Comparing IEMs: Is the Meze Astru the New Sennheiser IE 600?

SOUNDSTAGE & IMAGING

Now for the main event: the sound analysis. Between the Astru and the IE 600, you hear a lot of similarities because the driver configuration is the same. The single driver gives both of these IEMs a natural quality that makes them all the more set to be a reference IEM. A main difference I found was in how the wide soundstage of both is presented. The Astru has a wide soundstage, but it feels very intimate. Instruments come to the very front and are placed in the front of the sound field. It is well-balanced and has good imaging in every genre. The midrange does come slightly forward to give the Astru a V-shaped signature, but it doesn't distract from the neutral balance. 

Now we compare it to the Sennheiser IE 600, which is well-known for its treble-focused neutrality. The IE 600 doesn't have as much bass sound as the Astru, but it still does have enough punch for it to be present. It takes a backseat next to other frequency ranges, but doesn't disappear completely. The soundstage is very wide and expands outward, differing from the intimate nature of the Astru. It creates an open signature that makes the IEMs themselves less fatiguing to wear for long periods of time. The IE 600 has great imaging accuracy, both in horizontal placement and in depth. There isn't much height, but the natural reproduction of the instruments is notable and stands out amongst a lot of other finely tuned and dynamic signatures. 

Between the two IEMs, they both offer great natural sound signatures. They pair well with DACs and amplifiers, allowing you to color the sound with outside equipment or software as opposed to coming in with its own stark flavor. Musicians may lean towards the IE 600 based on signature alone, but casual listeners may appreciate the Astru more for its fuller and more present bass. 

BASS FREQUENCIES

In terms of bass response, the Meze Astru wins to my ears. Dynamic driers are known to produce a stronger bass response than other drivers, and Meze proves this to be true. The Astru has a bass response that is punchy and thick, making lower register instruments have more body and life. It doesn't overpower the signature completely; instead, it just sits behind the midrange and lines up with the treble to create the V-shape mentioned earlier. 

On the other hand, the Sennheiser IE 600 falls a bit short. Not to say the bass has disappeared completely: it is actually very present and very detailed. It has more of a treble and brighter response that keeps it from becoming too dark and overpowering in the earphones as a whole. If you're a fan of bass, the Sennheiser IE 600 may be underwhelming; you'll likely find a more compatible sound with the Meze Astru. If you are more sensitive to bass and prefer a strong treble, the IE 600 may be up your alley. 

MIDRANGE FREQUENCIES

For midrange frequencies, the Astru and IE 600 come to a pretty even tie. The Astru presents a midrange that is close to the head, bringing voices to the front and letting them take center stage. In this range, you can hear how the Astru is more intimate than the IE 600. The way the instruments layer themselves in the Astru is closer together as opposed to the more spread out in the IE 600.  The Astru balances intimate presentation with distinct separation very well, allowing you to listen for minute details in every track. The natural timbres and textures of the instruments were very easily noticeable and could be distinguished apart from each other with ease. 

In the Sennheiser earphones, there is a similar sound reproduction to the Astru. It is natural and highly detailed, making instruments easily recognizeable in a host of different genres. This time, instead of just pushing to the front like the Astru does, the IE 600 uses the space in the soundstage to really create a large image. This makes larger ensembles more realistic and immersive in reproduction. The IE 600 had a sharper attention to detail, likely due to the stronger treble presence that followed to the midrange. The midrange on these IEMs definitely lies more neutral than the Astru, making it a better candidate for those looking for true reference monitoring. 

TREBLE FREQUENCIES

At the top of the sound signature, we look at the treble range. The treble is bright and airy in both of these IEMs, but they play different roles in each. In the Astru, the treble balances out the punchy bass with sharp detail of its own. It sits just behind the midrange and lines up with the bass, so you get relief if the bass ends up being overly powerful. The detail from the treble carries over to the rest of the signature, making sure the other ranges don't sound muffled or muddy. In an intimate soundstage like the Astru, the treble did wonders for opening up the top end to make sure it didn't feel claustrophobic during listening. 

Meanwhile, the IE 600 embraces the treble and makes it a defining feature of the signature as a whole. You can hear how the treble comes forward and matches the midrange in terms of intensity and forwardness, though it never becomes too sharp or piercing. The IE 600 has a very open top end that makes larger ensembles sound more natural in the spaces they are played in. It is a more forward treble presentation than that of the Astru, but similarly to it, it doesn't become overpowering or take away from the natural sound of the instruments.