Letshuoer Ember - Smoldering Warmth

4.5⭐️

+ Unique warm L-shaped tuning

+ Ever-present bass that's not overly dominant

+ Smooth and emotive vocals 

+ Crisp and detailed treble without fatigue

+ Excellent planar performance without some of the usual drawbacks

+ Premium titanium alloy shell

+ Small shell and nozzle size should fit well for most

- Somewhat darker tuning won't appeal to everyone; not for the bass shy or those looking for a mid-centric sound signature 

- Treble can get a little intense at higher volumes

- Personally, I prefer a wider nozzle and deeper insertion

- Shell design is neat, but not my favorite 

- Accessories are underwhelming for the price, especially the Effect Audio cable

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 Letshuoer in exchange for my impartial and honest review. I receive no compensation, and all thoughts and opinions are my own.

Non-affiliated link for those interested:

https://letshuoer.net/products/letshuoer-ember-14-8mm-large-flagship-planar-magnetic-hi-fi-in-ear-monitors

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: 

Letshuoer is a well-known Chinese-based IEM manufacturer. The company has a reputation for being one of the premier producers of planar IEMs, and for good reason. The company helped kick off the planar wars with its S12 model a few years back, and it continued to innovate, releasing three more variants of the S12 along with the S08 and S15. Their newest IEM is called Ember, and it features a 14.8mm planar driver. It's also a collaborative effort with renowned cable manufacturer Effect Audio. The Ember comes with a price tag of $500 and is available through multiple retailers worldwide. Let's break down Letshuoer's latest planar endeavor and see what it's all about.

Build, fit, ergonomics:

The Ember comes in a sizable box, similar to the Mystic 8. The box features the IEM name on the front, as well as a black and white color scheme and a fiery motif. The unboxing is simple and straightforward, with the IEMs cradled in foam, the case containing the cable, and the ear tips positioned in their own foam cutouts. Like the box art, the Ember's shell design features flames on the faceplate and a black and white/silver color palette. For me, the design is a bit of a head-scratcher. I get that the flames are meant to tie in with the namesake, but an ember is what remains of a dying fire, not an active, raging fire like what's depicted on the faceplate. Granted, it's more difficult to represent an ember than it is a fire, but still, it's a little too on the nose. Also, it may be a small thing, but to my eyes, the design of the flames looks like it's positioned upside down. The shells themselves are made of a titanium alloy. They have a sturdy build quality and feel solid in hand, yet are lightweight, making them comfortable for long-term use. The size is about average, maybe just below, and the insertion depth is just a little shallower than I like, leading to a less-than-ideal fit for me personally. The Ember's cable connection juts out of the shell a bit, but it utilizes a flat 2-pin connection. There is a single vent located on the backside of the shell, and the nozzle measures 5.5mm at the lip. Now, let's talk about the cable. I don't usually scrutinize an IEM's stock inclusions too harshly, but since the Ember is a collaboration between Letshuoer and Effect Audio, I figured this cable deserves a more in-depth analysis. Let me be frank, I am not a fan of this cable. To be fair, I appreciate that the hardware is solid and chunky and its design matches the theme of the shells, but the cable itself doesn't feel like an upgrade in any sense of the word. It's on the thinner side, the sheathing feels plasticky and cheap, it's a little stiff and memory prone, and the gray color doesn't even match the black and silver aesthetic of the shells. Also, if this cable was hand-selected to be paired with the Ember, why make it a recessed 2-pin connection when it's not necessary? I've been more impressed by Letshuoer's stock cables. Both the S12 2024 and Ultra models have cables that are better than this Effect Audio offering, and they are modular to boot. I'm sure a small part of the Ember's $500 retail price reflects the partnership with Effect Audio. After seeing the cable for myself, I would have been much happier if they had forgone this particular collaboration and saved the consumer what I'm assuming would be around $100 if they had kept the cable in-house. For my testing, I chose to substitute a NiceHCK Icy Moon cable, which has vastly better ergonomics and feel, and the white/silver color is a better aesthetic match. Also, there's something poetic about the juxtaposition of the names Ember and Icy Moon. Inside the box are nine pairs of silicone tips: three short, wide-bore, three average-bore with a soft outer portion, and three average-bore with a slightly thicker and stiffer core. Generally, I like Letshuoer's tips, but like their other planar IEMs that I've tried, the seal is a little worse for me with the stock tips. I opted to use the Azla Sedna Earfit Mithryl for the best comfort and seal. The case is the same as I've seen accompanying other Letshuoer models. It has a round metal body and a rubber lid. Personally, I like this style of case, but I realize it's not for everyone. The only other accessory of note is a Letshuoer-branded leather cable tie. An interesting thing I noticed about this particular cable tie is that it has two buttons to accommodate different-sized cables. Since the EA cable only works on the first button, I wonder if Letshuoer subconsciously knew that the included cable would likely be replaced after purchase and included another setting to accommodate thicker cables. This is all completely conjecture and hypothetical on my part, but it is something to think about. Overall, I can't say that I'm particularly impressed by the Ember's accessories. The case could certainly be more premium for the price, and I find the Effect Audio cable to be lackluster at best.

