Celest Pandamon 2.0
Intro
Well, hello everyone, today I am reviewing one of the latest iems from the brand Celest Audio named the Celest Pandamon 2.0. Of course, the “2.0” references the fact that this model is indeed the successor to the OG Pandamon, naturally called “Celest Pandamon”. I actually reviewed the OG Pandamon (Pandamon Review) and was truly impressed. In fact, I still believe that the OG is a fantastic option at around $26 (last seen on Aliexpress). Which is an enormous sale price from its initial MSRP of $79. For that price it’s probably one of the better iems you can buy. At any rate. I thoroughly enjoy the 1st Pandamon which helped make famous the “Square Planar Driver” or “SPD”. At that time there were only a few sets floating around using the driver tech. Celest also has the Gumiho which is the set which revolutionized the tech. At least that I know of anyways. Well, now we have the latest addition to Celest’s lineup with the Pandamon 2.0, it looks as though we have a new and improved version of that same driver. It also appears that the newer version comes in with an MSRP that’s about $20 cheaper at $59 US.
Upgraded
It’s also very apparent that there have been some aesthetic upgrades since the first Pandamon. It isn’t out of the question to say that the OG’s appearance was pretty polarizing. One might even say it was sort-of cartoonish. I certainly had to overlook the angry bear on the faceplates to enjoy the wonderful sound. Of course, that set was probably geared towards the younger generation. Well, this go-round Celest changed all of that with a gorgeous and appealing successor in the 2.0 that really is a special looking iem. More on that later. Also, like I said, there is an upgrade to the driver itself. Once again, we have a Kinera customized SPD driver, but now it’s supposedly better. I don’t know how it’s better, but that’s what the promotional material states. We shall see. Next, Celest also switched up the tuning. Now, when I read that I was a bit hesitant. Why change such a good thing? So, I guess we will find out about that too.
Celest
I should add that Celest is a sub-brand of one of the more beloved audio brands… Kinera. Just by saying that you should at least perk up a little bit. Celest was created to be the budget arm of the Kinera umbrella. Of course, Kinera also has a sub-brand which is equally awesome in Queen of Audio (QOA). So, the lineage is there, and the doors are open for Celest to ride the Kinera wave, so to speak. However, I honestly feel that… from what I’ve heard from Celest… they’re creating waves all by themselves. I’ve reviewed a couple Celest iems in the recent past. Those sets are the Celest Pandamon (Pandamon Review), Celest Phoenixcall (Phoenixcall Review), and the ultra-budget Celest Wyvern Pro (Wyvern Pro Review). They do a fantastic job on a regular basis. From a build, design, & unboxing standpoint, as well as the actual sound of their products. Everything is usually covered. So, it’s always good to see a Celest/Kinera/QOA set to review.
Iron-eating beast
They call it the Iron-Eating Beast. This is the actual face behind the name “Pandamon”. A ferocious warrior Panda! Well, to be perfectly correct, the image which was depicted was a bear which had black and white patterns. Hence the panda. This beast feasted on iron and copper (as one does) and has an extraordinary combat history. On a side note, this beast also had a penchant for sneaking into nearby homes and eating their copper and steel dishware, not joking. Enemies armor and devices for combat stood no chance against the iron crushing Jaws of Pandamon. We learn about this character in an ancient Chinese text… “The Classic of Mountain & Seas”. This story is where Celest draws its inspiration for the Pandamon series of iems. This tale is also known as “Shan Hai Jing”. Thought to be dated as early as the 4th century BCE, but the actual version we have today didn’t come around until the Han Dynasty. That we know of. This book is really a large collection of Chinese mythology and a very well regarded one if I’m not mistaken.
What’s in a name?
I say all of that to once again congratulate Celest/Kinera for another solid naming scheme. There is a lot to take away from how these audio brands name their devices. To a small extent anyways. You’ve probably read in some of my reviews where I do poke some fun at brands whose best effort to name their products is with “number names”. Not with Kinera, Celest & QOA. This is a brand who takes the careful thought and time to give their products a certain personality, if you will. Always there is a theme, or a story by which they use to name their iems. I am a huge fan of this. It shows that they care about their craft enough to give their products a certain identity. I like brands that show care for their artistry & put the effort in to create a theme. Also, it’s nice to follow along. At any rate, the Pandamon is a good character to use. I simply like the “not-so” cartoonish version.
Let’s dive in…
I certainly want to see how well the 2.0 stacks up to the OG Pandamon. I have to admit that the 2.0 has some big shoes to fill as the OG has a very nice tuning. Also, I want to see how well the Pandamon stacks up to the sets within its price point. So with that, I think I’m ready to dive in folks. The Celest Pandamon…
Purchasing Links:
Pandamon 2.0 Pros
-Great featherlight all-resin build (Kinera does it right)
-Beautiful Design
-One of the more comfortable iems. Again, featherlight.
-Note weight is a very nice version of lean-lush
-Nice timbre for an SPD. Nice timbre period!
-The low-end has nice impact & punch
-Midrange is forward, vibrant, not dull, nice for vocals
-Non-fatiguing treble region yet with good micro-details
-Detail Retrieval
-Wide stage
-Very smooth and musical
Pandamon 2.0 Cons
-Not as robust a build as some would like
-Sub-bass extension isn’t perfect
-Bass could use some authority and dense weight
-Upper-mids may be too lifted for some folks
-Treble extension isn’t the best
-Stage is pretty intimate front to back, and depth slightly lacks
-Imaging isn’t perfect
-Complicated tracks can sound… complicated (at times)
Gear used for testing
–iBasso DX240 with Amp8 MK2
Packaging / Accessories
Unboxing
This is a very quick rundown of the unboxing. Why do I do these? Anyways, the Pandamon 2.0 comes in a good-sized rectangular box with a nice moody purple mountain scene on the outer sleeve. Take the sleeve off to reveal the actual black box underneath. Open the box to get your first look at the very nice looking Pandamon 2.0 sitting pretty in some foam cut-outs. Next to the earphones is the black case. Inside the case you’ll find the eartips and cable as well. The whole package is up to par with $50 to $75 iems, in my opinion anyways. Kinera/Celest will always put together a well displayed first unboxing.
