This and That:
Beautiful and unique design. I really love the design of the CNC-milled faceplates with the deep Noble Audio logo and the honeycomb structure. Nice glittery metallic look on the other half of the shells that consist of plastic and feel good.
Clear flaw for the price: the shells' halves aren't perfectly joint and one can see a small gap, which is quite a shame in this price range. Also, some of the ear tips still have some silicone residue from the moulding machine (rather easy to remove but shouldn't be the case at this price point either).
Comes with many accessories and a proper hard case storage box.
The cable consists of twisted conductors but is a bit less supple than comparable cables (somewhat comparable to the cable of the iBasso IT03). The mouldable memory wire ear guides are unfortunately quite short; they should've been longer.
Four BA drivers, dual-bore nozzle design.
Sound:
I'm only using the Savanna with low impedance sources.
For listening, I'm only using the largest included silicone tips with the red stem.
Tonality:
Pretty neutral and uncoloured tonality with nothing sticking out or being left out. Quite "boring", "flat" and "sterile", but meant in a good way (somewhat reminiscent of Etymotic). Accurate but not exhausting.
Continuing with my subjective observations when listening to music first, what I am hearing overall is a very uncoloured, neutral, fairly flat and very balanced sound. Nothing sticks out, there are no peaks and all of the frequency bands are very nicely connected, creating a really good coherency.
The bass isn’t as flat as that of my Etymotic ER-4S/the ER4SR that I regard as the in-ear that comes closest to my sense of neutrality and the diffuse-field compensation target, however it is very neutral indeed and has around the same quantity as the UERM/UERR and my InEar ProPhile 8 and Shure SE425 in the lows, which are some in-ears that are also pretty flat and neutral in the bass, and so is the Savanna.
Saying that, the Savanna’s lows are also somewhat less “emphasised” and therefore more neutral than that of my Fischer Amps FA-3E, Pai Audio MR3 or InEar StageDiver SD-2 (the latter is reportedly using the same drivers as the Westone W2/20 and Audio Technica ATH-IM02 and also sounds quite identical according to several people), all three being in-ears that are known for sounding balanced/natural/neutral-ish too.
What I am however also hearing is that the bass is a bit rolling off towards the sub-bass, which I wouldn't want at this price point.
The midrange sounds pretty much spot-on neutral without any colouration, warmth or brightness and makes vocals therefore sound correct and realistic.
What I am hearing then is a slightly recessed presence range and then central treble, which does exactly what the description on the back of the package says – it makes less well recorded songs and albums appear somewhat better tolerable, however there is no real audible dip or whatsoever here. As a side-effect though, the treble then also might sound smoother and vocals a little more relaxed (not to be mistaken with “recessed” which it isn’t), which on one hand reduces listening fatigue but on the other hand can also lead to some edginess and rawness being missed at times, however the Savanna avoids these things pretty well and delivers a great balance between just moderate smoothness and very high tonal evenness.
In the upper middle and upper highs, level is back to neutral levels again and maybe just very slightly below flat line. What is very nice here is that the treble sounds natural and lacks edginess, peaks or sharpness but sounds highly coherent and even. This is quite an achievement as many in-ears in this price range and even regardless of price do still have some peaks or narrow dips.
Moving on to the sine sweeps, I hear the lows’ “emphasis” (compared to an extremely flat in-ear like my ER-4S) to start around 450 Hz, then reaching its climax (with ca. 3.5 dB more level than the ER-4S and just minimally more perceived impact than my UERM) around 220 Hz. The level remains consistent down to 70 Hz and starts rolling off towards 20 Hz from there on, however the Savanna’s lower midbass and sub-bass are slightly more present than those of the SE425. So yeah, just like the SE425, the Savanna is a bit quieter in the sub-bass than in the midbass (but it's definitely still audible).
Between 1.5 and 5 kHz, I hear the treble being in the background and then coming back to normal levels after 5 kHz, with a neutral level up to 12.5 kHz which is then gently rolling off towards 15 kHz.
Just as during my regular and critical listening, what I can hear here too when doing sine sweeps is that the treble and sound in general is highly coherent, neutral, natural and lacks any peaks or narrow dips but is very close to a neutral but unobtrusive target.
Besides the great tonal balance and neutral orientation, what really leaves a very positive impression is the treble that comes very (!) close to the evenness and realism of the ER-4S but with a slightly smoother and less analytical/sterile approach, which is something only few in-ears manage to achieve (the UERR and my ProPhile 8 do, but my UERM don't). If I were nitpicky, the only thing I could criticise is that cymbals may decay probably a little too fast.
- - -
So in short, a neutral, natural, realistic sounding in-ear that sounds very even but not exhausting. Only the sub-bass could be a little more present as it's a bit quieter compared to the midbass.
