Mobileaudiophile

Review: Rose Technics QT-X Pavan’s take

Pavan Kumar

Review: Rose Technics QT-X Pavan’s take

Introduction:

Rose Technics QT-X sample was sent by CONCEPT KART in exchange for my honest thoughts on the same. Greatly appreciated. QT-X comes with a 7-driver hybrid configuration (1 DD + 6 BA). The stock tips were not provided with the review sample, and I reviewed them using Zeo’s render tips. Did some tip-rolling before finally deciding upon it. The cable provided with the IEM is a braided one like the one that comes with Moondrop Aria but is a better one in terms of comfort and I can wear them for longer hours without any issue, except for the IEM itself. Anyway, I love this simple yet highly functional cable. Comes with a 4.4 termination. The nozzle is bit on a longer side which makes the IEM protrude outside and is especially not so comfortable lying down to the side. Comes with a nice leather carrying case along with RZ 500 DAC. I have not tested that DAC as there were a few issues with it – may be specific to the review sample and I don’t want to comment on the same. The DAC does not come with independent volume controls though. The carry case is good enough for the IEMs but I find it difficult to fit both the DAC, its cable, and IEMs inside the case. As far as sound, QT-X has a slightly warm neutral tonality. Sounds neutral for the most part to my ears. At the time of this writing, I have listened to this IEM for more than 100 hours and I have to say that this IEM aged like a fine wine.

Specifications:

Disclaimer:
• The review is subject to the gears I use for testing – DAC/ DAP/ Tips/ quality of the track 
• The review is on my own based on extensive and critical listening and was not influenced by any written or a video review. 
• The review is subject to unit variance and my personal listening preferences.
• Last but not the least, I have no affiliation with the supplier of the IEM. 

Gears used are below
Tempotec V6
Cayin RU7
Topping NX7 Amp paired with the above 2.
Spotify Premium
Foobar 2000 + local FLAC files

Bass

These are mid-bass focused. Subbass is present but has a subtle response. Good depth, but not very deep with decent rumble – depending on the track. Well textured to the extent present but doesn’t give a great sensation. The bass tone is great with good detail. Mid-bass has a great body and is authoritative. Gives a very good punch and slams when called upon. Not a bass head IEM but the bass is decent here, keeping the music engaging. Not lacking by any means but sub-bass depth could have been better. Speed is good, and decays are well executed. No noticeable bass bleed. Overall, an engaging bass performance.

Mids

Mids are the star of the show here. The midbass very slightly extends to the lower mids, providing a light warmish neutral tonality (neutral for the most part). Instruments have a nice depth to them and appear fuller-sounding. Very engaging and foot-tapping. Vocals are slightly forward and full of clarity. It sounds very natural and lively. No hint of BA timbre. The instrument timbre is great. Very natural and organic sounding. It sounds crisp with great micro details. More musical than analytical. The upper mids transition to treble is done well and appears natural. There is slight harshness and aggressiveness noticed in certain tracks but very rare. Deadly Valentine by Charlotte Gainsbourg is a good example. The track is already edgy at about 00:50, and Performer 8 performs in a much more controlled way compared to QT-X here. There is nothing to blame here, though. A bit aggressive compared to Performer 8.

Treble

Treble is energetic and sometimes hot although sounds natural. It is quite as energetic as the MS3 which I have reviewed recently and can get aggressive in certain tracks. While the MS3 is energetic but very controlled throughout, especially with the Bass filter, QT-X can get edgy. Detail retrieval is good. It is a manageable treble performance and not sibilant but for treble-sensitive listeners, it may be a turnoff. Airiness is good up top making it more open sounding. 

Technicalities

The technicalities are decent considering the price point. The resolution is good and well resolving. There are details present and sometimes it appears raw and rustic concealing details.  Detail retrieval is good at a macro level – does a decent job of bringing out the details. Dynamic transient response is great, and speed is good. Layering in complex and busy tracks is good but nothing to write home about considering the price point. Creates good separation and does a decent job. But I feel there is some congestion and muddle of frequencies. I expect more at this price point – Especially when compared with P8. stage width is great. Height is average but depth is good. Stereo imaging is good but not very precise overall. Good technicalities, but at the price point they are just decent.

Pros

Great mid-bass performance

Excellent mids – vocals and instruments 

No hint of BA timbre

Natural and organic tonality

Open and airy treble performance

Highly musical rather than analytical

Good resolution and detail retrieval at the price point

Very good stage width 

Cons

It protrudes outside the ear and may cause irritation for some, especially while lying down to the side 

Subbass isn’t too deep

Layering and imaging could have been better at this price point.

Upper mids and treble may not suit the treble sensitive listeners

Average stage height.

Comparison with the Aful Performer 8:

It’s kind of tough to compare, considering how good the mids sound on both sets. But still, the layering on P8 is just so impactful, creating a difference. With P8, the vocals appear to be separated from the rest of the mix with great clarity. Test track – Cornflake girl – Tori Amos. Although layering on QT-X is decent, it falls behind P8. P8 appears to be fuller-bodied than QT-X, although QT-X does not sound thin at all. Subbass presence and impact are better on AP8, whereas mid-bass is better on the QT-X. I see no BA timbre affecting my listening experience in both sets. Tonality and timbre are great on both. But the AP8 instrument timbre and tonal balance are better than QT-X and in certain shouty tracks, QT-X can get edgy. P8 behaves with better control in such cases. Treble performance is great on both. P8 does an awesome job bringing out the details while remaining fatigue-free. QT-X is a bit more energetic and can get hot at times. Treble-sensitive listeners will prefer the P8. Test track – Shout (Tears for Fears).

Technicalities – I would go with the P8 without an inch of doubt. Resolution, layering, and detail retrieval are top-notch on P8. QT-X is not far behind. It does a decent job. But QT-X must run for its money in these areas. Although imaging is not the strongest trait in both cases, P8 overall has more precise positioning compared to QT-X. Stage width is slightly better with QT-X. Height is better on the P8. I perceive the depth to be the same on both. Both do not give the feel of a holographic stage. Overall, P8 is a fantastic performer across the board.

Build & Fit:

Build wise both are very well done. Fit goes to P8 easily. It just fits right and practically becomes invisible once you wear it. Very comfortable listening lying down. I can’t say the same with QT-X. It protrudes outside and can cause irritation while sleeping to the side. I don’t care much about the looks and design as long as they sound good. Even then, the P8 comes out top here. 

Review: Rose Technics QT-X Conclusion:

In light of the cost, the QT-X is in a difficult position overall. I am not sure how good the RZ-500 DAC is, but there are already a plethora of highly efficient dedicated DACs/DAPs with independent volume controls on the market, and most of us have one or the other. This makes me not recommend this IEM at this price point. Especially with the Performer 8 available at 369 USD and outperforming the QT-X in most aspects, the QT-X must run for its money. If the IEM alone is priced at around 200 to 250 USD, I may recommend this IEM. I like these IEMs for their fantastic Mids performance. It is more energetic than the Performer 8 and Hidizs MS3 I have reviewed, and that’s not a bad thing. But there are some flaws, especially that I did not like the layering it does on busier tracks and that it lacks precise imaging. Considering the price point, my expectations were high, and it falls behind in these two aspects. Thanks a lot for reading through, and cheers!!!

If you are interested in buying this IEM, you may buy it from the below non-affiliated link:

https://conceptkart.com/products/rose-technics-qt-x-1dd-6ba-in-ear-monitor

Exit mobile version