Fit and Comfort

Seen above are the two types of ear tips that come with the SeeAudio Bravery, in size M, installed on the right ear bud and inserted into an artificial ear mold. 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, and this time, it's even more of a disparity because the silicone tips are some of the very best money can buy, while the foam tips are some of the worst I have used to date. The AZLA SednaEarfit XELASTEC tips are something else, as they contour better to the ear canal than some foam tips even. The generic foam tips here are too dense and firm. They don't shape easily and result in a poor fit. Stick with the XELASTECs here since you need as good a fit as possible anyway. Isolation is otherwise affected greatly, and the larger-than-average size of the shells doesn't help. Those with smaller ears may want to get longer ear tips, or even those that sit on the entrance of the ear canal, such as the final Type E tips lest the shells just don't fit in your concha. I had a good time personally, and with this caveat in place can also mention that sound isolation was on the better side. These weigh next to nothing at under 5 g each, so it doesn't really impact physical fatigue once inserted.

Audio Performance

Audio Hardware

SeeAudio is seemingly one of the very few audio companies not exclude dedicated pages worth of marketing on the driver tech and tuning, instead freely mentioning a collaboration between its audio team, Knowles, and Sonion for the choice of four balanced armature drivers and tuning done. It's somewhat refreshing to see Knowles, Sonion, AZLA, and HAKUGEI named on the front of the product box, and things are kept simple with a factory frequency response curve as well as further clarity on the driver arrangement. Two Knowles balanced armature (BA) drivers are used to cater to the all-important lows, followed by a Sonion BA for the mids and a third Knowles BA for the highs. The heatmap-style frequency response also shows that we should expect an elevated bass response and recessed mids, followed by elevated upper mids and treble before darkness in the higher frequencies. Driving the hardware is extremely easy with a rated 18 Ω impedance (at 1 kHz) and a higher-than-average sensitivity of 110 dB/mW, once again at 1 kHz, presumably measured at the drum reference point. In practice, it should be fine with all mobile devices, and a portable DAC/amp will suit your needs perfectly for when you find yourself without an available 3.5 mm audio jack on the go. The better source and a DAP may be in consideration here, useful in avoiding potential hissing and clipping from the somewhat sensitive IEMs these are. If not using them on the go, the shorter cable included with IEMs might be a potential handicap if connecting to a PC as the audio source, and a cable upgrade may be called for.

Frequency 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 reproducible testing methodology begins with a calibrated IEC711 audio coupler/artificial ear that IEM buds can feed into enough for decent isolation similar to real ears. The audio coupler feeds into 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 1/6th 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 ear mold that fits to the audio coupler for a separate test to compare how the IEMs fare when installed in a pinna geometry and not just the audio coupler by itself. 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 SeeAudio Bravery, or at least the useful part of it. 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 basically identical throughout the lows and mids and within +/-1 dB thereafter. SeeAudio itself rated channel matching to be within +/-1 dB for the entire 20 Hz to 20 kHz range, and noting that the IEC711 coupler isn't the most reliable at higher frequencies makes this a very impressive set from a channel balance perspective. There wasn't much of a burn-in effect either with pretty much what you get unboxed being it even after 50 hours of having music and a mix of white/pink noise going through the IEMs. The response with the artificial pinna in place is also quite impressive in how similar it is to the coupler itself, including with the resonance peaks.

Being an all-BA set, I was not sure what to expect going in, especially as it pertains to the bass response. Dedicating two of the four drivers to the low frequencies worked well enough, so I can't say SeeAudio failed. At the same time, those looking at the graph and expecting some form of V-shaped tuning might be left wanting more. This is in fact more of a mellow U-shape tuning, which in practical terms means it is closer to a neutral tuning than a bass-emphasized one. There isn't much in the sense of bass dynamics here, with the flatter tuning also playing a role in being a heavy blanket over what the two BA drivers provide. The tuning in itself isn't an issue, of course, since the set matches the factory response provided by SeeAudio, so in that regard, it does quite well in meeting marketed expectations. Sub-bass isn't high on the list, so don't get it for the likes of EDM music. There is a more pronounced mid-bass response, though; it somewhat reminds me of the DUNU FALCON PRO in its relative emphasis here and saves the SeeAudio Bravery more than anything else in my opinion since it was otherwise going down the path of a few other all-BA IEMs I have used in the past. Indeed, I'd say it's natural sounding, detailed, and warm enough to compete with some dynamic driver sets.

BA timbre often is described as metallic, but I am still struggling to find out exactly what that means. What I can tell you is that the tuning in the lows, especially the transition into the lower mids, can sound hazy and quite unnatural with such implementations. It's not a case of bass bleed into the mids as much as someone having EQ'd a peak filter around 100–150 Hz for bass elevation without accounting for any of the associated distortion and effects of said filter around the peak owing to the Q-factor. If these terms aren't known to you, perhaps another way would be to say it feels like it's coming from somewhere else with an obstruction between the IEMs and your ears. The SeeAudio Bravery does not feel like this—it has the best bass response and bass-to-mids transition I have gotten from an all-BA IEM to date.

The mids and highs are a hit or miss depending on what you prefer, with the lower mids still elevated from the bass transition and favoring male vocals that blend together with bass guitars in particular. To give you more context, Rock music is quite good here. The mids then get more laid-back to where I felt some notes were losing nuances in the detail. This is especially the case with strumming notes and second-order resonances, and it can hurt imaging. That said, the soundstage is lacking more to where the imaging in itself is not as big an issue anymore. The general response in the mids is favoring the upper mids where female vocals are more forward-sounding, almost coming off somewhat shouty but never actually getting there. Listening to these for the first time may have them come off as harsh, but keep at it and you realize the Bravery is sparkly and tight in a way that works well with western pop and all the way east to K-pop and J-pop. If anything, the transition to the highs may be even better, and the treble response is one of the better experiences I have had in a long time. One thing I would have liked different is the tuning from 4–8 kHz, wherein you go from an elevated shelf immediately down and back up again. This affects the presence region, but also hurts some of the string instrument classes, as well as piano keys, which decay sooner than they should. I can understand why it was done, as more treble-heavy tracks can otherwise be fatiguing, but it's something I would EQ around myself.


Seen above are two charts of comparisons, the first where I saw somewhat similar tuning and the second more about hybrids at and near the same price as the SeeAudio Bravery. There is no winner in the first chart because I feel the KATO and Bravery handle the bass and mids better, but the FH5s does treble-tuning better. The Kato has better technical performance than either of them, but is even more of a shouty candidate. The second set is one I was in two minds about showing, but figured questions might come up either way. Both the ThieAudio Legacy 5 and Mangird Tea are tuned quite differently to the SeeAudio Bravery, and both of those have a dynamic driver despite lacking bass response by comparison. They are more balanced with better executed mids, though. Of the five sets here, I would probably go with the SeeAudio Bravery more for being better with a broader set of music genres than being better at one or two things, so if you are specific about your tastes, maybe look at options that are tuned for those.