Video summary

Tanchjim Origin - Like the AKG K701 in Your Pocket

Main summary

Key takeaways

Product Review

Product reviewed

Tanchjim Origin (IM / in-ear monitor) — review based on extended testing of the Tanchjim Origin IM (the review mentions a box was included).

Key sound / performance takeaways (unique points)

  • Bass quality: described as technical and punchy, with depth. The reviewer emphasizes that the bass presence is clear (e.g., “BB Weekend” confirms low-end impact).
  • Not warm: the reviewer repeatedly notes it isn’t “warm” and doesn’t have a “warm gooey feel.”
  • Treble / tonality:
    • It leans toward bright, but the reviewer avoids calling it “bright.”
    • Female vocals have “sheen” and sound full and great.
  • Vocal character:
    • Male vocals: “nothing taken away.”
    • Vocals are clean and full, not clinical.
  • Comparative reference-ish sound: presented as detailed and very accurate/neutral-ish, even relative to reference targets.
  • Not sibilant: explicitly states it isn’t sibilant.
  • Not synthetic (likely): reviewer wouldn’t call it synthetic yet, but suggests it may take more time to judge fully.
  • Comparison to common reference tunings: tonality is likened to the AKG K71 series, while still retaining some “girth.”
  • Separation / clarity: voices have clarity, bass is punchy, and overall presentation is detailed.
  • Mix / edit potential: reviewer claims it could work well for mixing/editing, and that when listening to their own voice it sounds like themselves (implying good accuracy).

Comfort / usability

  • Comfort is “very good” and described as seamless.
  • The fit feels smaller than many larger IEMs, improving comfort (compared to models like Blessing / Dusk / Hexa).

Pros (as stated)

  • Punchy, technical bass with depth (strong low-end despite not being “warm”).
  • Excellent female vocals (sheen + fullness).
  • Clear and detailed presentation; not dull or overly clinical.
  • Non-sibilant listening.
  • Comfortable fit (smaller shell/shape).
  • Accurate enough for practical use, potentially helping with editing/mixing and matching the reviewer’s own voice.

Cons / uncertainties (as stated)

  • The sound leans bright-ish, even if it’s not called “bright.”
  • Warmth expectations: repeated emphasis that it’s not warm may disappoint people wanting a warm/gooey signature.
  • Possible bias from prior reviews: reviewer wonders whether early exposure to many reviews colored impressions.
  • Needs more time to determine whether it’s synthetic (not ruled out completely).

Comparisons with specific other products mentioned

  • Honest Audio File (reference influence):
    • Reviewer respected Honest Audio File’s focus on neutral, accurate sound.
    • Mentions several “neutral/reference-like” IEMs Honest Audio File reviewed (e.g., Hexa, ER2XR).
    • References a wish for a soundstage closer to ER2XR with Blessing/Supermix style stage, and that Honest agreed on Studio 4.
  • Studio 4 (Direct):
    • Origin is described as very good, but the reviewer wouldn’t say it’s better than Studio 4.
    • Studio 4 is described as more full and musical, while Origin is clear/punchy and less warm/gooey.
    • Reviewer notes similarity at points, but ultimately says they’re similar yet very different.
  • Moondrop Blessing 2:
    • Mentions a claim that someone said Origin is better than Blessing 2.
    • Reviewer initially disagrees, then later changes stance and says it’s better than Blessing 2, including depth.
  • Etymotic ER2XR:
    • Reviewer notes Origin may have more low-end than ER2XR, but wants confirmation.
  • Moondrop / Hexa (warmth difference):
    • Hexa has more warmth in vocals; Origin is more clear.
  • Dusk / Blessing / Hexa (comfort + tuning context):
    • Origin feels smaller and therefore comfortable versus those models.
    • Hexa is described as warmer than Origin.
  • HD 660S / HD6X (warmness reference):
    • Origin is said to be less warm than the HD 6X.
  • AKG K71 series:
    • Origin’s tonality is likened to AKG K71, including “girth.”
  • Other IEMs mentioned (mainly aesthetics / future interest):
    • Tanchjim Nasa: reviewer dislikes the artwork/looks.
    • Fat Frequency Reference Pro: also disliked visually.
    • Tanchjim Mach 60: reviewer says they’d consider it, but wants to listen at CanJam.

Overall user experience notes

  • Strong emotional takeaway: “Definitely keeping this” and “absolutely love the sound.”
  • Described as enjoyable/pleasurable (“toetapping”).
  • Feels like it opens up a new side to sound and isn’t redundant versus what the reviewer already owns.

Verdict / recommendation (based on the video)

Highly recommended for listeners who want:

  • Clear, detailed tuning with punchy bass
  • Full, non-sibilant female vocals
  • Comfortable fit
  • Potential accuracy for mixing/editing

If you strongly prefer warm, gooey, fully smooth low-end, the reviewer’s repeated “not warm” comments suggest it may not match that preference—though they still rate it highly overall.

Unique points list (all distinct claims)

  1. Tested the Tanchjim Origin IM over time.
  2. Includes a box.
  3. Review influenced by Honest Audio File’s neutral/reference style.
  4. Origin described as a “beast” and “amazing.”
  5. Bass is technical.
  6. Bass is not warm.
  7. Comfort is very good (“comfortable,” “seamless”).
  8. Fit feels smaller than many larger IEMs (Blessing/Dusk/Hexa).
  9. Tonality veers toward bright but not called bright.
  10. Bass is punchy.
  11. Female vocals have sheen.
  12. Not warm and not quite MDR7506 treble.
  13. Less warm than HD 6X.
  14. Tonality resembles AKG K71 series while retaining girth.
  15. Male vocals: no loss (“nothing taken away”).
  16. Not warm and not synthetic (but needs more time).
  17. Possible bias due to prior review exposure.
  18. Not V-shaped; Hexa has more warmth in vocals.
  19. More accurately/enjoyably relays bass.
  20. Contradicts the common “weak bass done well” complaint: bass is good.
  21. Vocals are clear while bass is punchy.
  22. Not bright but possibly neutral bright (wording varies).
  23. Compared to “Truthier Pure” being warmer.
  24. Studio 4 sounds more full and musical.
  25. Origin vs Studio 4: not “better than,” but very good.
  26. Some initial disagreement then later agreement vs Blessing 2.
  27. Origin may have more low-end than ER2XR (needs confirmation).
  28. Sound is detailed.
  29. Keeps it because not redundant—unique sound.
  30. Origin later still described as veering bright.
  31. Female vocals sound great again.
  32. Has low-end (explicit bass emphasis).
  33. “Toetapping” / highly enjoyable.
  34. Female vocals sound full (repeated emphasis).
  35. Not sibilant.
  36. Lacks warm gooey feel; more punchy clean.
  37. Not clinical, but can open new sides.
  38. Comfort described as very good again.
  39. “BB Weekend” confirms bass presence.
  40. Claims better than Blessing 2 with depth.
  41. Overall: keeping it; loves sound.
  42. Possible use for mixing/editing.
  43. Accuracy claim: listening to own voice sounds like the reviewer.
  44. Design/aesthetics complaint: Tanchjim Nasa artwork looks bad; reviewer won’t buy it.
  45. Aesthetics complaint: Fat Frequency Reference Pro doesn’t look good to the reviewer.
  46. Future intent: will listen to Mach 60 at CanJam.
  47. Agreement with Honest Audio File that it’s great for enjoyability and accuracy.

Speaker breakdown

  • Single speaker (no distinct multi-speaker sections). All impressions and comparisons come from the same reviewer.

Original video