This and That:
Comes with three pairs of silicone tips and a manual but no case/pouch.
Excellent cable, which is rather rare in this price range.
Soft silicone tips that don't appear off-the-shelf.
Sound:
My main source for listening was the iBasso DX200 (standard AMP1 module).
I only used the included silicone tips (largest size) for listening, evaluations and comparisons.
Tonality:
People searching for a typical consumer-oriented sound signature should look away immediately – because that’s what the EN120 will definitely not give them. Instead, it aims for a neutral sound signature (and by neutral, I really mean neutral and flat, as in having diffuse-field neutral tendencies).
Compared to an in-ear that is diffuse-field flat in the lows, such as the Etymotic ER-4S/SR, the EN120 has got around 3 dB more low-frequency quantity, which means that it has got pretty much the same amount of bass as my also quite neutral Ultimate Ears Reference Monitors and a bit less than the Etymotic ER-4XR.
Extension into the sub-bass is not lacking but as the EARNiNE is quite neutral in the lows, it will logically not have the same impact and slam as other in-ears.
The mids are neutral and flat. The presence range, unlike Etymotic’s in-ears, has no moderate lift wherefore the EN120 won’t be as critical with non-ideally mastered recordings, however just like the UERM that have a comparable midrange timbre, it will be more critical and revealing than many other in-ears that have a more forgiving, somewhat recessed presence range.
The highs are perceived to be a bit more on the brighter side – which is mainly due to a resonance between 6 and 7 kHz, which is the in-ear’s only tuning flaw. This resonance does two things: 1) it accentuates male singer’s overtones, giving them a slightly leaner and airier “afterglow”/colouration, and 2) gives cymbals and ride cymbals a more direct, more metallic and somewhat sharp attack and also accentuates violins as well as some electronically generated sounds. Usually, despite it is at least 5 dB too strong, it won’t be perceived as too bothersome (as long as you are not rather treble-sensitive in general) or unpleasant, but can be a bit too sharp with some electronically generated sounds, which is somewhat sad. Inserting the in-ears deeper into one’s ears might help a little though.
Above that, the highs are neutral again, with a (slightly lesser) peak around 12 kHz and good extension up until 14 kHz.
- - -
So to summarise how the EN120 sounds, I would just mostly write down what I had written in my initial impressions: balanced, clear, clean, really nicely neutral sound with a somewhat bright touch around probably 6 kHz. If it weren't for that resonance, it would be pretty much perfect when it comes to tuning.
Resolution:
The EN120 doesn’t fully have the “character” of an inexpensive single-BA in-ear, however it does have the typically excellent coherency that you would expect from it.
Unlike other inexpensive single-BA in-ears that appear subjectively more mid-focussed even though they don’t lack bass and treble extension at all, the EN120 sounds more “complete” in comparison – not really like a typical inexpensive single-BA in-ear (not entirely different but you hear that it it’s not the same character).
Resolution is a good bit higher when comparing the EN120 to several other convincing single-BA in-ears in its price range. Overall, EARNiNE’s most recent single-(W)BA in-ear is, when it comes to resolution, definitely closer to the Etymotic-territory than what it is actually selling for (however it doesn’t entirely reach Etymotic’s ER-4 series models’ resolution and is a round half a class behind).
The resolution distribution is really good – no area lacks really behind, the speech intelligibility is high with small details rendered nicely, good separation in the highs and a tight and quick bass.
The only things the EN120 struggles with are the very low frequencies (real sub-bass (< 40 Hz) and lower midbass (~ 60 Hz)) where the in-ear lacks some definition and details. There really is no flaw in terms of tightness and speed in the sub-bass but when a recording goes really low, the sub-bass and lower midbass sound a bit undefined and almost one-noted.
- - -
Summarised, one could say that you get more than you pay for.
Soundstage:
The EN120 manages to sound fairly spacious and open – a cramped or small soundstage is definitely not what the single-BA in-ear from EARNiNE delivers.
Width is surprisingly nice, along with a spatial depth presentation that has got about 60% of the width’s expansion, making the soundstage overall more oval than circular to my ears.
Separation and imaging are pretty good. There is some air between and around instruments, but not that much and not with the same precision as from spatially more precise multi-BA in-ear models.
---------
In Comparison with other In-Ears:
Etymotic ER-4XR (>>$):
The much more expensive Etymotic features replaceable cables while both in-ears are using metal housings. The Ety is however designed to go deeper into the ear canal.
The ER-4XR has got a bit more bass than the EARNiNE – around 2 dB to be precise wherefore it carries somewhat more weight and impact in comparison.
Midrange timbre is about comparable, but the Ety is even less forgiving with bad recordings due to its more forward presence area.
Unlike the Ety, the EN120 has got a resonance around 6 kHz which makes its highs somewhat brighter and sometimes sharper. As a result, the ER-4XR features the more even, more realistic and more authentic treble response in comparison.
The Etymotic has got the better sub-bass definition and more details in the lower bass. Speed and tightness in the midbass and upper bass are where the EARNiNE is very slightly superior.
The Ety’s midrange is a bit more detailed and layered.
The Ety has got the somewhat cleaner treble separation.
Other than the lower bass, both in-ears are quite close in terms of detail retrieval while the ER-4XR is ultimately still superior by about half a class (maybe a tad less).
The EARNiNE has got the slightly wider soundstage while the Ety’s is deeper and more circular.
The Ety manages to create a bit more air around and between instruments while imaging and soundstage separation are overall very close.
Brainwavz B150 (≈>$):
While the EN120 can be worn both with the cables guided around the ears as well as traditionally with the cables down, the B150 is strictly designed for the former, more professional wearing method. While the EARNiNE is using metal housings, the Brainwavz’ are manufactured from plastic and don’t feature the same cable quality.
The B150 is more pronounced in the bass and warmer in the lower midrange.
The B150 is warmer in the mids.
The B150 has got the more relaxed, recessed treble and more forgiving, somewhat recessed presence range.
I would describe the Brainwavz’ treble as a bit more natural.
The B150 has got the somewhat better sub-bass definition and texture – but other than that, it is the EARNiNE that is more advanced in terms of technical quality.
The EN120 has got the tighter and faster bass while the Brainwavz’ feels more dynamic due to the somewhat softer character. Both are similar in terms of control though.
The EARNiNE is more detailed and resolving in the midrange and treble.
The Brainwavz has got the deeper soundstage while the EARNiNE’s is wider and features the somewhat more precise separation and imaging.
Conclusion:
If it weren't for that one, rather sharp treble resonance, the EARNiNE EN120 would be an inexpensive yet almost perfectly neutral single-BA in-ear with great technical strengths for the little price (its somewhat lacking sub-bass definition (not quantity) is its only technical flaw) as well as a fantastic cable.