Eartips
The eartips provided in the packaging are six pairs in total. There’re two different styles of tips. The first set (S, M, L) is a gray flanged and orange stem pair of what Celest calls their “608 balanced tips”. To be 100% honest, these tips look identical in almost all ways to the old school Fiio Bass tips. Or just a different colored KBear 07 tip. Same semi-wide bore, firm flange, and rigid stem. They are great tips. The second set (S, M, L) is a gray on dark gray pair of tips. Celest refers to these as their “221 vocal tips”. These tips are a shallower fit then the 1st pair and they also have a wider bore. Good tips as well. In fact, both sets are nice tips and should be great to have in a collection. I actually went with the 1st set which perfectly resemble the Fiio Bass tips and carry the exact sonic principles of the KBear 07 tips. They give the upper mids a slight vibrance and give the low-end some impact, some snap too, while being less fatiguing up top then the wide bore tips for me.
Tip-roll?
You may not enjoy the more neutral style of this set and may want just a touch more low-end oomph to your listen. For that I would point you towards a narrow bore tip. Any of them that I used would help give the Pandamon 2.0 that last little bit of low-end grunt while slightly attenuating the upper regions. I certainly don’t like the Pandamon 2.0 in that way, but I could see some folks wanting to change things up a bit. Some would say that foam tips would do the same thing, however I found that foam tips actually decrease the bass presence in the process on this set. Who knows, maybe it’s just my ear anatomy but I can assure you that this is what I have to report and what I heard. At any rate, it’s nice that you actually get nice tips for a change in a budget set. I would have thought nothing less of Kinera/Celest.
Carrying case
I never use these things. Okay I can’t say never. I do occasionally take a carrying case with me when I’m out in the market or taking a walk. However, most of the time I don’t use them. Still, I know many folks who do. So, it is nice to see a decent case with the Pandamon 2.0. This is a smaller round case. Black in color. It has a faux leather type material covering it and it does have a working zipper (for a change). The included case is large enough to fit your earphones and a cable, maybe some extra tips too. However, it is also small enough to fit in your pocket and not look absolutely ridiculous. It’s a nice accessory and it’s a good case.
Cable
Celest chose to offset the blue or black hues (whatever you choose at checkout) of the Pandamon 2.0 with a nice looking pearl white cable. No, it isn’t the best wire that my eyes have ever seen, but also… the Pandamon 2.0 costs $59. It’s very nice for the price and nobody should complain because I’m telling you that you won’t find many outright better cables at that price. There are some outliers like the amazing cable that came with the Rose Technics QuietSea (thiccy-thicc gray fabric cable). Yet most of the time you are getting throw away cables that you will likely swap out anyways. I don’t feel that this is necessary at all. You can choose between the 3.5 single ended and 4.4 balanced jack options. I chose the 4.4 because I simply listen much more to 4.4 balanced on my sources. To each their own though. This cable is a 2-pin, straight plug, 5N silver plated copper cable with 49 strands and 4 cores in a circular braided design. It’s not super fat but it is lite enough to not tug on the ultra-lite Pandamon 2.0’s. I feel this cable is probably a good choice. It’s nice.
Build / Design / Internals / Fit
Build Quality
I find the build quality of the Pandamon 2.0 to be pretty nice. I feel it is built to serve more of a function than anything. Made completely of a resin material which is very light in weight. I would argue that the Pandamon 2.0 may be one of the lightest iems that I have. The Kefine Delci is a close second. However, the Pandamon 2.0 only weighs about 3.5 grams, which is next to nothing. Hence the need for a slightly lighter cable. Now, one huge benefit of a build such as this, is that the Pandamon 2.0 will not induce fatigue on the listener due to its weight. I find it quite awesome that Celest was able to craft a set which is so lite without it feeling cheap. I don’t get that impression. This is a unique and structurally sound earphone and it’s made in typical Kinera fashion. Very nice.
Anyways, the Pandamon 2.0 are circular in build and much smaller than many other planar iems. Mainly due to the size of the SPD driver Celest was able to craft a set which would be great for those with smaller ears. The nozzle is medium in length. Not too long and also not too short. The nozzle opening at the tip is roughly around 6mm and so most any tips can be used with it. Celest also put a small vent hole near the two pin connectors as well. Again, at the end of the day, I do believe that the build was more functional than anything. This is a set that will not cause the listener to get fatigued over time and won’t come out of place due to the sheer weight of the housings. It’s a nice build, as always.
Design
One of the coolest aspects of the Pandamon 2.0 is the beautiful look and design language used with this set. Again, the Pandamon 2.0 comes in two colorways, both blue and black. Both have transparent housings which showcase the neat looking square planar drivers. Additionally, the faceplates are actually hand painted! It is stated in the promotional material that the faceplates went through many different processes to present a more modest Pandamon “this time”. The difference from the cartoonist original Pandamon is quite a huge leap and much more respectable in my opinion. While I didn’t hate the OG design, it certainly wasn’t something I was willing to take out and be seen with. It was more for teenagers and those who could identify with the story behind the Pandamon. I actually love the design on the 2.0. The blue set is absolutely gorgeous with its deep indigo blue transparency. I love the cursive “Celest” so eloquently displayed on each faceplate area. The logo sits in the middle of a black canvas with tiny blue, white, & black speckles which are hand painted in such a way to mimic the look of what appears to be mountains or water splashing. I couldn’t think of a better sophomore try at this theme. It is much more mature and easier to get behind for more hobbyists.
