This and That:
The first generation q-JAYS in-ear was released several years ago and featured plastic shells and a slightly different tuning. The newer ones (that were also introduced some years ago) are still called q-JAYS but received a modernisation with shells made of metal, replaceable cables and a mild re-tuning, as well as a price increase.
Very premium unboxing experience.
High quality accessories. Sturdy and flat carrying case with good padding on the inside.
According to Jays, the tiny shells are made of metal (injection-moulded) that is then polished, sand-blasted and then coated using physical vapour deposition.
The shells' coating/surface appears highly resistant, durable and very premium to me, more so than my clearly more expensive Campfire Audio Andromeda's shells.
The threaded nozzle cap filter that prevents dirt and dust to enter the nozzles is removable and features 55 tiny honeycomb-shaped laser cut-outs within a diameter of (according to Jays) only two millimetres.
The cable is replaceable and features threaded SSMCX connectors to match the tiny shells. I highly applaud this choice as the connectors are therefore locked in place in contrast to regular MMCX ones and will therefore not see any wear.
Super supple, soft and flexible, with good strain relief. Definitely among the very best non-braided cables I've seen.
The only thing I have to criticise is that the side-markers (that only consist of one tiny grey strip on the right hand cable's connector that disappears when the cable is connected) are basically invisible.
On the optional mic/remote cable, the mic/remote unit is unfortunately sitting a bit high, so if one decides to route the cables around the ears, the mic/remote unit will hang just slightly below one's earlobe. The remote control is good though and the microphone that was used provides high speech intelligibility with clean and clear voices.
Dual-BA, two-way configuration using Knowles TWFK drivers.
Sound:
I'm only using the q-JAYS with low impedance sources as well as the largest included silicone tips:
Tonality:
Bright neutral would be a very fitting short description.
The bass together with the lower fundamentals is moderately lifted by ca. 4 dB in comparison to an in-ear with a diffuse-field flat bass, such as my Etymotic ER-4S/the ER-4SR. Compared to my Ultimate Ears Reference Monitors or InEar ProPhile 8, the q-JAYS have an about 1 dB stronger bass. Extension is flat into the sub-bass without any roll-off.
The mids appear neither distant nor intimate and sound tonally mostly correct. Past 1.5 kHz, the presence range decreases so the upper mids are mildly on the darker side, avoiding listening exhaustion.
Above 4 kHz, the level increases again and forms a narrow peak at 8.6 kHz in my ears that leads to some brightness but also a bit of sharpness; definitely not too much unlike my Campfire audio Andromeda.
Super treble extension past 10 kHz is definitely good.
- - -
That upper treble peak is definitely responsible for a generally bright tint in the highs, and also leads to some sharpness and a bit of metallicness (cymbals sound a bit artificial). Deep insertion does however help a bit and takes some of its sharpness. It would be however definitely still nicer if there were no upper treble peak (or a milder one) at all.
It doesn't bother me much as I'm using the q-JAYS with deep insertion and generally listen at fairly low volume, however I am definitely not using the Swedish in-ear as a stationary in-ear monitor but only as a portable one.
Resolution:
The detail reproduction is good for the price.
Detail levels in the mids and highs are good with clean note separation and high speech intelligibility.
The BA woofer is vented which can be a hit or miss, depending on the implementation (it leads to more bass quantity and better extension compared to if the woofer were sealed, however also softens the lows). In case of the q-JAYS, I can confidently say that the implementation is of the better sort, with lows that are, as expected from a good BA implementation, fast, precise, tight and with high control, although compared to other in-ears that are using small BA woofers without any venting, there is a mild audible difference (the attack on fast and buys tracks is slightly less tight and the decay slightly longer in comparison). That said, the lows definitely beat my InEar StageDiver SD-2 (an in-ear that is using a vented BA woofer as well, however its implementation is on the softer and slower side (for BA standards, as it still beats most dynamic driver implementations)) in terms of speed and tightness.