Resolution:
Detail retrieval does definitely live up to the price tag and is also somewhat higher than that of my UE900 that I consider to be a good in-ear around $400 (however the UE doesn’t have the best mids). So, I would say that on the technical side, it is comparable to my Westone W4R that is however clearly tuned for a very different tonal approach and presents things such as the soundstage differently.
The in-ear isn't masking anything but also not setting accents as there are literally no peaks, narrow dips or whatsoever – this is just like what a nicely tuned, pretty neutral in-ear should sound like.
The mids, treble and bass are detailed and sound very realistic as everything is presented very authentically. And just as described on the package, the SAVANNA is a little more forgiving with badly recorded or mastered music without sounding too smooth or candy-coated, which is achieved by the somewhat recessed presence range. So while it isn’t the rawest and “hey, this part of the recording is badly mastered and so I make it unlistenable for you” in-ear, it doesn’t mask recording flaws (as my Audeze LCD-X somewhat does due to its tuning).
Midrange details and speech intelligibility are high.
Also, the Savanna doesn’t have any problems at all with busy or fast recordings.
The treble is nicely detailed, realistic and still smooth. If I were hyper critical, I would say cymbals decay a slight bit too fast, which is however still better than if they were too metallic or artificial.
The bass is detailed, fast and very well controlled, however it is not the quickest among BA-based in-ears. It isn’t yet as tight and fast as let’s say the W4R’s, UERMs' or MR3’s bass, however it is (thankfully) also not as soft and “slow” as the FA-4E XB’s or SD-2’s bass that I personally find a bit too soft for BA standards while it is still faster than most good dynamic driver in-ears’ bass. So for me, the Savanna’s lows do still have good speed and tightness while I personally still wouldn’t mind if they were a smidgen tighter.
What I would say is that the Savanna’s lows don’t sound unlike a very well-made back-vented BA woofer’s bass (UE900 and FA-3E for example) and are therefore just a little softer than some other BA in-ears but just as well controlled as them (I don't think that the Savanna's woofers are back-vented, but rather that larger BA woofers are used that are often a little softer than small double-woofers but can also create a slightly better perception of impact and body).
Soundstage:
The SAVANNA’s soundstage is very nice.
It expands quite nicely to the sides and also has got a really good amount of spatial depth, wherefore it sounds more three-dimensional and authentic than some other multi-BA in-ears’ soundstages in this price range that often lack some spatial depth.
Overall, it sounds very authentic, realistic and is good when it comes to displaying directional cues or layering. So yes, it is definitely among the best multi-BA in-ears’ soundstages in its price range and more authentic and three-dimensional than let’s say that of my W4R, FA-4E XB, FA-3E, UE900, while it is only slightly beat by my SD-2’s stage that sounds minimally more authentic but doesn’t handle quick recordings as well as the Noble, or by my MR3 that creates a little more empty space between instruments but has got a little less spatial depth.
---------
In Comparison with other Single- and Multi-BA In-Ears:
Logitech/Ultimate Ears UE900:
The UE900 has got slightly more bass quantity but it extends to the sub-bass without any roll-off (flatter, more linear sub-bass). The UE has got the slightly skewed and warm-ish vocals in comparison and less presence range quantity. In the treble, the Savanna is more even and lacks any peaks whereas the UE900 has got a slight peak in the upper highs. So overall, the Noble’s tonality is more realistic.
When it comes to overall details, both have the about similarly detailed bass and about same bass speed and details. In the mids and treble however, the Savanna is somewhat more resolving.
The UE’s soundstage is a bit wider but less deep and has got the less precise layering while both have comparable separation to the sides.
Fischer Amps FA-3E:
The FA-3E has got slightly more bass quantity that however extends flatter without any roll-off towards the sub-bass. In the mids, both have about the same timbre while the FA-3E sounds just a little more distant.
Both are comparably somewhat smooth/”recessed” in the presence range and middle treble but the distribution of this appears a bit more even on the Savanna.
In the upper treble, the Fischer Amps sounds brighter whereas the Savanna decays quicker here (maybe a little too quickly) and is more neutral/even.
So the triple-driver has got the less even frequency response in the highs than the quad-driver from Noble Audio (at least in comparison, as on its own, the FA-3E doesn't have any flaws but is my choice for portable neutrality rather than stationary neutrality).
In the bass, the FA-3E is minimally quicker/tighter while both are equally controlled. In the treble and mids however, the Savanna appears somewhat more detailed.
When it comes to soundstage, the SAVANNA’s extends more to the sides and depth and while both have got a comparable separation to the sides with a small advantage for the quad-driver, and so the Noble’s layering is somewhat more precise, too.
Shure SE425:
The Shure has got the very slightly lighter bass (by ca. 0.5 dB) that also starts rolling off slightly earlier. In the mids, the SE425 is somewhat more forward and mid-centric sounding. The SE425 has got the more forward presence range. In the treble, the Shure starts rolling off noticeably earlier, wherefore cymbals sound quite muffled on it.
