By aspect — in detail
Tonality
Contested · 9 srcSources split, but not about the shape — about the verdict on it. Everyone is describing the same measured response: a big sub-bass shelf, a scooped 500 Hz-1 kHz floor, and a wide ear-gain plateau. Roughly 55 percent of the weight treats that as the point — a fun, deliberately coloured tuning, variously called a V or a smooth W — while 45 percent treats it as the flaw, a deep V that costs the midrange too much. This is the rare case where the graph settles nothing, because nobody disputes it.
Measured
Both rigs, normalised to 500 Hz, show the same three-part shape: about +10 dB at 20-40 Hz sloping down to +4 to +4.8 dB by 200 Hz, a floor from 500 Hz to 1 kHz, then an ear-gain plateau peaking at +10.8 dB (2759 Hz) and +11.5 dB (2620 Hz) that stays within about a decibel of its peak all the way to 4 kHz. The lower midrange therefore sits roughly 10 dB below both the bass shelf and the ear gain — a wide, symmetrical V, measured twice.
Where it splits
The V-shape is the appeal — a fun, coloured, unapologetically non-neutral tuning that makes most music sound good.55%
“Their v-shaped (or “u” if you prefer) sound signature is fun—pure, simple, unadulterated fun.”
Headphonesty
The V-shape is the problem — the dip is deep enough that the midrange pays for the bass and the upper region both.45%
“It is in fact quite a deep V, complete with thin mids and quite a lot of energy in the upper region.”
Soundphile Review (Riccardo Robecchi)
The most consistently praised aspect and the reason the OH10 is still recommended. Sources describe a big, deep, fast low end that is led by the sub-bass rather than the mid-bass, with real slam and no bleed into the mids — both rigs confirm the shelf slopes down from the bottom rather than humping in the middle. The dissent is about quantity, not quality: one owner finds it simply not special, another says it fails to impress at all, and even the enthusiasts note it can tip into excess at volume.
“the OH10 excels by its fantastic bass slam and its excellent imaging”
audioreviews.org (Jürgen Kraus)
“Excellent sub bass extension, goes really deep and rumbly.”
Des99 (Head-Fi)
“a somewhat hard-hitting lower area, with enough control and depth to deliver the kick many people crave for”
Soundphile Review (Riccardo Robecchi)
Measured
Both rigs put the shelf at about +10 dB over 500 Hz (HBB peaks at +10.5 dB at 43 Hz; Precogvision at +10.3 dB at 20.6 Hz), falling steadily to +7.3 to +8.3 dB by 100 Hz and +4.0 to +4.8 dB by 200 Hz. There is no mid-bass hump on either — which is the measured version of what sources mean by big bass that does not bleed.
The second-sharpest split, and it is a genuine one rather than a matter of degree. Slightly the larger camp hears the midrange as recessed, thin and cold — male voices dry and distant, note weight missing in the lower mids, upper mids that can turn shouty. The other camp, from the earliest reviews, hears the opposite: transparent, airy, natural and specifically not veiled, with the openness read as a feature of the scoop rather than a casualty of it. Both are describing the same measured dip; they disagree about whether it reads as absence or as clarity.
Measured
The dip is real and identical on both rigs: 500 Hz to 1 kHz is the lowest region of the whole response, sitting about 10 dB below the bass shelf and about 10-11 dB below the ear-gain plateau. The upper mids are the opposite of recessed — that plateau holds +10 to +11.5 dB from 2.6 kHz out to 4 kHz, which is unusually wide and is what the “shouty on some tracks” complaints are picking up on.
⚠ vs. listeners — Neither camp is misreading the graph. A 10 dB scoop between 500 Hz and 1 kHz genuinely removes lower-midrange body — the “thin, cold, dry male vocals” reading — while the wide upper-mid plateau genuinely adds presence and air to female vocals and strings, which is the “transparent, no veil” reading. The measurement says both halves are true at once; which one a listener notices depends on what they listen to.
