The Fantastic 4?

Ratings

Pros

• Very detailed, open, vivid, transparent, clear, wide and precise sound.
• Excellent level of separation and scene.
• Very resolving, technical and clean bass.
• Energetic, extended and descriptive treble.
• Coherence between all drivers.
• Very good level of ergonomics.
• Outstanding price/performance ratio.

Cons

• Bass is boxed in at the sub-bass end, with limited extension.
• The first part of the midrange is thin, with little body and low physicality, generating a sense of hollowness.
• The second part of the midrange is emphasised, creating imbalance and distance between voices and instruments.
• Very low impedance, it can be a problem when driving them.
• Only one set of tips.
• No cable option with balanced connection.

Purchase Link

https://www.linsoul.com/products/simgot-supermix-4

Link to the WEB

http://www.simgot.com/en

Introduction

It seems that the Shenzhen-based company, founded in June 2016, has been very active lately. After the EA500 LM, it is now back with a bold new model, featuring 4 drivers of different technologies: a dynamic driver, a balanced armature driver, a magnetic planar driver and a piezo driver. In order to match the tuning, the SuperMix 4 uses an advanced acoustic design. In addition, they use a four-way RC crossover and independent sound paths to minimise distortion and phase incoherence, ensuring a smooth and continuous frequency response. The dynamic driver has a 10mm high-polymer diaphragm and features a high-elasticity suspension system and handles the low frequencies. The BA driver is large and takes care of the midrange and upper frequencies. It stands out for its full-range response and natural tonal quality. The planar magnetic microtransducer covers the high frequencies with low distortion and a wide bandwidth. Finally, the piezoelectric PZT transducer, with multilayer ceramic coating and copper substrate, extends the high and ultra-high frequencies, reducing mechanical noise and improving resolution.
The capsules are made of 3D printed black resin and CNC machined metal parts. Finally, the SuperMix 4 comes with an oxygen-free silver-plated copper cable with 2Pin 0.78mm interface and 3.5mm gold-plated SE plug. Let’s take a look at what this new Simgot model has to offer.

Specifications

• Driver Type:1 DD + 1 BA + 1 Planar + 1 PZT.
• Frequency Response: 8Hz-40kHz.
• Effective Frequency Response: 20Hz-20kHz.
• Sensitivity: 120dB/Vrms (@1kHz).
• Impedance: 7.2Ω±15% (@1kHz).
• Jack Connector: SE 3.5mm gold-plated.
• Capsule Connection Type: 2Pin 0.78mm.
• Cable Material: high purity silver-plated copper conductor of Litz structure, oxygen-free.
• Price: $149.99.

Packaging

The Simgot SuperMix 4 comes in a relatively compact, bright green box with a size of 140x120x60mm. On the front side you can see the inner contents of a capsule. Underneath it is the model name and the drivers it has. In the upper left corner is the logo of the brand. On the back side there is a short description of the model, the frequency response and its similarity to the Harman Target 2019 and the specifications written in 4 different languages, including English. After removing the outer cardboard you can see a matte black box, with a cardboard lid with the golden SuperMix logo in the centre. Underneath is a black foam block containing the capsules, at the top. Underneath is a black cardboard box containing the accessories, namely a black zippered case with the cable inside. Underneath the block with the capsules is another small box with the silicone tips. In short, the complete contents are as follows:

• The two Simgot SuperMix 4 capsules.
• A two-strand coiled cable with 3.5mm SE plug and 2Pin 0.78mm interface.
• One black oval zippered case.
• One set of white silicone and black core tips, SxMxL.
• One user manual.
• One warranty certificate card.

Very good cable and case, only one set of silicone tips. Not enough variety of tips for $150.

Construction and Design

The capsules of the Simgot SuperMix 4 have an outer face consisting of a black metal plate with a bevelled circle in the centre. There is a small hole near the apex of the capsule, which cuts through the circle. Protecting the bottom of the hole is a metal grid. The shape of the outer plate starts with a triangular apex, the opposite side of which is a large curve, while the part where the 2Pin connection interface sits is flat again. It is still a triangular shape with a large rounded side. The capsules have a certain thickness. The inner side is constructed of translucent black resin, although it is dense and the inside is not very discernible. Near the 2Pin interface, towards the inside, there is a small gold disc with a hole in the middle, fully integrated into the surface. The inner side is in one piece, including the mouthpiece. It has a rounded shape, with a slightly overhanging edge at the end. The nozzles are elongated, with a slight step and then a narrower cylinder. It has an approximate diameter of 5.8mm and an approximate length of 3.7mm. The nozzles have three orifices of different sizes. Each of them is a different duct. Finally, on the edge of the capsules is written the name of the model and a circle with the letter indicating each channel.
The cable has two thick strands wound together. It is a high-purity silver-plated copper conductor with a Litz structure, oxygen-free. The sheath is transparent. The sleeve of the gold-plated 3.5mm SE plug is a shiny, micro-textured, dark grey metal cylinder. You can read the brand name written lengthwise. Nearby is the classic white velcro strip. The splitter is another cylinder of the same shape, but of a much shorter length. The pin is a ring that sits next to the splitter, forming one piece, thanks to a white plastic ring with a smaller diameter. This pin is too large in diameter at the bottom and the cables slide around too easily, making it of little use in terms of adjustment. The sleeves of the 2Pin connectors are each a cylinder of the same construction as the other parts of the cable. A red or blue slotted ring is provided, depending on the channel. The 2Pin interface is mounted on a rectangular, translucent plastic base, which extends over the cylinders. Each cable has an ear guide made of a shaped transparent plastic tube.
The design is interesting, mixing classic elements with newer ones and some distinctive details. The cable looks pretty good, but there are two major drawbacks: one is that Simgot still doesn’t go for the balanced connection and the other is that the pin is useless, as its inner diameter is too big.

