Fit and Comfort

Seen above is the iBasso SR3 placed on a mannequin head to help show how these headphones would look on the human head. Note that the head is slightly under average sized, so account for the discrepancies accordingly. As with all headphones, getting a good fit and seal is crucial, so make sure to properly use the various pivot points, and the height adjustability of the headband and ear cups. This section is mostly a summary of the points expanded upon in more detail on the previous page, but I will point out that the SR3 weighs 395 g without the cable, which is on the higher end of average for open-back dynamic driver headphones. The larger size of the headphones contributes to this no doubt, as do the metal ear cups and frame. Clearly iBasso tried to trim things by using the thin steel rods for the headband itself and I will say that the large suspension band helps distribute this mass evenly over a decent contact area to where these don't feel as heavy as the number itself suggests. Aiding further is the near-perfect clamp force for my average-sized head as well as the extensive sizing and ear cup swivel/rotation options on offer. The slider mechanism isn't the easiest to use to match both sides evenly but, once you do it get set up, you won't have to worry about it again. The contoured and over-sized pads also add to the comfort factor to where I can happily say iBasso has got the basics of headphones design right. These are still open-back in nature so it's best to experience the SR3 in a quiet environment. It's more likely that you will hear the external environment than have others in your vicinity hear you though, and I also did not notice any leakage between the pads and the cups or between the pads and my head itself.

Audio Performance

Audio Hardware

The iBasso SR3 uses dynamic drivers and bio-cellulose diaphragm dynamic drivers at that. This was the case with the previous SR2 as well although now some of the marketing points mention the use of a carbon fiber mycelium as part of the seemingly composite diaphragm. Unfortunately the international website has yet to mention the SR3 and the user manual mostly talks about the bio-cellulose part, meaning there is still some confusion here, but it is very likely just a bio-cellulose diaphragm and not a composite. Either way, the takeaway point is this is one of the rare such implementations in headphones. The diaphragm is paired with a silicone suspension as a surround and the magnets are underneath to generate a magnetic flux in the 1 Tesla or higher range. The silicone suspension was chosen over more commonly used PET (polyethylene terephthalate) or PEN (polyethylene naphthalate) owing to higher stability and a more uniform elasticity, and this has been used by iBasso for all three generations of its headphones. The new SR3 has a rated impedance of 150 Ω and relatively high sensitivity of 106 dB (presumably dB/mW) at 1 kHz making for a set that isn't the hardest to drive off even portable DAC/amps, and I am not referring to oversized monsters such as the FiiO Q7 either.

Frequency Response Measurement and Listening

I will mention that I have a general preference for a warm-neutral signature emphasizing a slightly elevated bass and smooth treble range, with detailed mids and good tonal separation. I also generally prefer instrumental music over vocals, with favored genres including jazz and classical music.


Our current headphones test setup uses a set of two custom in-ear microphones for the two channels. These microphones closely adhere to the IEC711 class, but have been tweaked to be more reliable in the >10 kHz frequency range, the precise issue with my previous setup, that is otherwise still very good and will continue to be used for IEMs and earphones. Two soft silicone pinnae are installed on the sides, separated by a distance matching my head, and multiple "height" adapters have been 3D-printed for further customization, based on fit, head size and shape. Each set of microphones has an XLR output I separately adapted to 3.5 mm. I used a transparent source—the JDS Labs Element II—for measurements after confirming it was not a bottleneck in any way. This artificial head simulator feeds the microphone lines into a reference USB sound card, which in turn goes to a laptop that has ARTA and REW running. I begin with an impulse measurement to test for signal fidelity, calibrate the sound card and channel output, account for floor noise, and finally test the frequency response of each channel separately. Octave smoothing is at the 1/12th setting, netting a good balance of detail and signal to noise ratio. The default tuning was used for testing, and no app or program-based EQ settings were chosen, unless specifically mentioned. Each sample of interest is measured at least thrice with separate mounts to account for any fit issues, and an average is taken of the individual measurements for statistical accuracy.


As before, you can find my headphone frequency response measurements on VSG.squig.link along with all the earphone measurements. Scroll to the bottom and choose different targets there, including two from Harman Kardon developed after years of R&D. The Harman 2018 over-ear target in particular, is a reference curve many headphone makers aim for now, but I find it too bass-boosted. As such, I am opting for the Harman 2018 curve with the bass target from the Harman 2013 curve, which is what is referred to as the "Harman Combined" target. Before we get talking about the sound signature of the iBasso SR3, I want to briefly talk about the measurements themselves and the channel balance achieved here. I was told this is a randomly chosen retail unit that was sent out for review and, assuming so, this is one of the best channel matching on headphones I've seen to date. The two channels are within +/- 1 dB across the entire 20 Hz to 20 kHz range of interest so iBasso wins on the consistency front. Also seen above is the average measurement of both channels done with both the stock pads as well as the spare sets and we see it effectively makes for two sound signatures available with the iBasso SR3.

The stock pads lean towards a warmer and bassy sound signature whereas the spare pads lend favorably to a more neutral sound. This means you can try out both and see what you prefer, given they sound quite different despite otherwise being the same when it comes to comfort and seal achieved. Both are also shy on the treble front with the emphasized 6 kHz peak making the higher frequencies come off darker by comparison. I found an EQ filter to help here but it's one that needs to be done by ear and carefully at that. Too much can actually take away from the best part of the iBasso SR3 which is the bass itself. No matter what set of pads you go with, the absolute dynamism of the SR3 will be obvious. I did listen to these headphones for over 100 hours based on some people suggesting the same with other headphones that use bio-cellulose dynamic drivers to see if they "open up". Frankly I don't think they need much opening given how apparent it is to distinguish tones of different intensity here. The stock pads add in bass elevation compared to the rest of the frequency response too, making the SR3 a legitimately punchy set which lends favorably to drums and bass guitars. You will note the trailing ends of tones better here too, even though the spare pads feel more evened out for sub-bass notes and electronic music aficionados.