Sound impressions:

The Ember has a pretty unique tuning. I'd describe it as a somewhat flatter L-shaped response with a large bass shelf, very little upper midrange emphasis, and mostly flat and well-extended treble. It honestly sounds different from any other single planar driver IEM I've heard before, and I mean that in the best way possible. Planar IEMs have a reputation for being a bit power-hungry. The Ember isn't necessarily hard to drive, and it can reach high volumes with a simple dongle, but feeding it some extra power does bring out its best. The note weight is nearly perfect for my preferences. It feels grounded without being too thick, and there's no thinness across the entire frequency response, which is a rarity. The detail retrieval is quite impressive. Planars are usually known for their high resolution, and the Ember definitely delivers on this front. The soundstage is admirable, but it's perhaps the area of the technicalities where the Ember could be improved most. It's not at all disappointing for me as it's quite spherical and the space is well utilized, but I expected a bit more for the price. The timbre is quite remarkable. It's among the best I've heard at any price, and that planar sheen of old is well and truly gone here. The imaging is strong with pinpoint accuracy, and the dynamics are very good, though not class-leading, but that may be due in part to the nature of the Ember's tuning. The separation is also good, and the Ember is able to handle complex tracks without getting bogged down. However, like other full-range single-driver IEMs, it falls short of well-executed multi-driver IEMs in a straight comparison. Where these single-driver IEMs have a clear edge, though, is in their superb layering. It paints a very cohesive musical portrait and is a great example of what a single-driver IEM is capable of. Overall, the Ember likely won't beat out some of the top technical performers in a head-to-head battle, but it's still mighty impressive in its own right. What sets it apart is its unique tuning and how it balances technical performance with musicality.

In my experience, the Ember is moderately source-sensitive, and it's definitely worth the trouble of finding the best pairing. The Muse HiFi M5 Ultra is one of my go-to sources, and it usually pairs well with most IEMs, but in this case, it's not the best option. The Ember definitely doesn't need or benefit from any added warmth, so the tube mode was out. Transistor mode fared better, but I still felt there was more to explore. The iFi hipdac 3 is a very solid contender, but it didn't do much to temper the slight treble sizzle that can pop up in certain tracks. Admittedly, I'm more sensitive than some, so others may be very happy with this pairing. I found that the NiceHCK Octave actually made the Ember a little more mid-centric, though in doing so, it sacrificed extension on both ends of the frequency response and a touch of soundstage width. While this pairing is certainly enjoyable, I found myself missing that deep sub-bass more than I appreciated the extra emphasis on vocals. The Questyle M18i gave me the best bass performance, but like the hipdac 3, there's a bit of spice up top that I could live without. In the end, the best synergy I found was the HiBy FC4—a simple DAC/amp, but one that preserves the Ember's strengths without imbuing any extra energy or affecting the overall performance. Also, there's something to be said for using a simpler source. No gain modes, digital filters to toggle through, or menus to fiddle with; simply plug, play, and enjoy. The fewer barriers to musical bliss, the better.

