ZiiGaat Lush: The Sleeper Hit That Silenced My Skepticism
ZiiGaat's Lush seems to present something not only unique for ZiiGaat's lineup, but unique for the IEM market in general. Join listener as they discuss why.

ZiiGaat is a newer brand on the IEM scene, and the Lush is their newest entry to the market coming in at only $180. Up to now ZiiGaat have released a ton of IEMs in very little time, such that it’s been a bit tough to know which are really worth paying attention to or covering.
ZiiGaat’s options up to now have tended to fall into two buckets—Harman-adjacent, and “warm V-shape”—but the Lush is the first from ZiiGaat that seems to present something not only unique for ZiiGaat, but unique for the IEM market in general.
So today we’re going to talk about why the Lush is one of my new favorite IEMs, as well as why I think it’s one of the most versatile IEMs currently on the market. Let’s dive in.
What we like
- One of the most coherent bass-to-midrange presentations available in IEMs
- Incredibly non-fatiguing and “tip-rolling friendly” upper treble profile
- Improves on most of the “New Meta” sets in the bass while being less expensive than any of them
What we don’t like
- Still a bit of excess in the lower treble which can cause a bit of scratchiness
- Not especially comfortable
- Not a showstopper for subjective performance
Build, Comfort, Design, Accessories
Lush has a shimmery black/silver faceplate with the brand name stamped on it, and I like the colorway but not the branding. The name “ZiiGaat” sounds like a gibberish, randomly-generated Amazon brand name that means absolutely nothing, so I don’t really get how printing it on the shell has any value to consumers. I don’t want people to think I got these on TEMU, but having ZiiGaat printed on it is almost certainly going to project that vibe to anyone who notices.
Otherwise the shell design is fairly standard, standing somewhere between the Thieaudio/Kiwi Ears sets and the slightly larger shells like that of the DUNU DaVinci. It has the overall size closest to the former, while having the rounder, less “pseudo-custom” molded shell and slightly wider nozzle reminiscent of the latter. I don’t find it very comfortable, because the shell does protrude a bit more out from my ear than I’d like and it doesn’t nest neatly into my ear’s native contours.
In terms of accessories, you get a set of medium-narrow bore silicone tips that are a bit long, and a single set of foam tips. I didn’t bother testing the latter because I dislike foam tips, and the former are pretty similar to what’s been coming with recent IEMs I’ve reviewed like the Softears Volume S and CrinEar Project META. They’re likely fine for most people, though I feel they’re a bit longer than I typically like. I ended up using the shortest, widest bore tip I could find for the Lush both for comfort and sonic reasons, which we’ll talk about later.
The other accessories are honestly mixed; there’s a simple square zipcase with a really uncooperative zipper that I hate, and I’ll probably never use this case again for that reason. The cable is very thin and plasticky, but flexible and non-microphonic enough for me that I didn’t mind using it for the entirety of the review.
Overall I think Lush is only just “fine” in the non-sound department compared to most other IEMs in this bracket. The design is essentially par for the course, but it’s maybe a bit more cheap feeling in terms of accessories, and the comfort profile isn’t as good as others like the Kiwi Ears KE4.
Sound
I want to start with the bass because that’s where I get an immediately noticeable difference between the Lush and the last few IEMs I’ve tested. The bass of the Lush is meaningfully relaxed relative to many other sets coming to market these days—roughly 5-6 dB over the midrange instead of closer to 10dB—and I much prefer this approach. The shelf is still in the same spot, but instead of shoving a whole bunch of excess rumble and roundness into the signature, the Lush dials back the bass and finds its warmth elsewhere. This results in Lush being a much snappier listen than IEMs it’s likely to be compared to, while still having a relaxed approach to the overall presentation.
Upright basses have the overtone definition to keep their woody voice and not sound totally drowned in boomy fundamentals, while electric basses similarly don’t have as much excess decay that causes them to overpower the rhythmic momentum and precision of a kick drum, even in relatively much faster music like metal.
While I wouldn’t call the Lush’s bass response perfect—it’s still a little bassy for me—or “powerful” in the way I gather a lot of IEM enthusiasts are looking for, it’s easily one of the most natural and unobtrusive bass responses I’ve heard in IEMs. Even on the tracks I use to test bass slowness, ones that I know will sound droney and sludgy if the bass is elevated by even 1 dB too much, Lush sounds well-balanced between the fundamental bloom and overtone texture on basically everything I throw at it.
