Sivga Lyrebird

A Quad-Driver Hybrid with a Dynamic, BA, Micro Planar and Piezoelectric Ceramic per Side

I have reviewed a good number of Sivga products over the years, and the thing that keeps bringing me back is that they build beautiful objects and then tune them however they please. The Lyrebird is the most ambitious IEM they have made in the price bracket: four drivers per side, combining a 10mm dynamic, a balanced armature, a micro planar and a 9.2mm piezoelectric ceramic, in a CNC aluminium shell with a stabilized wood faceplate.

What made me want to write this one up is the driver count against the price. Getting both a micro planar and a piezoelectric ceramic driver in a $164 IEM is not something I expected to see, and the build and accessories do not feel like the corners were cut elsewhere to pay for it.

I have had the Lyrebird in rotation alongside the rest of my Sivga collection for a few weeks, and it has quietly become the one I reach for when I want vocals front and centre. It is also the one that will divide people the most, and the treble is the reason. But first, let’s take a look at what’s in the box.

Unboxing and Packaging

Sivga packaging has been consistently good for years and the Lyrebird follows the pattern. The retail box front carries the product render, and the rear panel prints the full specifications:

Inside, the inner box carries an embossed Sivga logo, with the manual tucked alongside:

The earpieces sit seated in the inner box, and the manual sits alongside the leather carrying case:

In the box you get the earpieces, the 4.4mm balanced hybrid cable, a leather carrying case, an eartip case and the documentation. The carrying case is a proper leather item rather than a token pouch, and the cable coils into it without a fight:

The eartip selection is generous for the price — six pairs in a dedicated case, seven counting the pair already fitted, rather than three pairs in a bag:

Design and Build Quality

This is where the Lyrebird earns its name. Each faceplate is stabilized wood, so the grain is unique to the pair — mine came in a green that shifts between olive and amber depending on the light:

Stabilizing is a resin treatment, and it does more than look good. It hardens the wood and makes it far less sensitive to moisture. Sivga also say the denser structure helps damp resonance. That is plausible for a rigid panel sitting over a driver cavity, but it is their claim rather than something I can demonstrate from the outside:

The shells themselves are CNC-machined aviation aluminium alloy, and the join between the alloy body and the wood face is clean all the way round:

Channel markings and the vent are on the inner face, where they belong:

The nozzles are well finished with a proper lip for the eartips, and the 2-pin sockets are recessed and flush:

Fit is what I have come to expect from Sivga. The shells are ergonomically shaped for an over-ear fit, they are not large, and the weight is low enough that I forget about them over a couple of hours. With the right tip from that case, the seal is easy to get and stays put.

Cable and Connectivity

I want to single out the cable, because it is better than it needs to be. It is a 120cm hybrid cable on 0.78mm 2-pin connectors, supple, not at all microphonic, and it does not retain coils from the case:

The Y-split and chin slider are metal and move with the right amount of friction:

The plug is the one thing to check before you buy. It is 4.4mm balanced only — there is no 3.5mm option and no modular plug system:

If everything you own has a 4.4mm output, this is a non-issue and the balanced connection is what you would have chosen anyway. If your main source is a phone dongle with a single-ended jack, factor in an adapter or a replacement cable. At 14Ω and 108dB sensitivity the Lyrebird does not need much power, so this is about connector compatibility rather than drive capability.

The Quad-Driver Configuration

Four drivers per side at this price is the headline, so it is worth being clear about what each one is doing. There is a 10mm polymer composite dynamic driver handling the low end, a balanced armature for the midrange, a micro planar driver, and a 9.2mm multilayer piezoelectric ceramic driver for the top.

The thing that impresses me most is not the count but the integration. Four driver types with different speeds and decay characteristics is an invitation to crossover problems — a metallic edge where the BA hands over, a discontinuity in the timbre, congestion when the mix gets busy. I do not hear any of that here, and neither does the wider response to this IEM, where the coherence of the blend is the single most consistently praised aspect. For a $164 quad hybrid that is a real engineering achievement, and it is easy to underrate because a well-integrated driver array simply sounds like one driver.

