This and That:
Packaging that looks surprisingly professional.The build quality/finish is decent although not perfect; the shells look a bit hazy, almost a little dirty/dusty, upon close inspection.
I always like it when the drivers as well as internal structure and crossover are visible. The crossover seems quite simple though and what I can see are a resistor and capacitor that are larger in size than usual.
Coloured rhinestones are used as side indicators - that's definitely unique.
Sound:
I've only used low impedance sources for listening.
Most of the time, I used the largest included white single-flange tips for listening.
Tonality:
Brightness-favouring balanced tonality with upper mids that are on the brighter side (wherefore female vocals are favoured), which is definitely quite "typical" for many Asian in-ears, although rather rare for multi-BA models.
Rather neutral bass with just slightly more quantity (+2 dB) compared to my Ultimate Ears Reference Monitors or the Audiofly AF1120; ca. 5 dB more bass quantity when compared to my Etymotic ER-4S/the ER-4SR, an in-ear that follows a diffuse-field flat bass tuning. Therefore one will not find much added thickness, warmth or fullness when listening to the Rose Technology. Instead, a nicely balanced bass that is fairly neutral with the right balance between flatness and naturalness is presented.
The bass doesn’t start climbing before 500 Hz wherefore it stays out of the central midrange without adding its own flavour to lower male vocals. It then reaches its climax somewhere between 100 and 200 Hz, and doesn’t show any real roll-off towards the actual sub-bass although one should not expect too much rumble from a more neutral presentation anyway.
The midrange is what a couple of (primarily) Asian in-ears are tuned for, however most of them are hybrid models. The BR-5 MKII on the other hand is a multi-BA in-ear, and I know none with the same midrange characteristics.
From 1 towards 3 kHz, one can spot an evenly climbing elevation that adds brightness and clarity to the upper midrange. While it colours the presentation and is not neutral or accurate in terms of the original meaning of “hi-fi” and adds some colouration to rather deep male vocals that appear a bit thinner and brighter than they actually are, it also highlights female vocals, making them sound airier, clearer and stand out more. While it's not really my cup of tea as this sort of midrange tuning is rather gimmicky, it should please those who are into this female voice-loving tuning; and it's not overdone and for example a bit less intense than that upper midrange lift of the hybrid DUNU DK-3001.
The treble shows an emphasis around 6 kHz that is not too narrow however a bit too strong to not notice it. Above, the highs are relatively even and flat with only one other additional peak located at 15 kHz where it doesn’t really matter anymore anyway (super treble extension above 10 kHz is flawless).
This 6 kHz emphasis makes the treble timbre sound a bit off and sometimes even a bit sharp while vocal range sibilance is avoided. As a result, brighter instruments are somewhat shifted towards the leaner and brighter side at the logical cost of some naturalness and evenness.
- - -
In terms of tuning, one could say that the BR-5 MKII is the multi-BA answer to a "typical" "Asian" hybrid in-ear midrange tuning. Personally, I would have preferred a more neutral midrange timbre, and the 6 kHz elevation shouldn't really be there.
Resolution:
Bass response is very good – it is fast and excellently controlled with good definition and just slightly added body due to the vented woofer without adding any softness. Good job.
As one could expect as a result of the tuning, the midrange has got a revealing and airy touch and character to it.
Treble details don’t fall behind either but are present, with notes that are quick, precise and cleanly separated from each other.
Sure, the 6 kHz range is a bit intrusive, however due to its proper resolution, the BR-5 MKII can pull it off even though it can sometimes be on the border of beginning sharpness.
Soundstage:
Rose Technology’s in-ear portrays a relatively spacious soundstage that is among the better models in its price range, however not unrivalled anymore these days where spatially convincing and three-dimensional sounding multi-BA in-ears between $200 and $500 do exist, as opposed to a few years back when most universal fit models in this price range didn’t have the most realistic and authentic spatiality.
When it comes to spatial width, the BR-5 MKII slightly leaves the base between my ears. Some spatial depth is also present and the Rose is capable of reproducing individual layers as well, nonetheless the presentation appears overall rather oval and while the lateral basis leaves my head, front projection does not really go further than my nose at max. So it's among the better in-ears when it comes to three-dimensionality, although not among the best in this price range.
Separation and layering are good as well as clean, although not perfect.
---------
In Comparison with other Multi-BA In-Ears:
NocturnaL Audio Atlantis (UIEM):
The Atlantis is a handmade universal fit in-ear that can be customised as well, however there are much more advanced customisation options available compared to the BR-5 MKII. Price- and performance-wise, the Atlantis plays in a clearly higher league.
The Atlantis has got the more pronounced, smoother and warmer bass presentation with fuller but still natural and realistic sounding lower mids. Except for a bit more body in the fundamentals, the NocturnaL Audio in-ear is clearly more linear and realistic in the mids than the Rose.
When it comes to treble tuning, the Atlantis is more neutral compared to the BR-5 MKII that heads more into the bright territory, and as a result the Atlantis is more even, realistic and authentic sounding in the highs. The Rose has the edge when it comes to super treble extension though.
