CELEST PLUTUS BEAST & PANDAMON 2.0 REVIEW

>>I am brazilian and I speak portuguese, so forgive my english, I’ll use translation tools to help<<

INTRO:

If Queen Of Audio is a sister company to Kinera Audio, then would Celest Audio be a daughter company? Anyway… A member of the Kinera conglomerate of companies, Celest Audio is a company that brings different concepts to products, always seeking to introduce, let’s say, somewhat unusual designs, such as: the Celest Pandamon and the Celest Gumiho. But now, the company has started to look for a more “glamour” side in the design of its products.

Price Plutus Beast: $89 USD
Colors: Gold or Blue
Cable: 3.5mm or 4.4mm Balanced

Price Pandamon 2.0: $59 USD
Colors: Black or Blue
Cable: 3.5mm or 4.4mm Balanced

Celest Reviews: Pandamon (english), Gumiho (portuguese only)

CELEST LINKS:

PLUTUS BEAST

https://amzn.to/4cGwV5t

https://s.click.aliexpress.com/e/_onI0rki

https://s.click.aliexpress.com/e/_oBXZ6Ce

PANDAMON 2.0

https://amzn.to/3XLfa0w

https://s.click.aliexpress.com/e/_onrUbkS

https://s.click.aliexpress.com/e/_ok8VZN4

SPECIFICATIONS:

UNBOXING:

PLUTUS BEAST

PANDAMON 2.0

PHYSICAL ASPECTS:

If you watched the two unboxings, you’ll notice that the accessories are practically the same… same eartips, same cables, and same cases (only the color changes). So, I’m going to write about one object and it will work for both IEMs.

Construction: The construction of both is also quite similar, both are made with excellent quality resin (I found the Plutus Beast to be of slightly better quality). The IEMs are very light, especially the Pandamon 2.0 which weighs just 2.9g (it is among the lightest IEMs I have ever evaluated). Both receive the SPD – Square Planar Driver, which is a flat-shaped driver, but it is not a planar magnetic, it has the same system as the dynamic drivers. The difference between one and the other is that the Pandamon 2.0 already has the new SPD driver (also called SPD 2.0). In terms of design, there is no way not to mention the first and polemic Celest Pandamon, whose earphone design was a bit of a divider of opinion… Now in this new version, the quality of the product has taken a big jump, much more pleasing to the eye. I still think Plutus Beast is even prettier, I wish I had evaluated the gold version, I personally thought it was prettier and would be better for generating content, but that’s ok, it was the company that sent it like that.

Eartips: I thought the kit was good/ok in terms of quantity, there are two types of silicone eartips, one is the “Celest 608 Balanced Eartips”, and the other is the “Celest 221 Vocal Eartips”. The first type is standard, normal bore, while the second type is wide bore. With the first type you will have a more “balanced” presentation, while with the second type – as the name suggests – there will be more emphasis on the mids/upper-mids, the most prominent region of the voices. I never got along very well with wide bore eartips, so I’ve already put them aside. Note that the “balanced” ones (gray/red) have a thicker tube thickness, so this can cause discomfort for people with narrower ear canals, I myself don’t get along very well when this is the case. I even understand that the company included this type of eartips because they can attach to the nozzle, if it were thinner, it would slip out. I confess that I tried to use the “balanced” eartips but I couldn’t, they were too big for my ear canal. The solution was the SpinFit CP100, it improved comfort and didn’t slip on the nozzle. I tested the CP100+ and unfortunately it kept slipping (on Plutus Beast, because on Pandamon 2.0 it was stable). In any case, eartips are subjective, you always need to have a few different pairs so that at some point you can find the best comfort/sound.

Cable: The cable is excellent, a very positive point. Both aesthetically and in terms of usability. Cable very easy to roll up for storage, has good malleability, has no microphonics and doesn’t take up memory. It’s a very thin and light cable, I really liked it. If you analyze it, the same cable came in both, so the Pandamon 2.0 is in profit, because it’s the cheapest one (it added value to the kit). The only negative point is that the Plutus Beast’s earhooks were all twisted, certainly the way they were curled up inside the case. The company needs to be more careful when arranging the product inside the case. The chin slider unfortunately doesn’t work, as you can see it sliding in the unboxing video.

