Disclaimer: I've got my RE272 as a review sample for free.
 
 
Conclusion first: RE272 is the best IEM I tried.
 
Tried, in order of preference (not just SQ): RE262, RE252, RE0, ER-4P/S, MTPC, E500 (SE535), CK10, SA6, RE-Zero, ER-6i, E4c (wow, this is ancient!), UM2, some more. Note: order may change depending on the source.
 
Too sugary? You’ve probably read someone’s complaints on shy bass or excessive brightness. Well, I made my best efforts to fit and amping, more later. And I was awarded with
 
Very realistic, fast, neutral, accurate, clear, detailed while engaging sound.
 
+ Flat frequency response, no evident peaks or dips to breach neutrality.
+ Frequency extensions are very good on both ends. Highs are perfection!
+ Tonality is neither cold nor warm, it is just right.
+ Details are better than with ER-4P (eek!), long time details king.
+ Instrument separation and positioning are top notch.
 
++ And what I like most in RE272 are the speed, clarity and accuracy. RE272 provides that rare sense of realism, “wow, singer in my room” effect like fastest cans I tried before – ER-4P/S, Tesla T1, some STAX.
 
++ At the same time RE272 is musical. Listening to the dance tracks, I rather want to dance than to admire certain musician’s skills or fanciful effects.
 
There are some whishes also, though not at the expense of any of the “+” above:
 
- I like to have more bass, well weighted - the deeper is the bigger.
- RE272 bass accuracy is excellent, but I like to have it perfect.
- Soundstage size is good for IEM, but I like to have more.
 
 
Comfort – please, release version with standard cable.
 
+ Very comfortable in ears, both over the ear and wires down styles.
- Cable extension joint adds weight.
 
 
Fit and tips – go deeper, seal tighter.
 

 
Deep fit and perfect seal are must to unleash RE272. It was not obvious for me, since RE272 uses the same shells as RE262, which sounds good with shallow fit. And it was not easy to get the proper fit, until I tried RE272 over the ears with smaller tips. This let me put it deep, reducing brightness and making sound fuller. Of course, this also squeezed the soundstage, but I am OK with this size.
 
My favorite tips are Monster MTPC foams and Shure E2C silicon tips. I may also recommend Monster MTPC triple flanges, Jays silicon tips, Sony hybrids, stock medium single flanges, and Etymotic ER6-14F foam tips.
 
- Stock set of tips is not good for deep fit. For, only medium single flanges fit. Small bi-flanges goes deep and seals well, but it is scratchy.
 
 
Built
 
+ Microphonics are almost non-existing.
+ Shells and strain reliefs are solid, finish is unpretentious, just how I like them.
- I do not like joint cable with those balanced plugs. Version with standard cable and plug will be a winner. White jack on balanced-to-single-ended-reversed looks horrible. Unfortunately, this is a cable I need to use RE272 over the ear. Most likely I will recable my RE272 to get rid of this extra black and white joint.
 
 
Amps / sources matching – RE272 likes more current?
 
+ Sensitivity is excellent, RE272 works well with any of my sources, down to the Sansa Clip+. No loss of speed/attack/clarity or any other typical “not enough gain” symptoms. It easily pulls out background noises from noisy chain or live record.
 
! RE272 prefers sources driving low-impedance loads well. It blooms with more juice - bass gains depth and weight, mids gain more natural tonality.
 
Synergy: HM-602 >= Yulong D100 > iPhone 3G = Recommended > Clip+ >> iPod 5.5gen.
 
Nothing surprising here. iPod 5.5gen headphone is known as faulty with low impedance loads. It sounds too thin and bright with RE272. Clip+ amp circuit is better, but battery is tiny. So Clip+ is just OK. iPhone (and I bet, all modern Apples) surprises me with good body and warmth, few if any of digital harshness – recommended. D100 >  RE272 is an excellent rig for those who prefer precise detailed sound from well-built sigma-delta DAC feeding neutral powerful amp. HM-602 has the warm amp as well as analog-like DAC, and this is a match made on heavens - Highly Recommended!
 
