FAAEAL Tulip - V-shaped Venom

 3.5⭐️

+ Strong V-shaped tuning

+ Elevated bass with good impact

+ Forward female vocals

+ Treble has decent sparkle and air without sibilance 

+ Decent technical performance 

+ Beautiful uniquely designed shells with good build quality

+ Impressive accessory package

+ Competitively priced

- Not a particularly well-balanced style of tuning, especially in the midrange

- Shell shape and shallow insertion may cause fit issues for some

- Lean note weight

- A little more clinical sounding; lacks musicality

- Source dependant 

thaslaya's star rating system:

☆☆☆☆☆ - Fantastic!

☆☆☆☆ - Recommended

☆☆☆ - There are buyers but not for me

☆☆ - Can't see the appeal

☆ - Product is a failure

Disclaimer: 

This product was provided to me by FAAEAL in exchange for my impartial and honest review. I recieve no compensation and all thoughts and opinions are my own.

Non-affiliate link for those interested:

https://a.aliexpress.com/_msj7TM3

Gear used: 

●Samsung Galaxy S25 Ultra

●HiBy R3 II

●Various DAC/amps

Source:

●Listening was done using Amazon Music HD/Ultra HD and local FLAC files. 

Introduction: 

FAAEAL is a Chinese-based audio manufacturer that offers a wide range of budget-friendly products, from IEMs and cables to earbuds and full-sized headphones. They recently released a new sub-$100 IEM called the Tulip, which features a single 10mm dynamic driver. It's currently available on AliExpress for around $80 or a bit more for US based buyers due to tarriffs. I've not had the opportunity to try any FAAEAL product before, so let's break down this latest budget offering and see how it performs.

Build, fit, ergonomics:

The Tulip comes in a simple, unassuming black box. Opening the package reveals only the case inside; however, the case actually contains all the goodies, making the unboxing very simple and straightforward, with no wasted packaging, which I appreciate. The aluminum shells are uniquely shaped and have an interesting color combination of gunmetal gray and a copper tone. The design obviously draws from its namesake flower and has a somewhat feminine and delicate aesthetic. I'm not sure a tulip is the first thing that comes to mind, but it does have some nice curves and a unique shape. The shells are decently small, which, in combination with a shallow insertion depth, leads to a less-than-ideal fit for my big ears. It's difficult for me to get the Tulip to seal well, but those with smaller ears should find them quite comfortable. The nozzle measures 5.9 mm at the widest point, where there's a small lip. There's some venting located in the faceplate and also one small hole on the back of the shell near the nozzle. The stock cable is a combination of OCC and OFC copper and is available in either pink or black with a 3.5 mm or 4.4 mm termination. It's a lovely cable with a nice weave and great hardware, but the ear hooks are a bit stiff, and the chin slider is effectively useless. There are seven sets of silicone tips in two styles: four pairs with coral-colored cores and three with black cores. The coral-colored tips worked pretty well for me, but I settled on using the Final Type E tips for a better fit and seal. The leather case is on the larger side and feels quite nice in hand. It holds all the accessories and has everything you need, including a built-in tip holder. It's large enough to fit a couple of IEMs plus a dongle DAC or two, but it's also too large to be pocketable, which may be a downside for some. Honestly, for $80, there's nothing really to complain about regarding the Tulip's design, build quality, and accessory package. I think FAAEAL did an impressive job here. 

Sound impressions:

The Tulip has a classic energetic and lively V-shaped tuning with a healthy bass shelf, a sizable upper-midrange emphasis, and a rolled-off treble with a few peaks. The note weight is a bit leaner than I prefer, but not overly thin-sounding. It's not difficult to drive and works well with a simple dongle, but finding the right source synergy can be very beneficial. The detail retrieval is fairly strong, though not the absolute best under $100. The soundstage is decent, with a nice width and even better depth. It's not quite an arena-level of presentation, but it's definitely not intimate sounding either. There are no glaring timbre issues, and it's mostly natural. The imaging is quite strong, with nice accuracy both side-to-side and with distance. The dynamics are decent as well, though the bass definitely comes to life more at higher volumes. The separation and layering are admirable, but also not the most remarkable in the price bracket. Overall, the Tulip has a strong technical performance, but nothing really stands out as absolutely exceptional. It does come across as a bit more clinical-sounding, which some may prefer, although I wish it would lean more toward the musical side.

