Sivga Que UTG - Glass Canon

 

3.5⭐️

+ Bright and energetic V-shaped tuning

+ Articulate bass with nice resolution and texture

+ Forward upper midrange great for showcasing female vocals and instruments 

+ Sparkly and detailed treble

+ Solid shell build quality and impressive accessory package

+ Price to performance 

- Not for those who prefer a smooth or relaxed tuning; lacks musicality 

- Thinner note weight can sound fragile or brittle at times 

- Lower midrange could use more presence and warmth to help combat the colder tonality 

- Can be sibilant and fatiguing at higher volumes

- Unnatural timbre

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 Sivga in exchange for my impartial and honest review. I recieve no compensation and all thoughts and opinions are my own.

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: 

Sivga is a Chinese audio brand that might be better known for its full-sized headphones, though the company offers a number of IEM models as well. I owned a pair of Sivga Robin SV021 headphones in the past and found both the build quality and tuning to be quite nice. The Que UTG is Sivga's latest IEM and a follow-up to its original Que model, which unfortunately I haven't tried. This new one, though, features a different tuning utilizing a 10mm single dynamic driver with a flat glass diaphragm and comes with a price tag of $89, which is about $20 more than its predecessor. Let's break down this latest Sivga release and see how its glass diaphragm performs.

Build, fit, ergonomics:

The UTG comes packaged in a fairly small yet still decent-looking box for a set costing less than $100. The shells have an impressive build quality, a nice weight balance, and a very sturdy feel. They are made of a gray zinc alloy housing combined with a South American green sandalwood inlaid faceplate. The shells are about average in size and fit comfortably enough for me, though I did have a little trouble keeping a good seal. I think a deeper insertion depth would have gone a long way to fixing this issue. The UTG utilizes a slightly recessed 2-pin connection, and the nozzles measure 5.9mm at the lip, which should fit most people without issue. There are two vent holes located on the side of the shell that faces the ear to help alleviate pressure. The silver-plated OFC stock cable has a decent weave and is soft to the touch, but it's also slightly stiff and does tend to tangle a bit. Still, it's more than serviceable and includes a secure screw-on locking mechanism for the 3.5mm and 4.4mm interchangeable terminations. There are seven pairs of silicone tips in two different styles: four black and three clear. I found the UTG to be quite tip sensitive, and after trying many different options, I finally settled back on the stock clear tips. Unfortunately, even with a good seal, the passive noise reduction is less than ideal. The branded, brown, leather zippered case is fantastic. It offers great protection, and the interior is roomy enough for the IEMs and a small DAC, but still pocketable. The only other accessory of note is a Velcro cable tie. Overall, the build quality is very nice, and the accessories are more than adequate for this price tier. Also, utilizing both the stock tips and cable is very rare for me, so I consider that a big compliment to Sivga. 

Sound impressions:

Oh boy, where do I start? First of all, this one is mightily deceptive. Looking at the graph, I wouldn't think that I would like the Que UTG at all, but I'm very happy to be proven wrong, as it really doesn't sound like it graphs. There's definitely a lot of emphasis on the upper midrange and treble, but the bass is a much more prominent player than the graph would lead you to believe. Overall, I'd characterize the UTG as having a mostly V-shaped tuning that leans more toward the bright side. As for drivability, this one can get plenty loud with just a simple dongle, so power requirements are not a concern. The note weight can be quite thin, and some upper-range notes have a sense of fragility and brittleness that really does make me think of glass. It's hard to explain, but notes can sound somewhat hard and inflexible, leading to a clear and concise, yet cold and clinical style of presentation. While I tend to prefer a thicker note weight, this edginess can help to create a crisper and more accurate sense of detail, which the UTG definitely benefits from. In the soundstage, there is plenty of width and a decent sense of depth, but the latter has a slight unnaturalness to it, like it's been artificially boosted. At times there's a sort of echo effect, like you might hear more with live recordings. This is not a bad thing, per se, but it is a little different nonetheless and worth noting. I do find that it lends a little bit of a different sonic flavor to some of my favorite tracks. The timbre suffers from a less-than-natural presentation and tends to have a bit of a sheen to it that sounds off to my ear. The imaging is quite strong both left to right and with distance. The dynamics too are impressive, and the tuning holds up well regardless of the volume level. The separation is also particularly well done, and nothing trips up the UTG as far as track complexity goes. It handled everything I threw at it with ease. The layering and cohesion, though, could be better, as the entire tuning can sound a touch disjointed at times. Overall, the technicalities are quite strong, and I believe this one can easily trade blows with sets well above its price point.