 
Value: Good.
 
+ With price of $249, RE272 represents excellent value, considering SQ only. I doubt there are any similarly priced IEMs with a same or better SQ. I believe all of them costs $100+ more. Why I rate value as just "good" then? 
- Because of inappropriate selection of stock tips. This is not a huge problem for experienced head-fier, but it takes time and money to get 3rd party tips.
- Finicky cable system also reduces value to me.
 
And to be honest, HiFiMan set the expectations of value for money pretty high with their previous models. Both RE0 ($79) and RE262 ($149) represent "excellent" VFM. If RE272 will be priced $199, then it will deserve "excellent" VFM with no regards to both "-" mentioned above.
 
 
 
Brief comparison to HD650 - drawn game.
 
Note: I compared these using Yulong D100 stationary DAC/Amp. Its DAC section (AD1955 based) is on par with HM-602, considering “sigma-delta vs multi-bit” matter aside. But D100 amp is better and more powerful, so I gave my HD650 a handicap. Looking at the results, I think I have to give HD650 another try sometime. HD650 is known to scale up well, so with better DAC > amp combo it will have a chance to revenge.
 
SQ: RE272 = HD650. HD650 has bigger bass and soundstage. RE272 gets the upper hand in clarity and attack. Otherwise these are on par. Hey, what about famous HD650 mids, you say? Well, my beloved HD650 mids aren’t better to RE272 mids, just voiced differently. HD650 is warm and romantic, RE272 is vivid and clear. And there is rather a choice based on personal preference or mood, than any evident genres dependence. Both are nice all-rounders for me and I am happy to have them both as a complimentary pair.
 
Musicality: RE272 = HD650! Nice, now I have one more musical can with alternative, complimentary sound signature. I would prefer HD650 for longer listening session with relaxed music while RE272 - vice versa. Though both are no slouches while reversed.
 
 
 
Long comparison to ER-4P – good bye, first love.
 
I was an Etymotic fan for years until I met RE272. It has cured my Etymotic bug finally – I do not miss for ER-4P clarity, speed and accuracy anymore.
 
SQ: RE272 > ER-4P.
Preference: RE272 >= ER-4P.
 
Yes, I already preferred previous HiFiMan IEMs over ER-4P, such as RE0, RE252, RE262. But it was tough decision for me every time, because I missed  for Etymotic realism, feel of live performance. Now I just change tips on RE272 to get the very same sound. Stock single flanges with wide hole are those tips.
 
Why do I compare to ER-4P so much? First, RE272 sounds like ER-4P reincarnated into dynamic driver version. And because ER-4P was my love & hate for the years. I loved it for the best realism from portable / affordable cans. And I hated it for the ethereal, dry and occasionally harsh sound. I tried to live with it. I replaced the cable with OFC (stock is silver plated, thus bright), gone through numerous universal tips (gliders are the best), got the custom tips, choose the most synergistic portable amp (XIN Supermicro IV) …
 

 
No luck. So I sold ER-4P. But it has returned into consideration when I’ve got HM-602. Analog-like NOS DAC with warm darkish onboard amp made ER-4P sing. So I was going to re-shell ER-4P into the hard acrylic customs soon, re-cable with the copper and let it stay in my inventory forever ...
 
RE272 came in time! It turns out a step up over ER-4P, rather than a side steps presented by former HiFiMan models.
 
Well, ER-4P is still better with low-power sources, say some weaker than Sansa Clip+. With Clip+ they are on par, and I prefer RE272 for better comfort / usability / microphonics.
 
Probably, ER-4P is still a better option for those who analyses the music. I can’t tell with confidence because I am not a music pro. I am a music lover and I prefer RE272 for more emotional and engaging sound. I bet some pro will also appreciate this.
 