The two unusual inclusions are the micro planar and the piezo. Micro planars have started appearing in hybrids because they are fast and light and integrate more easily with a BA than a second dynamic would. Piezoelectric ceramic drivers are the more divisive choice: they extend very high and they are efficient up there, but they are also known for a particular kind of energy in the upper treble that not everyone gets along with. Keep that in mind when you get to the treble section below, because I think the piezo is exactly what you are hearing.

Sound Impressions

I listened mostly from a 4.4mm balanced output, which the stock cable makes the path of least resistance. The Lyrebird is easy to drive and did not change character noticeably between sources.

The short version: this is a vocal-forward, detailed tuning with linear rather than elevated bass and a genuinely lively top end. It is not a neutral IEM and it is not trying to be.

Bass

The bass is linear and controlled rather than boosted. Sub-bass extends cleanly and there is no mid-bass hump filling in behind it, so bass lines have shape and pitch definition instead of weight. On Flight of the Cosmic Hippo by Béla Fleck and the Flecktones the bass line stays taut and you can follow the note movement rather than just feeling a swell, which is exactly what this kind of tuning does well.

What it does not do is slam. If you want the bass to hit you in the chest, this is the wrong IEM and no amount of tip rolling will change that. The dynamic driver is clearly capable — it is simply not being asked to play loud.

Others describe the low end as punchy and mid-bass led where I hear it as linear, and I think that is a difference of emphasis rather than a disagreement: the measured response is flat from 20Hz to about 200Hz and sits slightly under target, so the mid-bass is the more prominent part only because the sub-bass is not lifted above it. Everyone converges on the same practical conclusion, which is that bassheads should look elsewhere.

Midrange

This is the part I keep coming back to. Vocals are pushed noticeably forward and they are the centre of the presentation on almost everything. Tracy Chapman on Fast Car sits right in front of you with a lot of texture and articulation in the voice.

This is also where I part company most sharply with the general view. The Lyrebird is often described as warm and lush through the mids, with the lower midrange adding weight to instruments. I hear close to the opposite, and the measurement is on my side: there is a trough around 700–800Hz that goes deeper than the target does, which is a recession, not added weight. My best guess is that the forward 2kHz vocal lift reads as richness on voices even while the region below it is pulled back — but if you are choosing between this and something genuinely warm, do not buy the Lyrebird expecting lower-midrange body.

The trade-off is that the lower midrange is pulled back. Instruments that live below the vocal — rhythm guitar body, lower piano, cello — sit further away and thinner than they do on a more evenly balanced IEM. On dense arrangements that can read as a slight hollowness underneath the voice. Whether that reads as clarity or as a missing layer depends entirely on what you listen to and what you value. For vocal-led music it works very well; for full orchestral or thick rock mixes it is more of a compromise.

Treble

The treble is lively, and this is the part that will decide the Lyrebird for you. There is real detail and air up top, cymbals have bite and decay, and fine transient information comes through easily. Chocolate Chip Trip by Tool is a good test here — the percussion is vivid and well separated, with no smearing.

But it is hot. On bright recordings, or at higher volumes, the upper treble can get sharp enough to make me turn it down, and I suspect the piezoelectric driver is doing exactly what piezos do. If you are treble sensitive, take this seriously — it is not a subtle amount of energy, and it is the one thing about this IEM I would want you to audition rather than take on trust.

I should be straight about the fact that I am at one end of opinion here. The broader response to the Lyrebird is that the treble is well integrated and largely non-fatiguing, with the piezo avoiding the metallic character the driver type is known for, and a number of listeners have said they would happily take more energy up there rather than less. The most common criticism that chimes with mine is occasional sibilance — emphasised “S” and “T” sounds on vocals — rather than outright glare.