Shell Design
Celest Promotional
Pandamon 2.0 adopts a translucent resin body shell with a hand-painted faceplate by artist, which has gone through several processes to present a modest and naive Pandamon, making Pandamon become gentle and dynamic.
Internals
This should be relatively quick. Celest chose to use their latest SPD 2.0 square planar driver. This driver does cover the full range of the spectrum quite nicely. I find that these square planar drivers are almost a good mix of DD energy and planar energy. Heck, there are times it sounds almost like a BA but with better low-end energy. It’s hard to put my finger on actually. That said, I really do enjoy these square planar drivers. They seem to be a comfortable median between planars and dynamic drivers. I can say one thing with 100% conviction though, the Pandamon 2.0’s “2.0” driver is a slight upgrade.
Kinera 10mm SPD 2.0 ™ (Square Planar Driver)
Celest Promotional
SPD™ 2.0 is an excellent full-range Square Planar Driver, based on reasonable structure and solid materials, compared with other driver have a small size, high sensitivity, smooth three-frequency articulation, balanced energy distribution characteristics. Ultra-low impedance makes it possible to drive a planar earphone from a mobile phone as well.
Fit
This will be an area that will depend wholly on your own ear anatomy. For me, the Pandamon 2.0 fits like a dream! This is an awesome set for fit and comfort. In fact, if the fit is good for you then the Pandamon 2.0 will be one of the most comfortable iems under $100. Obviously, you’ll have to find tips that seal well for you. Still, this is an extremely light iem folks. As honest as I can be, I don’t think I’ve had anything more comfortable in my ears for quite some time. Couple that with the big sound and there is just something special about that combo. The fit is great… If it fits you. I always wonder why I out this section in any review and always go back and forth about taking the time to add it in. Welp, the Pandamon 2.0 is my reason. Also, weirdly enough, the Pandamon 2.0 also does an admirable job with good passive noise isolation. I wouldn’t have thought that being the Pandamon 2.0 is a resin set, light as a feather and with a vent but… It does a good job here.
Drivability / Synergy
The Celest Pandamon is a really easy set to drive. This smacks in the face what we used to think that planar magnetic earphones were supposed to be. They are supposed to be hard to drive, hard to get the best out of them. Most planars will reward you with greater power and will sound more lifeless with less output. Not the Pandamon. With an impedance of only 9 ohms and a sensitivity of roughly about 108 db’s, the Pandamon 2.0 thrives with even low powered sources. Now, just like most iems, the Pandamon 2.0 will slightly scale with more juice. However, that is not a requirement at all. Even my iPad was able to bring this set to good volume. The Fiio UTWS5 made easy work of driving this set. So, you don’t need some massive uptick of power and should be perfectly fine driving the Pandamon 2.0, even with a phone not named “LG”.
Mobile Listening
When I’m out and about I love to have a few sources with me. I swap and switch out pretty regularly. I realize in the “Gear used for testing” section above that I list out a number of devices used. However, I use way more than that. Those are simply my most used devices. I did use quite a few more than what’s listed. One thing I found to be great was how the Pandamon 2.0 seems to pair with slightly warmer sources…sometimes. This wasn’t always the case but more often than not slightly warmer sources seemed to do well. However, I feel that far too often we consider “good synergy” to simply be the result of tonal coloration pairing. I don’t agree with that completely. I hear good results from both warmer and closer to neutral sources. Synergy is a tough thing to explain folks.
Nice pairings
One great pairing is with the IFi Go Blu. It has a ton of power and a slightly warm skew to its sound, but it also has a very musical sound. Together they worked wonderfully over LDAC. Also, using the Simgot Dew4x was a real treat as well. I hear such a nice resolving sound and the Dew4x seems to provide a hint more depth than a lot of the other mobile sources. Also, the EPZ TP20 Pro. It has a nicely warm/neutral sound with warmer dynamics that simply fits the Pandamon 2.0 in a way which provides almost a milky sound with a boost to the low-end. So, there are a few different examples of good pairings on the go. I should add that more neutral sources don’t sound bad at all either. Something like the EPZ TP50 put on a technical clinic with the Pandamon 2.0 with great timbre. So, it really is dependent on the source and how it individually pairs with this $59 iem.
More juice
Here is where I spend the greatest majority of my listening and without question my favorite source to use was the Shanling M6 Ultra. That velvet chip (AK4493SEQ Flagship dac) and its highly resolving sound was synergy at its finest for me. To me the Pandamon 2.0 scales very well with more advanced sources and will reward you for these types of pairings. I also feel that more power does tighten the transient attack through decay a bit as well. Maybe a bit more bass impact too but that is highly debatable.
What do you need?
Pretty much what I’ve said, in my opinion anyways. I’d say just, have a source device that you enjoy with moderate power at the very least. Perhaps that is a dongle dac like I’ve mentioned above. However, if all you have is the money to purchase the Pandamon 2.0 and nothing else then I’d say you’d probably be okay with a simple phone through a 3.5 single ended jack.
Tuning Concept
Celest Promotional
Pandamon 1.0 sound fierce and in the tuner’s impression Pandamon has a very different character from the book. Therefore, in the Pandamon 2.0 tuning, the power of the sound to the mid-high frequency tilt, making the Pandamon 2.0 sound more rapid and relaxed, high-frequency extension is more excellent, so that the details of the song is detailed, easy to handle, such as ACG and a variety of other complex music.
Sound Impressions
Note: I just want to preface this section with a couple things. First off, I did burn in the Pandamon 2.0 for roughly about 50-60 hours. There wasn’t some huge change that occurred for me either, so I don’t know how imperative it is to do so. I listen using flac or better files which are stored on my devices. I also use the UAPP (USB Audio Player Pro) app. Occasionally, I use the Hiby Music app as well as Poweramp.