Yes, Ety still has better speed and bass accuracy. But these advantages yield to RE272 benefits of fuller, livelier and smoother sound. With all my respects to the “golden standard for 20 years” history of ER-4P, I am finally out of Ety fans crowd.
 
Fang @ HiFiMan, you are my hero! Again.
 
 
Comparison details: I have been choosing IEM for my portable needs with HM-602 as a source. I have P-to-S converter, but I prefer ER-4P over ER-4S with HM-602. ER-4S was too thin and bright. I choose stock tips for both: triple flanges for ER-4P and medium single flanges for RE-272. With these tips sound signatures were most close, so it was easier to recognize the differencies.
 
Highs: RE272 > ER-4P.
Highs weight: ER-4P > RE272. ER-4P highs are too much even with HM-602.
Highs extension: RE272 > ER-4P. ER-4P sounds schematic, like upper highs are missing, not just recessed. In busy moments of symphonic metal, cymbals (or high hats?) sound rather like a noise than a separate familiar instrument. RE272 extends up excellently, portraying highs-focused instruments realistically.
Sibilance: ER-4P > RE272. This is negative quality, so I prefer RE272 again.
 
Mids: RE272 > ER-4P.
Female vocal: RE272 > ER-4P. ER-4P is dryer, RE272 is more natural.
Electric guitars: RE272 >= ER-4P. ER-4P is a bit thin.
Acoustic guitars: ER4P > RE272. Extra aggression gives extra liveliness.
Male vocals: ER-4P = RE272. Timbre is a bit better with ER-4P, but occasional s-s-sibilance spoils this benefit.
 
Bass: RE272 = ER-4P.
Bass quality: ER-4P > RE272. Though RE272 is excellent in attack / accuracy, but ER-4P is simply perfect. I yet to hear a better can. Otherwise, both are excellent, neither bass intrudes into midrange.
Bass depth: ER-4P >= RE272. Minor difference, but it is here.
Bass impact: RE272 > ER-4P. Bass weight in overall frequency response is slightly bigger, but RE272 also brings real feel of moving air, while ER-4P just makes sound, not feeling.
 
Imaging: RE272 >= ER-4P.
Soundstage: RE272 >= ER-4P. Width is the same, depth is better with RE272.
Instruments separation: RE272 = ER-4P.
Instruments positioning: RE272 >= ER-4P.
 
Details:  RE272 >= ER-4P. Wow, how can it be possible?! RE272 details are more detailed They are reproduced with more subtlest details, richer decay. Things like finger plucks on a strings are more realistic with RE272. ER-4P details are schematic in comparison.
 
Clarity: RE272 = ER-4P. At a first listening, ER-4P is clearer, but its clarity seems artificial in comparison, based on a dismissing of some sound info. With RE272 background is not as black, but is filled with some info from the record, not a veil. RE272 presents instruments with greater details and pulls more of background noise from live records. All these go against extra blackness and for better contrast. But I do not consider this as a better clarity.
 
Speed: ER-4P > RE272. It is not bad to be slower comparing to one of the fastest headphones. RE272 is the 4^th headphone in my speed rating after STAX (404 or 4070, can’t recall model), ER-4P and Tesla T1. EDIT: actually CK10 and ER-6i are also faster than RE272, but I can not tolerate their sound signature.
 
Musicality: RE272 > ER-4P. I do not like to monitor a rock-n-roll song with ER-4P, I like to enjoy it with RE272, sing and dance it (when nobody looks or listen).
 
Isolation: ER-4P >> RE272. Etymotic isolates much stronger. I yet to hear universal IEM which can compete with ER-4P in this area. But pay attentiion: this is with 3-flanges on Etymotic and single flanges on RE272. Isolation improves with MTPC foams or 3-flanges on RE272. In this case ER-4P > RE272 - still stronger, while not "much stronger". Note that RE272 is semi-open, while ER-4P is closed. I have no needs in strong isolation, like commuting or frequent flying, so I am OK with RE272 isolation, which is the pretty good for dynamic IEM.
 
