This and That:
It seems to be a collaboration between Shozy and Advanced AcousticWerkes.
Comes with three pairs of silicone tips but no carrying case or even pouch, which is quite sad.
Real woven carbon fibre faceplate but otherwise rather cheap-ish looking.
Shells on the larger, bulkier side.
Good cable for the price.
Sound:
I've used low impedance sources as well as the largest included silicone tips.
Tonality:
The Hibiki certainly presents a quite consumer-oriented sound with a big, bold, warm, cosy, bass-heavy bottom-end and a coloured overall presentation in general. To act as a counterweight against the really strong bass elevation and warm lower mids, the upper midrange and upper treble show an emphasis, too. This upper midrange elevation isn't all that rare when it comes to Asian in-ears but very rarely found in non-Asian models.
While the lower treble emphasis works rather well to retrieve the midrange clarity and act as a counterweight to the bass and warmth, it is borderline artificially unpleasant. Then there's that upper treble emphasis that is rather narrow and located quite exactly at 10 kHz and can come across as a bit sharp at times – especially when a note hits it exactly.
Speaking sine sweeps, the lows’ elevation starts to gradually climb around 650 Hz, with its peak being formed around 60 Hz, with around 15 dB more presence compared to an in-ear that is tuned for a diffuse-field flat bass response, such as the Etymotic ER-4S/SR.
Below 40 Hz, towards 20 Hz, the Hibiki’s sub-bass slightly loses some quantity, although it couldn’t really be regarded as a real roll-off – instead, it leads to more of a midbass- than sub-bass-biased bottom-end presentation.
To act as a counterweight against the warm, full, but not bloated lower midrange, level climbs evenly from 1 kHz, the central midrange, up to 4.5 kHz. This emphasis is implemented not that badly, however it is borderline unnatural. Yes, it adds clarity and perceived "air" to the midrange and highlights female voices, but it's not a realistic midrange tuning but a coloured presentation here in the vocal range that does not exactly meet the definition of hi-fi. Admittedly it is still somewhat well-placed to act as a counterbalance for the bass, if that's what you're into. But it is anything but natural or realistic though.
Above 4.5 kHz, level drops again, generating some headroom with this 5 kHz dip, with a small and inoffensive peak around 7 kHz and a stronger and narrower peak at 10 kHz. The latter leads to a splashier, somewhat more metallic and direct cymbal reproduction that can be a bit sharp at times despite the big, bold, warm bass. A pretty much exactly 4 dB lesser 10 kHz elevation would have been ideal instead.
- - -
To summarise it, people with a preference for a strong, heavy and quite warm midbass elevation along with a rather bright upper midrange elevation (that works surprisingly well as a counterweight against the bass and warmth but isn't realistic sounding) and a rather bright upper treble will likely like the Hibiki while people who aren’t into a bold, big, heavy bass and prefer a smoother, more linear treble and midrange response are definitely not the target group. Nope, not at all.
Resolution:
The Hibiki has got only about average detail retrieval in the $60 to $100 class at best.
The strong, bubbly bass can create a nice illusion of texture with slower and average-paced tracks, however this is just a side-effect of the rather soft, slow decaying bass that doesn’t entirely reach the speed, control and tightness of the AAW Nebula One, Shozy Zero or Shure SE215m+SPE although it somewhat exceeds the final E3000 and SoundMAGIC E10 when it comes to tightness and speed, which is however not that difficult.
While the bass struggles quite bit with fast and demanding recordings, it is still not fully bad considering the strong emphasis – I have heard other in-ears struggling more with such a hefty amount of lows (Monster Beats by Dr. Dre Tour, NuForce NE800M, Sennheiser IE 80). But control is clearly lacking nonetheless.
Midrange details appear rather somewhat flat - not fully lacking, but certainly unfortunately not uber detailed either. This is likely a side-effect of the bass’s masking effect that seems to strain the driver too much.
Although about similarly strong in the lows, compared to the Hibiki, the AAW Nebula One appears somewhat better resolving and not as flat in the mids when it comes to details, and therefore the better alternative.
