was going to be bad. HBB was going to like it for the same reason. Super Review liked it, which was surprising, and spent time explaining why, which helped me decide. Again, I know what they are going to do, so I can work with that, where you have a randomness I can’t always discern.
Lets look at some 4.3 IEMs - Apple Air Pod Pro, Mangird Tea, Tanchim Ola, Sony MH755, Yanyin Aladdin, Moondrop Kanas Pro, Samsung Galaxy Buds+. The only ones I missed were the Kanas Pro and the Galaxy Buds+. I even had a pair of MH755, but it was too long ago to pretend that I recall what they sounded like, but they they were good freebie headphones. I have heard the Ola, and there is no way Ola is on the same level as the other 4.3 IEMs on that list. Ola might be a good value, but is otherwise mediocre with early bass roll off. Mele is significantly better than Ola, despite your 4.0 ranking.
Another one that always jumps out at me, and I am not always a big EST fan, but the EJ07 in the same 5.2 group with the $100 DD sets has always surprised me. I know you are much bigger EJ07m fan, which I understand completely. Also the Moondrop Aria on the same level as the EJ07 seems odd. Having heard both, I don’t see them as equals in any way. I haven’t heard the MiM Dark Magician, but that is another one in the 5.2 group that raises eyebrows with many around here.
With most reviewers, I have a sense of what they like, but you seem to be randomly agnostic on tonal preference, which contributes to some of these hard to explain rankings. I expect some reviewers to like or dislike certain IEMs. The reviews that are the most useful were the ones that were against trend, but only when they have the explanation of why. Because I never have any idea what you will do, or more importantly why, your reviews don’t help me with purchase decisions.
I feel like the gangster in a game of Fizzbin
Interestingly, I have the same sense. Precog is one of the few reviewers who’s preferences are hard to grasp.
It almost seems like a review without allowing personal tuning preferences to color the ratings?
Also I know Crin’s tastes but tend to ignore his tone grades because… HRTF?
He seems case by case and hmm seems to not have a difinitive signature sound. He is somewhat difficult to read. I agree with you on that. Ant droid is easier to figure out Crin ? ? ?
Gotcha, I think I understand what you’re saying. It is true that I do not have a clear-cut preferred sound signature. I generally abide by the sentiment that “good sound is good sound”. More specifically, to me, there are good (and bad) interpretations of V-shaped tunings, U-shaped tunings, neutral tunings, bright tunings, etc. This is actually the same rationale behind Crinacle’s rankings - the idea being that 1) we’re trying to provide a more fair assessment of a given IEM, but 2), at least in my case, I truly do appreciate many flavors of tuning.
You bring up a good instance with the Ola vs. the Mele. In this case, I think that the Ola presents a better interpretation of a neutral-relaxed signature versus a bass-y signature. You cited the bass roll-off on the Ola; however, consider that the Mele rolls-off on the opposite end of the spectrum. To me, a bass-y IEM should (ideally) maintain decent treble extension which I don’t find to be the case with the Mele. It’s just too dark and bass-y, to the point of which I find it’s impeding the midrange. On the other hand, because the Ola has a more neutral tuning, the lack of bass extension isn’t something that triggers as many alarm bells. This is reflected in their rankings where the Mele does have a higher bass score, but its midrange and treble scores are lower than the Ola accordingly.
It’s a similar instance with the EJ07. It’s just too dark for me, to the point of which it’s hindering perceived resolution. On paper, and in the ear, the Aria just sounds like it has more treble presence. While the EJ07 does have better bass control and a more neutral midrange, it’s something along the lines of splitting that difference hence their rankings. To lend credence to consistency, you’ll notice that Crin also has these two sets ranked the exact same. And I would bet that he would rank the Ola around a C+ where the Mele is too. I have called his rankings in the past and am usually reasonably close.
Hope this helps clarify some of the rationale behind my rankings. Again, I can’t pretend to be entirely consistent and there are definitely IEMs in my list where, if I A/B-d them, I would probably shift around the rankings. But I think if you look at the bigger picture, the order in which we (Crin, Ant, and I) have ranked our IEMs and not just the scores, all three of us are actually fairly close to being on the same page. That’s why I thought that the IEMs that you brought up were actually great examples to illustrate what I’m talking about. I appreciate you taking the time to reply with an explanation of your criticism too!
This hobby is subjective. No one should be agreeing 100% of the time with any reviewer. There are people out there that bought the Pontiac Aztek after all, they looked at that that monstrosity and said “that’s the vehicle for me.” Reviewers are going to rank however they are going to rank.
Ranking is a silly exercise in itself when you have to decide what metrics and weights to use: Comfort, Tone, Technicalities, Build Quality, Looks, Bass, Treble, Mids, Price, Value, Preference. How much is too much. The rest of the reviewer’s day can affect what they say about a product or how much time they spend with it: don’t expect a lengthy review on something they don’t like. How hot and humid was it that day, how congested were they, how tired were their ears, were they having a good day? There are various subconscious biases at play.
A reviewer isn’t going to spend all month pulling 100 IEMs just to precisely place the right letter next to their review. They would have to reflow their ranking every other month if that were the case.
Due to unit variation, reviewers may not get the same unit that we eventually get. Some might get great channel balance for example. I would think manufacturer provided review samples would be binned a tad higher than any random pick off the shelf.
Ultimately, don’t judge a reviewer on how they rank something, instead judge their review by what they say about it, how they qualify and assess, the meat and potatoes of what they are trying to get across based on their unique perceptions. Don’t get upset because their two character summation wasn’t what you think it should be.
Make your own list–
I happen to think the NiceHCK EB2S (flathead earbud) is better than a pair of Vidos, even though I reglued the brass accent that fell off of my EB2S. But perhaps I will think differently if I drill a bass port hole through the Vidos, micropore tape one side, and toss on a Y2 filter.
That actually helps me a bunch.
I still don’t agree with you on some of those, but I better understand your criteria, which is really the missing piece. It is also means that we don’t prioritize the same things, when helps explain some of my confusion at times. We don’t need to agree, I just need to understand why we might not, so your review holds meaning to me.
I will always accept treble roll off, before bass. It is preferable to the overly energetic IEMs that have too much treble. Sibilance and too much treble are nearly the hallmark of chifi. I am also sure that my middle aged ears have a hard cutoff much lower than yours, so I probably don’t hear it as much even when it is done well.