 
 
SQ, Preference: RE272 > Audio-Technica ATH-CK10
 
In short, RE272 sounds very same to CK10, closer than to ER-4P. Sound signature differences are minor, except some strong spike somewhere in CK10 highs/upper mids. This exact spike puts me off enjoying CK10, which is a terrific IEM in other respects. YMMV - my friend, who is less sensitive to brightness, likes CK10. Despite having dynamic driver, RE272 offers slightly more refined sound with better mids tonality, microdetails and sense of speed.
 
Bass: RE272 = CK10.
Bass impact: RE272 >= CK10. Weight is on par, but RE272 is better on "pumping the air" feeling.
Bass quality: RE272 = CK10. This surprised me. I expected BA drivers of CK10 will have better attack and accuracy. I was wrong.
Bass depth: CK10 >= RE272. Same as with ER-4P - "Minor difference, but it is here".
 
Mids: RE272 > CK10. CK10 are tad warmer and smoother. RE272 mids are more neutral and present better textures and micro-details. This was another surprise - these two sound like CK10 has dynamic driver, while RE272 has BA.
 
Highs: RE272 > CK10. Spike in upper mids/highs let CK10 down. Get ready for sibilance.  
 
Speed: RE272 >= CK10. And this was the biggest surprise to me! How dynamic driver could be faster than BA? Well, I have edit my earlier assumptions on how the speed of RE272 compares to CK10.
 
Isolation: RE272 = CK10. CK10 has tiny hole, which looks like a vent (port). This is rare feature for BA IEMs and it is likely a reason of moderate isolation.
 
Comfort: RE272 >= CK10. Both are very good, but RE272 sit better in my ears.
 
Built quality: CK10 > RE272. I've never seen IEM built better than CK10. I wish RE272 had CK10 cable - simple, flexible, soft-touch.
 
 
 
RE272 vs Sennheiser IE8 - apples vs steaks.
 
These two are completely different. So choice is simple - if you like meaty, fat, huge bass, go with IE8. If your source is weak on bass (say headphone out of iPod 5.5 gen) then IE8 may be helpful. Otherwise get RE272 because it is better in any other aspects. Or get both if you hesitate.
 
Bass weight: IE8 >> RE272. Is this good? I doubt so. IE8 bass is too big even on its lowest setting and mids sound very recessed in comparison. Listening to the songs, I struggled to hear vocals well. When I increased the volume to hear the singers well then bass became painful and dangerous to the hearing.
 
SQ: RE272 >> IE8. IE8 bass is huge, but that is all. Its quality is subpar, slow and less detailed in comparison. Midrange of IE8 is not bad itself but it is not even close to RE272, highs are the same story. I see no sense to dig into deep term-by-term comparison in this case.
 
Genres versatility: RE272 > IE8. Disproportionate bass and recessed mids let IE8 down.
 
Imaging: RE272 >= IE8. I've read before that IE8 is a king of soundstage size. RE272 soundstage size is about 25% smaller. But RE272 beats IE8 with excellence in terms of instruments separation and positioning. So I prefer RE272.
 
Built: RE272 = IE8. IE8 looks more robust, but somewhat plain. Cable is made of material which will not stiff with usage. RE272 looks better and seems more fragile, but it is built exactly the same to RE262 which already proved its durability. If RE272 cable will stiff up soon like RE262 did, then I will re-evaluate to "Built: RE272 < IE8". 
 
Comfort: RE272 > IE8. IE8 is big and squarish. My ears are not small, but IE8 does not fit them well and sticks out.
 
Isolation: RE272 > IE8.

Pics added.

i dig my 272 as well
 
subscribed.

