Sound:
Main listening source: iBasso DX200 (AMP1 module).
I used the largest included single-flange silicone tips for listening.
Tonality:
Tonality is, frankly, quite weird – from the sub-bass to the upper midrange, everything is fine and the LUF-BA1 takes on a rather neutral approach with a little added warmth, not unlike my InEar StageDiver SD-2 that also boasts ca. 5 dB more of what a diffuse-field flat bass response (Etymotic ER4SR/S) would look like.
The LEAR’s presence range is somewhat boosted in relation to the following highs wherefore its midrange, while with a rather natural vocal timbre, can become somewhat exhausting/tiresome over time. However, above 5 kHz lays its major flaw: it is clearly recessed and sounds dark in the upper central and upper highs. And just this combination is what makes it quite weird sounding.
- - -
As mentioned, the bass and lower midrange is a bit more on the warmer side, just like the InEar SD-2’s, but with a boost of ca. 5 dB compared to a strictly diffuse-field flat in-ear in the bass, so up to the midrange, the LEAR can still be considered as basically quite neutral with a bit of added lower midrange warmth. Extension into the sub-bass is flat without any roll-off on the LEAR (and also SD-2).
It’s certainly a well-made and natural bass implementation.
The LUF-BA1’s midrange timbre is relatively realistic and neutral for the most part – there’s a bit of added warmth in the lower mids, and some added proximity due to a lifted upper presence range around 3.6 kHz to 4 kHz (higher voices aren’t on the lean, bright or thin side, however they can unfortunately appear somewhat nasal at times) that makes the midrange appear quite intimate in the mix.
That presence range lift by the way doesn’t only make voices sound quite intimate, but it also makes the LUF-BA1 become quite unforgiving to bad recordings.
The major problem the in-ear has can however be found in the central and upper treble – above 5 kHz, there just isn’t much going on anymore but a quite strong recession, resulting in a dark and dull treble response. Cymbals lack glare (they are generally lacking), and the presentation clearly lacks airiness and appears quite constrained.
It’s not that the driver wouldn’t be capable of delivering good treble presence and extension – sine sweeps and EQ tweaks clearly show that it definitely does. It’s just a tuning choice that has turned out to be (really) bad: since the majority above 5 kHz is lacking about 10 dB and more (which means that the highs are only half as loud as the rest), the treble just lacks perceived extension, air and has got a dull, lacking feeling to it.
- - -
The lacking central and upper treble can be fixed quite easily with an EQ that doesn’t distort (or, even better, with an EQ that lets you lower everything below 5 kHz evenly, but most portable devices’ EQs don’t and will only lower rather narrow bands, resulting in a wonky response instead of even lowering/level drop). Then, but only then, the LUF-BA1 can become a beautifully sounding in-ear that doesn’t lack extension, air and treble presence at all. But why would you want to bother with that when there are alternatives available that don't have this major flaw in the treble... This in-ear basically just lacks everything above 5 kHz.
Resolution:
The LUF-BA1 doesn’t lack resolution though – as expected for a good single-driver BA in-ear, it sounds very coherent, has got great speech intelligibility as well as midrange resolution, good note separation and a tight bass with good control.
The bass of the LUF-BA1 is an interesting area – it obviously belongs to a Balanced Armature in-ear in terms of speed and control, but is overall a bit more on the softer and textured side wherefore it has got a slightly dynamic driver touch to it, although just to a small extent.
The highs are clearly recessed, so there isn’t much to separate to begin with. Increasing the lacking highs using an EQ, the LEAR shows that its driver is definitely capable of reproducing well-separated and detailed highs. But instead it is tuned for a recessed, subdued treble response…
Soundstage:
The soundstage is quite circular with a good front-rear projection, but ultimately on the smaller side of average, not unlike that of my Shure SE425 with maybe a touch more width and a little less depth.
Due to its tuning, the LUF-BA1 can reproduce an intimate recording well and very close to the listener, but with good layering at the same time.
Separation is good, but doesn’t really stand out due to the quite limited soundstage dimensions.
---------
In Comparison with other Single-BA In-Ears:
Etymotic ER3XR:
Both have got quite similar midbass and sub-bass levels, however the LEAR is somewhat fuller/warmer sounding in the lower midrange and sometimes appears a bit nasal in the upper mids. The Ety is, as a result, flatter and more neutral in the mids.
The LUF-BA1 is more forward in the upper presence range wherefore it sounds more exhausting and has got the more intimate vocal area.
Above 5 kHz, level on the LEAR is quite recessed and clearlyl lacking whereas the Ety sounds mostly neutral with just a touch of relaxation.
In terms of tonality, the Ety clearly and easily wins due to its more realistic tuning above the midrange.
The ER3XR has got the slightly tighter bass in comparison whereas the LEAR’s appears a bit more “dynamic” due to being a little softer.
Midrange resolution is comparable, but the Ety ultimately features the cleaner presentation and separation.
The Ety’s soundstage is somewhat larger and a bit more precise.
Brainwavz B150:
The B150 sounds a bit fuller, bassier and warmer than the LUF-BA1 that however extends flatter into the sub-bass.
The B150 has got the more relaxed presence range compared to the LEAR’s more elevated one that creates a more intimate presentation but also makes it sound more exhausting.
The B150 doesn’t lack treble presence past 5 kHz whereas the LEAR does.
The LEAR’s bass is very slightly tighter and faster but control is quite similar.
Otherwise, resolution is comparable as well with probably just a very slight advantage for the LEAR in the mids.
The Brainwavz has got the superior treble separation because there isn’t much actual treble coming from the LEAR to begin with (both are however comparable if you boost the LUF-BA1’s highs using an EQ).
The Brainwavz has got the larger, more open soundstage while spatial precision is more or less on the same level.
Conclusion:
The LEAR LUF-BA1 is ultimately a failure as it doesn't sound balanced due to clearly lacking everything above 5 kHz.