Adjustment and Ergonomics

The capsules are thick, medium-sized. But their inner shape, the well-projected, slightly thinner nozzles with a slightly narrower diameter, allow for a deeper insertion. This offers a wider range of possibilities when it comes to choosing between many tips. In my case, I usually don’t have much choice. I always have to choose between my large foam-filled tips. With them I get a shallow insertion, but even a bit deeper. This way the level of fit is more occlusive and firm. The angle is quite good and the fit is more perfect and durable. The capsules float subtly on the pinna, without much rubbing against the skin. There is a slight, minimal rotational movement, but the capsules sit very well in the pinna. The good fit of the tips in the ear canal means that the capsules do not move with daily use, even when walking or doing light sports activities. The low weight also allows for comfort and continuous use.

Sound

Profile

Anyone who says that Simgot has revolutionised the Supermix 4 is not remembering the EW200s, which have a very similar frequency response, except that the SM4s have a cleaner bass. The SM4s start with a W frequency response and are mixed between the Harman Target and the Simgot-Classic Target. Simgot has limited the amount of energy in the high frequencies, entering into the current relaxed trend, but without succumbing to it. It is clear that Simgot is usually characterised by upper midranges and first treble full of power, as seen in the entire EA series and even in the EM6L. But here there is an upper curve much more akin to that of their budget EW series. However, it has cleaned up the low end to minimise bleed into the midrange, even thinning out the first half of the midrange. The result is a more relaxed profile, slightly emphasised in the sub-bass, somewhat lean in the first part of the midrange, but also controlled in the upper midrange and treble, without losing a good level of extension into the air.
Although the specs indicate a high sensitivity, the low impedance requires a good dose of energy to be able to move it gracefully.

Bass

Simgot doesn’t quite focus its IEMS on bass and neither do the SM4s, although they do have a good emphasis on sub-bass. But, it’s a low end that soon relieves itself of bloat and suddenly thins out. In this way the volume is not too great and fades quickly. What remains is a deep, rather smooth hit, with a rounded texture, not too expressive, with low roughness. The bass is very clean, not overly extended, only swelling in the lower range giving a fairly distinguished sense of depth, that makes it relatively dark, but also focused at the low end. That limited volume, that restricted space feels like a punished child at the end of class – what have I done to deserve this? It may be totally unfair, but its place is there and the line should not be crossed. Undoubtedly, this is an educated, deep-voiced, well-defined bass, polished on the surface, moderate in its amount of energy and power. But one that holds a level of potential that could be very high. There is that sense that the SM4s could explode, but they are limited to being fairly neutral and cornered in the sub-bass. As a Bass-Lover I miss a lot more nastiness in his behaviour but this is, irredeemably, a good boy, who has been unfairly punished.
Returning to more empirical terrain, the very low frequency pure tone test reflects a remarkably sensory, very clean behaviour, something that betrays the perfect performance of its crossover filter. The low end mixes a slight undulatory and sensory character in equal parts, but with a quite realistic and natural behaviour, although there is a slight colouration that is not due to an anomalous behaviour of the rest of the drivers. It lacks a point of purity in the execution of a superior dynamic driver and that’s why I think it’s so clean and smooth. It lacks a bit of punch and a bit more energy in its surface. On the other hand, the hit is very dry, very fast, it picks up very quickly and there is hardly any fade. That’s why its volume is perceived as low, the bass is executed in an immediate way without leaving any aftertaste, hence that feeling of cleanliness, that very limited placement, even though there is an unmistakable perception of power that fails to expand to its full potential.
In the dirty, unfiltered bass test, the SM4s excel in control. Even in these complex situations it never goes out of line and remains in focus, entrenched in that dark background. It shows some simplicity when it comes to recreating the dirtiest bass because it limits them in that more recessed space, managing to reduce them to a more naked expression, free of complexity, but also of expressiveness. It is almost a reduction to the absurd, but executed in a precise way, very well defined and with enough resolution. But something is still missing, that more overflowing and dangerous power. When the situation calls for it, there is a hint of power, some joy. But it remains very close to the neutral perfection of the elevated sub-bass.

