Fit and Comfort

Seen above is the right channel of the MUSE HiFi Power placed into an artificial ear mold with the included black bore size M white silicone ear tip installed. I have average-sized ears, and the ear mold above represents my own experiences well enough as a proxy. Size M silicone tips are my go-to for testing since foam tips are not included by some. The relatively thick and stubby nozzle can be a deterrent to some, but that is far down the list of potential fit issues here, as evident by the size of this monster. In fact, I had to dig out the HIFIMAN TWS800 to see whether those finally got bested in terms of physical footprint—they did not, but the MUSE HiFi Power came closer than I'd like. I simply can't recommend these for anyone with smaller ears as they won't fit inside, and the aggressive contouring on the top inner side makes it worse. I could get these to fit into my my own ears, but even so this will play against the set and necessitate that they be really good to justify going through all this each time. The consolation is these weigh less than ~6 g each, thus preventing physical fatigue. The pre-formed ear hooks can be hit-or-miss, and an angled housing for the 2-pin connectors would have come in handy as a fail-safe, should you have to re-form them. The multiple vents also mean there is no pressure build-up inside, and they don't affect the seal much either. Overall, as long as your ears can accommodate them, there is a good likelihood of achieving good passive isolation too.

Audio Performance

Audio Hardware

If you read the introduction page then you already know what to expect here. The MUSE HiFi Power uses a single, full-range planar magnetic driver with a 14.5 mm diaphragm. This makes it one of several IEMs released in the last year to have a variation of the 14.x mm planar drivers put to good use, most of which have very similar tonality too. There is certainly an OEM factor involved here, and MUSE HiFi claims the use of an ultra-thin flat diaphragm too. Please refer to the equivalent section on this page to know more about how planar magnetic drivers work if you are unfamiliar with them. Now when I say that the drivers here use double-sided magnets, it should make more sense. While there is no information provided about the actual magnets, MUSE HiFi does say it results in an asymmetric magnetic field that combines with the custom-designed acoustic bracket inside the shells to put together a uniform, low-distortion sound. The multiple vents are also used to allow the drivers to "work more effortlessly", but it's not like IEMs have ever had an issue being hard to drive. Indeed, this set has an average rated impedance of 32 Ω and sensitivity of 106 dB/mW, to where just about any clean source can drive these easily—including your favorite phone dongle. A portable DAC/amp might not be a bad idea if its within your budget—especially if you want to go with a Bluetooth option—or even a DAP for portable use. If not on the go, space is less of an issue, but the relatively short cable might still be a potential handicap if using a PC as the audio source.

Frequency Measurement and Listening

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


Our reproducible testing methodology begins with a calibrated IEC711 audio coupler/artificial ear that IEMs can feed into enough for decent isolation. The audio coupler connects to a USB sound card, which in turn goes to a laptop that has ARTA and REW running, and the earphones connected to the laptop through the sound card. 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, which nets a good balance of detail and noise not being identified as useful data. Also, the default tuning was used for testing, and no app-based settings were chosen, unless specifically mentioned. Each sample of interest is tested thrice with separate mounts to account for any fit issues, and an average is taken of the three individual measurements for statistical accuracy. For IEMs, I am also using the appropriate ear mold fitted to the audio coupler for a separate test to compare how the IEMs fare when installed in a pinna geometry instead of just the audio coupler. The raw data is then exported from REW and plotted in OriginPro for easier comparison.


The IEC711 is such that you can't really compare these results with most other test setups, especially those using a head and torso simulator (HATS). The raw dB numbers are also quite contingent on the set volume, gain levels, and sensitivity of the system. What is more useful information is how the left and right channels work across the rated frequency response in the MUSE HiFi Power. The left channel was separately tested from the right one, and colored differently for contrast. I did my best to ensure an identical fit for both inside the IEC711 orifice, so note how the two channels are within +/-1 dB of each other all the way until well past the coupler resonance where things have to be taken with a grain of salt. The second sample received (the first one sent before the brand had everything set up for a retail launch) wasn't as evenly matched, but I do acknowledge that it was part of a test batch being made as opposed to the full production run this one belongs to. As such, if we were to go by this randomly picked retail sample, I would be left quite pleased. Measurements taken after 25 hours of testing, which included these playing a mix of various songs as well as white or pink noise and sine sweeps, showed no difference. There was no perceived burn-in effect thus, and none was measurable, either. The response with the anthropomorphic pinna in place matched the ideal scenario in the coupler quite well too, which is also an indicator of how good the seal was when installed in the artificial ear that could fit these in.