Really nice impressions & comparisons my friend! It'll be a while before I get the 272's back, so I can't quite say they replace the ER4S' for me just yet. If and when they do, however, I'll be the first to admit it. 

Value: Good.
 
+ With price of $249, RE272 represents excellent value, considering SQ only. I doubt there are any similarly priced IEMs with a same or better SQ. I believe all of them costs $100+ more. Why I rate value as just "good" then? 
- Because of inappropriate selection of stock tips. This is not a huge problem for experienced head-fier, but it takes time and money to get 3rd party tips.
- Finicky cable system also reduces value to me.
 
And to be honest, HiFiMan set the expectations of value for money pretty high with their previous models. Both RE0 ($79) and RE262 ($149) represent "excellent" VFM. If RE272 will be priced $199, then it will deserve "excellent" VFM with no regards to both "-" mentioned above.

kostalex , you think 272 beats ck10 ?
 
tell me more .....

I yet to compare these directly. And honestly, I do not want to do this. CK10 highs are too aggressive for me. I compared it to ER-4P once and I preferred Etymotic with no regards to fuller mids and bass of CK10. CK10 was just flawed in comparison with its exaggerated highs.

Isolation: ER-4P >> RE272. Etymotic isolates much stronger. I yet to hear universal IEM which can compete with ER-4P in this area. But pay attentiion: this is with 3-flanges on Etymotic and single flanges on RE272. Isolation improves with MTPC foams or 3-flanges on RE272. In this case ER-4P > RE272 - still stronger, while not "much stronger". Note that RE272 is semi-open, while ER-4P is closed. I have no needs in strong isolation, like commuting or frequent flying, so I am OK with RE272 isolation, which is the pretty good for dynamic IEM.

What about using the RE272 with the Etymotic black foam ear pads?  Those actually have better isolation than the triple flanges.  Do they fit the RE272?

Etymotic ER6-14F (for ER-6) foams fit and isolate well. I prefer other tips, because these are scratchy and tame highs too much for my taste.
 

Brief comparison to Audio-Technica ATH-CK10 - RE272 wins.
 
In short, RE272 sounds very same to CK10, much closer than to ER-4P. Sound signature differences are really minor, except some strong spike somewhere in CK10 highs/upper mids. This exact spike puts me off enjoying CK10, which is a terrific IEM in other respects. YMMV - my friend, who is less sensitive to brightness, likes CK10. Despite having dynamic driver, RE272 offers slightly more refined sound with better mids tonality, microdetails and sense of speed.
 
Bass: RE272 = CK10.
Bass impact: RE272 >= CK10. Weight is on par, but RE272 is better on "pumping the air" feeling.
Bass quality: RE272 = CK10. This surprised me. I expected BA drivers of CK10 will have better attack and accuracy. I was wrong.
Bass depth: CK10 >= RE272. Same as with ER-4P - "Minor difference, but it is here".
 
Mids: RE272 > CK10. CK10 are tad warmer and smoother. RE272 mids are more neutral and present better textures and micro-details. This was another surprise - these two sound like CK10 has dynamic driver, while RE272 has BA.
 
Highs: RE272 > CK10. Spike in upper mids/highs let CK10 down. Get ready for sibilance.  
 
Speed: RE272 >= CK10. And this was the biggest surprise to me! How dynamic driver could be faster than BA? Well, I have edit my earlier assumptions on how the speed of RE272 compares to CK10.
 
Isolation: RE272 = CK10. CK10 has tiny hole, which looks like a vent (port). This is rare feature for BA IEMs and it is likely a reason of moderate isolation.
 
Comfort: RE272 >= CK10. Both are very good, but RE272 sit better in my ears.
 
Built quality: CK10 > RE272. I've never seen IEM built better than CK10. I wish RE272 had CK10 cable - simple, flexible, soft-touch.

Having owned re-zero/252/262 , i think 272 is the best of them all.
 