●Lows - With a somewhat L-shaped frequency response, it's no surprise that the Ember's bass is what the ear is drawn to first. But don't be fooled; this bass-first tuning is no gimmick—there's plenty of substance behind that big shelf. It has a good balance of sub- and mid-bass, decent extension, an uncanny sense of depth, and an overall visceral feeling that envelops you completely. There's a nice rumble and reverberation, which adds to the feeling of boldness, yet it's never overbearing. Not to be outdone, the mid-bass has plenty of thump, warmth, and a somewhat softer impact that I really like. It's not a super quick or overly clean presentation, like some planars tend to be. I would even consider the texture to be a touch muddy and the resolution a tad underperforming, but to my ear, that's more in line with the bass of a dynamic driver, which I prefer anyway. Where the planar character comes in is in the speed and decay. The attack is fast, which is more in line with planar drivers, and the decay is slightly on the quicker side, though to my ear it sounds closer to that of a traditional dynamic driver. Overall, I think the Ember has a low end that is simply easy to vibe with and enjoy, rather than one used to pick apart bass lines and individual notes. It has a unique character and a life of its own, but it's completely additive and never seeks to dominate the frequency response as a whole or steal the spotlight for its own notoriety.

●Mids - While the bass may be the most obvious part of the Ember's tuning, make no mistake: this is not a one-trick pony. The midrange may be a bit more subtle in its presentation, but what's here is just as enjoyable as the bass. While the mids as a whole aren't as forward as I usually prefer, they aren't recessed either, and I feel that they actually strike a fine balance with the boosted bass. There's a mild pinna gain rise in the early upper midrange, which tapers off at about 1500 Hz. This helps vocals to come through, but they are never shouty or piercing. Male and female artists are quite well balanced, and vocals have a very smooth and sultry quality that I love, though I find myself wishing there were just a touch more energy and excitement at times. I think adding more upper-mids emphasis would help cut through the blanket of warmth from the mid-bass, but honestly, it's very enjoyable as is. One of my favorite aspects of the Ember's midrange is how stringed instruments are portrayed, particularly violins. The combination of note weight, timbre, and tonality is angelic, and it sounds quite natural. I also really enjoy the way the lower midrange is well represented. Male vocals and instruments have nice weight and the same sultriness without being intruded upon by the large bass shelf. Overall, the midrange is very smooth and pleasant, with an engaging and warm tonality that pairs well with the large bass shelf.

●Highs - The treble is the one area that I find most interesting, but also the one with which I take the most issue. It does have that distinct planar level of detail and texture that I'm accustomed to, but without being overly bright or fatiguing, which is very much appreciated from this treble-sensitive listener. There's next to no tizziness or unnatural timbre this time around; I say next to none because it can peak its head out ever so slightly at times, but it's rare, unlike many other planars I've heard. The extension is great, and the injection of air around 12 kHz helps the treble profile sound more complete. Cymbals are well-controlled and have a nice presence, yet they're never splashy or metallic. Snares and claps also come across with great precision and a nice pop, but never veer into sibilant territory. The only thing I take a tiny bit of issue with is that the flatter responses won't include some of the dips I'm accustomed to that help control some of the problem areas I'm sensitive to. Because of this, it does come across brighter than you might expect, though the Ember's large bass shelf does a lot to help keep it sounding balanced and under control. However, I would likely appreciate it a bit more if it were just a little less energetic and took somewhat of a smaller role in the overall balance to really allow the warmer tonality to shine. Still, the way it's tuned is quite unique and unlike any other planar I've heard. To my ear, it has a penchant for sounding like a much more expensive set thanks to the level of clarity it achieves, even with such a large bass presence. I really appreciate Letshuoer trying something different outside the box with the Ember's treble, and I think it's done quite well, if not just a smidge over-tuned for my preference.

Comparisons: Credit to Audio Amigo for the graphs. 