Mids

I have to say, the SM4s are too clean to feel hollow in the first half of the midrange. There is not a hint of bass intrusion in the midrange, no warmth at all. But there is no dense base either. The first part of the midrange is so lean that it feels hollow, there is an unfilled space, a lack of physicality, of density, of body that makes many instruments sound thin, without substance, somewhat distant and lacking in strength. A clarity prevails that leans towards the details, leaving a harmonic orphanage in its fundamentals. This makes the male vocals sound light, thin, lacking strength, but more problematic is that there is a wide range of instruments that also feel this way, too docile, lacking in strength, base and density, entrenching that sense of hollowness in the ambience that is difficult to fill and that I miss at too many moments. On the other hand, the supposed smoothness in the upper midrange is not so obvious, clearly due to this clean and neutral first half. There is a 12dB difference between 300Hz and 2.5kHz, a net jump to emphasise details over the larger musical base. If this difference were less, the SM4s would be more balanced. But the centre range is clearly uneven, and it is here that the more intense W of their profile is demonstrated. Fortunately, however, these are not just light-focused IEMS. The BA driver has been polished so that it doesn’t sound tinny, nor does it sound overly energetic, thin or vivid. That smoothness saves the SM4s from becoming completely splashy IEMS that only seek light, transparency and macro detail at all costs. On the contrary, there is a patina of smoothness throughout their sound that steers them away from an analytical or cold character. The sound of the SM4 is not like that, it doesn’t even seek an excess of resolution or definition, they are much more musical and that’s what saves it from that stark contrast between its first and second half. But that doesn’t detract from the fact that it feels slightly sibilant and that the nuances stand out, though not to penalise the sound, over my desired, absent base. In this sense, everything is geared towards enhancing the female vocals, guitars and all those instruments whose fundamental is higher pitched. The clarity is assured, the level of transparency is assured, but also the sensation of sharpness, separation and resolution is expanded. This second part becomes the protagonist, much closer, but the descriptive power of the drivers allows everything to be obvious, without being analytical and without losing the musicality. And I think that’s where the midranges are saved, in that sheer informative power on display, the amount of detail and nuance that becomes apparent without feeling stuffy, overwhelmed, over excited or splashy. I think it is Simgot’s grace that he has found in the transition from the upper midrange and first treble, a level of expressiveness that is almost exaggerated, without seeking a cold or analytical sound.

Treble

I think the SM4’s treble has been tuned for that current more relaxed feel, far from Simgot’s tendency to maintain a high and quite full energy level. In order not to lose extension and expressiveness, three drivers have been used to handle the high frequencies: a part of the BA driver, the planar driver and the piezo driver. With all this, plus the frequency division, the SM4s have a fairly wide treble representation, but lowering the energy level to keep everything under control, without being completely smooth, but quite informative. It’s not a crisp, crackling, soaring, piercing treble, but has that level of excitement and power that makes it lean and authoritative, aided by the driver technology used. Performing this exposure with a dynamic driver would have nuanced the treble. But expressing this level of energy with specialised drivers allows it to remain musical, advanced, thin and lean, while maintaining that incisive sparkle that makes them sonically realistic. Although you can sense that the confluence of the drivers may be in the high end, the sound is coherent in this respect and the energy limitation limits the negative timbral aspect of each driver. Of course, treble extension is assured, with a good overall airy feel.

Soundstage, Separation

The arrangement of the SM4s’ soundstage is curious. On the one hand, there is that almost cornered bass, but it emerges from quite low and gives a lot of depth to the sound. Being so clean, the first midranges are very clear and can be seen at a medium, long distance. The upper midranges volatilise the sound, adding an obvious expansive capacity. The nuances become more splashy, but without becoming totally gaseous, but instead possessing a certain attachment that makes the sound coherent and somberly put together, maintaining that pleasing musical feel and perception of melodious smoothness. However, the musical projection is already shot through and there is an elevated frontal sensation, with height, quite rounded, almost over the head, reaching an almost zenithal height. Very good laterality and depth is achieved with the bass. Minute details and nuances are scattered at close range, while voices and instruments navigate between midrange, long and short distances, depending on their genre and provenance. The whole ensemble generates a sense of pleasing musical fluidity, which is not analytical, but allows for an evident exposition of detail, exposed in several layers. Yes, because the SM4s are able to generate layering from bass, midrange and also treble, managing to separate sounds on all three axes, which is not at all common.
The image is not fully defined, although due to excellent technical skill, the elements can be placed very well. However, it is true that this placement feels somewhat forced by the musical arrangement generated by the IEMS themselves, which does not necessarily coincide with reality.
And although these are not analytical IEMS, both the level of separation and the expressive capacity to recreate micro details is quite good. Just by paying a little attention you can perceive them, even if they are not clearly obvious.