Treble details are on the softer side and don't really have the most layered presentation or sharpest separation either. Notes seem a bit compressed as a side-effect, with differentiation only being average at best.
While definitely not utter crap for its price and features, the Hibiki definitely leaves some details, separation and differentiation left to be desired. It is just that high resolution and a heavy but still rather well-controlled bass only rarely go well together hand-in-hand in the sub $100 price range, and the Hibiki decided to go for a very strong bass emphasis, clearly at the cost of some details and separation. Therefore it is an in-ear that works better with rather slow recordings.
Soundstage:
The Hibiki is a quite open sounding in-ear with a wide and high soundstage, however not as much spatial depth.
Width is quite present and more than average with a soundstage that exceeds the base between my ears.
While there is some spatial depth, it isn’t really worth mentioning – the overall presentation appears definitely more wide and elliptical than circular.
The spatial presentation appears not exactly “in your face” but one or two rows in the background, at least in the midrange.
Separation along with placement are rather good, however not razor-sharp either.
---------
In Comparison with other bassy Dynamic Driver In-Ears:
AAW Nebula One:
The quantity of the AAW’s bass emphasis depends more on how much its inner-facing vent is covered. Given my ear anatomy, I’m describing its sound with pretty much entirely closed vents which leads to a bass emphasis that is quite similar to the Hibiki’s.
The Nebula One then has got the slightly stronger sub-bass and slightly punchier, more “hammering” upper bass while midbass levels are comparable. Both carry about the same amount of warmth in the lower mids, the AAW just ever so slightly more.
The AAW doesn’t have that upper midrange elevation, is more pronounced at 5 kHz, and less bright/elevated at 7 and 10 kHz although it is still a little above neutral around 10 kHz.
Due to this, the Nebula One is definitely more even, natural and realistic sounding in the midrange and treble and has got the more correct timbre.
When it comes to bass, the Nebula’s is somewhat tighter and faster, with the somewhat better control when fast tracks are being played.
It also appears to be better layered and more detailed in the midrange and has got the cleaner separation and differentiation in the highs.
The Hibiki has got the wider soundstage while the Nebula One’s is deeper. Instruments are separated somewhat cleaner and sharper on the AAW’s side.
Shozy Zero:
The Zero has got a less emphasised bass but is a bit warmer in the root and lower midrange.
The Hibiki’s upper midrange is brighter, clearer.
Between 5 and 8 kHz, it is the Zero that is brighter, while the Hibiki has got the more pronounced 10 kHz elevation.
Control and speed in the lows are higher on the Zero’s side. The same goes for speech intelligibility, midrange details and separation in the highs.
The Hibiki has got slightly more spatial width while it portrays less spatial depth compared to the Zero. In terms of spatial height, it is the Hibiki that is more pronounced.
Instruments are placed and separated more cleanly on the Zero’s side.
Shure SE215m+SPE:
The Hibiki is the bassier in-ear with just very slightly more warmth. It has got the more pronounced upper midrange that adds more perceived clarity to the upper midrange but also makes it sound somewhat gimmicky.
The SE215m+SPE is a little more forward at 5 kHz but darker and rolled-off in the upper treble (yet hi-hats and the upper treble can still be heard, although clearly damped).
The Shure’s bass is somewhat tighter and has got the better control although details in the lows and lower midrange appear to be quite similar.
Speed intelligibility and midrange details are somewhat higher on the Shure’s side though, which is also true when it comes to treble separation.
The Hibiki sports the even slightly wider soundstage that has got a little more depth as well. Separation is almost on the same level on both in-ears but the Shure has got the advantage with fast and demanding recordings where the Hibiki’s bass leads to a less focused and separation with the separation becoming a bit blurrier.
Conclusion:
Gimmicky tuning that's borderline artificially unpleasant in the upper mids, at best only lower average resolution, quite sloppy bass. Not fully bad but leaves me quite unimpressed given that there's plenty of superior sounding, also bassy sounding, competition below in the $60 and $100 range.