● Punch Audio Martilo ($330) - This matchup features the Martilo's 2 DD, 2 BA, and 1 microplanar tribrid configuration against the Ember's full-range planar. Starting with the accessories, the Martilo actually has the better cable and case in my opinion, though the Ember has more tips. From a build and design standpoint, these two are quite different. The Martilo has a more traditional resin body and metal nozzle, while the Ember is made of a sturdy titanium alloy. The Martilo is also much larger in shell and nozzle size with a deeper insertion, though the fit is more comfortable for me. Both have a decently eye-catching design, but I'm a bit more partial to the red patterned faceplate of the Martilo. When it comes to the sound signature, both sets feature a bass-first style of tuning, but they go about it in very different ways. The Martilo is more V-shaped with a large sub-bass shelf, a tucked mid-bass, and much more upper midrange/lower treble accentuation, while the Ember is L-shaped with a sizable bass shelf and a flatter midrange and treble response. In the bass, the Martillo's more sub-bass-oriented response offers deeper extension and a bigger rumble, but the Ember's bass is a little better balanced, and the increased mid-bass impact and warmth are great. It's also more articulate and precise with a cleaner texture, which is particularly great for rock tracks. The Martillo has more of that traditional, slower, and fuller-sounding DD style of bass that many may prefer. The midrange is also likely to be a little divisive. On one hand, the Martilo's more traditional lower-midrange recession and upper-midrange emphasis are great for female vocals, but it leaves something to be desired for male artists and instruments that fall in the lower half of the frequency response. The Ember's much flatter midrange instead raises male vocals and lowers female vocals a bit, making for a much more even presentation. It also makes instruments across the midrange sound better with increased accuracy, detail, and improved timbre. The treble is also quite different. The Martilo has more energy in the presence region and rolls off in the mid-treble and air, making it the darker-sounding of the two. The Ember's treble rolls off shallower with better extension and an injection of air, which makes the entire tuning sound more complete. It sounds crisper, thinner, and more energetic, but it's not sibilant-prone or particularly fatiguing. Personally, I do like Martilo's style of treble a bit better, but the Ember's level of detail and spatial cues add more to the tuning as a whole. When it comes to technical performance, the Ember is better in most categories, save for the note weight and a slightly deeper soundstage. This matchup really comes down to personal tuning preference. Both sets feature a bass-first style of tuning, but the Ember's balance across the frequency response makes for a better all-rounder. The Martilo's bass is a little bolder and deeper-reaching, and the more traditional V-shaped tuning does sound great for some genres. The Ember, though, simply does better justice to each portion of the frequency response, and nothing comes across as recessed or diminished. The bass is better balanced, mids are more even-keeled, and the treble is sparkly and better extended without being harsh. I wouldn't blame anyone for picking the Martilo here, and I will say its sub-bass boost works particularly well for female-led pop, but the Ember's overall balance, warmth, musicality, and better technical performance make it more versatile. Keeping both might be the best bet since they do bass-boosted tuning in different ways, but the Ember can more easily transition across the genres in my music library, making the choice easier.

My pick: Ember

● Letshuoer S12 2024 ($200) - Here we have our first familial planar matchup. Both IEMs utilize Letshuoer's 14.8mm driver, though the Ember uses a newly developed driver platform. When it comes to accessories, both have the same case and plenty of tips, but the 2024 has a better-quality modular cable. Both also have metal shells, though the Ember is made of titanium alloy versus the aluminum alloy of the 2024. The Ember is also a bit bigger and offers a better fit for me personally. Design-wise, I'm really drawn to the simple black and rose gold colorway of the 2024, and I feel the Ember's faceplate could use some refinement. As for the sound signature, the Ember has an L-shaped tuning, while the 2024 has more of a traditional V-shaped tuning you see with other planar IEMs. As expected with an L-shaped tuning, the Ember is the bassier of the two, but the toned-down upper mids and treble also allow the bass even more room to shine. The 2024 has more of the traditional planar presentation I've come to expect, like a fast attack, quick decay, clean texture, and good resolution. The Ember shares some of these qualities too, but it's also warmer, fuller, and more impactful with deeper extension and a slower, more natural decay. There's something quite interesting going on in the midrange of these two. Due to the 2024's mid-bass dip, male vocals sound more isolated and better separated from the surrounding frequencies, though they come across as a little recessed and underrepresented, especially compared to their female counterparts. On the flip side, the Ember adds more weight to male vocals and instruments in the lower midrange, but female vocals are somewhat restrained compared to the 2024. However, the Ember's rolled-off upper midrange and treble better separate female artists and allow them room to showcase their talent without any impedance from surrounding frequencies. The 2024 also lacks warmth and emotive weight, which is part of what makes the Ember so special. As the graph clearly shows, the biggest difference occurs in the treble. The 2024 is just straight-up brighter with more treble presence and energy, but to my ear, the Ember is actually a little airier with improved spatial cues and cleaner texture. It's also much less fatiguing but doesn't sacrifice clarity and detail to get there. The 2024 sounds thinner, and certain vocal notes can be harsh, but I imagine trebleheads will prefer its crisper and more obvious cymbal and snare presentation. When it comes to technical performance, the Ember is better across the board, which should come as no surprise. For me, this matchup simply comes down to tuning. The Ember has a warm, rich lushness that I've not found in a single planar-driver IEM until now. The 2024 is still quite a solid product, especially for the price, but its V-shaped tuning adheres more closely to the traditional planar tuning target. Its balance will likely be preferable for some over the Ember's bass-forward, L-shaped tuning. However, the Ember's nearly DD-style bass and its sheer musicality really do break the mold and present something unlike any of the planars I've heard before.