When it comes to vocals and instrument reproduction in the mids, I'd say the spare pads are the better choice. Trailing ends of tones hang around a bit longer than planars, so this can be good or bad depending on your preference, and you get a more natural timbre and good instrument separation to sway things in favor of the SR3. The sound with the stock pads was not as ideal for imaging compared to the spare pads I thought, but that could be down to how the frequency response plays with my HRTF. Male vocals come off energetic and engaging with the spare pads and, combined with the general comfort factor, makes the iBasso SR3 conducive for general media consumption too. The soundstage is on the wider side too, even among open-back sets, albeit it does feel less open in the other two axes of this imaginary 3D space around your ears. At times I even thought the staging was similar to a spiral growing outward from the central channel in the head, so in that regard I can see some tube amplifiers helping out too. The xDuoo TA-22 was a decent match here, as was the HIFIMAN EF400 and the much more expensive Feliks Audio Envy.

Female vocals ranged from sounding just right to somewhat hollow to me, but that's mostly a result of the ear gain being less than I'd like to have. To give you an example, the song "Fever" by Dua Lipa and Angèle had Dua sounding her usual self but Angèle during the chorus segments did not sound as emphatic. This could also be down to the choice of the amplifier and/or DAC, but mostly it came down to tuning and how it worked with how I perceived ear gain here. The stock pads remind me of the older style Audeze tuning where people loved it for the bass and the darker signature, but once again I found myself leaning towards the spare pads which does have its own challenges. The dip at 1.5-2 kHz can make some female vocals and brass instrument harmonics feel hollow too, although it makes the ear gain more prominent by comparison and also makes the 6 kHz peak more manageable at the same time. It reduces the potential for the SR3 to be fatiguing too, which is weird considering I'd still describe the set as leaning towards darkness in the higher frequencies. Those prioritizing cymbals and triangles or even string instruments such as harps and violins when it comes to orchestral or classical music, or even acoustic jazz may want to try different transducers to see what works best for them here.


I mentioned before how the stock pads on the iBasso SR3 can result in the set coming off warm and slightly dark at the same time, and it reminded me of the older Audeze style tuning that is seen with the likes of the LCD-2 Classic, which I'd have described as a warm Audeze but sounds more neutral compared to the iBasso SR3. The LCD-2 Classic otherwise gets bested in most technicalities including dynamism and contrast, detail retrieval, and instrument reproduction. It also weighs far more to where, for this style of tuning at least, I'd go the iBasso route. The HarmonicDyne G200 is a whole different beast in offering the most competent drivers in this comparison set but being let down by poor comfort and tuning with the stock pads. These are in need of replacement contoured pads as well as some EQ repair to get them sound really nice so if you are willing to spend the extra time and money—the G200 already costs more than the iBasso SR3—then it can be a set worth considering. That said, if you prioritize bass reproduction and timbre then once again the iBasso SR3 does it better. The Sivga SV023 is the only other open-back dynamic driver set I have in this price range at this point unfortunately, although it does go the warmer tonality route too. You will notice the SR3 offering better bass extension but otherwise the SV023 will sound bright compared to the darker SR3. Build quality and comfort is mostly a wash between the two and I will give iBasso the edge with the spare pads again offering different sound signatures to try and appreciate/experiment with.


Speaking of which, I figured tonally the iBasso SR3 with the spare pads would be a good contender against some of the recently released planar sets—especially if you like this style of tuning but prefer a dynamic driver sound instead. The HIFIMAN Edition XS is a good benchmark at $500 in that I felt it handles pure detail retrieval and instrument reproduction better than most other sets I've tried in this price range. It does have noticeably worse build quality and accessories compared to the iBasso SR3 however, and the cable is laughable when compared to what you get here. The ear gain on the Edition XS can also be on the fatiguing side for some, so the lower ear gain present on the SR3 with the spare pads might be just what the doctor ordered even if I will point out that the two sound more different than the frequency response measurements indicate. Then there's the newer HIFIMAN Ananda (2022 stealth magnets version) which can be more comfortable and certainly offers more clamp force compared to the looser Edition XS, but once again we get an all-plastic build, weak/no accessories, and the new Ananda actually leans even brighter to where it is more likely to cause complaints than have people like the treble extension and emphasis. The Ananda can be easier to get to its potential off even a portable DAC/amp however, but the iBasso SR3 makes its more engaging bass and mids presence felt here with a decent amplifier—nothing really expensive either—to where I can't recommend the Ananda over the SR3 for the vast majority of end users. Then there's the MOONDROP VENUS that is an exercise in overkill when it comes to driver design (36 magnets per channel), cable (two cables of different designs and connectors), and build quality (all aluminium, but much heavier). It too uses a suspension band but is more self-adjusting. This one is hard because the VENUS might not please everyone owing to its neutral-bright tonality, which we saw before how the SR3 differs from, but there are simple things including the cable connectors pointing straight down and using cables with long connector housings to where the iBasso SR3 doesn't feel out of place. The more dynamic sound coupled with many customers simply not wanting to have a ~600 g set of headphones on would be enough to sway some people down the iBasso SR3 route again. I also want to briefly talk about the Nectar HiveX which is an e-stat set that comes around the same cost. Assuming you are not including the cost of amplifiers for either set, the two trade favorably in the lower frequencies but the presentation is so different between the two—especially with how both leading and trailing ends of tones present and how they handle dynamics in tones—to where they feel more complementary than actually contending for the same budget.