The BR-5 MKII has got the slight upper hand when it comes to bass tightness with impactful tracks, however speed and control are pretty much on the same level. When it comes to bass details, layering and texture though, the Atlantis is playing in a clearly higher league.
When it comes to detail retrieval, micro details, separation and layering in the mids and treble, the Atlantis is audibly ahead as well.
The same goes for the soundstage where the NocturnaL in-ear doesn’t only have the larger (in all directions), but also more precise, better layered and cleaner separated soundstage with the higher level of authenticity and precision.
Custom Art Ei.3 (UIEM):
Upon special customer request, a UIEM version of the Ei.3 that can be customised as well is available from Custom Art. Being priced around the same, it however offers the clearly more advanced customisation options (that are partially only available at an upcharge though) than the BR-5 MKII.
The Ei.3 has got slightly more bass impact and sounds a little warmer in the lower midrange.
The BR-5 MKII has got elevated, bright upper mids while the Custom Art’s are flatter and more realistic.
The Rose has got the brighter treble tuning, especially in the middle highs. Solely between 7 and 8 kHz it is the Ei.3 that is a little more forward. As a result the Custom Art in-ear sounds more realistic and natural in the treble in comparison whereas the Rose is more tuned for a bright, airy presentation but lacks some naturalness due to its 6 kHz elevation.
The Rose features the somewhat faster and tighter bass whereas the Ei3’s is more body-focused. In terms of control both aren’t far apart although the Rose ultimately takes the lead.
When it comes to midrange, both are roughly comparable with the Rose being just a little ahead.
In terms of treble, the BR-5 MKII shows an advantage in separation and details.
The Ei.3 has got the slightly wider soundstage to my ears while depth is a bit more pronounced on the Polish triple-driver in-ear as well.
Instrument separation is about comparable between the two models while layering and reproducing “empty space” is where the Custom Art Ei.3 slightly takes the lead.
Pai Audio MR3:
The MR3 that was a spontaneous blind purchase of mine that turned out to be a very nice and pleasant surprise. It now retails for around $200 and is available in different colours whereas the BR-5 MKII’s shells can be customised.
Both in-ears have got similar bass quantity with the MR3 being just ever so slightly more forward in the lower midrange.
The Pai Audio in-ear has got a quite neutral midrange presentation whereas the Rose’s is tuned brighter and to favour female and bright voices more. As a result, the MR3's midrange is flatter and more realistic.
Between 3 and 8 kHz, the Pai is less bright and mostly lacks the 6 kHz elevation wherefore its treble sounds overall more realistic in comparison although not perfect either (it’s also got an elevation in the middle highs although with less quantity, so not as obtrusive). Solely the Pai’s upper highs before 10 kHz are more pronounced.
The Rose’s bass appears ever so slightly faster while control, details and tightness are on the same level.
In terms of midrange resolution, the BR-5 MKII may have an ever so slight edge over the Pai that on the other hand features the slightly superior treble separation. Overall both in-ears are extremely close though.
The Rose’s soundstage is a little wider while the MR3’s features more spatial depth as well as the ultimately more authentic presentation with the somewhat more precise layering and portrayal of “emptiness”.
Logitech/Ultimate Ears UE900:
The UE900 used to be sold for around $400 (that it is definitely worth, sound- and performance-wise, and I really don't regret having paid very close to retail), but can now be found for less than $200 – a massive price drop that is always the case when Logitech discontinues the production of their audio products.
Both have got pretty much the same amount of low-end elevation compared to a diffuse-field flat in-ear, however the UE900 appears a little more impactful, but can also portray sub-bass notes with a bit more authority although neither has got a sub-bass roll-off.
In the midrange, one could definitely say that the Rose is the “Anti-UE900”, having a bright, elevated upper midrange compared to the UE whose root bleeds more into the midrange in comparison and whose upper midrange/presence range is recessed for a darker vocal presentation. None is really better nor worse here, although I would ultimately pick the dark upper mids over the bright ones.
The UE’s treble is more laid-back and except for a snappy peak in the upper highs that however doesn’t cross the neutral line, it doesn’t have any added brightness in the treble. Therefore its highs are more realistic than that of the Rose.
The Rose has got the slightly tighter bass while speed and control are absolutely on the same good level. When it comes to midrange details though, the BR-5 MKII appears a bit more layered and can present fine details better, but that's quite predictable given its opposite midrange tuning.
(Upper) Treble separation is slightly sharper and more precise on the UE900 while the Rose appears to be more resolving due to more quantity in the lower and middle highs although the Logitech/Ultimate Ears in-ear is overall slightly ahead in terms of treble definition.
The BR-5 MKII has got the larger, more three-dimensional, more authentic soundstage. The UE900 doesn’t have much layering while the Rose has got some.
Instruments are about comparably separated with probably a slight advantage on the Rose’s side due to slightly more space between and around individual notes and instruments.
Conclusion:
The mids and highs could and should be more even (especially that 6 kHz elevation should not be as present as it is). Resolution and soundstage are good for the price.