My pick: Ember

● Letshuoer S12 Ultra ($170) - The Ultra also utilizes the same 14.8mm planar driver as the 2024 edition, but it's tuned a little differently. The accessories are also close to 2024, and I prefer the Ultra's modular cable over the Ember's EA cable. Both include the same case, though the Ember has more tip options while the Ultra has a dongle DAC. As far as build quality goes, both have metal shells, but the Ember's is made of a more premium titanium alloy versus the aluminum of the Ultra. The Ember is also slightly bigger, and the shape fits my ear a little better. Design-wise, I'm a bit more partial to the Ultra's simpler copper color, though the Ember's faceplate is more eye-catching. When it comes to the sound signature, these two do share some similarities, but their tuning philosophies are different. The Ultra has a similar U-shaped tuning to that of the 2024, but with a little more sub-bass and a little less treble, while the Ember is L-shaped with a larger bass shelf and much less upper-mids and treble. Starting with the bass, the Ultra is a bit more sub-bass focused and linear in its response. It also has what I would say is a more typical style of planar bass response in that it's quicker with a shortened attack and a clean presentation, whereas the Ember is fuller with a slightly slower attack and a more natural-sounding decay that goes against the planar grain, so to speak. It also has much more mid-bass presence that adds a nice degree of warmth that I really enjoy, though the Ultra's bass is better separated from the mids for those who want it. In the mids, the Ember has a much flatter midrange and a more subtle upper midrange emphasis compared to the Ultra's more V-shaped midrange response. This makes the Ember the better choice for male vocals and lower-registered instruments, but the Ultra has more prominent female vocals and an added energy and dynamism in the midrange that will likely resonate with some. The Ember, though, offers warmer and more emotionally moving vocals that I absolutely love. The treble is the most interesting part of this comparison because these sets take quite different approaches. The Ember's treble measures flatter, but the graph kind of betrays the way it sounds. It has crispness and clarity where it matters, but the level of brightness is certainly diminished compared to other more traditionally tuned planars, which I appreciate. The Ultra has more of that classic, punctuated, and energetic planar sound, yet it lacks some air and extension compared to the Ember. It also accentuates cymbals and snares a bit more, but the big dip around 12 kHz makes it sound a little darker than necessary. Neither has any inherent sibilance issues, but to my ear, the Ember is a touch thinner and slightly harsh at high volumes, though it ultimately depends on personal treble tolerances. When it comes to the technicalities, the Ember is clearly the better performer, especially in soundstage, timbre, note weight, and imaging, but the margin of victory in the other areas is admittedly smaller. Similar to the S12 2024 matchup, this one comes down to the overall tuning. The Ultra manages to get a little closer to the Ember's more relaxed style than the 2024, thanks in no small part to the toned-down treble, and the argument could be made that it could make for a better all-rounder for most people. However, the Ember's unique L-shaped tuning simply works better for me on many levels. From the bigger bass shelf and more natural decay to the flatter, warmer midrange and treble detail and texture, it really strikes a chord with my personal preferences. It also offers a higher level of technical performance, which is nothing to scoff at. The Ultra's V-shaped tuning might arguably make for a better all-rounder for most, but in this case, I'll happily be the exception that proves the rule.

