Overview

The SIVGA Que is a canal-type in-ear monitor developed by SIVGA (Dongguan Siwiga Electronic Technology Co., Ltd.) from China. It features a 10mm beryllium-plated dynamic driver and distinguishes itself through the combination of white maple wooden faceplate and die-cast zinc alloy shell, creating a premium aesthetic appearance. With 32Ω impedance and 108dB sensitivity, it utilizes silver-plated OFC cables and standard 0.78mm 2-pin connectors. Marketed at 12,980 JPY, it positions itself as a mid-priced model aiming for differentiation through wooden housing and competitiveness in the mid-tier market segment.

Scientific Validity

\[\Large \text{0.4}\]

Available measurement data for the SIVGA Que is limited. While multiple reviews mention “low-level nonlinear distortion,” specific THD values, SNR, crosstalk, and other detailed measurement data are insufficiently disclosed. Frequency response claims 20Hz-20kHz operation, but detailed flatness data within ±dB ranges remains unclear. The 32Ω impedance and 108dB sensitivity provide easy driving capability, but it’s questionable whether these basic specifications contribute to achieving transparent-level sound quality. Some measurements report emphasis around 8kHz, presenting challenges from an original sound fidelity perspective. While the adoption of beryllium-plated diaphragm is an interesting attempt, clear advantages in measurement results have not been demonstrated.

Technology Level

\[\Large \text{0.5}\]

The adoption of a 10mm beryllium-plated dynamic driver can be evaluated as a technical feature, but it’s not particularly advanced by industry standards. While beryllium is theoretically an excellent diaphragm material, the actual contribution of plated specifications to acoustic performance is limited. The single-magnet dual-cavity design represents a standard configuration, and compared to competitors like Final or Sony in the same price range, technical advantages are not clear. The 0.78mm 2-pin connector for cable replacement is functional but remains merely adoption of general industry standards. The acoustic contribution of wooden faceplates also lacks scientific basis. Overall, this represents a solid combination of existing technologies with limited innovative elements.

Cost-Performance

\[\Large \text{0.2}\]

We select the Moondrop Chu II (3,200 JPY) as a competitive product offering equivalent or superior functionality and performance to the SIVGA Que (12,980 JPY). The Chu II also features a 10mm dynamic driver, cable replacement capability, and equivalent measurement performance, showing no inferior aspects in the basic acoustic functions that the SIVGA Que possesses.

Cost-performance is evaluated based on the following calculation:

3,200 JPY (Moondrop Chu II) ÷ 12,980 JPY (SIVGA Que) = 0.246

Rounded to 0.2. This calculation results from dividing the price of the cheapest product with equivalent functionality and measurement performance (Moondrop Chu II) by the price of the review target product (SIVGA Que). The significant premium pricing for aesthetic elements like wooden faceplates lacks competitiveness in pure performance-to-price ratio. The current situation where equivalent acoustic performance and functionality can be obtained at approximately one-quarter the price presents serious challenges from a cost-performance perspective.

Reliability & Support

\[\Large \text{0.5}\]

As a relatively new manufacturer established in 2016, SIVGA has limited long-term reliability data. While standard warranty periods are presumably provided, specific failure rates or MTBF data are not publicly available. With primarily online sales through HiFiGo, Audio46, and similar platforms, domestic official distributor support systems remain unclear compared to established brands. The combination structure of wood and metal provides apparent durability, but long-term data regarding effects from temperature and humidity changes is lacking. While cable replacement capability improves physical durability, as an emerging manufacturer, it’s evaluated as remaining at industry average support levels.

Rationality of Design Philosophy

\[\Large \text{0.5}\]

The SIVGA Que’s design philosophy emphasizes aesthetic differentiation through wooden faceplates, prioritizing design appeal over scientific improvement of acoustic performance. The acoustic contribution of wood materials lacks scientific basis, while disadvantages such as weight increase and manufacturing cost elevation are prominent. While beryllium-plated diaphragm adoption is theoretically rational, its effectiveness is questionable without demonstrated advantages in actual measurements. Rather than pursuing approaches aimed at achieving transparent levels in measurement result standards, it represents conservative design dependent on traditional dynamic technology. The absence of modern approaches such as digital signal processing or active noise cancellation also shows limitations from a technological advancement perspective. While appearance-focused approaches address certain market needs, strong irrational aspects are evident from a scientific sound quality improvement standpoint.

Advice

Those considering the SIVGA Que are strongly recommended to first conduct objective comparisons with low-priced products offering equivalent functionality. For those prioritizing acoustic performance, options like the Moondrop Chu II (3,200 JPY) provide equivalent functionality at significantly lower cost. Even for those who find special value in wooden design, sound quality improvements commensurate with the price difference (approximately 4x) cannot be expected. Before purchase, mandatory listening tests are recommended to coolly judge whether value matches the price difference. Particularly for entry to mid-level audio enthusiasts, selection from established brands with more scientifically proven performance is recommended. Justification for purchasing the Que is limited to cases where absolute value is found in wooden appearance and price is completely irrelevant. Careful consideration is necessary as a main device, and thorough examination of other options is recommended even as a secondary device.

(2025.7.24)