The Tulip is quite a source-sensitive set. My source of choice lately has been the Muse Hifi M5 Ultra, but it doesn't seem to have great synergy here; even in tube mode, it doesn't add much in the way of warmth. The iFi GO blu has a slightly darker tonality and adds some fullness to the bass, but the resolution and impact take a hit. With the Letshuoer DT03, the tuning becomes a little more mid-centric, which I like, but it also sounds a little lifeless at times and loses some of the fun factor. The best pairing I found is the GO Link Max due to the way it enhances the Tulip's dynamics while also improving the bass extension and slam.

●Lows - The bass of the Tulip is easily my favorite part of the tuning. It's quick and impactful, with a natural decay and a texture that's neither too clean nor too muddy. There's also a great balance of sub- and mid-bass and a slight amount of warmth that permeates throughout the entire tuning. The bass has good impact and a quick attack, which helps with double bass kicks. The sub-bass extension is fine, but it doesn't reach extremely low and could be better. The resolution is about what you'd expect for the price and not really noteworthy. There's a decent amount of rumble and reverberation, but it never overstays its welcome. In bass-heavy tracks, there's a nice visceral feel to it, but it's quite complimentary and never overbearing, at least for me. I do think it's generally too much bass quantity for those looking for a balanced low end or those who are a bit bass-averse. There is a small amount of bass bleed into the midrange, so the separation could be a little cleaner. Overall, the bass is elevated, somewhat voluptuous, and quite enjoyable. It may not be the cleanest sounding, but it does a great job of staying in its lane while remaining fun.

●Mids - If the bass is my favorite part of the Tulip's tuning, the midrange is easily the worst. There is simply too much discrepancy between the scooped lower midrange and the very emphasized upper portion (about 15 decibels difference). Don't get me wrong, I definitely enjoy forward vocals, and while they aren't shouty, the entire balance of the mids is too askew for me. Vocals are also positioned a little closer to the head, which betrays the otherwise wide soundstage. Female vocals are more prominently featured compared to males, but they can get shouty at higher volumes. I do think instruments have a slightly better balance across the midrange. The timbre and tonality of the instruments are natural and organic, but vocals sound thinner and a little less natural. Overall, I don't necessarily take much issue with the upper or lower mids as individual parts of the frequency response, but when evaluated as a whole, the balance is simply too far gone for me, which leads to a weird presentation that's hard to enjoy. 

●Highs - The treble of the Tulip is pretty well done for my tolerances as a treble-sensitive user, with a few caveats. The air and extension could be a little better, but I personally don't find it lacking much. It doesn't have an overly bright presentation, and the few peaks add a little sparkle and excitement without taking it too far. However, it can be a little thin at times, with slight harshness on certain vocal notes, and those little treble peaks are a bit confusing for me. For the most part, cymbals, hi-hats, snares, and claps are fine, but they also come across a bit overdampened and recessed at times at certain frequencies, which can be jarring. I think it probably depends on where these notes land on the frequency response in relation to the peaks and valleys. Overall, the treble is fine. It presents as energetic, crisp, and fun, and it has enough sparkle and air for my taste, but I do think narrow-bore tips are essential to help rein in some of the emphasized presence region. Still, the Tulip won't do any favors for sibilant-prone tracks, especially at higher volume levels. Even after tip and source rolling, it may still be too much for those who are more treble-sensitive than myself. 

Comparisons: Credit to Tone Deaf Monk for the graphs. 