The Que UTG has to be one of the least source-sensitive sets I've had in recent memory, maybe ever. It doesn't reveal any real discernible differences amongst the 10+ sources that I tested. I consider this to be both good and bad. Consistency is always nice, and you can bet that the UTG is easy to drive and will sound good from any source. However, I personally prefer when an IEM shows a certain synergy with one source, making it more satisfying to find the right match for me.

●Lows - As I already stated above, the UTG is bassier in ear than the graph shows. It has a good sub-bass rumble and reverberation, but it's more of a mid-bass focused set, which means the sub-bass extension could be better. There's still a decent balance of mid- and sub-bass though, and the mid-bass does add just a touch of warmth that helps to offset some of the brighter and colder tonality of the upper mids and treble. However, this small amount of warmth is mostly relegated to the lower midrange and doesn't really permeate throughout the entire frequency response like I would like. The texture is very clean, and the level of resolution is great. The bass here is quite tactile thanks to a shorter decay, and the speed can easily keep up with double bass kicks. The attack is not the most impactful, but it does have a decent enough punch and an articulate one at that. Overall, the bass is kind of the unsung hero of the UTG's tuning. Any less, and this one would simply be way too bright. I admit that I would like more emphasis on the low end, but if Sivga's goal was to showcase the detail of the upper end of the FR spectrum, as I believe it was, then the UTG's bass level is appropriately tuned to hit that target without neglecting an important part of the balance.

●Mids - The midrange is a little hit or miss for me. Due to the later pinna gain, the lower half of the upper mids is more recessed than I'd like. Male vocals tend to take a backseat to their female counterparts, and neither are particularly soulful or engaging. At high volumes, some female-focused tracks might push the boundaries of what I can handle as far as shoutiness, but it rarely crosses the line. Also, lowering the volume helps a lot, so low- to medium-volume listeners should have no issues. Where the UTG's midrange absolutely excels, though, is with instruments. Classical music and orchestral arrangements sound particularly nice. From piano and strings to brass and woodwinds, everything is snappy and well-articulated with a great sense of realism and a crisp tonality. Overall, the midrange of the UTG is very clean and articulate, but it's also a little too energetic and imbalanced for what I prefer. Those who want a more emotive or laid-back midrange presentation should look elsewhere.

●Highs - If you're a devout follower of the Church of Treble, be prepared to accept the word of the Que UTG. This one is energetic, crisp, and clean, and packs a ton of detail and resolution into the treble. But for me it's also sharp and precise, almost scalpel-like at times. Cymbals are very articulate, though some crashes do tend to be splashy and have a slightly unnatural timbre. Even though the treble brings the energy, snare hits can sound slightly truncated, and I feel like some notes should last just a hair longer to sound more natural. Surprisingly, the UTG actually does a pretty good job of staving off sibilance for the most part. Sure it's on the bright side but not wince-inducing or intolerable unless listening to already sibilant-prone tracks at higher volume levels. Unfortunately the extension isn't the most far-reaching and the air could be more robust, but it's still decent for me, though I'm not a treblehead. Overall, the brighter tilted treble of the UTG is definitely not my typical preferred style, but I can still appreciate the level of energy and detail on display.

Comparisons: Credit to Audio Amigo for the graphs. 