In fact , having both the 272 and EQ-5 i feel like my upgraditis can sit tight for a while
 
Also really glad to see 272>=ck10 as i had CK10 very high on my ''IEMs to check out'' list
 
272 is indeed a very nice IEM.

This is a great review! Thank you very much kostalex. I also love my RE272 and consider it one of the very best headphones I heard.
 
I would suggest that you try the JVC FX700 and one of the moving armatures as well, like Ortofon e-Q5 or Grado GR10. They are also amazing IEMs that I think have the power to take on the RE272. FX700 is special because it has a wooden driver + wooden housing + open back design. The isolation is mild, but still fairly decent considering it is open backed. FX700 has absolutely stunning detail resolution, extension in the sub bass, timbre accuracy and overall weight and sense of space it gives to the sound. The moving armatures like e-Q5 are great in their own ways, although I do believe that they are not quite as good as the FX700 or RE272, although close. They are special because they combine the clarity and speed of armatures with weight, texture and timbre of dynamic drivers. The result is a very unique, beautiful sound. Maybe not the best technically, but still very, very nice to listen to and definitely among the best.
 
BTW, I've been comparing RE272 with FX700 quite extensively and came to the conclusion that neither one is really better than the other and that they are both extremely good, but in very different ways. FX700 is not neutral, but man does it sound natural. It's a completely different approach to sound vs. the typical neutral, analytical phones like the RE272 and ER4. Sure, RE272 may not be as analytical as the ER4, but FX700 is just totally different from both and yet in no way inferior IMO. It's amazing how sound can be so different and yet equal in quality. FX700 has A LOT more bass than RE272 and ER4 and yet still sounds balanced to me. It's really hard to explain, you just gotta try it yourself.
 
Cheers

I know what you are talking about. I am comparing RE272 to IE8 now and this exactly what I feel - both are excellent and too different to compare. It is like apples vs oranges steaks What do you think about IE8 vs FX700?
 
Quote:

pianist said:

BTW, I've been comparing RE272 with FX700 quite extensively and came to the conclusion that neither one is really better than the other and that they are both extremely good, but in very different ways... FX700 has A LOT more bass than RE272 and ER4 and yet still sounds balanced to me. It's really hard to explain, you just gotta try it yourself.

Click to expand...

 

Quote:

kostalex said:

I know what you are talking about. I am comparing RE272 to IE8 now and this exactly what I feel - both are excellent and too different to compare. It is like apples vs oranges steaks What do you think about IE8 vs FX700? 

Click to expand...

 
I haven't compared the two directly, so can't say anything certain. I think they are very different sounding as well, but FX700 has better sound quality in my opinion. FX700 is more textured, better detailed than IE8. FX700 sounds cleaner and more focused than IE8. I found IE8 a tad uneven and grainy in the highs and a bit boomy in the bass, but FX700 has tighter bass and no evidence of any grain in the treble at all. IE8 sounded a bit "plasticy" to me, as though there were some reflections from the plastic housing creeping into the sound. FX700's high quality wooden housing and open backed designs gives none of those issues. FX700 sounds more airy. more open than IE8. IE8 soundstage is quite expansive, but sounds boxy compared to FX700. IE8 may have a bit more depth to the sound though, but FX700 has better width. FX700 may be the most effortless sounding IEM I tried with limitless dynamics, great smoothness throughout the entire range, and effortless retrieval and separation of even the smallest of details. IE8 just can't keep up with FX700 technically in my view.
 
That being said, I am sure I would also prefer RE272 over the IE8 as well. I think IE8 is more on the level of RE0 (I compared the two directly), although I prefer RE0 because it is better balanced and has better highs. IE8 has better bass and maybe slightly better mids. I feel that RE272 and FX700 belong to a higher league than the IE8 and RE0. That being said, all these IEMs sound different enough from each other for personal preference to become the main factor in deciding which one suits a particular person better. I can easily imagine how many people may prefer either one of these 4 IEMs over the others.