Condensed Sound Between the 20’s
I always add in this initial section into my reviews so that people can get a quick synopsis of my thoughts. I realize not everyone wants to read my longer reviews all the time. Of course, I elaborate in the following sections quite a bit more.
Listening to the Pandamon 2.0, I’d say that it comes across with a U-shaped sound. One thing is for sure, the midrange isn’t withdrawn or pulled back, certainly not attenuated. Instruments are more forward and so are vocals. Hence the “U-shaped” sound. The Pandamon 2.0 has a more relaxed energy yet doesn’t come across laid back, if that makes sense. Smooth over crisp, natural transients. Just smooth and musical, warm/neutral and clean. It’s one of those sets that can come across energetic and lively just as easily as it can inundate your temporal lobe with harmonious melodiousness. Just a free flowing and glass lined smoothness that rubs down those rough edges like water over a riverbed. Okay that was a bit romantic, but you get the point. For $59 it’s a nice sound. Is it for everyone? Absolutely not.
They can tune a set of earphones…
There are good dynamics across the mix as the upper midrange/lower treble regions are elevated, adding vibrance and a sense of resolve to the sound as well. I feel that every area of the frequency is represented pretty well, with slightly less extension on each end of the spectrum. The Pandamon 2.0 does have some good macro-dynamics with a warm vibrant presence in my opinion. The dynamic expression is good and fun enough, definitely not boring, but there is a relaxed quality which is very nice to my ears. Beyond that, the Pandamon 2.0 doesn’t skimp on the technical stuff, not completely anyways. However, in the end I hear some nice musicality and an emotional skew to the sound which is great for just chillin’ and listening to your jams. Celest knows how to tune a set of earphones and while it may not be for everyone, it’s still a fine set.
Each 3rd of the mixed “condensed”
I find that the sub-bass extension isn’t too deep or penetrative and doesn’t have a large amount of textured bite and haptic recognition that I enjoy. However, the Pandamon 2.0 still has enough grunt for most genres. It’s just moderate. There is good impact with a flattened attack, slightly softened but very well controlled. Decay is more like a tight DD, not quite like a planar.
The midrange has good note weight, especially nearing the low-mids. While the upper-mids have that shimmery quality to them. Again, this set presents vocals and some instruments slightly more forward and with good cleanliness. I find the mids to be kind of intimate, but also, they have good & quality timbre too. Nothing metallic or shouty.
The treble doesn’t have the best extension, but it is a lively enough treble. The lower treble especially. Certainly, enough lift to bring a clean and uplifted levity to the tonal color of this earphone. I hear no ear gouging peaks or unsightly sibilance. The treble is nice. Just enough energy to add some spice to the sound without oversaturating the mix in treble sheen.
Condensed technical stuff
The stage isn’t what I’d call compressed, but it isn’t wide and spacious either. The extension both ways does hamper this a bit and lack of upper treble energy results in a less airy sound. However, the stage is decent. Separation is about average and wholly depends on the track being played. Imaging leaves a little bit to be desired, but again, alot depends on the track. Detail retrieval is actually pretty good so long as you aren’t playing a complicated song. Honestly, this is a good set, and I could see many folks really loving its sound. So, there you have the ultra-condensed version. In the next few sections, I’ll break down each 3rd of the mix…
Bass region
I like the bass here. It isn’t the most pinpoint or exact in its textures. Then again it also isn’t a lazy or disheveled bass either. It’s nice. You don’t have that crystalline note structure all the time, and the bass does come across slightly softened at the crest of “some” notes…at times. That said, the bass has good control, it isn’t even close to sloppy and has enough impact to give kick drums that tacky edge and hollow boom. Of course, that “boom” may not be enough “boom” for some hobbyists, but there’s some boom. Again, not overdone. This is not an overly boosted low end, as the quantity really does fit the overall tuning very well. A few db’s here or there may throw the whole thing off and miss Celest’s target they were going for. Additionally, there’s a nice contrast against the lower-treble region creating a decent balance. Almost. The pendulum does tilt slightly to the right, but it’s within reason. Now, you do see the bass leach over into the midrange as there’s a little bit of carry over, but I don’t feel this is to a detriment. Instead, I personally feel it adds needed weight and warmth to male vocals. I don’t always need that granite hard density in my bass, and I don’t always need that low-droning rumble either. It just has to fit the overall sound character of the iem I’m listening to. In the case of Pandamon 2.0, I think it fits just fine.
Sub-bass
The lowest of lows are not going to vibrate your ears or rattle your brain stem. This is a tastefully done rendition of sub-bass from the people at Celest. Now after saying that, I should also state that the Pandamon 2.0 is a bit reserved in this area. Not rolled-off per se, but slightly rolled-off. Sorry for the contradicting descriptions by the way. The Pandamon 2.0 doesn’t exactly have that earthy and grounded chasmic solidity that a dynamic driver can produce. It just isn’t that. Yet it isn’t devoid of some rumble either. It’s what we refer to as “moderate”. Another audiophile unquantifiable word that we use…a lot. Despite this moderate sub-bass quantity, I feel that the Pandamon 2.0 will rise to the occasion in many tracks which have a deep and bullish sub-bass. Especially in tracks that feature that heavy low reverb and drone. For instance, listening to “Mancey” by Andrew Bird, I do get that guttural sound to the extent that the Pandamon 2.0 can provide it. I don’t feel it lacks. It can be sonorous and reach some low pitches too. However, those descriptors aren’t maintained at all times. I would simply say that extension is not to the level of some other sets in its price point. Nevertheless, the sub-bass also won’t drown out other areas of the mix either. It’s a give and take hobby folks. The sub-bass has good control and even some good definition as well. Bassheads won’t be in love with this set, but I feel that most hobbyists will enjoy what Celest was able to accomplish here.
