QUE

Too good for its own good

I can definitely see where the hype is coming from. The YU9 QUE is one of the most impressive IEMs I’ve heard so far — immaculately clean, resolving and composed, and on the right tracks it can be amazing.

But it tries so hard that it overshoots, and with low output impedance sources I don’t really enjoy it. For those chasing clarity and “technicalities” it might be the best IEM out there. If you’re more like me and you’re looking for a pleasant, smooth presentation, it might not be the benchmark you were looking for.

The cleanliness of its sound is both the greatest strength and the greatest weakness of the QUE.

How it sounds

Going from my Mega5EST to the QUE feels like someone upscaled my music. Instruments sound very well separated... annoyingly so.

It’s not neutral though, it’s coloured. Clean and neutral are not the same thing. It’s bright tilted, and depending on the source it can lean V-shaped. It’s definitely not a background listening set — it rewards attention.

Clean can often sound boring, and I would argue the QUE mostly balances that line fine. But on 0-ohm output impedance gear it ends up crossing into unpleasantly bright and sharp territory. Add a few ohms and it gains some heft that keeps it interesting.

In some ways it’s similar to the Tea Pro — the same incisiveness and contour of sounds, but more refined. The longer I use it, the more I see it as a Hifiman Edition XS in IEM form: lots of detail, great staging and an even-sounding presentation with a bright tilt. On paper it’s hype-worthy, but in my ears it lacks something.

Bass

Solid sounding, hard hitting and fast. The bass decay is very fast — the sense of slam is there, but it doesn’t linger. It hits hard and it’s gone.

Midrange and vocals

The upper midrange boost gives the presentation its sense of resolution and clarity. But combined with a scooped lower midrange and elevated treble, it’s a bit too much. On higher impedance sources it can shine. The thing is, I feel like people who buy the QUE are using good source gear with near-0-ohm output impedance, and in that configuration I’m impressed, but I struggle to say I’m having a good time.

Its contoured upper midrange and lower treble sound genuinely impressive, like a more refined Tea Pro. But where the Tea Pro balances its forwardness in those regions with a hefty amount of mid and sub-bass, the QUE strives to stay clean. That cleanliness might be the hype-worthy part, and as I’ve already seen, it’s divisive.

Vocals come down to preference. Warmth and body go to the Tea Pro. Leaner, more clinical vocals go to the QUE. They’re very clean sounding, and that’s the point.

Treble

Highly resolving and refined. On the stock tips it’s even, smooth and extended.

It’s also too much for me, depending on the track. I can see it riding the line depending on the source gear, but it’s never effortless for my ears the way DUSK is. And it’s inconsistent: on the right tracks it’s amazing, on others it’s simply too much.

Stage and separation

The QUE wins on soundstage, no doubt. But in my opinion soundstage is a meme on IEMs and I don’t care much for it. I can listen to speakers and open-back headphones for that.

Separation is another story. The QUE shares a rare ability with the DUSK: presenting frequency bands in a very pleasantly separated way, with a feeling of effortlessness about it. The difference is in attitude. DUSK does it in a very laid-back, unassuming manner — it’s not shoving detail in your face, it delicately lays down all the information so you can pick it up. The QUE is dialing everything to 11 while staying very well controlled and composed.

Tonal balance is not coherence

There’s a feeling I kept circling around with this set, and it took me a while to pin it down. What gets praised as coherence on the QUE is, to my ears, an exceptional tonal balance and smooth treble extension — the response is even and nothing sticks out. Coherence is something else: whether the bands fuse into one organic image. That’s the part that doesn’t stitch together for me.

The bands run in clean parallel lanes, beautifully separated and never masking each other, but they sound like they’re playing separately rather than as one. It’s a bit like someone cut the sounds apart, laid them out with more space between them, and forgot to stitch them back together. All the pieces are there, yet it sounds like something is missing.

The easiest way to hear it is next to any good single dynamic driver. A single DD sounds coherent and natural even when its treble is peaky, it keeps the same character. It’s not a lack of separation, the QUE separates so well that the elements never melt together.

My Mega5EST is a useful counterpoint. It’s very coherent, except for the high treble — the EST drivers sit above everything else and don’t integrate into the package. I hear something similar on the QUE, just across more of the range.

The upside is real, though. On the right tracks those parallel lanes go holographic, and no IEM at this price can match that experience. What costs it cohesion is exactly what makes it spectacular when the recording allows it.

Food without sauce

My whole audio journey so far has taught me that finding the right gear for yourself is about compromise and balance. It’s not about which IEM is better, it’s about which IEM does the things you value most, and what compromises it makes along the way.

I don’t think most characteristics are objectively good or bad. Take my beloved Mega5EST. Most reviews present its bass as lacking, not very defined, lacking in quality. At face value that sounds like an objectively bad thing, and I wholeheartedly disagree. The Mega5EST has a slightly boomy, pillowy bass, with punch and decay on the slower side. Its dynamic driver control isn’t very impressive. But that’s exactly what makes it sound so warm, pleasant, relaxed and cohesive. The lower frequencies bloom over the midrange in a very specific, balanced way that gives it that euphonic, sweet presentation. Improve the bass, make it hit harder and decay faster, and you’ll lose that warmth. You’ll get a more “resolving” IEM, but I’d argue a worse one.

The QUE’s cleanliness lacks that kind of balancing. It’s incredibly put together, part by part.