Spatial Presentation:
Good soundstage that is quite round and on the larger side. Bit behind my UERMs', SD-2's or Pai Audio MR3's soundstage in terms of three-dimensionality and realism, but not that far behind. Beats several other similarly-priced in-ears in the soundstage department (size and three-dimensionality), such as my Logitech/Ultimate Ears UE900, Westone W4R, Fischer Amps FA-3E and Earsonics ES3.
Good portrayal of spatial depth that carries about 80% of the lateral dimensions. Generally slightly more forward-projection feeling (in the audience versus on stage).
Precise instrument separation and placements.
- - - - - - - - -
Compared to other Dual-BA In-Ears:
Apple Dual-BA In-Ear:
The Apple in-ear sounds bassier and warmer (ca. 4 dB more quantity), with the darker upper treble.
That the q-JAYS uses the same driver for the upper frequencies can be heard (as far as I know, the Apple in-ear uses a modified version of the TWFK with the same tweeter but a different woofer), as the Apple IEM has got a treble resolution that comes very close to the Jays’, though it is a bit less differentiated and refined in comparison. What the ADDIEM does really well in the highs is in contrast to its lows – the mids and lows can’t keep up with the Jays’ and that’s quite noticeable when comparing both IEMs directly. The q-JAYS is audibly clearly better resolving in the mids as well as lows and unveils more details, plus its bass is tighter and faster than the Apple's as well.
In terms of soundstage and coherence, the q-JAYS also takes the lead, with the more precise instrument separation as well as soundstage reproduction and the more cohesive sound in general.
Shure SE425:
The SE425 wins in terms of absolute neutrality, though it is more mid-centric and has got the obviously inferior treble extension; the q-JAYS' upper treble is noticeably brighter whereas the Shure's is a little on the darker side.
I think the Shure is a good dual-BA in-ear at a reduced price but not at its full retail price/MSRP, as there are some better alternatives available for that money, and so it is not too surprising that the q-JAYS outperforms the SE425 in terms of resolution. In the mids, treble as well as bass, the Swedish in-ear outputs more details while the Shure sounds "restricted"/a bit cloudy. The Shure has got a closed BA woofer and as a result of this the quicker and tighter bass in comparison, but the Jays has got the more detailed lows and is still far away from being slow or soft sounding.
The Shure has got a very small soundstage whereas the Jays' is more open, with the more precise instrument separation and, as a consequence of the larger size, better instrument placement.
InEar StageDiver SD-2:
The SD-2 has got ca. 1 dB more bass quantity and sounds a bit warmer. The SD-2 sounds generally warmer and thicker in comparison. Its mids are a bit more intimate; its upper mids aren't as relaxed as the Jays' but more neutral, present. While the SD-2 is generally a little on the darker side in the treble (although very evenly tuned in the highs), the q-JAYS has a bright upper treble peak.
Both in-ears’ resolution doesn’t differ much, although I would say the SD-2 is slightly better resolving in the (upper) mids, whereas the q-JAYS is a bit better differentiated in the highs and rest of the midrange, although also somewhat less realistic in the highs. The Jays’ back-venting for the woofer is done better, as the q-JAYS is tighter, faster sounding in the bass and also features the somewhat higher control in the lows with fast music.
The DS-2’s soundstage is very holographic and has features great, realistic layering. The Jays' is a bit less airy and spacious, though not too far behind.
In terms of authenticity and soundstage, the SD-2 is somewhat ahead, while the q-JAYS resolves a bit better and sounds cleaner and tighter compared to the InEar that is somewhat heading into the soft direction.
Conclusion:
Great build and cable; unfortunately pretty much invisible side indicators. Fairly neutral with some sharpness/lacking a bit of realism in the upper highs that can definitely be bothersome (one will perceive it either as "clarity" or "too much brightness/sharpness", or sometimes something in-between). Good resolution and soundstage.