This and That:
Plenty of accessories. Rather bad cable (inferior to the UPQ Q-Music QE80's cable, an in-ear that is the OEM of the Fidue A83, the A85's predecessor).
More ergonomically shaped than the A91 Sirius.
Dual-bore sound channeling. Front- and rear-vented dynamic driver.
Included storage/carrying case opens too easily.
Sound:
Only low impedance sources were used with the A85 Virgo.
The ear tips that were used for listening were the largest included single-flange silicone tips.
Tonality:
The A85 has got two vents on the inside – a small front cavity vent, and a larger, split vent for the rear cavity. If you are rather unlucky and the front cavity vent remains fully open, which is however rather unlikely due to the general anatomy of our ears, the lows will be basically flat and neutral. In case of the A85 that picks up on the A83’s/QE80’s general brightness, that’s probably not the best thing that could happen.
All impressions below are noted with the front cavity vent fully blocked, as it naturally happens in most ears.
The A85 picks up on the A83’s/QE80’s general brightness and more treble-oriented tuning, however it certainly does several things differently and is therefore a rather strong "facelift" on the inside, too, and not only on the outside.
Differences are for example an unfortunately stronger upper midrange focus with a lesser dip around 5 kHz, along with reduced upper treble brightness, coming along with a leaner lower midrange and fundamental range compared to its predecessor and a stronger sub-bass focus in contrast to the QE80 that was rather midbass-oriented and had a bit of warmth in the lower midrange and fundamental range.
Starting in the lows, they peak in the sub-bass with around 12 dB north of a diffuse-field oriented bass like that of the Etymotic ER-4S/SR, leaving the focus mainly on the lower bass, and around 8 dB in the midbass that still has a nice thump but blends in nicely.
The bass decreases nicely from the sub-bass towards the lower midrange/fundamental range and there is already no elevation anymore around 300 kHz. What Fidue have achieved here really is a bass presentation that has got a nice, energetic low bass thump if the recording calls for it, however without bleeding into the lower midrange and lower instruments that don’t gain much additional body.
Where the A85 unfortunately struggles quite audibly is the midrange – it has got a broad dip in the root and lower midrange (between around 300 and 900 Hz), which leads to (especially) male vocals clearly lacking body and becoming thin sounding. This is unfortunately even more emphasised by the gradually climbing lower treble/upper midrange emphasis, something that is definitely not uncommon among several Asian in-ears, but doesn’t really suit the A85 since it just makes the midrange lack even more body than it already does, resulting in an artificially thin sounding vocal presentation. The midrange’s timbre is therefore both objectively and also subjectively clearly too lean and too unnatural.
The QE80 has also had an elevated upper midrange and therefore a slightly greater focus on female vocals and airiness (= a brightness-oriented midrange colouration), however it had yet enough lower midrange presence and warmth to make the central frequency range appear balanced and still more or less natural when listening to music (the same goes for iBasso's IT03). This is unfortunately what the Virgo lacks, especially with male voices.
Sometimes this midrange tuning can work, but most of the time the timbre comes across as clearly too thin and artificial. Violins and pianos are therefore on the thinner side of the spectrum as well, although not to the degree the vocal range is, especially with male vocals.
Subjectively, I wouldn’t even say that the added brightness in instruments such as violins is all that bothering – if you accept that this area is more on the coloured side, the presentation can even become quite emotional and, dare I say, slightly “spectacular”. However, also subjectively, although I am tolerant, the timbre with (especially male) voices is clearly just too much off to really be enjoyable. Yes, you can get used to that and it might sound exciting at first, but the important midrange is ultimately just too unnatural to cut it in the long term.
Other than that critical midrange faux pas, the treble is implemented really well – apart from just a small 5 kHz dip, the highs that are undeniably somewhat on the brighter side as well although not to the extent of becoming artificial or too bright, as they are mostly even, without any audible peaks and great extension in the super treble past 10 kHz, making them therefore overall a bit more even than the DUNU DK-3001’s upper end presentation (however the DUNU has got the superior important midrange realism and balance in comparison - so I'd ultimately pick the DK-3001 over the A85, but also just if I had to since the DUNU is also more on the gimmicky side when it comes to sound).
