Hidizs MP145 IEM Review

[CedarX]

About the MP145 silent revision by Hidizs, here is one measurement:

Hidizs MP145 Old vs New: Did Hidizs retune or change the driver?

HIDIZS MP145 OLD VS NEW: DID HIDIZS RETUNE OR CHANGE THE DRIVER? Introduction: Hidizs MP145 – It’s not a strange iem to many, if not all, audiophiles in the community. Released in 2023, it has quickly became many’s favourite planar iem ever, or even iem in general, with its high sound...

www.head-fi.org

There are some measurable differences and a black vs. white “back resonating chamber”.
No repeatability test of the 711 clone coupler was done.
Whether this is normal product variability or not remains an open question and since it’s only one data point, no trend can be established.

 

[suttondesign]

I have now listened extensively to the Truthear Zero Red and the Hidizs MP145. I have returned to the Zero Red as my go-to. As a 59-year-old, I have some high-frequency hearing loss, so that may account for my preference. I don't offer my preference to convince anyone; only to say that as between two superlative, inexpensive IEM's, I end up preferring the less expensive one. As always, YMMV.

I remain astounded at the quality of this new wave of inexpensive personal listening transducers. My Sennheiser HD 800's are literally gathering dust. I moved them from my nightstand to my dressing closet since they were just in the way.

 

[InfiniteJester]

I have now listened extensively to the Truthear Zero Red and the Hidizs MP145. I have returned to the Zero Red as my go-to. As a 59-year-old, I have some high-frequency hearing loss, so that may account for my preference. I don't offer my preference to convince anyone; only to say that as between two superlative, inexpensive IEM's, I end up preferring the less expensive one. As always, YMMV.

I remain astounded at the quality of this new wave of inexpensive personal listening transducers. My Sennheiser HD 800's are literally gathering dust. I moved them from my nightstand to my dressing closet since they were just in the way.

Did you try the silver nozzle with the MP145?

I have said before and I will say it again, IEMs are so good and so practical that my very numerous and very expensive headphones and speaker are gathering dust most of the time.

You can buy a 40€ IEM and get a completely clean and well tuned sound that would cost you a fortune with any other gear. They just need a bit of DSP like crossfeed or reverb, and it's like you are listening to superb speakers.

I just wish head-tracking gets more popular and inexpensive.

 

[Jimbob54]

Early bird offers on the upcoming MP143 are live on kickstarter. Usual caveats about such schemes apply.

 

[markanini]

Some more data wrt silent revision.

Squiglink - IEM frequency response database by Dung Le

Compare hundreds of frequency response graphs between IEMs and earphones from manufacturers like Moondrop, Sony, 64 Audio, Fiio, and more.

dl.squig.link

 

[CedarX]

Some more data wrt silent revision.

View attachment 385705

Squiglink - IEM frequency response database by Dung Le

Compare hundreds of frequency response graphs between IEMs and earphones from manufacturers like Moondrop, Sony, 64 Audio, Fiio, and more.

dl.squig.link

That would be the second data point.
It appears to support the first measurement findings (see Head-Fi link in previous post): slightly higher ~3-4 kHz range, lower dip around ~6kHz for the “new” MP145s.

Start of a trend… or still within manufacturing tolerances?

 

[InfiniteJester]

That would be the second data point.
It appears to support the first measurement findings (see Head-Fi link in previous post): slightly higher ~3-4 kHz range, lower dip around ~6kHz for the “new” MP145s.

Start of a trend… or still within manufacturing tolerances?

The one over Head-Fi seems more damming. This one seems inside margin of error.

 

[chatnever]

I've just order a new MP145, pretty sure it is the 2nd batch. Any one have both version to confirm which one is better?
On head-fi I read a review of "2024 version" say the modification was "positive" as they fix most issue of the 1st batch. The other review critized it, I'm so confused.

 

[suttondesign]

Did you try the silver nozzle with the MP145?

I have said before and I will say it again, IEMs are so good and so practical that my very numerous and very expensive headphones and speaker are gathering dust most of the time.