Fit and comfort: This is certainly a very positive point for both… without a doubt two excellent IEMs in terms of comfort and fit. Pandamon 2.0 is extremely lightweight, it doesn’t even feel like you’re wearing earphones. The Plutus Beast is also very light… you can be sure that both are IEMs to spend hours without feeling uncomfortable. The insertion in both I found to be medium to deep. Isolation on Plutus Beast is very good, on Pandamon 2.0 it’s just good/ok. I didn’t feel any sensation of intra-ear pressure, nor did I feel any pressure points in either ear.

Accessories: In terms of differences between the IEMs accessories, the Plutus Beast comes with a pendant and a cleaning brush, and Pandamon 2.0 didn’t come with either of these two accessories. Both have semi-rigid cases with zipper closure. I liked the product, especially for the Pandamon 2.0 which costs less than the Plutus Beast and came with the same accessory (just in a different color).

SOUND ASPECTS:

Now we have a surprise… If we consider the physical aspects, both IEMs are excellent. However, in terms of sound, I found that one is best than the other. And yes, the big surprise is that the cheaper one – to my ears – performed better than the more expensive one. In other words, the Pandamon 2.0 impressed me more in terms of sound than the Plutus Beast. It’s a classic example that the most expensive isn’t always the best. Of course, I’m comparing both side by side, and my subjective preference leaned toward the Pandamon 2.0. That doesn’t mean the Plutus Beast is a bad IEM, it’s simply a matter of personal taste. Another person might listen to both and have the opposite experience… Life goes on.

Regarding sound signature, I perceive the Pandamon 2.0 as having a Neutral profile with a slight bass boost, while the Plutus Beast leans toward a V-shaped sound signature with more forward pinna gain. As I mentioned earlier, the Pandamon 2.0 won out for me in both tuning and technical performance (in some situations). It’s interesting to note that the Pandamon 2.0 has only one SPD driver, whereas the Plutus Beast is a hybrid with three different types of drivers. Yet, it still didn’t sound better (to my ears). You know I’m not a fan of neutral IEMs, but considering the price-to-performance ratio, I believe the Pandamon 2.0 offers better value than the Plutus Beast (especially considering their similar kits). So, without further ado, my recommendation is the Pandamon 2.0. Let’s dive into the review.

Bass:

Quantitative: Both IEMs have moderate bass, although the Plutus Beast has more bass than the Pandamon 2.0. Neither of them caters to bass enthusiasts or self-proclaimed bassheads. The Plutus Beast has good presence in both sub-bass and mid-bass regions, striking a balance. On the other hand, the Pandamon 2.0 seems to have a slight bump in the mid-bass region, although it also has some sub-bass (albeit slightly lower). I didn’t notice any roll-off, and extension is good for both.

Qualitative: Here we have the first point of advantage of the Pandamon 2.0 over the Plutus Beast… In my opinion, the bass of the Pandamon 2.0 had a feeling of more definition in the sound than the bass of the Plutus Beast. The Plutus Beast’s bass sounded slower and thicker to me, while the Pandamon 2.0’s sounded a little faster and cleaner (although neither of them have excellent bass). The thing is that Pandamon 2.0 with just 1 driver managed to present a feeling of more resolution, while Plutus Beast has 3 drivers… I can’t say for sure, but maybe it’s because Pandamon 2.0 received the newest SPD driver 2.0, and Plutus Beast still has the previous driver version. Plutus Beast features more physicality and texture than Pandamon 2.0, the latter of which is just ok in that sense. For both IEMs, the bass isn’t boomy, not bloated, and doesn’t invade into the mids. Plutus Beast will be a better match with more upbeat genres like Hip-Hop, EDM, and POP. The Pandamon 2.0 has more discreet bass, so it goes better with softer genres, like MPB, BossaNova, acoustic music.

Mids:

Quantitative and qualitative: Once again the preference was for the sound of Pandamon 2.0. In my opinion, the Pandamon 2.0’s mids sounded very neutral/natural, they aren’t recessed but they aren’t forward either. I found the sound to be very coherent. The Plutus Beast has a recess in the central mids and then it has emphasis in the pinna gain region. I confess that the Pandamon 2.0’s midrange is much more balanced compared to the Plutus Beast’s. Coming from a qualitative perspective, Pandamon 2.0 presented – to my ears – more transparency and detail, it is as if the region as a whole was more audible and more “correct”. The Plutus Beast, in turn, is, as I said before, it has a lot of clarity in the pinna gain region, so voices and instruments with emphasis in this region gain a lot of prominence… but the central midrange is where the problem lives, there was that feeling of that something is “missing”. Not to mention that in some situations I have already started to feel a beginning of aggression in this region of Plutus Beast’s pinna gain (but this is partly subjective).