Due to that even and harmonious treble delivery, high notes never come across as harsh, sharp, too splashy (unless one is generally sensitive to elevated highs) or peaky. This is the refinement that a bright sounding in-ear is supposed to have in the highs. But then there's the midrange that ruins all of this...
Resolution:
Resolution is very good and the A85 doesn’t have anything one wouldn’t want from a hybrid in-ear in this price range – great and speedy retrieval of fine midrange details with good speech intelligibility, precise and sharp note separation in the highs and in general, and a bass that can definitely be recognised as a dynamic driver bass but is nicely integrated with good details as well as control and just the right amount of decay to make it appear “natural” instead of “slow”. Basically those attributes one likely wishes to find in a good hybrid in-ear.
The bass doesn’t have the speed and tightness of most Balanced Armature woofer implementations, but most people who buy hybrid in-ears know this and don't even want that BA character.
The A85 doesn’t struggle with control at all but delivers a bottom-end that can keep up with faster tracks quite well despite being a little on the slower side in terms of attack and decay, nonetheless muddiness is not present but instead there is some nice texture, although not to the same extent as the DUNU DK-3001 or (much) more expensive HiFiman RE2000 are able to deliver. The lows are still really nice though, and with audibly improved tightness compared to the QE80.
Thanks to its good resolution in the highs, the A85 Virgo is also able to pull off the added brightness in the upper range quite effortlessly and easily (which however doesn’t improve the midrange timbre of course).
Soundstage:
The A85 has got a pretty wide soundstage base that is close to touching my shoulders’ outer edges. Depth is also present, although just about 60% compared to the width.
Separation, placement and layering are pretty clean and have definitely improved somewhat compared to the QE80.
---------
In Comparison with other Hybrid Triple-Driver In-Ears:
iBasso IT03:
The Virgo has got the more pronounced sub- and midbass but lacks some warmth in the fundamental range – the IT03 is just more accurate between 300 Hz and 2 kHz in comparison and has got the better midrange balance, despite having a sub-bass focused bass presentation too, and despite having an elevated upper midrange as well that however isn’t as thin and bright as the Fidue’s and therefore a good bit more natural and less artificial in comparison.
The Virgo’s treble is brighter but overall more linearly tuned, avoiding the iBasso's occasional sharpness/edginess.
In terms of detail retrieval, I see the Virgo as slightly above the IT03, sounding overall a little cleaner. Bass speed is where the IT03 still slightly wins though, as this has always been its forte.
The Virgo’s soundstage is somewhat wider while depth is comparable.
Instrument placement is pretty much similarly precise on both in-ears with the Virgo having a slight advantage in terms of separation due to its soundstage's wider base.
UPQ Q-music QE80 (Fidue A83 OEM):
When it comes to aesthetics and build quality, the Virgo definitely appears like a much more premium and modern product. The QE80’s cable is a bit nicer and more flexible though.
The Virgo has got the somewhat stronger sub-bass and lower midbass, giving it a presentation that comes more from “down low”. The Virgo is however also leaner in the fundamental range and lower midrange, and therefore lacks the countervailing lower midrange warmth that the QE80 has to somewhat balance out the upper midrange elevation. Therefore the QE80 sounds more balanced and harmonious in the midrange in comparison.
Treble linearity has improved with the Virgo that sounds even more coherent here, and while it is still on the brighter side, it sounds tamer in the upper highs.
When it comes to the technical level, the Virgo seems like a step up, which is mainly because it sounds somewhat cleaner overall, with improved note separation and tightness. Pure resolution is higher too, but I would mainly say that the cleaner general presentation is what makes the Virgo appear more refined.
While the QE80 has got more bass body, the Virgo’s lows are tighter and feature the somewhat higher control with more complex and faster tracks.
In terms of soundstage, the Virgo offers a bit more spatial width but doesn’t fully have the QE80’s spatial depth and resulting openness or front projection. Instrument separation has improved though wherefore the soundstage appears cleaner overall.
Conclusion:
On the technical level, the Fidue A85 Virgo appears like a good in-ear that shows improvements compared to its predecessor. When it comes to tuning though, the A83's successor is quite a failure in the important midrange that is just way too unnatural.