99 €

Review published:





per Side






32 Ohm











122 dB








Daily Life


10 - 36000 Hz


MOONDROP quickly achieved great popularity in the (C)HI-FI world with the Kanas Pro and set a benchmark in the price range with the single-dynamic configuration. Meanwhile the Kanas Pro is no longer produced and replaced by the KXXS, which is probably a refined version of the KPE (Kanas Pro). Unfortunately I have not heard the KXXS and the KPE is currently not available for A/B comparison. But I don't see this as too relevant, because all three IEMs have nearly the same signature and frequency response. Therefore the KPE is not available anymore and the KXXS is twice as expensive. A comparison with the TIN HIFI T4 makes more sense in my opinion (OUTRO). Nevertheless I will include my stored impressions of the KPE.


The housing is almost identical to the KPE and KXXS. Instead of a mirrored faceplate, the Starfield is blue-metalic with the golden Starfield logo on the right side and a graphic resembling a compass on the left side. Otherwise the SF (Starfield) differs from the KPE in its sound ports, which have no lip for better tip-holding and appear a little shorter. But they are so thick that every tip holds without problems.

The wearing comfort does not differ and is excellent despite the high weight.
However, the cable (probably also due to the lower price) is a step backwards. It is very thin and tends to get tangled up quickly. However, the blue matches the earpiece well.

Here I copy one to one the description of the KPE, since this also applies to the SF:
>> In absolute quiet rooms you might be able to sense some of the music that the KPE brings to your ears, but only at a higher volume, which is not recommended anyway and also lets the KPE reach its limits - but we are talking about a volume with ear pain potential. The KPE isolates from the outside world quite well with the appropriate attachments, but also allows some outside noise, which makes sense especially in traffic. <<

However, in the meantime I would "guess", I would exchange with "listen well". My girlfriend was simply annoyed when working in the same room ;) Admittedly I also hear very loud :D


I would not describe myself and my hearing as super analytical, but rather emotional and honest. I can't and don't want to be able to hear a big difference when a frequency is raised by 0.005 dB. For me, it is rather the whole package that counts and I prefer to limit myself to the obvious, whether positive or negative.

What is obvious is that the SF has slightly less sub-bass than the KPE. You don't have to use the graph as a comparison, I can easily retrieve it from my mental listening archive. The SF is still a quite warm representative, but it sounds a bit tighter in the bass range. This makes it sound a bit more pithy and direct. This is certainly a matter of taste. I prefer a more pronounced sub-bass range, but I can also understand the need for more punch. Well, but the difference to the KPE is not and will not be serious. That means: bass = very good, which is reflected in texture and detail resolution, but some air up in speed and pressure.

The obvious similarity continues in the midrange. However, I find the KPE warmer and smoother, with the SF getting a bit hotter in the upper mids from time to time, but never exhausting. Nevertheless, the mids are very positive. They sound very natural and are emotional and energetic. Vocals can be convincing with both sexes and are easily brought to the fore. However, they are sometimes a bit too present for me. I can't detect any unnaturalness or artificial colouring in guitars, strings and other instruments. However, I prefer the tuning of the KPE a bit more.

Also with the trebles I dare a copy of the review of the KPE:
>> No matter what you put in the trebles, they handle it well. They reveal even the finest details and present themselves clean, airy and always unagitated. At the same time they have an extensive extension, which is expressed in a peak beyond 10 kHz. This makes the KPE sparkle without limiting the listening pleasure. Sibilants, jingling, or exaggerated hardness are a foreign word for the KPE. The high frequencies literally purr and give the KPE more openness and energy, thus providing a counterpart to the softest mids. <<

As the mids of the SF are a bit more present, the highs in combination with the mids appear a bit more driving and lively. Nevertheless they show all the positive characteristics of the KPE. Well done!
Separation and location are clearly above what you can expect for less than 100 €. Here you can also orientate yourself on the KPE, which makes the Starfield seem almost too good for the price and you ask yourself why spend twice as much, for probably minimal improvements compared to the KXXS (assumption, due to the similar drivers and almost identical signature)

When we talk about weaknesses of the Starfield, you have to dig a little deeper. I'd like to see an even more prominent bass, because sometimes it's a bit too brave for me on the SF. But that makes it very natural. But the Starfield is in no way weak on the chest when it comes to the bass. It's rather a subconscious basshead speaking out of me.
In addition, the mids could be a My more relaxed, although I really appreciate the dynamics and liveliness of the SF. Also, the stage of the Starfield doesn't seem to be as deep anymore compared to the KPE, which is probably due to the somewhat contained sub-bass.


For me, the STARTFIELD under 100 € is not only a safe choice, but a no-trainer.
If you like natural sound, a la HARMAN curve, you can hardly go wrong here. The cable is a drop of bitterness, but there are very good replacements available for a very reasonable price, which should be easy to get at the price of the SF. The Starfield makes it easy to like him. Both from the sound as well as from the seat and optics. Side note: even though country music is not really one of my genres, I have a lot of fun with the SF!

Let's come to the promised short comparison to the TIN HIFI T4, although I don't really like such direct comparisons.

The TIN HIFI sounds more neutral in comparison, with less bass emphasis and a bit colder. On the other hand, the bass is faster, the treble a bit more present, with a subjectively larger extension. Vocals are placed a bit more in the mix. The STARFIELD appears more airy, the T4 however more clear and defined. Both are similar in resolution, details and also in stage size, concerning the stereo image. In depth, the STARFIELD has the upper hand.




Here the processing plays a role and the usability of the scope of supply. Additionally the appearance, wearing comfort and robustness.

Here I evaluate for me subjectively the price/performance ratio - does not flow into the evaluation!

Z: No Brainer

A: money well spent

B: all right, you can do

C: gives better for less money

D: overpriced

E: collector's price

Daily life:
Here, I focus on the long-term audibility and whether I can hear it well out of the box. This is of course very subjective and therefore only a minimal deduction or bonus. 

(-0.1, 0, +0.1)





Second Opinion



  • Facebook
  • Instagram

CHI-FIEAR © 2020 by David Hahn