The very first thing that came to mind when I took Creative’s new Aurvana Air earphones out of the box was their uncanny resemblance to Bang & Olufsen’s unmistakable A8 earphones, which curl behind your ears like spectacles to keep themselves in place.

The second thing that shouted out at me was the price. S$299. Were they serious? Apparently so. And Creative won a red dot design award for the Air, which is a bit bewildering. Hadn’t the judges ever seen the A8?

At least the Air’s S$299 price tag still falls short of the A8’s $330,  or we’d be dealing with Creative earphones that cost more than equivalent B&O ones. That would have been really bizarre, considering the disparity in brand strength.

Like the A8, the Air isn’t an in-ear design. In-ears fit directly inside your ear canal thereby passively isolating you from ambient noise, and most earphones – even the cheapest – come in in-ear varieties these days. The Air rests on the outside of your ears, making them look and feel immediately old-school.

What ends further comparisons between the Creative and B&O earphones is that the Air sounds better than the A8. Yup, that got my attention alright.

We’re getting ahead of ourselves, however, so let’s take a step back and find out first if the Aurvana Air is over-priced by comparing it to some cheaper competitors.

Is the Air overpriced?

It’s much better than Creative’s own Aurvana In-Ear model, which used to cost S$169 but is on sale now for S$99, but that’s hardly a surprise since that product’s getting more than a little long in the tooth.

What’s more impressive is that it also sounds better than Apple’s dual-balanced-armature S$128 In-Ear earphones, and both Bose’s TriPort earphones and Philips’ 9850 single-balance-armature in-ear model, both of which cost S$179.

The Air has more high-end clarity than the Apple, a more open mid-range than the Bose, and a fuller mid-range than the Philips. The Air’s soundstage was more spacious and detailed than all three of its cheaper competitors, and there was simply more detail, such as fingers sliding on strings.

Ok, so the Aurvana Air isn’t overpriced then. But how does it stack up against two contenders that challenge it at that exact S$299 price: Ultimate Ears’ SuperFi 5vi and Sennheiser’s IE6? Let’s just say that the Air doesn’t pull any punches.

Apples to apples

Against each other, the SuperFi 5vi and IE6 are roughly equal, with their respective strengths and weakness cancelling one another out. The SuperFi 5vi has a more spacious and natural-sounding mid-range, while the IE6 has better high-end definition without ever getting harsh or sibilant.

The Air has better high-end and mid-range detail than the SuperFi 5vi, although the SuperFi holds its own – barely – in the bass department. Kudos to Ultimate Ears for managing to pull off that kind of bottom end with just one balanced armature, especially since armatures – originally developed for hearing aids – typically don’t produce great bass unless you stack several of them together.

The Air is a lot more natural sounding than the IE6. That’s a big deal because accurately reproducing timbre  is tough. It requires earphones to play back every part of the frequency spectrum with perfect timing. The moment that falters, so does the sense of realism.

The benchmark for realism is live performances. Go listen to a cello bowed in front of you, and see if your earphones can reproduce that. The answer will usually be no unless you have ridiculously high-end audiophile equipment, but the Air does a remarkable job.

But the IE6, which uses conventional dynamic drivers like the Air, has great bass response and should satisfy people who aren’t too concerned with realism, or listen to genres of music that render that consideration irrelevant, such as minimal techno.

Concluding thoughts

The great sound quality of the Air makes its design limitations all the more frustrating. It isn’t much use in subway trains because it doesn’t block out tunnel roar. The old-fashioned sponge that covers the buds also tears and absorbs sweat easily, which makes exercise use dubious.

In contrast, the Sennheiser IE6 is the most comfortable pair of earphones we’ve looked at in this review. They fit in your ear canal unobtrusively, and they stay there securely instead of sliding out the moment you sweat a bit. This alone makes it ideal for vigorous sports use.

The “vi” in the SuperFi 5vi’s name refers to its compatibility with Apple iPhones and iPods, complete with built-in microphone for hands-free calls while driving or running. It’s the lack of this kind of modern feature that makes the Air’s design seem so dated.

However, if you care more about audio quality than branding, you should be happy with the Aurvana Air, especially if you don’t plan on using them in noisy places. And if you’ve never liked in-ear earphones, you won’t be bugged by the Air’s retro design as much. Of course, you could go for big circumaural headphones instead, but that’s veering into a whole other post.

If Creative managed to get the Air to sound this good, what about the Aurvana Ice, which was shown off at CES this year but hasn’t been formally priced or released yet? Pictures of the Ice make it appear to be an in-ear design, but it seems to use conventional dynamic drivers like the Air and Sennheiser’s IE6. If it can combine the awesome sound quality of the Air with the excellent form factor of the IE6, it will be a winner. I’m crossing my fingers.