Where it splits
Recessed, thin and cold — the mids pay for the tuning, and male vocals suffer most.57%
“The overall sensation is that mids lack body and are too thin for many instruments to be rendered correctly”
Soundphile Review (Riccardo Robecchi)
Present and transparent — pulled back in the mix, but clean, airy and never veiled or pale.43%
“The sensation of veil is null, the range never appears weak or pale.”
ibo0m (Head-Fi)
The single most divided aspect, and it splits three ways rather than two. About half the weight hears it as smooth, controlled and non-fatiguing; a bit over a third hears it as hot, sharp or outright sibilant, with two listeners independently prescribing an EQ cut around 3-3.7 kHz; and a small minority says the opposite of both, that it is polite but runs out of extension and air. The measurements explain why all three can be right at once.
Measured
The two rigs agree almost exactly below 5 kHz and then part company. At 5 kHz one reads +10.3 dB over 500 Hz and the other +5.5 dB; at 6 kHz, +6.6 dB versus +1.8 dB. Both then show a clear upper-treble peak — +9.0 dB at 8633 Hz and +10.2 dB at 9000 Hz — before diverging again at the top, where one export is still around +2 dB at 15 kHz and the other has fallen to -4.4 dB. An owner who measured his own pair found that peak sliding between roughly 7.25 kHz and 8.75 kHz depending on insertion depth and tip type.
⚠ vs. listeners — This is the rare case where the measurements support all three camps rather than picking one. The 8.6-9 kHz peak is real on both rigs, which is why sibilance complaints exist; the 6-7 kHz dip immediately below it is also real, which is why other listeners hear the top as polite; and because a peak that high is strongly insertion-depth dependent — on a set with an unusually short 6 mm nozzle — how deep the earpiece sits decides which of the two a listener actually gets. The rigs disagreeing by up to 6.5 dB in exactly that band is the same effect showing up in the lab. One editorial claim does not survive it: the assertion that “the 9k peak has mostly been taken care of” is contradicted by both exports, where a peak at 8.6-9 kHz is the largest feature above the ear gain.
Where it splits
Smooth and well-judged — clear and energetic without tipping into sibilance, and easy to listen to for hours.51%
“Thankfully it doesn’t stray into sibilance or excessive brightness but adds a good counterbalance to the weighty low end.”
Headphonesty
Hot and fatiguing — too much energy up top, tipping into sharpness or sibilance on percussion and hi-hats.37%
“this same energy can be excessive and can lead to tracks being fatiguing”
Soundphile Review (Riccardo Robecchi)
Neither — inoffensive but short of extension and air compared with pricier sets.12%
“The price paid is recessed vocals and treble extension.”
audioreviews.org (Jürgen Kraus)
Soundstage
Moderate · 8 srcMostly a strength, with one clear dissent. The recurring description is of an unusually wide, open, airy presentation for a closed hybrid at this price — several sources rate it the standout technical quality. The nuance is that width outruns depth and height: two sources note the stage is broad but comparatively flat, and one reviewer breaks ranks entirely and hears nothing special about it.
“It has an open and large soundstage.”
The Headphoneer (Chris)
“capable of rendering soundscape wider than most IEMs within the range”
Gears For Ears (Mohammed Istiaq)
“I find soundstage to be not that wide”
Soundphile Review (Riccardo Robecchi)
Broadly agreed as a strength, and for more than one source it is the headline reason to own the set — the quality that makes a $199 hybrid feel like it is playing above its price. Placement and instrument separation are singled out repeatedly, including in gaming use. The one reservation is that the spaciousness may come slightly at the cost of pinpoint precision.
“With its excellent imaging, it plays in the league with the big, expensive boys”
audioreviews.org (Jürgen Kraus)
“razor accurate and handles complex passages really accurately”
Gears For Ears (Mohammed Istiaq)
“perhaps a bit at the expense of pin-point imaging or precision”
Headphonesty
Detail
Strong consensus · 7 srcThe firmest agreement in the whole set, and notable because it survives the critics. Every source that addresses resolution rates it strong for the money — including the reviewer who scored the OH10 3/5 and listed detail as a pro while calling the treble unlistenable. The only qualifications are relative: micro-detail is not its speciality, and it will not match the planars that now sell at the same price.