Which brings us to the midrange, which is largely responsible for the bass tuning making as much sense as it does. For one, we don’t get any large recessions or boosts in the lower midrange, so male vocals, snare drums, pianos, guitars, bowed strings, all have the note weight, intimacy, and realism typical of the new approach to IEM tuning. In other IEMs that adopt this approach to midrange, this region’s benefits get overshadowed by excess bass, but not so with the Lush.
Above this point, you get a slight (and I mean like 1 to 1.5 dB) wide-band elevation around 800 Hz that actually does seem to bring forward the throatiness of bass guitar or the honk of brass instruments. The main benefit is actually the former; even though the Lush overall leans warm, this slight uptilt towards harmonics for bass instruments is something most listeners aren’t going to actively notice, but it’s a clever move that helps Lush not be too sleepy.
Moving up further in frequency, Lush has a meaningfully recessed 3 kHz region which causes a noticeable reduction in intelligibility and precision for things like vocals, snare drums or guitars. What’s interesting is that the Lush has this upper midrange dip, but the areas around it (center midrange and lower treble) are both slightly elevated, so I could see some people not noticing the dip all that strongly given these elevations bring forth similar aspects of the instruments they’d effect.
For example, while guitars’ pick attack is absolutely affected by this dip, the 5 kHz region is essentially the “tippy-top” of this instrument’s pick attack, and this gets pushed forward enough that some listeners may not feel like the guitar is blurred or lacking clarity, even with Lush’s dip in the critical 3 kHz region.
Speaking of the treble, the lower treble elevation around 5.5 kHz is probably the biggest sonic issue I have with this IEM, but I’d also call it somewhat necessary for making sure the IEM isn’t too warm overall. I hear a little bit of excess flare and extra breathiness, but it’s not nearly enough to ruin the IEM or make it sound harsh, and that’s largely due to my anatomy (which we’ll get into).
Especially because the upper treble tuning is possibly the most reasonable I’ve heard, for two reasons. The first is that the overall level above 8 kHz is much lower than any of the other “neutral midrange V-shape” sets like the Project META, Kiwi Ears KE4, Dunu DaVinci, Moondrop DUSK DSP, or Hisenior Mega5EST. This means that the excessive wispy sibilance present on all of those IEMs simply isn’t present here. Hi-hats aren’t a sizzly ringfest and drum skins sound like drum skins instead of paper.
The second benefit to the upper treble tuning here is that the Lush is incredibly versatile when it comes to tip rolling. Specifically, you can choose an ideal pattern of peaks/dips for your ears, while the overall upper treble magnitude for all configurations is typically within the bounds of reasonable. This makes it a very versatile IEM for a variety of users, and we’ll get into the specifics of why in the next section.
Overall the Lush’s name fits the bill nicely. It’s a warm, relaxed, but not overly bassy or muddy sound signature that I found vanishingly few dealbreaking issues with, which is enough for me to say it comfortably sits in the upper echelon of IEM tunings in terms of neutrality and sensibility.
Tip Rolling and Insert Depth Effects
I wanted to put a section here to touch on the likelihood that some people are likely to get quite different treble presentations based on their anatomy, specifically the length of their ear canal, and the tips they choose. Let’s talk about anatomy first.
When you put an IEM into an ear canal, the treble features that arise are largely down to the length of the volume between your eardrum and the IEM driver causing modal peaks like (but not exactly the same as) shown in the image below.
In practice, the location of the peak corresponds to the length of the distance between IEM driver and eardrum—with the first being the full wavelength, the second being the half-wavelength, and the last being the quarter wavelength. The half-wavelength and quarter-wavelength modal peak (“length modes”) can actually shift significantly based on the anatomy of the listener, the design of the IEM, and how the IEM is seated.
Lush with stock narrow bore tips gradually being inserted deeper into the IEC 60318-4 coupler
The reason this matters is because this IEM sounds exceptionally smooth for me, but almost certainly because the half-wavelength mode ends up around 7.5 kHz in my ear… but if you’re like Resolve, and your peak ends up closer to 6 kHz (blue trace below), you’ll both get a much larger overall low-treble boost (because its overlapping much more with the native 5.5 kHz resonance), as well as a different treble presentation above that.
So readers should be aware: based on anatomy, it’s entirely within the realm of possibility that any IEM—including Lush—could sound more wrong in the treble for you than it does for other people. In our most recent IEM review, Resolve and I had a chat about exactly this, so check that out if you want to see more of his perspective.
Now let’s talk about tip rolling, because as mentioned above, Lush’s upper treble makes for something that’s really quite versatile.
The area above the half-wavelength resonance is very changeable based on the type of tip you’re using, especially its bore size. The stock tips are quite narrow in bore, so if you look at the above animation showing its treble character as it changes with depth, you’ll notice that as the IEM is inserted deeper you get less upper treble but the ~10 kHz area gets increasingly magnified. This means for those who need a bit more energy in the ~10 kHz region, stock tips are likely best.