Mid-bass
In my opinion, the mid-bass does have a slight bit more weight afforded to it than the sub-bass. In truth, the mid-bass does have some nice impact and actually has a good clean punch to it as well. This isn’t some “laid back” mid-bass as there is some liveliness and snappy spunk to it. Again, this is also an area which will rise to the occasion and provide some thump when needed. What’s more, it isn’t over cooked either. You don’t have the veil from a dominant bass region covering any other frequencies. In addition, the mid-bass has a nicely edged punch when needed, it has that textured impact when a track calls for it. However, in general it has a softer feel to it. It isn’t razor sharp in its attack unless a track specifically requires it. Moreover, this isn’t a traditionally big bass. Without question bass heads will want to look elsewhere. The Pandamon 2.0 has a tighter mid-bass with good agility but not quite as full as a dynamic driver, not as tight as the usual planar, or as defined as a balanced armature. It’s somewhere in between each of those. Bass guitar doesn’t always have that profuse reverb or fullness that I always want, but in all honesty the Pandamon 2.0 doesn’t miss by much. “2040” by Lil Durk is one of those tracks which doesn’t miss by much, though some folks may be wishing for a bit more thunder within its quantity. Still voluminous enough, still bulbous enough, but with a slightly smaller footprint than something like the Kefine Delci or CCA Rhapsody for instance.
Downsides to the Bass Region
If I were to spell out some flaws within the bass region I would first state that I don’t really see or hear any “flaws”. Just subjective downsides that some folks may not appreciate. One of those downsides obviously pertains to the amount of amplitude given to this general area. The quantity. Some folks will not enjoy that the bass isn’t as boosted, or fun then they may usually enjoy. I could also say that the low-end isn’t exactly that perfectly defined and perfectly sculpted low-end with great depth and layering. It isn’t that. I suppose it’ll always come down to your own preferences, as it should. Some will want a tighter, more analytical style bass. Then some will want the type of bass that warms the whole of the mix and shadows the spectrum in heaviness and lushness. The Pandamon 2.0 presents sort of a “middle ground” in both its technical approach and for the amount of bass and low-end grumble that it displays. From my perspective the Pandamon 2.0 sounds great, I think it’s punchy, tight and defined well enough while at the same time there’s still some atmospheric type of decay and some haptic tactility to the sound. Some folks may want a bit more guttural depth and resonant beef in the lowest of lows but for the most part the Pandamon 2.0 really isn’t missing much here. Yes, there is a slight roll-off in the sub-bass and no the mid-bass doesn’t give you that all-encompassing boom all the time. But the bass fits the overall tuning and counters the upper-mids and lower treble pretty well.
Midrange
To my ears, the Celest Pandamon 2.0 is a more midrange forward iem which excels in the area of vocals. Timbre is actually very good with a natural and more organic hue to everything. Much like the OG Pandamon. I feel the midrange has good presence. It’s slightly highlighted. Not quite put on a pedestal, but highlighted and clear. I’ve heard some vocal centric iems that actually do favor vocals over anything and everything else and they are a bit more pronounced in this area. The Pandamon 2.0 isn’t quite there. However, the midrange does seem to be the Star of the show. There is the slightest recession in the lower parts of the mids and a slightly more forward & vibrant upper part. One thing which is maintained throughout the midrange is the clean presentation and the very nice timbre. Very natural sounding as I don’t hear any planar timbre. Much like the previous Pandamon, the 2.0 follows in its footsteps with an organic take on my musical library. That organic sound is helped by the fact that note weight is generally lusher than it isn’t. I would say it’s closer to lean-lush, softer in its dynamics but also, I hear a very nice smooth-dynamic projection of midrange notes.
Moving parts…
Depending on how complicated the track is that you’re listening to will determine how complicated the music sounds when it hits your ears. Not that the Pandamon 2.0 cannot take on music with more moving parts, but I did notice a slight decline in its resolve of those types of tracks. As one should expect. This is nothing new. This is not a multi driver iem folks, but instead it has a single full range SPD taking on all of those little subtleties. So, I don’t say that to put this set down at all. In fact, I feel the Pandamon 2.0 does a nice job of illuminating details. I hear a very cohesive midrange with a gradual enough pinna rise that isn’t too steep or overtly boosted to the point of glare or shout.
Lower-midrange
Like I stated already, the lower midrange has an ever-so-slight recession. Maybe. Better yet, it’s not that the lower mids are recessed, pushed back or attenuated, it’s more that they aren’t as energetic and dynamic as other areas of the midrange. They simply don’t stick out with the same verve & exuberance (not that the upper-mids are ultra exuberant), and I don’t want my lower mids to come across too energetic. Who wants vibrant male voices? Who wants forward and boxy sounding low-mid instruments? No sir, I want males to sound like males. I’ll take the slight “recession”. Give me weight, authority, warmth, density and give me that word which cannot be fully explained… “Presence”. I find that the Pandamon 2.0 does carry a couple of those rubrics quite well. Males like Marcus King in his track “Mood Swings” is a good example of how the Pandamon 2.0 shows off his breathy, blues-infused southern drawl so very well, with good note weight and presence. Or the track “Once Upon a Poolside” by The National is a track which features a gruffer voice, slightly lower in pitch, gravellier and the Pandamon 2.0 actually does provide some authority to the inflections in his voice. Instruments in the lower-mids present themselves the same way on the Pandamon 2.0. Good weight, a hint warmer, not as exuberant.
Upper-Midrange
Females which hang around the upper-mids are certainly a hair more forward and more elated sounding than males. They come with just a splash of shimmer and vivaciousness. Obviously, instruments do the same. Piano, cymbals, strings, they all carry that slightly more vibrant tinge to their sound. Slightly more forward, closer to the listener. That said, timbre is great, nothing overly artificial to my ears which is saying something for the driver type. I could see some folks not enjoying the vibrance here, but I feel it really does add some sprightliness to the whole of the mix. To a degree anyways. Listening to Caitlyn Smith in the track “High” you get a velvety soft vocal to start the track in the main verse, which leads to a boisterous and resounding chorus. The Pandamon 2.0 takes to this song very well. I don’t hear the knife edged timbre when Caitlyn’s voice gets louder and more ballad-like. Nothing metallic either. Now there are some subtle separation issues during the chorus section but for the most part the Pandamon 2.0 does a great job of keeping control throughout.