● AFUL MagicOne ($120) - This matchup is between two single-driver IEMs, but the MagicOne utilizes only a single BA against the DD of the UTG. Both sets have good accessories and a comparable amount of tips, but I prefer the MagicOne's cable, even though it's not modular. However, the leather zipper case of the UTG is much nicer compared to AFUL's puck-style case. The build quality of these two is quite different. The shells of the UTG are made of metal and are heavier compared to the full resin MagicOne. The latter offers a better fit for me thanks to a deeper insertion, but it does exhibit some pressure buildup. When it comes to the overall tuning, the UTG is V-shaped with a brighter and more clinical sound signature and better extension on both ends, whereas the MagicOne has a smooth, mid-centric musical style of tuning. In the bass, a single BA just can't compare to a DD when it comes to fullness, rumble, and depth, and neither should we expect it to. The UTG does have a little more quantity, better extension, and a cleaner texture; however, the MagicOne showcases some of BA bass' strengths in quickness and resolution. The UTG may measure with a bit more mid-bass, but due to the further emphasized upper midrange and treble, the MagicOne's mid-bass presence is actually more noticeable. The midrange is where the MagicOne performs its, well, magic. It has a better-balanced midrange and an earlier pinna gain, which lends a sense of smoothness and a more emotive style to both male and female vocals. The UTG does really well with instrument detail in the midrange, but vocals can be somewhat thin and shouty, especially with female artists. Also, the lower midrange just doesn't have the same sense of weight as it does on the MagicOne. The treble is where things start to deviate the most between these two. The UTG is far and away the brighter set, and it has a very crisp and clean presentation that borders on the edge of too much for me at times. The MagicOne's treble lacks the peakier presentation of the UTG and rolls off more smoothly without sacrificing a certain level of sparkle and definition. The UTG has more incidents of harshness and sibilance at higher volumes, whereas the MagicOne doesn't cross that threshold very often. When it comes to technical performance, the UTG is far and away the better performer and takes the win in just about every category, most noticeably the detail retrieval and soundstage. However, the MagicOne does offer better layering and note weight. This matchup for me comes down to the capabilities of the drivers, the overall tonality, and the upper end of the frequency response. I have been a long-time fan of the MagicOne since its release almost two years ago, but it's no secret that its single BA driver struggles in the bass department. The UTG's dynamic driver is much more capable of producing a lower-reaching sub-bass, even if the overall quantity is lower than I would like. What makes the MagicOne special though is its smooth midrange presentation. The UTG, on the other hand, has a much more energetic and forward upper midrange and treble that portrays a sense of detail the MagicOne simply cannot match. While the UTG is the much more capable set from a technical standpoint, I am personally drawn to the MagicOne's sense of musicality, even if its price-to-performance feels low almost two years after its release.

My pick: MagicOne

● Simgot EM6L ($115) - Here we have the 1DD, 4BA hybrid configuration of the EM6L versus the single DD of the UTG. When it comes to accessories, the UTG's are better all around, from a nicer case to a thicker, modular cable and even more tips. The shells of the UTG also have a heavier and more durable metal build quality over the resin of the EM6L. The Simgot utilizes a QDC connection, which I don't really like, though I will say the EM6L does offer a better fit for me thanks to a slightly deeper insertion. From a design standpoint, the UTG's wooden faceplate definitely looks a little more premium, but there's something to be said about the combination of black shell and the subtle Phoenix symbol of the EM6L. These two don't graph super similarly, but they do follow a similar tuning philosophy, though the EM6L's V-shaped sound signature has a larger bass shelf and less treble energy. Speaking of bass, the EM6L has a fuller and deeper sounding low-end response with better extension and more rumble. The UTG does have more bass quantity than the graph would suggest, but it's more mid-bass focused with better texture, resolution, and quicker decay. In the midrange, these two actually have a pretty similar response. Both put plenty of focus on vocals and help push them forward in the mix, though the EM6L is a bit more emotive, whereas the UTG is more energetic. The EM6L is a little better balanced across the midrange, while the UTG's later pinna gain rise means female vocals are a little more accentuated over their male counterparts. Maybe the most noticeable difference in the midrange is how instruments on the UTG come through much more detailed and have a crisper texture and better timbre. In the treble, the UTG is brighter, sharper, airier, and more detailed, while the EM6L offers a smoother and better-balanced presentation, though it does have an innate thinness and more instances of sibilance. I will say though that cymbals aren't as splashy on the EM6L as they are on the UTG, nor does it have quite the same timbre issues. When comparing technical performance, the UTG once again runs away with a victory here, though the EM6L does have a little more note weight. Ultimately, this matchup comes down to the overall frequency response balance and treble tolerances. Admittedly, I've not been a huge fan of most of the Simgot models I've tried, but the EM6L is the one that has risen to the top for me. I feel like their brighter house tuning and more technical style never quite hit my ears right. My initial impressions of the UTG actually reminded me of Simgot's signature house sound; however, I feel like the UTG takes it a step further and is more of an evolution of what Simgot has been trying to do - a budget-tiered technical IEM without an overly bright or shrill tuning. Though these two sets do share some commonalities, the EM6L has a much better overall balance to my ear, which makes it a better all-rounder. I will concede that the UTG's technical performance and nicer accessory package make it the better bang-for-buck choice here, and it pairs great with instrumental genres. But at the end of the day, it's about the music, and the EM6L is simply more of a joy to listen to for me, which is what matters most.