If clean was the ultimate goal in audio, people would stop buying tube gear, R2R DACs and dynamic driver headphones. There’s something pleasant in the way tubes introduce grain, texture and bloom into the sound — and it looks like the “unclean” trend is gaining strength, with the latest FiiO offerings and the resurgence of turntables.

As I see it, clean sounding gear is like food without sauce. You can taste the individual ingredients more cleanly, and assess their taste, texture and strength objectively better. The moment you add the sauce and mix it a bit, you might lose some texture and strength, and individual ingredients get harder to distinguish. But if they fit well together, you get a fuller tasting dish.

The QUE’s ingredients are impressively fresh, tasty and clean. For me, it just lacks the sauce.

Source matters

The QUE is not impedance agnostic, and that turns out to be a good thing.

Low output impedance acts as the fail-safe for resolution. It gets progressively more refined the lower the output impedance goes, which will be appreciated by those chasing detail — but it’s arguably a less pleasant experience. Cleaner, faster, more incisive, more articulate, brighter. Higher output impedance sources introduce more mid-bass punch and a slightly elevated top end, which results in an arguably more “consumer”, beginner-friendly V-shaped presentation. The bass decay gets slower and pours into the rest of the frequencies, adding a bit of bloom that noticeably smooths out the rough edges and gives a more natural sounding picture.

Lower quality DAC/amps, like dongles, additionally lose some bass grip, making it a bit less controlled and more bloaty. In more audiophile terms: slower bass decay. Depending on what you’re looking for, that might be a good or a bad thing.

For those who worry the bloom is muddying the midrange. These are not night and day differences. No matter the source, the QUE still gives a very nicely controlled and composed presentation. By not being impedance agnostic, it gives you the choice to dial it in according to mood or preference.

I have no idea if that was a deliberate design choice or an accident, but the way the frequency response shifts across sources gives you flexibility — and I like it.

Gaming consoles and handhelds with built-in jacks usually have higher output impedance — think Steam Deck, Nintendo Switch or some Android handhelds. There the QUE gets more relaxed and bass forward. Games aren’t always mastered with high-end audio in mind, and the most resolving gear can be punishing. The QUE has a built-in fail-safe here that makes it a good all-rounder. If you want every last bit of detail even on your secondary devices, you most likely already own a decent portable DAC/amp. Personally, built-in audio was where the QUE fit perfectly for me.

For intentional listening sessions at your desk, on the couch or wherever you love listening, the QUE can show its prowess and technical ability. It’s impressive, detailed and articulate, at the cost of being less cohesive and arguably less charming. It’s a balancing act, and for me it doesn’t hit quite right. For you it might be perfect.

Eartips

This set is insanely tip dependent, and I can definitely see it was tuned with the stock tips in mind.

My first reaction was to find something that would bring the treble down, as I often do when an IEM is too bright. After trying countless tips, I came to the conclusion that aftermarket tips mess with the frequency response and make the treble less even and smooth. With the standard tips it gets very technical but disjointed. With silicone tips it gets more cohesive and less punchy, with better mids — but the treble presentation gets weird.

I will always choose even, smooth treble, even if there’s more of it, over a darker presentation with uneven, peaky treble. For me, evenness sounds natural — it might sound elevated, but it’s rarely piercing. In my ears the stock tips do exactly that: they produce the most even, smooth, refined treble. It’s still too much for me, but it’s hard to argue it isn’t impressive, or that it doesn’t sound its best this way. I would rather use the QUE only with the original tips.

Build

The Tea Pro is the better build — full metal. Both will get scuffed, but the QUE scuffs incredibly fast if you don’t put it into the pouch every single time.

Who it’s for

The QUE is a specialist set. People with many IEMs will go nuts for it, because it sounds very different from everything else and does things no other set does. If you’re looking for a technical monster with a solid bass punch, it might be your new favorite — and I can really see that it’s goldilocks material for some.

But if it’s your only IEM, and you’re sensitive to treble, you can start to hate your music really fast. It shows you the flaws in not-so-great recordings. The Tea Pro is a much safer bet for a one-and-only IEM.

It does many things well. Unfortunately, the thing it does best doesn’t immerse me in the music. It doesn’t make me move to the beat, bop my head, melt away or lose track of the task at hand. It presents everything in a very clean, technically impressive way that leaves me untouched.

If you’re a bit like me and you want an IEM that sweeps you away with warm, detailed-enough, smooth and effortless sound, without shouting for attention — maybe look for something else.

If not the QUE

• High-end extension and an open stage: the Septet does it at a lower price, and keeps things balanced with a blooming lower midrange that rounds out the package nicely.
• To be impressed, with music that’s well contoured and separated: the Tea Pro (warmest and least clean), the Hype 4 MK II (most impressive, with the cleanest sound) or the Tea Pro SE (warmer lower midrange, best sub-bass, on the brighter side).

Why I sold it

I loved parts of the QUE:

• Highly resolving, refined treble
• Solid sounding, hard-hitting, fast bass
• Very clean vocals
• An incredible sense of space and separation

I believe that for the right person this IEM might be the end game. For me it lacks the special sauce that makes those parts fit together. Its overall tonality is one I can see many people ultimately enjoying.

It’s an impressive set, but inconsistent — it changes with the source, the tips and the track. In the end I just didn’t enjoy the package.