You can buy a 40€ IEM and get a completely clean and well tuned sound that would cost you a fortune with any other gear. They just need a bit of DSP like crossfeed or reverb, and it's like you are listening to superb speakers.

I just wish head-tracking gets more popular and inexpensive.

i will change the nozzle as you suggest.
ps

 

[OK1]

I've just order a new MP145, pretty sure it is the 2nd batch. Any one have both version to confirm which one is better?
On head-fi I read a review of "2024 version" say the modification was "positive" as they fix most issue of the 1st batch. The other review critized it, I'm so confused.

The one major issue for me with these "revisions" is a mismatch between my own copy of the product, and whatever measurements exist in the public domain. Cos I use these publicly available measurements to define EQ correction, either manually or automatically using AutoEQ.app., or any other publicly available EQ databases.

If my copy of an IEM is a variant, it becomes impossible to benefit from such optimisations. I had the MP 145 on my wishlist, but knowledge of this revision, took it off my list.

Having said that, I expect any variant of the MP 145 to be ok, just impossible to EQ optimally, unless I have a way to measure my own specific copy.

EDIT

Looks like someone has measured this new version of the MP 145, (see earlier in this thread), but this revision is NOT yet available in the AutoEQ database...

 

[CedarX]

The one major issue for me with these "revisions" is a mismatch between my own copy of the product, and whatever measurements exist in the public domain. Cos I use these publicly available measurements to define EQ correction, either manually or automatically using AutoEQ.app., or any other publicly available EQ databases.

If my copy of an IEM is a variant, it becomes impossible to benefit from such optimisations. I had the MP 145 on my wishlist, but knowledge of this revision, took it off my list.

Having said that, I expect any variant of the MP 145 to be ok, just impossible to EQ optimally, unless I have a way to measure my own specific copy.

EDIT

Looks like someone has measured this new version of the MP 145, (see earlier in this thread), but this revision is NOT yet available in the AutoEQ database...

I won’t say that these “silent revisions” are not a problem, but I would question your logic here…
EQ’ing based on measurement differences to a target is a baseline, a starting point from which you painstakingly adjust the EQ to what sounds best for you.
If your MP145 is a “variant”, what you’ll get after EQ to a measured difference (e.g. AutoEQ) is a slightly different starting point, but so what? Neither one of the MP145s, the OG or the variant is going to be perfectly optimum for your ears.
The process of slowly adjusting the EQ to your satisfaction is the same… just a slightly different starting point.

The whole point of the Harman targets (and supporting work) is to give the best baseline for most… not the absolute best sound for any particular individual.

 

[markanini]

I could easily be charitable to the manufacturer and acknowledge complex realities would influence such a decision. But there's no generally benign outcome for the consumer when a product changes unannounced.

 

[Matias]

I guess the manufacturer wanted to achieve the revised FR to its target but did not find a way with the original model. And since it is a minor change, no need to release a new model number so soon.

 

[OK1]

I won’t say that these “silent revisions” are not a problem, but I would question your logic here…
EQ’ing based on measurement differences to a target is a baseline, a starting point from which you painstakingly adjust the EQ to what sounds best for you.
If your MP145 is a “variant”, what you’ll get after EQ to a measured difference (e.g. AutoEQ) is a slightly different starting point, but so what? Neither one of the MP145s, the OG or the variant is going to be perfectly optimum for your ears.
The process of slowly adjusting the EQ to your satisfaction is the same… just a slightly different starting point.

The whole point of the Harman targets (and supporting work) is to give the best baseline for most… not the absolute best sound for any particular individual.

The headphone which I own, an Artti T10, which has not had a revision to my knowledge, when subjected to tweaking via Auto EQ's correction, based on Auto EQ's default target for IEMs, in my opinion of course, enhanced the final result, in a manner that I found to be a definite improvement, which I can't live without.

Using Auto EQ, took what was already a great result to an even more spectacular one.

If I could benefit from such an improvement on any other IEM I bought, that would be great.