I do not think either camp is wrong. The measurement below shows a genuinely large amount of energy above 6kHz relative to target, so the energy is real and not imagined; how much of it reaches your ear depends on insertion depth, tip choice and how your own hearing rolls off up there. That variability is exactly why I would audition rather than trust any single opinion, mine included.

Soundstage and Imaging

The stage is wider than average for a closed IEM at this price, and the vocal-forward tuning gives it an unusual layout: the voice is close and the instruments sit further back and further out. On Hotel California by the Eagles the guitars spread well to the sides while the vocal stays planted in the centre. Imaging is precise, helped by the treble energy, and instrument separation holds up when the mix gets busy — layering in dense passages is a genuine strength and matches the broad view of this IEM as punching well above its resolution class.

Stage depth is the one dimension I would not oversell, and opinion elsewhere splits on exactly this point: the forward upper midrange pulls the vocal towards you, which widens the apparent gap to the instruments but does not add much front-to-back information. Wide and well organised rather than deep.

Comparisons

The obvious comparison is within Sivga’s own range, and I had the Que and the M260 to hand.

Against the other wood-faceplate Sivga models, the family resemblance in build is immediate — the same care with the alloy machining and the wood, just different shell shapes:

Lined up with the Que and the Nightingale Pro, the family resemblance is the point — three different shell shapes, the same approach to the wood and the alloy:

Sonically the Lyrebird is the most ambitious and the most opinionated of the three. Against the Que, the Lyrebird is more vocal-forward through the presence region and carries far more energy above 10kHz — the Que rolls off where the Lyrebird keeps going. The Que is the safer, more relaxed listen; the Lyrebird trades that safety for detail and immediacy.

Against the Nightingale Pro, which has been my favourite Sivga IEM until now, the Lyrebird is the one I now reach for more often — though I would not call it a straight upgrade, because the Nightingale Pro is the more even-handed tuning and the Lyrebird’s treble asks more of you.

Outside my own collection, the Lyrebird is most often cross-shopped against the Simgot SuperMix 4 and the Kiwi Ears Quintet. I have not heard either, so I will not pretend to rank them, but the pattern in how people describe those matchups is consistent and worth knowing: the SuperMix 4 is treated as the more clinical and precise of the pair, with the Lyrebird the more musical and natural; the Quintet is regarded as the more technically mature but also the more expensive. If you want a warmer, bassier alternative at this price, the Lyrebird is not the one — it is the cleaner and brighter option in almost every comparison people draw.

It is also worth putting it next to the M260 earbud, if only because the two together show how differently Sivga will voice two products in the same season:

Specifications and Measurements

Specifications

Frequency Response

All measurements here were taken on a 711 clone coupler, plotted against the Harman adjusted target. Both channels are shown:

The first thing to note is the channel matching, which is very good — the two traces sit on top of each other all the way to 6kHz, and only separate slightly among the treble peaks above that. At this price that is not a given.

The rest of the graph explains the listening notes almost line for line. Bass runs flat from 20Hz to around 200Hz at roughly 64–65dB, sitting about 5dB under the target down low. That is the whole story of the low end in one detail: the Lyrebird simply does not apply the bass shelf that Harman asks for, which is why it reads as linear rather than punchy and why bassheads will find it short.

From 200Hz the response slides down to a trough of about 57.5dB at 800Hz, roughly 2dB below target — the lower-midrange recession I described. It then climbs steeply to a peak of about 71dB at 2.1kHz, some 4–5dB above target, and that lift is what pushes vocals forward.

Above 5kHz the two curves part company completely. There is a dip around 6.5kHz, then peaks at 8kHz and again around 12.5kHz that run well above what the target calls for, a sharp notch at 15kHz, and a further peak beyond 16kHz. The target has rolled away to nothing by then. That upper-treble energy is the piezoelectric driver, and it is the measured version of the treble I described as hot.