Upper-mids cont…
From my estimation, the Pandamon 2.0 excels at female vocals. They may be a hair thinner in this region, but I don’t hear anything frail and weak at all. Even with the leaner note body, the sound still has a very clean approach which seems to add some vibrant density. Instruments follow suit. Details come through pretty well also as the transient response is on the tighter side. Add to that, there’s a nice balance on this set which won’t really see a ton of masking happening in the upper-mids. Maybe a track which displays a lot of lower treble will sound slightly more congested with some masking happening.
Downsides to the Midrange
I suppose there are a few possible subjective downsides that folks may have. Of course, I think the midrange is actually very well done for the price. However, I am not everyone else and I could see how others may take issue with a few things. I would say that the upper midrange may be a bit too shouty for some folks. My ears don’t hear that, but I could see it being an issue for those sensitive to it. I feel the upper-mids take me underneath that “shout-point”, but again, I’m not you. Next, those hobbyists who are warm or dark lovers will probably not appreciate how the Pandamon 2.0’s midrange comes across. Maybe not thick enough in note weight. On the other end of the spectrum, I could see some analytical lovers also not enjoying this set.
Honestly, for me the midrange has a lot going for it. I actually don’t think I outlined that well enough in the previous sections. This is a good midrange with good note weight, better than average details and pretty decent imaging too. I feel the midrange is more musical than anything yet also the mids come across well detailed too. Micro-dynamic low volume shifts come across pretty well for a $59 iem and the bigger and more robust macro-dynamics have good energy which is nice to hear. Transient behavior is relatively quick, yet it does so with smoother and softer fundamental notes. Attack isn’t always crisp and exact, but decay doesn’t lag at all either. Not bad for the price.
Treble Region
This brings us to the treble region. I’d venture to say that the treble is probably the weak link of the tuning for some folks, or a huge benefit for others. It all has to do with emphasis, or lack thereof. Great for those who don’t enjoy a super energetic treble region. But treble heads or even moderate treble enjoyers will probably not be too thrilled. The treble has a nice rise in the lower treble which makes the transition from upper-mids a smooth one. Yet after that there’s a pretty large gulf of info that’s mildly attenuated within the presence region. I’ve heard some other friends of mine in the hobby complain that it isn’t zesty enough past the lower treble, and I get that. Some would like a bit more boisterous energy. Fair enough. In context to some of the other great sets in its price point… I do tend to agree. It’s a tad bit dull & not quite as engaging as I’d like. Having said that, this is not a bad treble. It still has adequate punch and transients move along quick enough too. I find detail retrieval to be pretty good and as far as the actual ability of the treble, I’d say it has good control for the price, but this is a smoother take on this area of the mix. In the same breath, the treble can still make its way through just about any undulating, complicated, or fast treble passage fairly easily. It does still have the planar lineage. However, I wouldn’t expect some ultra peppy treble.
Break it down
To honestly break down the emphasis in this region, I’d simply say that it’s as brilliant as a treble region can be, without causing offense, or fatigue. Extension could be better as well. Personally, I’d like a touch more, but it isn’t a must. In a perfect world I’d like to hear more of a pointed attack as well. The Pandamon 2.0 is just missing that last little bit of info up top and that last little bit of crisp crunch. However, just like the bass region, the treble region does fit the overall tuning well, and in a way that doesn’t steal presence or mask over any other region. It isn’t artificially boosted either, seeking forced resolution. It isn’t going to kill your ears in shrillness or peaks. Again, the treble has good control for what it is. The Pandamon 2.0’s treble emphasis also won’t add unnatural brightness or change the tonal color either. However… it does add at least some levity. At least enough that it doesn’t come across as dark. Maybe not to the point that the Pandamon 2.0 sounds ultra-airy or open. But there’s enough of a rise in the lower treble and at 10k to give the treble some life, or some capped brilliance, if you will.
Downsides to the Treble Region
I feel this treble section has highlighted some of the subjective gripes that folks may have within the treble region of the Pandamon 2.0. Lacks some good and articulate extension. Isn’t as brilliant and bright as some would like. Could use some crispness and a bit more bite to treble notes. Not energetic enough. That’s about it.
At the end of the day, the treble will be perceived “by some” to be the weakest part of the spectrum. While this may be true, I certainly don’t see the treble as a “weakness” per se. It isn’t a weakness if many people will actually enjoy it. And I’m just saying it now, many people will enjoy it. So, I’d probably conclude that the treble simply won’t fit everyone’s idea of what a “strength” is concerning the tuning of the 2.0. To be perfectly truthful, I think the treble is perfectly fine. It fits the tuning, nothing sounds out of whack, nothing is under emphasized or dark. It’s decent. Is it my preference? Not really. Can I listen to and enjoy the Pandamon 2.0 for hours? You betcha.
Technicalities
Soundstage
The soundstage comes across full, but also pretty intimate. I hear good width, good height and a slight bit of depth. How I hear it is a closer sound field, not pushed very far back. Not a half circle in front of me but more a flat plane of sound. However, within that closer field of sound it is also pretty big in all directions. I don’t hear some stadium sized stage, or even a concert hall, as the Pandamon 2.0 really isn’t tuned in that way. Truthfully, I actually dig a closer presentation. There is a slight lack of layering and depth to the sound but that is to be expected from a $59 planar, or SPD. Typically stage depth is one of the attributes that can suffer on planar magnetic earphones. However, there is some depth, not all is lost. You still have ample width and height. I can tell you this, the stage is not small or congested.
