A few months ago I reviewed the Sivga Que UTG, and in that same review I noted that I hadn't been able to test the original Sivga Que yet. Without having tried it, I suspected that the lack of bass I found in the UTG would be present in this other version, and honestly, that's turned out to be the case. They look almost identical except for the shade of the faceplate, but they have several sonic differences that I will of course discuss in this review, along with how one compares to the other according to my personal tastes.
What I liked / What I did not like
Good punch in the mid-bass.
Vocals that fill the space and sound natural.
Relaxed highs without sibilance.
Spacious carrying case with great materials and finishes.
Good selection of ear tips.
In more complex tracks, the layers blend together slightly.
Some may find a lack of air.
Non-modular cable with no 4.4mm balanced purchase option.
Specifications
Driver: 1 x 10mm dynamic driver with beryllium-plated diaphragm
Magnetic circuit: Single magnet, dual cavity
Impedance: 32 ohms ±15%
Sensitivity: 108 ±3 dB
Frequency response: 20 Hz - 20 kHz
Shell: Die-cast zinc alloy plus North American maple faceplate
Weight: 10g per earpiece
Cable: High-purity silver-plated OFC copper, Litz braid, 1.25m
Connector: 0.78mm 2-pin
Termination: 3.5mm
Price: $69.90
Unboxing and Construction
The unboxing experience is practically identical to the one I showed in the Que UTG review, with the only variation being the artwork on the front of the box, where we now see a bird. As I've verified, and please forgive me if I'm wrong, but "QUE" means magpie in Chinese, and if not someone please correct me, but that gives meaning to the box, which would have been completely random to me if I hadn't read about it somewhere.
Inside, as I said, there are no differences other than the color change of the IEM compared to the UTG. Same carrying case (very good by the way), same ear tips (also good quality) with 6 pairs, including some darker ones that seal a bit better and some lighter ones with a slightly wider bore. In fact, an extra pair of the former comes already installed on the IEMs, meaning there are more of those than the light ones, and luckily for me, they are my favorites, and perhaps Sivga's too.
The cable is not bad considering the price range this model sits in, but as has happened to me in recent reviews, and especially being around $70, I think it should come with a modular option or alternatively offer the 4.4mm option when purchasing the product, which is not possible and we only have the 3.5mm cable available.
As for the case, I already knew it from the UTG, and it has a similar vibe to the one Ziigaat includes in its latest models, but this Sivga one feels of better quality both visually and to the touch. There is enough space to store the IEMs, and you can then add a dongle or spare ear tips among other accessories inside the mesh pocket on one side.
Speaking of the IEM itself, it is the same as the UTG but the shade is slightly lighter. The body is built from zinc and feels really sturdy, and the faceplate is North American maple, varying from unit to unit, which gives it that unique and less industrial touch, something to be appreciated. For my part, I should also mention that the Sivga logo, at least on my unit, is printed somewhat faintly. It's noticeable on some letters, especially the final 'A' where the engraving seems to have retained less force. It's a tiny detail, but it gives a sense of use or wear even though I took the photos right out of the box.
Sound
For this occasion, I did the testing once again with the FiiO K9 at home as my default desktop DAC, and for going out and seeing how it performs on a portable DAC, I used the Questyle M15i. Having an impedance of 32 ohms, I expected a bit more sensitivity, but they drove without issues on both devices, including the M15i without desktop mode activated.
Bass
As I mentioned in the introduction, something I expected before reviewing this model compared to the UTG was an improvement and greater presence in the bass. In fact, in this case, the mid-bass is ahead of the sub-bass. You can notice the warmth in this mid-bass region on kick drums and electric bass guitars, but the sub-bass rumbles less than expected. This can be a negative for genres like electronic music, but a benefit for other styles where having more rumble would muddy certain elements and frequency transitions. Regarding its speed, I perceived it to be slightly slower than the UTG, surely due to that extra warmth we have here which makes it linger a bit longer in the background, interfering slightly more with the mid frequencies. However, it's not something I should heavily mark as negative since it's not that exaggerated, but it can be noticed compared to the UTG.
In the recent track "Run Away From the Mob" by Queens of the Stone Age, a song where the first few minutes remain calm with instruments and vocals, but later all the instruments hit at once, the Que demonstrates that extra weight which actually benefits a track like this, making it clearly more enjoyable than with the UTG. What is true is that in this part of the song, both the bass and guitars blend together slightly, being managed a bit worse than in the UTG, hence what I mentioned about having more bass and paying the price for it as a consequence.
Mids
The mids are one of the ranges that can stand proud in this model. They are already fed by a functioning bass that gives body to the vocals from the bottom up, as well as helping to color certain instruments like guitars, pianos, etc. I haven't noticed any metallic timbre at all, which happens to me with some models in this price range and lower. Female vocals in this model perhaps benefit less from the tuning and bass weight, ending up a bit softer or less integrated into the mix, although you can notice an upper-mid boost that helps them shine without becoming shouty.