My pick: EM6L 

● Juzear Defiant ($100) - Here we have the single DD of the UTG up against another hybrid configuration in the Defiant, though this time it's 1DD, 3BA. When it comes to the accessories, both sets actually have impressive inclusions. Each comes with a modular cable, a similar number of tips, and decent carrying cases, though I do like the Defiant's cable a little more. Build quality-wise, the UTG's metal shell is a bit heavier and much sturdier than the Defiant's resin build, but the latter offers a more comfortable fit for me. From a design standpoint, the UTG's wooden faceplate and toned-down color palette make for a classier look, but I really like the bolder look of the Defiant's colorful design. While these two don't share a lot in common when it comes to tuning, they are about the same price, so I think it's worth comparing them just to see how far your money goes in today's market. The Defiant has a U-shaped sound signature with a decent bass shelf, emphasis on the upper midrange, and a slowly rolled-off treble, whereas the UTG is more V-shaped in nature with less sub-bass presence, a more accentuated upper midrange, and a more energetic and peakier treble. In the bass, the Defiant is more sub-bass focused, with more bass quantity and a better sense of fullness. The UTG has a snappier mid-bass focused bass response with better impact and resolution, a cleaner texture, and a quicker decay. The Defiant can sound a little flabby and unkempt at times, but its bass is also more fun. As for the midrange, the Defiant has more of a typical mid-bass dip and earlier pinna gain that really helps bring vocals to the forefront, especially male vocals. It also doesn't peak as high in relation to the bass, which gives it a better overall balance. The UTG, on the other hand, puts more emphasis on the upper midrange, which leads to a thinner and somewhat shouty vocal presentation. This style can help highlight female artists in particular, but it can also be too energetic and unbalanced for some. What the UTG does really better here in the midrange is adding a sense of depth and drawing attention to instrument detail. The treble of the UTG is brighter and more energetic, and like the midrange, it showcases better precision and more detail. However, the Defiant's much less energetic and peaky treble is definitely smoother, and even though it has a little less extension, it still has a decent amount of air and a touch of sparkle. When it comes to technical performance, the UTG all but wipes the floor with the Defiant, save for the note weight. This matchup ultimately comes down to tuning preference and technical performance. The Defiant has become my go-to recommendation for newcomers to the hobby looking to spend about $100. Its tuning is one that I think a vast majority will enjoy, even if the technicalities leave something to be desired. The UTG, on the other hand, has a uniquely upper-midrange and treble-heavy tuning that those used to listening to Beats and AirPods might not take to right away, even though its technical prowess is high for its price. As someone who's heard well over 150 IEMs at this point, I can say with confidence that the UTG definitely has the more niche tuning of the two, but it also offers a window into how a brighter and more detailed style of tuning can allow you to enjoy your music in a new way. Still, despite its faults, the Defiant is a much easier set for me to pick up and simply enjoy, which makes the choice here clear.

My pick: Defiant

In conclusion:

I didn't really know what to expect going into this review, but as it turns out, the Que is a rare creature—a brightly tuned, detail-focused budget set that's not overly harsh or piercing, and one I can actually enjoy. On top of that, I even stuck with the stock cable and tips, which is even more rare for me. It also has a nice, solid build quality, a uniquely designed faceplate, and a great carrying case. While it's not my typical tuning style, I can really appreciate the level of detail and energy in the upper mids and treble, especially when it comes to instruments. Now I would appreciate a little more bass quantity and maybe a slightly warmer tonality, but for $89, it's well worth the price of admission for those that value upper-midrange and treble performance. I can absolutely recommend this one to someone looking for a technically savvy, energetic option that really showcases what budget IEMs are capable of in today's market. I find it to be a pretty solid all-rounder for those that value treble crispness and detail above a bolder bass or emotive midrange. The tuning is just as capable with rock and pop as it is with folk and jazz, though where I think it performs best is with instrumental music. The UTG is not an IEM that I would reach for when I want to relax, but if you're looking for a brighter tuning with a high level of detail and separation without breaking the bank, this is hands down one of the best I've heard in this price range. Unfortunately for me and my taste, the technical performance comes at the expense of musicality, but I can still appreciate the UTG for what it does so well.