However, if you’re like me, and you actually want less in the 10-12 kHz region, something with a wider bore is likely best as wider bore tips tend to have the opposite effect, restraining upper treble less while not boosting the 10 kHz region in the same way. Below is the Lush with Divinus Velvet tips being inserted into my measurement coupler with gradually increasing depth, and you can see the effects above the half-wavelength mode are quite different.
Lush with Divinus Velvet tips gradually being inserted deeper into the IEC 60318-4 coupler
I chose the Velvets because they’re a fairly common aftermarket eartip that has a wider bore than the stock tips, while being a little shorter too. However, one could get an even more dramatic difference with an even wider-bore, shorter tip like the “Coffee” tips I enjoy on some IEMs.
As with insert depth, the benefits of such a difference are going to be entirely up to the listener. If you’re like Resolve and already get too much low treble, a tip like the Divinus Velvet which reduces mid-treble even more likely isn’t a great idea. Whereas if you’re like me, and very sensitive to the 10-12 kHz region, a wider-bore tip like the Velvet or Coffee tips may be the ticket to making a decent IEM sound much, much better.
Presentation
The first surprise about the Lush is that despite the reduction in attack frequencies between 2-4 kHz, it’s still among the snappier and more agile listens I’ve had relative to some other IEMs I’ve recently reviewed. The dynamic punch is not especially hard, in fact I’d say it’s firmly on the softer side, but it has a sense of body and “thwack” on snare drums which lends a nice perceived tactility despite lacking overall textural or dynamic aggression.
It almost reminds me of the presentation from Audeze’s older open headphones; there’s a fairly noticeable reduction between 2-4 kHz, which highlights the slight forwardness of center-midrange. Pair that with the Lush having less bass than many other IEMs I’ve heard, and you get a similar presentation where even though the presentation lacks a bit of intelligibility and precision, I think listeners will be surprised to find that bass texture and percussive thwack is often still very present (again, similar to Audeze’s older tunings).
Regarding spaciousness, I feel the Lush is actually a bit smaller sounding relative to the other options it’s likely to be compared to, and I think this has to do with the tuning having smaller swings in magnitude overall. In other words, the bass and treble boosts aren’t as massive, which means you won’t get the sense of artificial distance/closeness depending on dips and peaks (respectively) in the frequency response.
Bass isn’t ultra prominent, so there’s little perceived difference in distance or closeness between, for example, bass and electric guitars. Treble isn’t ultra prominent, so you don’t get a sense of heightened spatial contrast between cymbals or vocals, on either the close-to-distant plane or on the lateral plane. The spatial presentation of Lush just sounds… like your music sounds, more or less.
In terms of “detail” I think as usual, it’s going to depend on how listeners define such a term. For me, the Lush is surprisingly well-textured for the tuning (for some elements like bass, at least), but it’s also lacking intelligibility for vocals and electric guitars and smoothing out some of the crack of snare drums. If people want a more “detail” focused IEM, they’re likely better served elsewhere.
Lastly, in terms of timbre Lush is probably one of the least problematic IEMs I’ve heard. While the midrange is lacking that last bit of coherence due to the center-midrange emphasis and upper midrange dip, the treble is so minimally problematic for me that it ends up being the least “obviously colored” IEM I currently have in my possession. Add to that the fact that the bass elevation isn’t massive, and Lush comes across as a well-rounded set that doesn’t really have any massive timbral flaws.
Overall, it’s not a showstopper, but if you enjoy the way your music sounds and want something to deliver it with a slightly—but not deleteriously—softened presentation, the Lush is most certainly an example of truth in advertising.
Comparisons
Vs. Kiwi Ears KE4
Kiwi Ears’ KE4 up to now has been my favorite of the “neutral midrange V-shape” options in terms of how it balances price, comfort, and sound. It’s still a V-shape, so it’s not something I’d really choose to listen to over the other stuff I have around, but as far as options to recommend to others, to my mind it’s one of the easier recommendations one can make in this space.
But the Lush meaningfully disrupts that paradigm, I think. For one, I’d call it only marginally less neutral in the midrange, while being meaningfully less colored in the bass and treble. The treble difference alone is enough for me to find Lush totally listenable without EQ for all of my music, whereas KE4 can’t really handle more sibilant recordings like pop music without making me a bit fatigued.