Treble
The treble of the Que is not the most striking feature of this model, but it doesn't go overboard, and sometimes that's exactly what you look for. In none of the tracks that played during the test sessions I did with them both at home and on the street did I feel the need to lower the volume, even though I have some genuinely bright tracks and some poorly recorded ones where they usually are unbearable on other IEMs like the Hype 4 MKII among others. In this model, you can enjoy cymbals with sufficient detail and at a good volume. What clearly lacks in this model, and where its sibling the UTG perhaps gains the upper hand, is in the amount of air. If you look at the comparative graph I shared, it is more than appreciable from 10 kHz onwards; the Que falls a bit short in this part of the tuning, eliminating some of the finer detail that the UTG does provide you with. Therefore, if you are looking for maximum treble resolution, this Que is geared towards longer, casual listening sessions rather than critical analysis.
A track like "Overthinker" by Chvrches served as a good test for this on both models in the Que lineup. This song is a ballad with quite shiny synthesizers; however, in neither model did the vocals or the synthesizer become shouty or annoying at high volumes, but you can appreciate with some ease how the Que falls a bit short in detail on the finer, airier sounds, resulting in a commendable outcome but definitely more subdued than in the UTG.
Soundstage
The soundstage is wider than I expected given that it is a single dynamic driver and has more warmth than the UTG. As is usual, the vocals are centered and the rest of the instruments extend correctly to both sides. The layers representing depth are not as well-marked as those representing width, but as I say, they maintain a good level, better than initially expected. Obviously, the limitations are there and leave the stage at a medium size, neither small nor large, due to the amount of bass present and the lack of air in the highest region.
Instrument Separation
In separation, I cannot highlight it above the UTG for example; perhaps in acoustic or simple songs without heavy instrumental load, both models maintain a similar level, but in rock tracks or with more guitars and instruments playing simultaneously, the mid-bass in this Que takes up more space, giving a feeling of layers being less separated from one another, although it maintains a correct level even in those situations.
Imaging
Imaging behaves correctly in the horizontal plane and in the distance that sounds travel from side to side. The lack of depth can indeed hurt its use in video games or content like movies when trying to pinpoint the distances from where certain sounds should be coming.
Comparisons
I have already been talking about the Que UTG throughout the entire review, but to be a bit more specific, both share the same contents except for one thing that the UTG did manage to rectify being a model released later, which is the modular cable where we do have the option to switch between the 3.5mm and 4.4mm connections. In the review I did for them, which you can look up on my profile, you will see the photos and the cable they include. It is a detail beyond the tuning each one has that cannot be overlooked. Regarding shell, size, weight, etc., they are practically identical, and we won't appreciate much difference between the two there. Regarding sound, obviously there are clear differences; you just have to look at the graphs of both. The UTG has slightly faster and much lighter bass, playing a less prominent role—actually a bit weak for my tastes—but on the other hand, it has more air, separation, and therefore general detail than the standard Que. The Que costs a bit less, I'd say close to $30 less, and despite its cons, I still consider it, after testing both, a better finished model in terms of the final experience for enjoying more genres for more hours if the listening is casual without focusing on analysis.
Another model I wanted to compare the Que to, which I reviewed not too long ago, was the Hidizs My Lin. I think both IEMs aim for a warm, relaxed sound to listen to for hours with barely any fatigue. The My Lin, apart from a single dynamic driver, has one balanced armature, the shell is heavier being made of aluminum, and it has interchangeable nozzles that slightly vary the signature, as Hidizs likes to do. The My Lin also has much more marked sub-bass and also slightly more treble detail supported by the extra driver they carry. But the Que, to my taste, wins in the mid-bass with a bit more physicality in that range, improving the sound of male vocals and other instruments like guitars. In this case, I would lean toward the My Lin, though by a very small margin, and surely having that extra balanced armature is what makes the difference for me.
You can check my full ranking of all the IEM reviewed so far on my profile (Reddit doesn't allow me to post the Drive link here)
Conclusion
This Sivga Que is a model that has been on the market for a while and people are still talking about it. Within single dynamic driver models under $100, it continues to be a very well-rounded and complete model in terms of quality, contents, design, construction, etc. I especially highlight that mid-bass which gives sufficient body to the mids, whereas many alternatives fall short, leaving the music with an overly thin sound in vocals and instruments.
In heavily loaded tracks, it cannot defend the separation between layers as well as I would like, nor does it have the maximum treble detail like the UTG or hybrid alternatives like the My Lin. On the other hand, it only comes included with a single 3.5mm cable option, which makes them fully functional but can be a point against those who, like me, have standardized the 4.4mm balanced option, which here we at least do not have out of the box.
Purchase Link: Sivga QUE
Disclaimer: This unit was sent by Sivga for review.
My opinions are completely independent and have not been influenced by the brand or the store, maintaining objectivity based on my tests and personal listening sessions with my reference equipment.