Compared with the Sivga Que and Nightingale Pro

The most useful comparison is against Sivga’s own IEMs, all measured on the same rig:

This graph reframes my own listening. The Nightingale Pro is the outlier at both ends — it rolls off hard below 100Hz, reaching about 53dB at 20Hz where the Lyrebird holds 64dB, and it is also the most relaxed of the three above 5kHz. It is the warm, safe, easy listen of the family, and now I can see why.

The Que sits between the two. Its bass tracks the Lyrebird closely, its 2kHz peak is a little lower at around 69.5dB against the Lyrebird’s 71dB, and it holds up through the 8kHz region before falling off a cliff above 15kHz where the Lyrebird keeps going.

So the ranking through the presence region is Lyrebird, then Que, then Nightingale Pro — and the same order holds in the upper treble. If you have heard the Nightingale Pro and thought it was on the polite side, the Lyrebird is the answer to that; if you thought it was just right, this is not a straight upgrade and the treble will be the reason.

Compared with the Kiwi Ears Orchestra Lite

Outside the Sivga range, the Orchestra Lite is the closest thing I have to a target-following reference, which makes it the clearest illustration of what the Lyrebird is doing differently:

Their bass is near identical, which makes the rest of the comparison clean. Through 200–800Hz the Orchestra Lite tracks the target while the Lyrebird scoops below it; its rise into the presence region is gentler and peaks lower and later; and above 10kHz it falls away where the Lyrebird holds its peaks. If you want to know exactly what the Lyrebird’s character costs you relative to a neutral tuning, this is the pair of traces to look at.

Distortion

Distortion is low and not a concern:

As a percentage:

Across most of the range distortion sits below 0.2%, with the second harmonic reaching around 0.3% in the 2–5kHz region. The narrow spikes around 50–60Hz reaching towards 1% are higher-order harmonics confined to a very narrow band. I read those as a measurement artefact rather than something audible, but that is my interpretation — I have not isolated the cause. That comfortably beats Sivga’s own ≤1% @ 1kHz claim.

Rating Explanation

The Lyrebird gets a 5 for its pragmatic rating and a 5 for price because of what is actually in the box for its $164 list price — it was discounted to $155 when I checked in August 2026, but the rating assumes you pay full price. A quad-driver hybrid that includes both a micro planar and a piezoelectric ceramic driver, in a CNC alloy shell with a stabilized wood faceplate, with a supple, tangle-free hybrid cable on metal hardware, a leather case and seven pairs of eartips, is a lot of product at this money. I do not think the driver configuration alone would matter if the execution were poor, but the build quality and comfort are as good as anything Sivga has made.

The features rating is a 4 rather than a 5 for one specific reason: the cable is 4.4mm balanced only. There is no modular plug and no single-ended option, which narrows the range of sources it works with straight out of the box. That is a real constraint for anyone whose main source has a 3.5mm jack.

The measurement rating is a 4, and this is a deliberate judgement rather than a criticism. The Lyrebird does not track the Harman adjusted target, particularly above 6kHz, and if you score purely on target adherence it would land lower. But I have become firmly convinced that there is no single correct tuning, or even two, and that variety in a collection is a good thing. What costs it the fifth point is not that it is different, it is that the upper treble energy is enough to be fatiguing on some material and for some listeners — that is a genuine limitation, not just a flavour.

Conclusion

The Lyrebird is possibly my favourite IEM Sivga have made, which is not a sentence I expected to write given how much I have liked the Nightingale Pro. The machining and the stabilized wood put it above anything else I have at the price; the shells are small and light enough that I forget them after a couple of hours; the leather case, seven pairs of tips and that cable are more than $164 usually buys; and the tuning has a clear point of view: vocals forward and detailed, bass linear and honest, treble bright and energetic.

That point of view is also the caveat. This is not an all-rounder and it is not a bass-head IEM, and the piezo-driven top end is spicy enough that treble-sensitive listeners should audition before buying rather than after. But if you already own something warm and safe and you want a vocal-forward, detailed counterpoint in the collection, the Lyrebird is an unusually well-made way to get it — and at $164 for four drivers per side and this standard of finish, it is a genuine bargain.