KZ PR1 Pro Planar IEM

[drpepper]

I take some note of budget IEMs mostly out of curiosity. And while I've picked up a small handful of chi-fi models, I've never found any of the dozen or so IEMs I've tried to outrightly "sound bad" to me. And to the degree that have developed overall opinions and preferences from giving them a go with play along practice, at rehearsal and at least some part of a gig, I don't have the kind of ear that I could fill out a definitive score cards to compare and contrast various models purely on sound quality...i.e., I wouldn't be a good reviewer. I don't tend to hear easily definable, night and day differences that many say they do.

It's occurred to me more than once that probably the top perennial favorite budget IEM here, the KZ ZS10 Pro (CCA C10 Pro) is 4 years old now. Sure, in many arenas, 4 years is barely a blip, but in the budget IEM market, it's an eternity. Countless models have been released since then.

At points, I've also noticed newer configurations and driver technologies and recently saw that the planar driver has been picking up steam in the budget market. I spotted the KZ PR1 Pro planar IEM at the same time I happened to have enough Amazon points to order them with just a few dollars out of pocket, so I did on a lark. Funny, the "Pro" is the "second generation" when the first generation just came out in the Fall. I've only made some recorded music listening comparisons and based on my track record, I wasn't really expecting to, but for the first time, I have found clear enough differences in aspects of what I hearing to easily define and quantify those differences.

Going back and forth between the PR1 Pro and C10 Pro, I found the PR1 notably preferable in almost every aspect. The first readily apparent difference (partly due to the music choice) was that the sub-bass sounds more full, "realistic", and has a more expansive feeling. I found PR1's the rest of the low end to sound tighter and more detailed...crisp. Mids up through my treble limits (57 year old ears fwiw) sounded more natural, clear and warm. Overall, I'd characterize the broad difference as warmer, clearer and more natural sounding. With a direct comparison, I'm now hearing the C10 Pros as having a quality that can only be referred to as "harshness."

I don't know what kind of headroom they have or how the isolation would compare on stage (I found the on-stage isolation of the C10 Pros to be less than good by direct comparison to some others).

I'll be curious to find out what others hear in them if they get a foothold, which it seems to me that they're worth a try.

 

[pfschim]

I've been using KZ ZS10 pro and then the KZ AST's for the past year-ish. Happy enough with both of them that I did not chase any of the other, much more expensive customs ... at least for the time being.

I'd be interested to hear how the KZ PR1 pros compare when used as IEM's and not with just recorded music as you seem to have done so far.

 

[drpepper]

I've been using KZ ZS10 pro and then the KZ AST's for the past year-ish. Happy enough with both of them that I did not chase any of the other...

I'm definitely on-board with not changing things that you're happy with to chase marginal improvements...or labeling marginal improvements as more than they are to justify anything.

It's been my experience and belief that with IEMs and especially universal fit IEMs, marginal differences in sound and even some more significant differences tend to be overridden by various other factors in actual use. For example, I might find that like the overall sound of one pair of IEMs better than another in recorded music listening and maybe at rehearsal volume, but because that model doesn't isolate as well, it has to be run louder to achieve a similar balance...if that's the case, "sounding better" doesn't really matter. Same thing with fit...if a pair of IEMs are notably less comfortable than another, a marginal difference in some aspect or aspects of how they sound isn't going to matter.

Anyway, OTOH, these are relatively inexpensive to me, and for someone who wants to buy and try various things that are hardly breaking the bank and to do that even just out of curiosity, why not? And that's where I am with this.

And part of my thinking is that as broad and continuously evolving as the chi-fi market has been, I can't help but think that the popularity of certain models for musician/stage use comes from a combination of factors that include happenstance and word-of-mouth/forum hype that has built around certain models. Which in turn makes me think it doesn't make complete sense to believe there aren't other models that simply haven't been noticed or adopted that are also excellent candidates for musician use.

 

[pfschim]

I'm definitely on-board with not changing things that you're happy with to chase marginal improvements...or labeling marginal improvements as more than they are to justify anything.

It's been my experience and belief that with IEMs and especially universal fit IEMs, marginal differences in sound and even some more significant differences tend to be overridden by various other factors in actual use. For example, I might find that like the overall sound of one pair of IEMs better than another in recorded music listening and maybe at rehearsal volume, but because that model doesn't isolate as well, it has to be run louder to achieve a similar balance...if that's the case, "sounding better" doesn't really matter. Same thing with fit...if a pair of IEMs are notably less comfortable than another, a marginal difference in some aspect or aspects of how they sound isn't going to matter.

Anyway, OTOH, these are relatively inexpensive to me, and for someone who wants to buy and try various things that are hardly breaking the bank and to do that even just out of curiosity, why not? And that's where I am with this.