Separation / Imaging
I feel the Celest Pandamon 2.0 does an average job of separating elements within the stage. Certainly, in more congested tracks you won’t hear as good distinct separation. Besides those moments I think the Pandamon 2.0 does just fine in this regard. Imaging is another area where I could probably slap the “average” tag on it. Again, in congested tracks the imaging seems to blur a bit. However, I feel that the Pandamon 2.0 does a decent job of positioning each instrument within the sound field. The only real lack is in the layering from front to back where the Pandamon 2.0 isn’t the best in that regard as the depth of field is only average at best. Still, for the most part this set will sound pretty darn good for most folks.
Detail Retrieval
Detail Retrieval is better than I would have thought. Looking at the sound in general we have a smoother note structure, the stage is nicely wide but it isn’t very deep and so you don’t have that good depth for layering of those instruments. That all said, the Pandamon 2.0 is certainly above the average set of earphones when it comes to detail retrieval. I find it pretty easy to pick out the subtleties within my music.
Comparison
Note: just a sidenote, when conducting these comparisons, I will speak in broad strokes and in generalities. The point is that you all have a good idea of what the Pandamon 2.0 sounds like and using comparisons is a good tool to do so. I won’t go into great depth picking apart differences and this is not a duel to the death. Just a tool.
Celest Pandamon ($45 on sale: $26)
The Celest Pandamon (Pandamon Review) is one of those sets that sort-of flew under the radar to an extent. Certainly, it performed better than many people would have thought. Me included. I have to admit that when I received the OG Pandamon I was somewhat put-off by the cartoonish angry panda. I figured I’d just give them to my kid. Then I actually heard them. Folks, I was taken aback because the Pandamon sounded (and still sounds) really great. I mean… really great. I reluctantly gave them to my son and thankfully they are still in perfect condition to use as a test comparison. Of course, the OG is the obvious set to use (for comparison) but there are a few others out there that makes sense too. Please DM me if you’d like another comparison conducted with another set. Anyways, there isn’t a whole lot internally which separates these two Celest brothers. We have an upgraded SPD within the Pandamon 2.0, and the OG Pandamon is a semi open-back set. Two very good iems with some subtle differences, let’s take a look.
Differences
As far as aesthetic, these two couldn’t be more different. The OG has the cartoon teeth panda snarling at anyone who looks at him while the new 2.0 is crafted in more of a traditional Kinera style. Without question the new 2.0 is a huge upgrade. It’s not even close to which design I subjectively like more. The 2.0 has such a classy style and beautiful indigo transparent shells with the dope design on the faceplates. Yep, the 2.0. As far as build. This is tough. I’d actually say the OG is built a bit hardier. The resin on the 2.0 seems a bit less dense. It’s great for wearing without fatigue which is a benefit. However, the OG wasn’t exactly heavy. At any rate the OG probably has a slightly more robust build, but it all comes down to what you prefer. The shape of both sets is about the same. The shell is a round, almost disc shape while the nozzles are about medium in length. The cable on the new set is much better on the new set. Yet the new set doesn’t come with the angry panda charm or keyring like the OG. Both have identical tip selections.
Sound Differences
Now, these two should be pretty similar in tuning but I honestly don’t hear that. They are actually quite a bit different. First off, the newer 2.0 has better timbre to my ears. More natural, organic and more musical. I hear a more emotionally charged sound on the new set even though the old OG is a slight bit warmer in comparison. The OG Pandamon is also a bit snappier in its transient attack through decay, leaner in note weight and a bit more technically sound as a whole. Pandamon 2.0 has more of a bass impact, punch and overall depth. The midrange on the OG is a hair more forward in the low-mids but is also a hint thinner in that area. Now, the 2.0 has the more forward and vibrant upper-mids with better timbre in my opinion for female vocals. Both sets have nice details in the midrange, but the OG wins out in that regard as the 2.0 definitely comes across smoother to the ear. The treble of the OG is more pronounced, sprightly, and crisper while the 2.0 has a less fatiguing treble with better note body. Extension into the upper treble reaches a hint further out on the OG. Both sets do Technicalities quite well, but the OG has the airier feel to it. Having said that, the 2.0 has a wider and slightly deeper stage. Both are very good sets.
Final thoughts on this comparison
Honestly, these are two fantastic iems. Truly. For the cost they are both pretty special. Despite that, the OG only costs a mere $29 right now on sale and so I do think it is the better buy. However, the better set in my opinion is the Pandamon 2.0. It simply has that nice and natural timbre with a bit more weight afforded to vocals and a bit more emotion to the sound. I like them both a lot. Another thing to consider is the appearance of these iems. I know many people were not too keen on the OG’s look. Not everyone wants an angry panda. However, if you love that look, I’d definitely recommend checking out a great SPD iem in the OG. Still, the newer set is better looking, better accessories, and I feel it sounds a hair better. I wouldn’t call the new set a direct upgrade, but it is marginally better. My opinion.
Note: I couldn’t find a graph comparison of these two sets. The best I could do is add the OG Pandamon’s graph.
Is it worth the asking price?