It’s necessary to take into account the value of the Plutus Beast, in the range of $89 dollars there are many IEMs more resolved here in the midrange region, to mention: the Truthear Hexa, the FiiO JD7, the QoA Vesper2, or also taking into account those that they are always on sale and below $100 dollars, we have: the ZiiGaat Cinno, the Simgot EM6L, and the Simgot EA500LM.

Voices: The Plutus Beast manages to be an IEM that highlights both types of voices, male/low, and female/high. Pandamon 2.0 is a middle ground, you won’t be able to extract the best performance for voices from it, but it will always play all types comfortably. If you want a more balanced presentation, Pandamon 2.0 is the best choice, if you want more energy for the voices, I would say that Plutus Beast may be the best choice.

Treble:

Quantitative: The Pandamon 2.0 has moderate treble and at times moderate to low, and the Plutus Beast has moderate treble. Neither of the two IEMs has excessive treble, so you can rest assured that the music won’t present fatigue due to the treble (the Pandamon 2.0 has even less chance). In my opinion, neither of them makes the list of bright IEMs, so if you like cold and more analytical IEMs you won’t find that here. I didn’t feel any roll-off on Plutus Beast, the extension is good, but on Pandamon 2.0, I think there’s a slight roll-off, because some sounds are already starting to sound lower, although the extension I thought wasn’t compromised (certainly I don’t listen to 20khz anymore).

Qualitative: Here Plutus Beast manages to perform better than Pandamon 2.0. The detailing on the Plutus Beast is a little better than the Pandamon 2.0, this also makes the Plutus Beast feel more defined and sparkle in the treble. The Pandamon 2.0 in this sense is just Ok, a discreet IEM in the treble. The Plutus Beast also manages to have slightly better airy. The treble of the Pandamon 2.0 is even smoother and more discreet, while the Plutus Beast’s is more lively and linear. In my opinion, both have controlled treble, without shrillness, without harshness, and without sibilance. The Pandamon 2.0 brings more natural treble, although it has a lower technical performance, the Plutus Beast has more technically resolved treble. For example, I wouldn’t listen to Jazz or classical music with the Pandamon 2.0 because I think it lacks a little extra sparkle, but I also wouldn’t listen to it with the Plutus Beast because it has a more V-shaped sound, which I really don’t like listening to this type of genre with this sound signature (is subjective).

Soundstage: The soundstage feel I think is a little better on the Plutus Beast than on the Pandamon 2.0. The Plutus Beast has a slightly more V-shaped sound, and this creates a distance effect in the central midrange, as if the instruments were in a semicircle, whereas the Pandamon 2.0 has a more linear presentation, as if the instruments were in a horizontal line in on top of the stage. Now, even though Plutus Beast has this slightly greater spatiality, for me Pandamon 2.0 still manages to be my preference, because it has an air of more transparency in its presentation. I lose in spatiality but gain in definition (it’s a personal choice).

Imaging: I think the instrumental separation in Plutus Beast is a little better than in Pandamon 2.0. Pandamon 2.0 depends a lot on the recordings, that is, on the quality of the recordings, on how the instrument’s sound was extracted at the time the song was recorded… of course, this also influences the Plutus Beast and other IEMs, but on the Plutus Beast, you can feel that there’s a little more spacing between the instruments, more than what I hear with Pandamon 2.0.

Flex driver test: I didn’t hear any flex driver sound when inserting the IEMs into my ears.

Amplification: I used the FiiO M11S DAP to do this review. The output used was balanced 4.4mm and the DAP in High Gain mode. Volume was 70% of the 120% available through M11S. Regardless of having evaluated the IEMs with the 4.4mm output, both are easy to play, and in my opinion they don’t need dedicated amplification. I put a 3.5mm cable in the IEMs and tested both on the FiiO KA11 dongle, and both played easily. I always recommend that the person has at least one quality dongle to play the earphones. Currently the KA11 is my recommendation for cost/benefit 3.5mm dongles.

PROS AND CONS:

PLUTUS BEAST

PANDAMON 2.0

GRAPHS BY ELISE AUDIO AND AFTERSOUND:

PLUTUS BEAST

PANDAMON 2.0

Thank you so much for being here!

Follow us on Instagram to get all the news!

We also have a group on Telegram, let’s talk.

• Instagram
• Telegram
• Youtube
• Spotify