And part of my thinking is that as broad and continuously evolving as the chi-fi market has been, I can't help but think that the popularity of certain models for musician/stage use comes from a combination of factors that include happenstance and word-of-mouth/forum hype that has built around certain models. Which in turn makes me think it doesn't make complete sense to believe there aren't other models that simply haven't been noticed or adopted that are also excellent candidates for musician use.

totally get what you're saying about chasing marginal improvements ... particularly with aged hearing.
At the same time, the prices of these chi-fi units definitely facilitate trying out better options, if they are better. Please report back once you've used the PR1's in a live setting. I'm definitely interested to hear if they deliver better fidelity than the already pretty solid KS ZS10 and AST's.

 

[donk]

the KZ-PR1 seem to need a lot more power to give the same volume as the ZS-10. but the sound good

 

[pfschim]

the KZ-PR1 seem to need a lot more power to give the same volume as the ZS-10. but the sound good

have you used the PR1's as IEM's in a live music setting ? When you say they sound good, do you mean that they sound noticeably better in some way compared to the ZS-10's ?

 

[drpepper]

the KZ-PR1 seem to need a lot more power to give the same volume as the ZS-10. but the sound good

There's a more than a 10dB difference in sensitivity (whether between the ZS10 and PR1 or between ZS10 PRO and PR1 PRO), which means that (to the degree that the rating/measurement was consistent, which being from the same company, seems reasonable) the 10dB greater sensitivity will be about twice as loud given the same power. It doesn't seem a terribly notable difference to me because all of them call be adequately driven by devices in the lower power range...if you're switching between them, it's a matter of needing to adjust the volume. It's more happenstance of sensitivity...111dB is higher than most but not higher than all, so, it's usually going to be louder by comparison. And where sensitivity ratings/measurements aren't consistent, the point comes to the front that it's just a fact that some IEMs are going to be louder than others at the same power and what matters is that they can be driven satisfactorily by the same devices. I have a set that have a rating of 118dB and the C10 Pros are significantly louder at the same power...go figure...

 

[donk]

I just got the pr1 today and have used the z as a backup. I use the custom jh11 live. The molds really make a big difference. I was curious about what the difference was for casual listening. Eill give it the true test on the riding mower . I think the pr1 might be better live with a little less hi extension and a little lower mids. Your mileage might vary

 

[drpepper]

...used the PR1's in a live setting

I used them last night at a rehearsal with acoustic drums and two guitars not on IEMs (so amps and PA), so similar to some live stage sound situations although standing closer to the drums than in most and no subs.

Overall, they worked well. I regularly use Alclair CIEMs, meaning they're non-vented/ported. I have my mix dialed in for those and, for the most part, I tend to make only small adjustments from venue to venue and for rehearsals.

I found the isolation to be completely adequate with drums and guitar amps nearby and was certainly somewhere in the same ballpark range as various other universals I've experienced (i.e., within expectations, not notably bad or exceptionally good). As expected, I had to make some significant changes to my mix to account for the difference in bleed-through. With that done, as I said to start, they worked well. The bass remained deep, full and detailed, and the balance between the IEMs and PA bleed-through even without subs gave that impression/illusion of an authoritative sounding amp being right behind me. All else remained clear, detailed and warm sounding as it had in listening to recorded music with no jagged edges sticking out. So, they did what IEMs are supposed to do in completely satisfactory fashion and I'd be comfortable carrying them as backups or if they were the only IEMs I had, I wouldn't feel that they were coming up short in any way.

Subjectivity absolutely rules, so I don't assume I can definitively tell anyone else what they'll hear, but for me, even if I hadn't had the Amazon points discounting the price, I'd still find them to be a worthwhile purchase and the preferred set among my small collection of lower cost IEMs.

 

[pfschim]

I used them last night at a rehearsal with acoustic drums and two guitars not on IEMs (so amps and PA), so similar to some live stage sound situations although standing closer to the drums than in most and no subs.

Overall, they worked well. I regularly use Alclair CIEMs, meaning they're non-vented/ported. I have my mix dialed in for those and, for the most part, I tend to make only small adjustments from venue to venue and for rehearsals.

I found the isolation to be completely adequate with drums and guitar amps nearby and was certainly somewhere in the same ballpark range as various other universals I've experienced (i.e., within expectations, not notably bad or exceptionally good). As expected, I had to make some significant changes to my mix to account for the difference in bleed-through. With that done, as I said to start, they worked well. The bass remained deep, full and detailed, and the balance between the IEMs and PA bleed-through even without subs gave that impression/illusion of an authoritative sounding amp being right behind me. All else remained clear, detailed and warm sounding as it had in listening to recorded music with no jagged edges sticking out. So, they did what IEMs are supposed to do in completely satisfactory fashion and I'd be comfortable carrying them as backups or if they were the only IEMs I had, I wouldn't feel that they were coming up short in any way.