This is a tough question friends. I want to say that yes of course the Pandamon 2.0 is worth every penny that Celest is asking. However, there really are a slew of iems within its price point of $50 to $75 that are absolute BANGERS! This will be the issue for any iem trying to break into this price point. Having said that, those sets aren’t square planar driver iems. I actually like the timbre and tonality quite well with these drivers. They have the lineage of a planar and they have dynamic driver tendencies as well. I could even say that there is almost a balanced armature feel to these iems at times too. They really are a cool driver tech that I’d love to see expounded upon. But, when answering if the Celest Pandamon 2.0 is worth the asking price it will all come down to what the consumer is looking for and what their budget is. For me the Pandamon 2.0 is a no-brainer iem at $59 and I feel it’s easily worth the money, but I’m not the next guy. There is a lot it does well folks…
The Why…
Because the Celest Pandamon 2.0 is a beautiful iem that is built in such a way that offers no fatigue on the listener. This is an iem that you could keep nestled in your ears for hours without even thinking about them. 3.5 grams is next to nothing friends. I don’t think you really have a gauge for how light that is until you put the Simgot EA500 in one hand and the Pandamon 2.0 in the other. It’s pretty impressive. Still, the build isn’t cheap somehow! It feels durable and built well. The Pandamon 2.0 does not have that chinsy feel at all. Also, the accessories are all good. Nothing is bad with this set. You don’t have to tip roll (unless they don’t fit you), you don’t have to swap cables and you get a carrying case. That all said, nobody buys an earphone for those reasons in particular. We buy earphones for the sound. Luckily, Celest/Kinera was the group of people tuning this set. I feel that the Pandamon 2.0 will fit many peoples preferred signature. The bass is punchy, tight, and has impact. Midrange is forward and melodic with nice musicality while not skimping on the technical stuff. The treble will not kill your ears as it is non-offensive and just brilliant enough to add levity to the mix. The sound is very clean and clear, with great transparency and expressive macro-dynamics. It’s a good set folks. The question is, will the Pandamon 2.0 hold up (in your eyes) against the competition?
Ratings (0-10)
Note: all ratings are based upon my subjective judgment. These ratings are garnered against either similarly priced sets or with similar driver implementations or styles with the unique parameters of my choosing. In the case of the Celest Pandamon 2.0 ratings below, that would be $50 to $75 earphones of any driver configuration. Please remember that “ratings” don’t tell the whole story. This leaves out nuance and a number of other qualities which make an iem what it is. A “5-6” is roughly average and please take into consideration the “lot” of iems these ratings are gathered against. $50 to $75 US is a huge scope of iems that is extremely competitive. Basically, it should mean something special to see a “9.0” for example. My ratings are never the same and each set of ratings tells a different story. Each time you read one of my ratings will be unique to that review. Basically, I create a Rating that makes sense to me.
Aesthetic
–Build Quality: 8.4 Built well, very Lite and comfy.
–Look: 9.4 Clean, fresh, simple, elegant.
–Fit/Comfort: 9.8 One of the lightest & most comfortable.
–Accessories: 9.2 Very well accessorized.
–Overall: 9.2🔥🔥
Sound Rating
–Timbre: 9.3 Timbre is natural, organic.
–Bass: 8.8 Impactful, punchy, tight.
–Midrange: 9.5 Clean, resolute, forward.
–Treble: 7.0 Non-Offensive, brilliant enough.
–Technicalities: 8.1 Technically it’s a decent set.
–Musicality: 8.7 Musical over technical.
–Overall: 8.6🔥🔥
Ratings Summary:
These ratings are always questionable folks. I’ll just be honest with you (as always). Ratings can change from person to person and there really are a thousand variables that go into conducting a Rating of certain aspects of an earphone. Also, none of them should be taken as Bible and all ratings should be taken with a grain of salt. That said, I think the ratings above check out. The Pandamon 2.0 was rated against any and every iem between the price of $50 and $75 US. It made more sense to me to pit the Pandamon 2.0 against the entire field rather than simply against other planars. If this was a planar war, then those ratings would be a lot higher. Many of those iems I have on hand, and I do sit down and try my best to get each rating right. Of course, these are very blanket ratings, and I don’t dig too deep so, it is what it is.
Explain Yourself!
I feel like there isn’t much to explain with this set. I really don’t. To me, an “8.8” makes sense for the 2.0’s bass. I wouldn’t go any lower because it’s a nice feature of this set. If anything, I’d go higher in rating. Also, an “8.8” is a large number for the sheer amount of iems in that price range. One rating that may get some weird looks is the “midrange” rating. A “9.5” is very very high. At this price point! That’s high. It had better be good. Well, I really think the Pandamon 2.0 is very nice for vocals, instruments sound clean, clear, voices sound realistic and timbre is top notch (especially for an SPD). I feel it’s justified, but I could see folks thinking I’m nuts. I feel I went low on “Technicalities”. An “8.1” is a solid rating, no doubt. However, I feel the Pandamon 2.0 can swing an 8.4 or 8.5. The problem is that I had some real technical beasts in front of me when listening and comparing and I think it may have swayed my decision a bit. So, “8.1” may be a bit low against the $50 to $75 competition. Now, the last rating that WILL garner some grumblings from the peanut gallery is the treble. I personally feel it’s the weak spot on this set. Is it bad? Absolutely not. It just doesn’t hang with the best in the price point. A slight lack of energy, slight lack of extension too. Despite that, I know there are friends of mine who will tell me that they love this treble. It’s non-offensive, smooth, clean and honestly… the extension really isn’t that bad. Most people (85%) will not even notice. Anyways, that’s about it.
Conclusion
To conclude my full written review of the Celest Pandamon 2.0, i want to thank each and every one of you for reading this review and clicking the link. I know this sounds like BS, but I truly appreciate it. Clicking the link and spending time reading is the best medicine for our website. We see the clicks and we smile at each one of them. So, thank you very much!
Other perspectives
Please, check out other reviews of the Pandamon 2.0. Make sure to do so before you hit the “buy-now” button. Folks, I don’t know why this is so hard for some to understand, that we are actually all very much different. I cannot tell you how agonizing it is that hobbyists can’t understand this truth. We are different. One will love what the next one hates and vice versa. It’s a fact of life. Also, this hobby is thee most subjective hobby on planet earth. Name one more personal to the hobbyist. This is it folks. We are different. So, reading, listening, or watching other perspectives about this set will certainly help you to get a better understanding about how an iem or audio device will suit you. That’s all I want friends. I want you guys to be happy with your purchase and listening to your music with joy. Beyond all of that, I’m done. Please take good care, stay as safe as possible and always… God Bless!