Here is the average frequency response for both channels of both samples of the MUSE HiFi Power plotted against my personal target, taken from VSG.squig.link, which also gives you an idea of my personal preferences to better correlate any possible biases. The tuning of a set of headphones or earphones does not have to match my target as long as it is tuned with some direction, makes sense, and is executed well. After all, no one set will appeal to everyone, and having different options is what makes this hobby so interesting and hard to quantify. We still see both samples are quite close to each other, albeit the newer one ends up with slightly more bass extension and will be the sample I will go by for this review.

I'd characterize the overall tonality of the MUSE HiFi Power as being mildly V-shaped, bordering on overly bright, and unfortunately I have to say the frequency response measurements somewhat understate how hot it can get in the upper mids and treble. See, the coupler provides an ideal fit without really accounting for the shell size, and the artificial pinna seen above is also not worried about pain so can accommodate it all in well enough. In practice, even with my average-sized ears that could get a decent seal, the MUSE HiFi Power still juts out enough outside to where the pinna gain feels hot and the 5 kHz peak comes off even more pronounced. I can't speak for your experience, but these two factors alone make this IEM a non-contender in my books—especially noting as how I can handle a brighter set more so than the average reader here. The MUSE HiFi Power is fatiguing, shrill, veiled and muted at some times, and can get some female vocals sibilant too at other times. It ends up overwhelming instrument fundamentals and harmonics in the lower treble, and then things get worse in the higher frequencies too. For once I'd have preferred to see more damping going on!

It's unfortunate to have those issues because the bass performance here is quite good. There is ~9 dB rise from the lowest point in the mids at ~700 Hz going all the way into the sub-bass, and it provides for appreciable quantity and quality to appreciate electronic music as much as classic rock and roll too. Bass guitars in particular strum along quite well here though, and there is plenty of room to EQ an additional bass shelf in case you wanted to blast your ears with EDM. Kick drums also allow you to distinguish the notes separately, and I'd classify the Power as being on the faster side when it comes to decay too. It's also quite resolving and revealing to where there is certainly potential in this particular implementation of the 14.x mm driver paired with those vents and that seemingly-exclusive acoustic chamber.

The mids are overall, satisfactory too, although I noticed the planar timbre striking more than usual. Indeed, I dare say that if you are used to dynamic drivers then this is the set to listen to, as you will notice how some instrument classes—trumpets and clarinets especially—sound off. It's tough to separate them in an orchestral mix as a result, and thus overall I'd say instrument and vocals separation is weak. Vocals can be forward-facing if you achieve a good seal, else they end up floundering in the background. All the resolving capabilities of the driver being so fit-contingent is a shame, especially with a wide soundstage here combined with a fuzzy imaging. There are more issues here than wins, but also I can clearly see potential to where a revised version can be good—very good, even.

Comparisons

The obvious comparisons would be against the other of the ~$200 planar IEMs, including the 7Hz Timeless and LETSHUOER S12 reviewed before. There's also the TinHiFi P1 Max, and it might be easy to dismiss all four as similar with just varying HRTF preferences. Note also how all of these ultimately still need refinement in the higher frequencies, and also how many have issues, with the Timeless and S12 being sharp-to-piercing even. The other three are somewhat similar, regarding where they dip and fall, and all four have different takes on the same driver class too, but the MUSE HiFi Power gets it wrong in my books in prioritizing the tubes inside with the vents to be over-emphasized more often than not. If you thought the S12 was bright (and it is) then this will make you cringe visibly. There's no way I'd take the Power over any of these, especially with the fit and comfort issues too.


There are non-planar IEMs in this heavily competitive $200 market too, although I suppose the Raptgo Hook-X is still more famous for another of the 14.x mm planar drivers in its unique hybrid configuration. The others of note are single dynamic driver units such as the impressive ThieAudio Elixir and my personal favorite in the form of the MOONDROP KATO. Here the MUSE HiFi Power's tonality issues come off more obvious, and I should also mention that EQ doesn't solve the issues I had akin to what I noticed also with the HIFIMAN HE1000se. Unfortunately all these three easily best the Power in what it offers, except perhaps for the bass, where those who appreciate planar bass would like what MUSE HiFi offers here. Overall though, once again my money would go elsewhere, and the KATO having pretty much my preferred target gets the win.