Please study any of AmirM's headphone or IEM reviews, and you'll see his approach to EQ relies on being able to measure, so he is correcting not just based on listening, but based on measuring, and correcting to a Target, in this case Harman 2019 v2(IIRC). Short of owning my own measurement rig, that would also be my preferred approach to EQing any headphone/IEM.

I've followed a similar approach with speakers and a measurement microphone, and REW (Room Equalisation Wizard - which computes the correction EQ's automatically) and similarly obtained results that take each speaker, that much further, to deliver results that I enjoy even more.

 

[mc.god]

Squig has autoeq function embedded so even if a specific measurement is not present in Autoeq database, you can go on the squig that has that measurement (mp145 rev 2 in this case) and create an eq preset file against a reference curve or even to another iem curve from there.

 

[OK1]

Squig has autoeq function embedded so even if a specific measurement is'n present in Autoeq database, you can go on the squig that has that measurement (mp145 rev 2 in this case) and create an eq preset file against a reference curve or even to another iem curve from there.

Thanks.

My scenario is a bit peculiar. I listen to all audio via a DAW (Digital Audio Workstation) in my case, this is Reaper. Implementing EQ typically in this DAW needs the use of a "plugin". and I have not been able to find a plugin, which can properly implement the EQ recommendations of the squig based corrections.

I therefore have to rely on a different approach - the use of Impulse response files (IR's), which are generated by AutoEQ, which I can import into a convolution plugin in Reaper.

There is a workaround, if this was possible. If I could export the Hidizs MP 145 - Revision 2 measurement from a squig database, I could import that into AutoEQ, and then ask AutoEQ to compute the correction. But it gets a bit more complex than this - There are now two different measurement approaches to IEM's (more details here - https://crinacle.com/2020/04/08/graphs-101-how-to-read-headphone-measurements/ )

So if I import a measurement into AutoEQ, still have to figure out, how to "interpret" the measurement appropriately. But if the measurement is in AutoEQ's database already, the developer has taken care of this automatically.

At this time, it does limit my purchasing decisions to IEM's which are already in the AutoEQ database..! And I accept the limitation., cos of the good results I have achieved via AutoEQ.

 

[agpanoz]

EQ’ing based on measurement differences to a target is a baseline, a starting point from which you painstakingly adjust the EQ to what sounds best for you.

This.

I’ve never found a eq profile which I didn’t end up tweaking. They are are good starting point, that’s all.

I’m also super sceptical that absolute precision can be achieved with iems. Everyone’s ears are different and we different sized tips, for example.

 

[markanini]

I’m also super sceptical that absolute precision can be achieved with iems. Everyone’s ears are different and we different sized tips, for example.

Logically precision becomes challenging with an always moving target, so your point is indisputable. I think measurements are great for QC and channel matching, and detecting possible product revisions. Relating measurements to what a listener hears with the IEM fitted is where things start getting progressively uncertain. Meme-like thinking about granular graph features will make many overlook bigger issues of overall balance between bass-mids-highs, it keeps the average graph reader clueless. Then there are individuals with a low level of graph reading skill that get cocky, with a habit of targeting anyone giving subjective impressions of an IEM, turning it into some sort of interrogation. I wish it was a joke but I've seen it so many times. Literally the offensive party merely looked at the graph and is going after the person that physically fitted the IEM. Which one is in a better position to talk about subjective characteristics?

 

[feconicu]

This.

I’ve never found a eq profile which I didn’t end up tweaking. They are are good starting point, that’s all.

I’m also super sceptical that absolute precision can be achieved with iems. Everyone’s ears are different and we different sized tips, for example.

is there anyone here arguing about what this sounds to each individual ears? i thought this is about consistency with a common measurement rig. look at another example: hisenior mega5est. lots of people like and want this iem because of the initial reviews and what tuning those initial reviews were based off. it was recently discovered that there was also a retuning without transparency and hisenior has apologized. they will revert and offer retuning to the og to anyone who wants it.

 

[chatnever]

Anyone get buzzing noise when plug the mp145 into pc/imac?

Whenever I touch the DAC dongle, the buzzing sound dissappeared, hence, I could able to use it on laptop/iPhone only