● Simgot EM6L ($110) - This matchup pits the Tulip's single DD against the EM6L's 1DD 2BA hybrid configuration. Regarding the accessories, the EM6L includes Simgot's standard style cable and a plain black case, which are serviceable but a little underwhelming. The Tulip has a nicer-feeling and better-built case and cable. Both sets have a comparable number of ear tips, but the Tulip's are slightly better quality for me. As for the build, the Tulip's shell is smaller with an all-metal construction, while the EM6L is larger and is made of a combination of resin with a metal faceplate. The design of the EM6L is rather plain in contrast to the much more eye-catching Tulip, which I personally think looks better; however, the EM6L does offer a better fit for me. When it comes to the tuning, both are V-shaped, but the frequency response of the EM6L is a little smoother while the Tulip's curve is a bit more exaggerated. In the bass, the Tulip has more quantity and a bolder response with more rumble and reverberation. The bass quantity of the EM6L actually doesn't sound quite like it graphs to me, and I'd like a bit more bass to help balance the top end. It does have a slightly cleaner texture, more speed, and better resolution, but it's not as fun as the Tulip. As for the midrange, this is where the EM6L scores most of its points. It's not quite as scooped as the Tulip and has a bit earlier pinna gain rise, which helps bring out male vocals more. It also works better for instruments in orchestral arrangements and provides more weight. The Tulip does have a slightly warmer tonality in the midrange that I like, but the lower recession just throws off the balance too much for me. The treble of the EM6L is noticeably more extended, incisive, and brighter, but it still falls within my tolerances, if just barely. The Tulip has more of a rolled-off response that I prefer, though the lack of extension is noticeable in AB comparisons. Still, I do prefer the Tulip's treble for the most part. When it comes to technical performance, the EM6L has better timbre, imaging, layering, separation, and a slightly wider soundstage, whereas the Tulip has better detail retrieval, note weight, and dynamics. This matchup is closer than I initially thought it would be, but the tipping point for me is the EM6L's overall balance and little bit more musicality. Even though the treble is more accentuated than I prefer, vocals are more emotive and sweeter, which I enjoy. The Tulip does have a bolder bass presentation with a slower decay and more rumble, but the EM6L's superior balance makes it better suited for my library. 

My pick: EM6L

● EarAcoustic STA Pro Max ($80) - This matchup pits the dual DD configuration of the STA Pro Max against a single DD in the Tulip. Both sets have decent accessories for the price. The Tulip's carrying case is much bigger, but it has great build quality and includes a built-in tip holder. The Pro Max's smaller case offers slightly less protection, but it is much more pocketable. I personally prefer the Tulip's thicker and more pliable cable, but the Pro Max's is softer and lighter-weight. The tip selection is basically the same, although the Tulip includes one extra pair. Regarding build quality, the Tulip's shell is made of aluminum, while the Pro Max's is zinc-plated resin. The Tulip is heavier, smaller, sturdier, and feels more premium; however, the Pro Max's shell is better contoured and offers a more comfortable fit for me. Design is always subjective, and these two are very different. While the Pro Max has a nice resin faceplate featuring a mixture of blue, silver, and gold, the Tulip's design is quite unique and eye-catching. It looks and feels like a much more premium product to me. Both sets have what I would consider a more energetic style of tuning. The Tulip is V-shaped, while the Pro Max is more W-shaped. In the bass, the Tulip has more rumble and deeper sub-bass, whereas the Pro Max has a more balanced bass response with added mid-bass weight and warmth. The Tulip has slightly better bass resolution, texture, and more impact, while the Pro Max has more body and a fuller-sounding low end, but also some notable bass bleed. In the midrange, vocals are slightly more forward, clear, and better separated on the Tulip, but they are more emotive on the Pro Max, which I prefer. The lower midranges of both are recessed, which is not surprising considering their tuning profiles, but the Pro Max does lend a little more weight to instruments here. In the treble, the Tulip is leaner and a little brighter, but it has more air and space around things like cymbal crashes and snares. The treble of the Pro Max can be a touch more incisive at times, especially with "s" and "sh" notes, but it's also the more energetic and engaging of the two, which I prefer. When it comes to technical performance, the Tulip offers better separation, layering, and detail retrieval, while the Pro Max has better imaging, dynamics, note weight, a slightly more natural timbre, and a more expansive soundstage. While neither set has my ideal tuning, one is simply more enjoyable. The STA Pro Max is more musical, with a hint of warmth, a sense of fullness, and an engagement factor that I prefer. The Tulip does have a more unique design, better build quality, and may be the clearer and cleaner-sounding of the two, but I will take musical over technical almost every time.