“Resolution, detail and clarity is excellent”
DezzaDK (Head-Fi, 3/5)
“The level of resolution and definition is similarly remarkable.”
ibo0m (Head-Fi)
“Resolution and detail retrieval is actually pretty good.”
Des99 (Head-Fi)
Dynamics
Strong consensus · 6 srcConsistently described as fast, punchy and physical — the quality that makes the tuning read as fun rather than merely bassy. Sources agree the dynamic driver keeps up with busy material without the decay smearing, and that the slam is felt rather than just heard. No source argues the opposite.
“Very impactful, also comes with good definition and punch.”
Des99 (Head-Fi)
“fast, engaging bass which has a good amount of physicality to it as well”
Soundphile Review (Riccardo Robecchi)
“Both are dynamic and snappy.”
The Headphoneer (Chris)
Genuinely divided, and the division tracks ear anatomy rather than opinion. About two-thirds of the weight reports that the flat, narrow shell is so well shaped that the 16 g of copper stops registering — one reviewer calls it among the most comfortable IEMs he has used. The remaining third finds the weight tiring after an hour or two, and more than one reports the short, narrow nozzle simply will not hold a seal without a firm-stemmed tip. The shells sit shallow by design, so tip choice matters more here than usual.
Measured
The physical facts behind the split are not in dispute: 16.2 g per earpiece — close to three times the alloy-shelled OH1 — on a 6 mm nozzle that every source that measures it calls short, with a lipped edge for tip retention and a single vent near the base.
Where it splits
The shape beats the weight — ergonomic enough that 16 g per side stops mattering, and comfortable for hours.68%
“I find the OH10 to be very comfortable: their narrow shape means they can sit in my ears for hours before I feel any discomfort”
Soundphile Review (Riccardo Robecchi)
Too heavy, and the nozzle is too short — they weigh on the ear over time, and can work loose without the right tips.32%
“The metal earpieces are super heavy and relatively big”
audioreviews.org (Jürgen Kraus)
Isolation
Contested · 3 srcFew sources address it directly, and those that do disagree sharply. Two report that the solid metal shell blocks outside noise unusually well with a good tip seal, one of them calling it near-total; the third rates it merely average, with a co-writer on the same page flatly calling it lacking. Given how much the same sources disagree about whether the short nozzle seals at all, the likeliest explanation is that they are not all achieving the same seal.
Where it splits
Seals and isolates well — the metal shell blocks outside noise almost completely with the right tips.66%
“the OH10 Obsidian are really good at isolating from external noise”
Soundphile Review (Riccardo Robecchi)
Average at best — a shallow-sitting shell that does not isolate the way its metal build suggests.34%
“Fit is good, comfort depends on how much I move, and isolation is average.”
audioreviews.org (Jürgen Kraus)
Build
Strong consensus · 8 srcThe least controversial thing about the OH10. Solid copper, titanium-coated outside and platinum-plated inside, finished under a clear resin skin — sources consistently rate the shell as well above its price bracket, and the critical reviews list the design as a pro even while marking the sound down. The one near-universal complaint is the stock cable, which almost every source calls thin or cheap-feeling next to the earpieces.
“the OH10 are also staggeringly well made”
Headphonesty
“Build quality is very good.”
Soundphile Review (Riccardo Robecchi)
“Yes, the cable is crap and I use Final E tips.”
audioreviews.org (Jürgen Kraus)
Sources split on whether it is a bargain or a conditional one. Roughly two-thirds of the weight treats it as an unusual amount of hardware and technical performance for the money, with two sources still recommending it years after release. The remaining third does not dispute the engineering — it argues the coloration is too specific to recommend broadly, and that the price only makes sense if the V-shape is exactly what you were after. The field has also moved: the sub-$200 bracket is far more crowded now than in 2019.
Where it splits
A lot of IEM for the money — build, bass and technicalities that read well above the price, and still competitive years on.65%
“The fact that they can be had for sub $200 is remarkable.”
Headphonesty
Only if the coloration is what you want — a heavily tuned set whose flaws are not fixable at the price.35%
“be aware that this is a double-edged sword”
Soundphile Review (Riccardo Robecchi)