Comparisons

KiiBOOM Evoke

Sometimes one is surprised to find similarities between frequency responses of different IEMS. I like to compare those that are similar in this respect. And lo and behold, the KiiBOOM Evoke, one of my favourite IEMS from last year, has an FR with similar aspects. It is a 1DD+2BA, a classic triple driver configuration that can still generate a lot of joy. The curious thing is that their FR fits perfectly with the current trend of high sub-bass and soft treble, so it should automatically catch on for its quality and sound closer to an analytical profile. Made from 3D printed and hand-finished European medical grade resin, there are 3 different finishes, two for $169 and the one I own for $199. The differences are only aesthetic and centred on the outer face. It is a semi custom capsule with excellent ergonomics and if you look at the design of the inner side, both models are very similar, with the difference that the Evoke have a metal mouthpiece with a more pronounced top, which allows the insertion to be somewhat deeper. That makes them a plus point in this respect.
Both models are equally sparing in accessories, basing this aspect on a good cable, but neither offers a balanced option. One set of tips and one case for both. The excessive size of the Evoke’s case makes it not very useful, which is why I’d rather, by a small margin, overrate this section in favour of the SM4s.
In terms of sound, both have a W-profile, while the Evoke has a decreasing W-profile, the SM4 has a more increasing W-profile, more energy in the upper midrange, more energy in the treble and also more extension. The Evoke is smoother in this respect and has more body in the bass and upper midrange. They are also easier to move than the SM4s.
The bass performance of both models is similar, with a comparable impact, texture and behaviour. Admittedly, the Evoke has a little more body and extension. The performance of both in the very low frequency pure tone test is eloquently close. I only detect a more sensory aspect at the lower end of the Evoke. But it is surprising that both the loudness and the performance of the two models are so similar. The difference is that the SM4s’ bass is tighter in the subwoofer and has less extension. This makes them sound a bit sparser and incomplete in some situations. There is a point of superior bass richness in the Evoke, whose technical prowess is on par with the SM4, but that higher medium-bass gives it that natural superiority.
In the midrange, the first half of the Evoke is warmer, slightly thicker, with a bit more body, physicality and density. But, it is also softer, as the upper midranges are more subdued. The greater excitation in that second half in the SM4s gives them a point more sparkle, light, even transparency, but also that initial hollowness and more persistent unevenness. In my opinion, the midrange of the Evoke is fuller, denser, homogeneous, balanced, with a more natural and less forced timbre.
The SM4’s treble is brighter, cleaner, crisper and more energetic, has more extension, is thinner and more expressive. The Evoke’s are softer and more subdued in this upper range, also somewhat more muted. The SM4s sound cleaner in this respect, with a point of greater resolution and information, also on a more evident and closer plane.
The SM4s’ separation is more evident, with a wider, more three-dimensional scene. It is also more clear-sighted in the details, exposing them in a more individualised way, with greater resolution, distance and space between them. But in the end, the difference is minimal. Only the softer level of the Evoke and the greater separation, clarity and transparency of the SM4 contribute to a sense of higher resolution, subtly better technical aspects and a larger scene.

Simgot EW200

I’m not going to make a comparison between the two models, I just want to point out the similarities in their frequency response, with the great exception that the EW200s have more density and body in the transition from the bass to the midranges. Some people prefer the cleanliness of the SM4, but I crave more power in that range, so I prefer the FR of the EW200. Another thing is the final quality, the price difference has something to say.

Conclusion

The Simgot SuperMix 4 seems to be the brand’s answer to the trend towards a smoother sound. However, the fit with the Harman 2019 frequency response, rather than finding that smoothness, remains persistent. Where there is no doubt is that it has found to bring together 4 different drivers, being coherent and relatively cohesive. Although I do miss a better balance between the bass and midrange, as the low end drops off sharply into the midrange, creating a pronounced valley that makes the sound in that range feel thin, lean and not too full-bodied. On the other hand, the level of clarity, information, description, transparency, detail, separation and scene is surprisingly good, without falling into an analytical or cold profile. Simgot has managed to expand the sound and these technical characteristics, something that is still typical of the brand, but using a different type of drivers, expanding the energy level in the low end and limiting it in the treble. When will a more balanced and warmer Simgot model be available?

Sources Used During the Analysis

• Aune X8 XVIII Magic DAC + EarMen ST-Amp.
• Burson Audio Playmate 2.
• EPZ TP50.
• Tempotec V3.