The Shure has got the very minimally quicker upper bass punch, however its bass isn’t as layered or detailed as the Savanna’s. And also in the mids and treble, the Shure is no match for the Savanna and sounds more veiled and just doesn’t reach the Noble’s resolution and fine details.
Regarding soundstage, the Noble’s isn’t only larger in all dimensions but also considerably more realistic and precise.
InEar StageDiver SD-2:
The SD-2’s bass is slightly more present but also extends flatter into the real sub-bass.
Overall, the SD-2 sounds somewhat warmer in the mids and has got the more forward presence range but is overall still darker in the treble. In the upper treble however, the SD-2 has got a narrow “peak” (well, it isn’t really a peak as it is still below ground line). The SD-2 displays cymbals a little more realistically, however the Noble is even a little more even sounding in the highs, which is quite remarkable as the SD-2 already belongs to the most even sounding in-ears in the highs. So regarding tonality, the Savanna sounds somewhat more authentic and realistic and lacks the SD-2's "thickness" and warmth in comparison.
The Savanna is somewhat tighter, quicker and a bit less soft sounding in the bass, however not by very much. Nonetheless, it remains somewhat better controlled with busy and quick tracks. In the mids and treble, the Noble is a bit more detailed and a bit cleaner, too.
The Noble’s stage is about similarly wide and deep as the SD-2’s. The latter’s stage sounds more authentic by a smidgen while the SAVANNA has got the slightly more precise separation and layering.
Pai Audio MR3:
The MR3 has got the slightly more present bass that however also extends flatter into the real sub-bass with pretty much no roll-off.
In the mids, the Pai sounds a little more distant and slightly thinner in comparison.
The Pai has got the more present middle and upper treble and sounds less even and realistic in the highs; its cymbals are slightly metallic.
Regarding bass, the MR3’s is a bit tighter and faster in comparison while both in-ears are equally controlled here. In the mids and treble, while there is definitely no night and day difference between both and the MR3 doesn’t make it obvious in the sound that there is a ~ $300 price difference between both, the Savanna has got the slightly higher resolution nonetheless and sounds especially more realistic and even in the treble, making its overall presentation more authentic and natural.
Both in-ears have got an about similar soundstage width with the Savanna having a bit more spatial depth. Both have similar layering and separation precision but the MR3 creates a little more air around instruments.
Etymotic Research ER-4S:
The ER-4S is even flatter overall and does not show any low-range emphasis according to the diffuse-field compensation target. Here, the SAVANNA has got ca. 3.5 dB more bass compared to the Ety while still sounding quite neutral.
The ER-4S has got a very mildly lifted presence range, making it less forgiving with bad recordings. The Ety’s middle treble isn’t slightly in the background as the Savanna’s but spot-on neutral to my ears.
In the upper treble, the Ety has got the more realistic decay and attack with cymbals that decay a little too quickly on the Noble.
When it comes to treble evenness, the Savanna, while being more relaxed and smoother in comparison, manages to sound about as even as the ER-4S.
The Savanna’s soundstage is somewhat wider and deeper with comparable precision.
Ultimate Ears Reference Monitors:
The UERM have got the very very minimally less present bass (the difference is only around 0.5 dB) that however extends flat into the real sub-bass while the Savanna rolls a bit off here.
In the midrange, both have got a comparable timbre and level, but the UE have got the somewhat more present and not really recessed presence range and is less recessed in the middle highs. Where the UERM are a little flawed is the super treble above 10 kHz, as between 10 and 12 kHz, they have got a broad peak that makes the upper treble appear somewhat artificial if one has heard a flatter upper treble/super treble (the ER-4S, Savanna and ProPhile 8 for example). And here, in the upper treble, is where the Savanna is undeniably more realistic, and more comparable to the UERR than the UERM.
In the bass, the UE are somewhat quicker and tighter, with the slightly better control, too. Here, the Savanna is more comparable to the UERR, however with slightly less perceived softness in comparison. In the mids and treble however, the difference between both isn’t large at all when directly compared. I would say that the UE are a bit more detailed in the mids and a bit more in the treble, but both are reasonably close.
What the UERM do really well is scaling their soundstage somewhat differently depending on the recording – the Savanna cannot fully catch up but as mentioned in the previous comparisons, the Noble really does have a nice and realistic soundstage. And it is just slightly narrower than the UEs'.
Conclusion:
Very well-done, neutral tuning that heads into a somewhat more forgiving direction. Very even and realistic, natural sounding. Real sub-bass extension could be flatter but isn't lacking. Cymbals probably a hair too quickly decaying. Good technical performance and realistic soundstage.
Average cable (for the price); build quality (minimal gap between the two halves of the shells) and quality control (ear tips and that gap) should be better for the price.