My pick: Ember

● HIDIZS MP143 ($110) - Here we have yet another planar matchup, but our first outside the Letshuoer family. The 143 features a 14.3mm single planar driver, while the Ember uses a 14.8mm. Regarding the accessories, the Ember easily wins, though that's to be expected given the price discrepancy. The 143's cable feels cheaper, there are fewer tip options, and it only includes a small carrying bag instead of a proper case. However, it does come with three tuning nozzles, which gives it added versatility over the Ember. For this comparison, I'll be using the rose gold filter. The build qualities are quite similar since they both have metal shells, but the design, fit, and size are much different. The 143's shell is notoriously large, but the nozzle length and insertion depth are actually reasonable. They both offer a comfortable enough fit for me, but the Ember is a better choice for those with smaller ears. The Ember's faceplate with its fire motif is definitely eye-catching, and I like the black and silver color combination, but I might actually prefer the 143's cobalt blue color and faceplate design just a hair. When it comes to tuning, both have a fair level of warmth, but the Ember has an L-shaped frequency response while the 143's rose gold filter is more V-shaped. In the bass, these two graph very closely. Both have an emphasized low-end response with a slight sub-bass focus, but the quality and presentation differ. Since the Ember has fewer upper mids and treble, it comes off as a little bassier and more impactful. It's also more articulate and has better performance with a cleaner texture, better resolution, deeper extension, slightly faster decay, and a more satisfying rumble. The midranges of these two actually don't sound all that different. The 143 accentuates the upper midrange more, which pushes vocals slightly forward in the mix, but male vocals come off a little recessed compared to their female counterparts. The Ember sounds warmer and smoother, which I prefer, and it carries a level of emotional weight, depth, and engagement that the 143 cannot match. The Ember also better represents lower-register instruments, and the detail is on another level. The treble is where these two differ the most. The 143, being V-shaped, has a healthy dose of presence and mid-treble energy to help balance out the bass, while the Ember's L-shaped response has a very mildly rolled-off treble until the injection of air around 12 kHz. In practice, the Ember actually comes across a touch brighter and sharper to my ear, yet it has a very distinct presentation. It's unique in the way it presents a crisp and detailed treble with a fine-grained texture, yet it does so without pushing my tolerances and is quite pleasant. The 143, on the other hand, tends to have more harshness with certain notes. One might even characterize this as the planar sheen, which is another reason the Ember impresses me so much, because it has none. As far as technicalities go, the Ember is better across the board, notably in soundstage, layering, imaging, and timbre. For me, this one simply comes down to performance. Despite what the upper portion of the graph shows, these two sound quite similar to the ear, but the Ember simply executes everything at a higher level. The bass is fuller and more impactful, the midrange warmer and more emotive, and the treble smoother and more detailed. Not to mention the better accessories and a shell size that should accommodate most with ease. The 143 is still commendable for the budget tier, and the versatility afforded by the three tuning nozzles is a nice plus, but those seeking seriously good planar performance should look to the Ember.