My pick: STA Pro Max

● EPZ Q5 Pro ($55) - This is a matchup between two single DD sets. When it comes to the accessories, I do like how the Q5 Pro's cable matches the shells, but I generally prefer the build quality and feel of the Tulip's cable. The Q5 Pro's case is smaller and more easily pocketable, but the Tulip's is nicer quality and has more storage space. Both have about an even number of tip options, but the Tulip's are better quality in my opinion. The shells of these two models have quite different build qualities, shapes, and designs. The Tulip has a heavier all-metal shell, while the Q5 Pro is made of lighter-weight resin with a metal nozzle. The Q5 Pro is also more pill-shaped, while the Tulip's shape is downright unique. Both are on the smaller side of what I prefer, but I found the Q5 Pro to be a little more comfortable. As for the tuning, both are V-shaped in nature, but the Tulip has a larger bass shelf with more mid-bass, a bigger midrange dip, and a little more accentuated presence region. The Q5 Pro is a little smoother across the frequency response but still quite V-shaped with a little peakier treble. In the bass, the Tulip has a deeper-reaching sub-bass response with more rumble, reverberation, and a slightly slower decay that I prefer. The Q5 Pro also has a nice, somewhat bold bass response, but it lacks the mid-bass warmth and impact that the Tulip delivers, though it does come across a little cleaner and doesn't have any bass bleed. In the midrange, the Q5 Pro has a less scooped lower midrange and an earlier pinna gain rise, which helps the vocals come across a little more emotive and better balanced, especially for male artists. The Tulip sounds quite imbalanced in comparison, and female vocals get a little shouty at high volumes. The Q5 Pro also lends more weight to lower midrange instruments, whereas the Tulip's scooped presentation just can't do them justice. The treble is where the Q5 Pro's issues start in earnest for me. The Tulip is more rolled off and less bright and airy, which I prefer. The Q5 Pro's treble is mostly comparable until the large spike in the air region, which causes it to come across thinner, harsher, and more fatiguing than the Tulip. It may not be super noticeable to those that aren't treble-sensitive, but it's a big deal for me. As for the technical performance, I'd say the Tulip is slightly better across the board, though only by a very small margin. This matchup for me really comes down to the overall balance of the frequency response and the treble. The Tulip has a more elevated and impactful bass response and a slightly more rolled-off treble that I prefer, but the midrange of the Q5 Pro easily has the better-balanced presentation and is more enjoyable for me. However, the one thing that keeps me from choosing it outright is the somewhat thin, harsh, and shrill upper treble that the Tulip just doesn't have. As much as I prefer the midrange of the Q5 Pro, the Tulip is less fatiguing and more tolerable for me, not to mention the bolder bass, better build quality, and nicer accessories. However, I will say that the Q5 Pro does have an overall better balanced tuning and may be the preference for those that are less treble-sensitive.

