Tripowin Ruta10
Sleek and Small
This is an in-depth look at the Tripowin Ruta10.
Unfortunately I only have one sample. All measurements should be taken with a grain of salt and should not be viewed in absolute terms; any major consideration for each measurement will be commented on.
 |
| Tripowin Ruta10. Very small shells. |
Accessories
The package is as basic as it gets. The cable is thin and gets tangled very easily, but it is surprisingly easy to handle and use, and it has no memory. The eartips are also decent and having 4 pairs is a nice touch, can't complain much for this price range. No pouches or clips, Tripowin kept the unboxing experience barebones as expected.
Comfort
The comfort of the Ruta10 is strange but very good in my ears. The shell is made entirely of metal and is despite it very light. They have a very small profile and should fit in the concha of most people. The nozzle is around 6.3mm and short, so most tips will work and fit will be limited by the tip and not the nozzle. |
| Ruta10 shell angle and fit. Imagine the 2-pin connector coming up straight; the nozzle is then angled similar to what we see in modern IEMs. |
However, they are weird due to their odd shells that are angled. Most IEMs have their nozzle angled relative to the rest of the shell; the Ruta10 instead opts for a straight nozzle relative to the shell, but the shell itself as a whole is angled. Fitting them is therefore not as straightforward as other IEMs and there will likely be a lot of variation in how it fits people.The shells are so small that some might like a shallower fit, others a much deeper insertion, some with long and wide bore tips, while others will prefer a short and narrow bore tip. Choosing the correct tip is crucial if you want to the Ruta10 to fit snug and not move around.
Objective sound
The channel matching shown in the graph above is not perfect, but nothing out of the ordinary either. In the region below 1 kHz, the maximum delta is around 0.8 dB, and for the most part the very slight imbalance is not noticeable. The imbalance above is centered around relative peaks, and seems to be caused by differences in the damping elements used. These have not been noticeable at all.
 |
| Ruta10 channel matching. Max difference is around 0.8 dB, nothing significant. |
The ear gain is around 9-10 dB and is centered around 2.45 kHz. Sub bass starts to drop off below 40 Hz.
The insertion depth variation results in normal expected changes for the treble response.
 |
| Insertion depth variation. Notice the static 13-14 kHz peak and how it behaves with insertion; it falls and rises depending on the second canal resonance. |
Another method to visualize the variation is by using one FR as a reference. Image 5 shows all FRs compensated to the lowest frequency resonance FR.
 |
| Insertion depth variation normalized to the shallowest insertion response. |
Coupler was SPL calibrated at 1 kHz. Distortion was measured at 105 dB, and should cover most listening cases assuming a listening level of 85 dB. No perceptual/psychoacoustic compensation was applied. Noise in the low frequency range below 100 Hz is suboptimal, therefore any reading below 100 Hz should be focused on the 2nd harmonic portion.
2nd harmonic distortion is the dominant component - normal for dynamic drivers - though a rise in 3rd harmonic component is visible. As per usual with IEMs, the distortion is way below the threshold of audibility, and is not a cause for concern in any scenario.
 |
| Distortion profile. Do not read the details; it is inaudible. |
The last image shows the effect of blocking the vents on the Ruta10. Blocking the front vent leads to occasional driver flex and increased sub bass, while blocking the back vent leads to a decrease in sub bass. Blocking both makes the overall shape of the bass more linear/sloped.
 |
| Vent influence on measured response. Expected behavior, nothing special here. |
Subjective sound quality
The Ruta10 sound fine albeit generic. The overall sound is reminiscent of stuff like the Chu 2 and other similar IEMs. The ear gain location and amplitude is sometimes shouty and too in-your-face, while the bass is not great. It ends up feeling a bit limp without any rumble or mid bass punch either. Treble will vary a lot as shown above; in my case, it was for the most part adequate, with a peak or two here and there.
Using any of the vent modifications would change the sound in a negative way (reducing bass) or introduce driver flex which I dislike more than the benefits. Using EQ fixes most of the problems I talked about above.
Comparison
Moondrop Chu 2
The closest competitor to the Ruta10 would be the Chu 2. They are both black all metal IEMs with a small form factor. Their sound is also very similar, opting for some bass emphasis while having a pronounced ear gain region, with the Chu 2 being slightly brighter. Both also have similar accessories, with the Chu 2 having a better cable and an additional carry pouch. Either will work just fine, but the Chu 2 does have a lot of moisture issues that are frequent and annoying enough for me to not want to use them at all even if I have many extra filters. The Ruta10 have not had such issues, and while the nozzles aren't removable, they have held up much better than the Chu 2.Conclusion
I don't think the Tripowin Ruta10 offers anything exceptional or even different than other IEMs. However, I do think it fills a niche that was occupied by the Chu 2, without the inconvenience of filter clogging. The sound quality, from an objective perspective, is respectable and does not fall behind any other IEM except for sub bass extension: using EQ would fix most of the subjective issues I have with it. The comfort and overall build quality is great, and if you're looking for something very small, this is an interesting option.