My pick: Ember

● AFUL Explorer with 15 ohm impedance adapter ($120) - This matchup pits the Explorer's 1DD, 2BA hybrid configuration against the Ember's single planar. Despite the large difference in price, the quality of the accessories is actually close, which might say more about the Ember than anything else. The Explorer has a decent cable, which I actually prefer over the Ember's EA cable, and a small zipper case that's nice too. The Ember's metal case offers better protection, though, and it comes with more tips. These two are quite different in build quality, shape, and overall design. The Ember's shell is made of metal and is much more round in shape with a slightly shorter nozzle. The Explorer's shell is all resin and better contoured with a semi-custom shape. Personally, I'm partial to the deep blue color of the Explorer, but the Ember's black and silver combo is nice too. With the impedance adapter, these two actually graph quite similarly. Both generally have an L-shaped tuning, but the Explorer has a slightly bigger bass shelf and a peakier but more steeply rolled-off treble response. The bass is definitely a dominant part of the Explorer's tuning, even more so with the added impedance. The Ember is slightly outmatched here in pure sub-bass rumble and reverberation, yet it has a similar level of impact. The Ember, though, sounds much more controlled and resolute, with a cleaner texture. The DD of the Explorer can also sound a little bloated compared to the Ember's planar driver, which is able to handle the bassiest tracks with ease. In the midrange, the Ember's vocals are more energetic and forward compared to the Explorer, which sounds somewhat veiled and recessed behind the bass shelf. But they're also a bit smoother and more relaxed. The Ember, though, offers much more clarity, detail, and a more engaging presentation that defies the large bass shelf. It also allows the lower-midrange instruments to shine through much better. Moving into the treble, the Ember has much better extension and air, leading to a more complete-sounding tuning. The Explorer's extension is lacking due to the early roll-off, and the peakier areas of the treble cause me some trouble. There are more occurrences of harshness on certain vocal notes, but cymbal crashes and snares are generally well controlled. The Ember sounds brighter overall, but it's much more controlled with a crisper nature and higher detail. When it comes to technical performance, the Explorer doesn't put up much of a fight. It's outclassed in just about every category, though the dynamics are decent and the note weight is a bit thicker. This matchup really comes down to the treble, which has always been the Explorer's Achilles' heel for me. I must say, I really enjoy the Explorer more with an impedance adapter. The added bass is fun, and the slightly toned-down treble becomes more tolerable, but the Ember simply does L-shaped tuning better, not to mention its much better performance across the frequency response. Those who don't mind a lack of air or who want a more traditional DD quality in their bass may actually prefer the Explorer in this matchup. Personally, though, the Ember's level of detail and more complete-sounding tuning is hard to ignore.

My pick: Ember

In conclusion:

To me, fire conveys heat, passion, vibrancy, and sometimes even chaos. It can burn and destroy just as easily as it illuminates and grants warmth. In relation to sound, fire invokes feelings of dynamism, whether that be projected in a vibrant V-shaped tuning, an intense and emotionally engaging midrange, or a bright and sparkly treble response. Embers, however, tell a different story—one of diminished heat and light but also of the underlying power of the fire from which they are born. Again, relating it to sound, embers evoke feelings of a smoldering warmth, a reduced but still present level of heat and emotion, and a calm, relaxed tonality, all lying in the undercurrent of the flames that had burned so brightly. That is why this newest IEM from Letshuoer is so aptly named. There are other models in Letshuoer's catalog that do a better job of conveying that fiery nature, like the S12 2024 with its brightness and clarity. The Ember, though, is a slow and steady burn that never seeks to cast its light out to garner attention, but rather it relies on its subtle glow and comforting warmth to draw you in. As a reviewer, the mark of a special IEM is one that I can simply place in my ear, hit shuffle on my music library, and enjoy for hours without trying to dissect the frequency response. The Ember is that kind of IEM, but it also has a high level of technical performance to complement the musicality. While admittedly not the most versatile of tunings, the Ember's bassy and warm sound signature absolutely hits the mark for me. Coupled with an engaging and emotional midrange and a well-behaved yet extended treble, this is truly something unique in the planar scene. Unfortunately, there are a few minor issues that keep it from being perfect. Firstly, the Ember's fit and shape are less than ideal for my large ears, and the flame faceplate design could use some refinement. Additionally, the Effect Audio cable is subpar, and it likely comes with a price increase, which makes it a bitter pill to swallow. In my opinion, both the cheaper S12 2024 and Ultra models have much better stock cables. If I were to base the score on sound quality alone, the Ember might actually have a chance at a five-star rating. I enjoy them immensely, and the warm tuning works seamlessly across my entire library. However, when taking the whole package into account, I'm forced to knock off at least half a star for the cable alone. Seriously, I don't know what Letshuoer was thinking on this one. My advice to the company would be to trust yourselves; you don't need to rely on collaborations to build hype. The inclusion of the EA cable, plus the decision to utilize titanium alloy for the shells, may have been a big misstep. I really think the Ember could be an absolute market disruptor at, say, $350, which might be possible without the assumed markups from the shell material and cable collaboration. In the end, though, it really is the sound that matters most, and Letshuoer has proven itself yet again to be the dominant force in the world of single planar IEMs. The Ember is easily my favorite planar to date, and it absolutely deserves all the attention and praise coming its way.