Subjectivity absolutely rules, so I don't assume I can definitively tell anyone else what they'll hear, but for me, even if I hadn't had the Amazon points discounting the price, I'd still find them to be a worthwhile purchase and the preferred set among my small collection of lower cost IEMs.

great! thanks for the mini review in a live music IEM situation.
Could you compare the PR1's to your Alclair customs ? (I'm guessing, at a minimum, the isolation will be less than the CIEMs) and the other KZ's you mentioned in your OP.

 

[drpepper]

Could you compare the PR1's to your Alclair customs ?

I don't think I could in any way that'd be very useful to anyone...and yes, I suppose any un-vented/ported custom is going to have greater sound isolation.

 

[drpepper]

Not that this generated much interest or discussion to begin with, I have an update to add...I found it interesting enough to want to mention.

Reading about the differences between the PR1 and PR1 Pro caused enough curiousity that I grabbed a set of PR1s too. They got a similar level of positive press and praise from youtube reviewers when they were alone but one criticism relative the Pro after its release was having "hyped bass". I thought in light of everything else I'm hearing in them, maybe hyped bass would actually be a good thing for a bassist?

Since they're otherwise identical, I pulled the cable from the left Pro and replaced it with the PR1. I listened, panning back and forth and trying to focus on details of one side or the other while centered.

I wouldn't be surprised to find that some psychoacoustic principle limits meaningful comparison in this way, but I could hear very little difference between them. For example, since their sensitivity is 4dB apart, I was listening for and expecting to hear that difference show up in them sounding at least slightly off balance...they didn't. And while it seems that the full presentation of bass relies on stereo imaging, I'd still think that panning is at least an apples to apples and near instantaneous comparison...I didn't hear a significant difference in the level of bass panned, and centered, there was no sense of imbalance.

The character of the bass did seem slightly different in that I felt I could detect the Pro as having slightly tighter, restrained feel and I found this positive (the next person may not). The only other difference that my hearing made apparent was that the upper mids on the Pro were what I would call more open, immediate and present. But since sensitivity varies with frequency, maybe that's how I was hearing that difference show up.

For myself, other than the nicer cable that comes with the Pro (neither one has a cinch anyway) and included foam tips (the PR1 only comes with silicone), without direct comparison, I can only believe I would have been just about equally impressed and satisfied with either one. They both have great bass, and sound natural, warm, clear and detailed to my ear.

I really do like the straight cable end. Every other one I have or have ever had are 90 degree and I've always wondered why.

 

[PhillipHolbrook]

I take some note of budget IEMs mostly out of curiosity. And while I've picked up a small handful of chi-fi models, I've never found any of the dozen or so IEMs I've tried to outrightly "sound bad" to me. And to the degree that have developed overall opinions and preferences from giving them a go with play along practice, at rehearsal and at least some part of a gig, I don't have the kind of ear that I could fill out a definitive score cards to compare and contrast various models purely on sound quality...i.e., I wouldn't be a good reviewer. I don't tend to hear easily definable, night and day differences that many say they do.

It's occurred to me more than once that probably the top perennial favorite budget IEM here, the KZ ZS10 Pro (CCA C10 Pro) is 4 years old now. Sure, in many arenas, 4 years is barely a blip, but in the budget IEM market, it's an eternity. Countless models have been released since then.

At points, I've also noticed newer configurations and driver technologies and recently saw that the planar driver has been picking up steam in the budget market. I spotted the KZ PR1 Pro planar IEM at the same time I happened to have enough Amazon points to order them with just a few dollars out of pocket, so I did on a lark. Funny, the "Pro" is the "second generation" when the first generation just came out in the Fall. I've only made some recorded music listening comparisons and based on my track record, I wasn't really expecting to, but for the first time, I have found clear enough differences in aspects of what I hearing to easily define and quantify those differences.

Going back and forth between the PR1 Pro and C10 Pro, I found the PR1 notably preferable in almost every aspect. The first readily apparent difference (partly due to the music choice) was that the sub-bass sounds more full, "realistic", and has a more expansive feeling. I found PR1's the rest of the low end to sound tighter and more detailed...crisp. Mids up through my treble limits (57 year old ears fwiw) sounded more natural, clear and warm. Overall, I'd characterize the broad difference as warmer, clearer and more natural sounding. With a direct comparison, I'm now hearing the C10 Pros as having a quality that can only be referred to as "harshness."

I don't know what kind of headroom they have or how the isolation would compare on stage (I found the on-stage isolation of the C10 Pros to be less than good by direct comparison to some others).

I'll be curious to find out what others hear in them if they get a foothold, which it seems to me that they're worth a try.

I've been using the KZ Z10s for several years and I love them. They give me great bass response with very low distortion and the silicone tips make them fit perfectly in my ears. I can hear every instrument and singer.

 

[drpepper]

I've been using the KZ Z10s for several years and I love them. They give me great bass response with very low distortion and the silicone tips make them fit perfectly in my ears. I can hear every instrument and singer.

That's great for you