I actually also find the Lush a bit more textured and refined when it comes to the presentation of bass instruments. You get a less rounded, more structured presentation of bass overtones that helps it have more of a voice & sound less bulbous and droney. While the KE4 probably has bass that people will find more “powerful” because it’s just got more bass, I hear it as a less balanced presentation overall.
Now, where KE4 definitely wins is comfort and spaciousness. Regarding the former quality, the shell is just more molded, and in a way that fits the crevices of my ear noticeably better regardless of eartips. And in terms of spaciousness, the KE4’s more dramatic tuning lends more spatial contrast across the board, so if readers want their music presented with an extra sense of spatial engagement or distance, the KE4 is easily the better choice vs. Lush.
However, for those who want the more neutral, more precise IEM, I actually think the Lush just about edges out the KE4 due to its bass reduction allowing it to be a much more coherent, less colored listen.
Vs. CrinEar Project Meta
I’ve already had a ton of people online ask me about this comparison, but the story is much the same as the KE4. For one, I slightly prefer the KE4 over META due to the former’s overall balance being a bit more to my taste, so whatever benefits Lush has over KE4, it also has over Project META.
That means I think Lush is overall less colored and more normal sounding vs. Project META, and I regard Lush as a better value.
What Project META has over Lush is comfort, midrange tone, and spaciousness. While I’d say META’s midrange is more precise and natural than Lush’s is, listeners may not hear this clearly because of how much more bass META has vs. Lush.
While I think META is a fine IEM, it’s not one I’m super happy recommending over KE4, and I don’t think I’d recommend it over the Lush either.
Vs. Softears Volume S
While I really enjoy it, it’s hard to say if Volume S is outright better or worse compared to Lush, because they present very differently.
Volume S is more similar to the older style of IEM tuning, where you have a pretty forward upper midrange that needs to be balanced with a bloomier, warmer bass tuning. The Lush takes a more modern, “headphone-like” approach, finding warmth not in the addition of excess upper-bass/lower-midrange, but instead in the reduction of the upper-midrange.
For that reason, I find Lush’s midrange presentation much more natural sounding for basically everything; it is simply less colored and less “contrasty.”
However, the “enhanced” presentation offered by the Volume S is not without its merits. While I feel vocals and guitars lack a bit of intelligibility on Lush, this same intelligibility and intensity is arguably Volume S’s strong suit. Volume S has a ton of texture on basically everything with significant midrange presence, and while this does make it more likely to appeal to those focused on things like “detail” above all else, it also leads to Volume S being a bit too shouty at times.
Lush is, by contrast, a much more versatile tuning that commits fewer sins in terms of harshness or overt coloration. While it’s less exciting—and certainly less dynamically expressive—than Volume S, I think Lush is going to end up being the safer, more normal sounding IEM for most people. It has a more linear midrange while keeping the same things I liked about Volume S (less bass and treble).
After a constant shuffle of A/B testing between them, I’ve found the Lush to be preferable for me for a wider selection of music, so while they may have similar downsides—midrange colorations, potentially uneven in the treble for some—I think the Lush is going to be the IEM I end up reaching for more often, even if it’s not as exciting of a listen.
Softears Volume S In-Ear Headphones
Conclusion
I must say, Lush caught me a bit off guard. I knew the broad strokes of how it would sound based on measurements, but after getting to spend a while with it, I think it’s an exceptional IEM for the price and likely the safest recommendation in the $200 price range, provided a few caveats.
The first is that it is very likely that listeners with longer ear canals will find this IEM much more glary and harsh than I do, so be aware that if you typically have low-treble issues in IEMs, the Lush won’t solve this for you.
The second is that the comfort really isn’t great. Neither the shell nor the nozzle are huge, but the shell doesn’t really have enough molding to be a comfy fit for long term listening for me.
The last is that it’s not a very “exciting” IEM, so those who are looking for their music to be presented in some brand new, perspective-shifting way, the Lush probably isn’t going to do that. I don’t think it’s likely that people end up finding Lush rewarding for intense critical listening, as I don’t get the sense it’d be great at revealing newfound details or anything like that.
Lush’s strengths—if it works for the listener’s ears, at least—are that it presents music with a balance of mild colorations to keep things interesting enough to be unique, while at its core having a neutral enough midrange and overall balanced spectral tilt such that nothing ever sounds outright bad.
I’m happy to recommend the Lush for those who, like me, are fatigued by the constant excess of bass and upper treble prevalent on other IEMs, and just want something that sounds reasonable and is great for chilling out and listening to music. While it’s not perfect, it’s certainly my favorite sounding of the IEMs that have come along in the last few years, and it’s one of the few I’ve reviewed that I’m happy to give my enthusiastic stamp of approval.