My pick: Tulip

● Juzear Clear ($50) - Here we have another battle between two single DDs. This is the matchup I was most looking forward to when I first listened to the Tulip, as it reminded me a lot of the Clear. Both sets include nice accessories for the price. The Clear has one of the best stock cables under $200 that I've seen, and the Tulip's is good too, but a little less soft and more prone to tangling. The Clear's leather zipper case is smaller and easy to pocket, but the Tulip's larger case is better built and has built-in storage for tips and other accessories. Both come with a decent tip selection. I personally prefer the Tulip's tips, but the Clear includes a pair of foams for those who like them. When it comes to build quality, the Clear has a pretty standard resin shell while the Tulip has an all metal construction. The Clear are slightly lighter in weight, and the shape fits my ear better, but the Tulip feels sturdier. As for the overall design, I have to say the Tulip is quite unique and eye-catching, and it looks like the more premium product to me, but the blue faceplate of the Clear is nice, too. When it comes to sound, both have very V-shaped tunings and graph similarly, but the Clear sounds a bit warmer while the Tulip is less colored and more transparent. Both sets definitely have elevated bass with an emphasis on the sub-bass. The bass of the Tulip sounds a little cleaner and has slightly improved resolution and texture. The Clear, on the other hand, has more character in the low end, with a slightly bigger rumble, more impact, longer reverberation, and a slower decay. It also has a bit more mid-bass, which does lead to some slight bleed but also adds a touch of warmth and helps it sound more musical. In the midrange, the Tulip pushes vocals a little more to the forefront, which I do like, but they become borderline shouty at higher volumes. The Clear sounds a bit more recessed in comparison, but I think it offers a better overall balance and allows the bold bass response to take the spotlight. I also think the instrument timbre is better, as guitar strums, pianos, and strings sound more natural. There's a certain sweetness in the Clear's midrange that simply isn't found in the Tulip. Neither of these two has the kind of darker, rolled-off treble response I'm drawn to. They both have an energetic presence region, but they come across as bright in different ways. The Clear has slightly more incisiveness, while the Tulip is a bit more airy and extended. Between the two, I generally like the Clear's treble a bit more, but it can be genre-dependent. Regarding the technical performance, the Tulip shows slightly improved detail retrieval, separation, layering, and imaging, while the Clear offers better timbre, more note weight, and a deeper soundstage. In conclusion, the Clear has been my V-shaped recommendation in the budget tier for a while, and it looks like it will retain that title for a bit longer. The Tulip isn't bad, but the Clear basically does everything a little better for me and my preferences. Whereas the Tulip is a little cold and clinical, the Clear has more musicality, a fuller-sounding bass, and a slightly warmer tonality that I enjoy. Also, the Clear makes a more suitable all-rounder for my library when I'm looking for this style of tuning.

My pick: Clear

In conclusion:

The Tulip is my first introduction to the FAAEAL brand, and while I didn't fall in love with this set, I think it makes a decent first impression. It has a very interesting and unique shape and aesthetic, and great accessories for the price. I especially like how everything comes packed neatly inside the carrying case with no plastic waste. The severe V-shaped tuning style doesn't really resonate with me, but I can still appreciate the bold bass response. Unfortunately, the quite recessed midrange isn't ideal, and the treble can be hit or miss at times. While I find the stock tips to be pretty decent, this set absolutely requires some narrow-bore tips and the right source pairing to bring out its full potential. Even after exhaustive efforts to finely tune the sound closer to my preferences, frankly, the Tulip might not be worth all the work. The tuning is really nothing special or standout in the sub-$100 price bracket. Nowadays, with such abundant and stiff competition, a company has to bring something truly outstanding to make waves. While the Tulip's design and aesthetic are unique, I'm not convinced the sound quality and tuning are competitive enough. It's by no means a bad set, but there are others I prefer that do this style of tuning a little better. It's not a great all-rounder for my library, but I do think it pairs well with pop, EDM, and rock. The good news is that it's only $80, so taking a chance on it won't set you back a ton, if this sounds like a set you might enjoy. I think those looking for a very V-shaped tuning without too bright a treble might be drawn to the Tulip, and I can recommend it to those head over heels for the uniquely designed shells. Otherwise, the Juzear Clear continues to be my recommendation for this style of tuning.