/iemg/ Dogma Check
Tired of the hivemind? Here’s your prescribed sanity dose:

>Crinacle is not your priest.
Rankings are a guide, not divine scripture. Your ears > his spreadsheet.

>Harman and JM-1 ≠ perfect.
It’s a preference curve, not a law of physics. Some genres need deviation.

>Chi-Fi isn’t magic.
Great value, yes. Immune to QC issues and hype cycles? Nope.

>Graphs are not sound.
They don’t show staging, dynamics, or fit. Use your ears, not just squigs.

>BA ≠ metallic, DD ≠ perfect.
Implementation matters more than driver type. Always has.

>Meme sets aren’t the whole hobby.
If it’s not shilled 24/7, it might still be good. It's highly encouraged to form an original opinion.

>Disagreeing ≠ cope or deaf.
Let people like what they like without foaming at the mouth.

>Loud posts =/= smart takes.
Confidence without experience is just noise. Show graphs, impressions, or both.


This has been your scheduled break from pos groupthink.

File: 1763658063470898.png (1.19 MB, 1198x809)

1.19 MB PNG

>>109260857

uhuheuheuhue balz

>>109260616
ill let you know, i got abyss joals in the mail as well.

File: 1776416143221.jpg (39 KB, 588x384)

39 KB JPG

Remember, anons. Panning is when you turn a knob.

File: choothree.jpg (65 KB, 1280x960)

65 KB JPG

Chu III + 5128 DF + Room Curve + FiiO HS20 tips. We're so back.

File: Screenshot from 2026-07-0(...).png (826 KB, 1001x674)

826 KB PNG

found posted in r9k

>>109260690
>>109260743
>head, pinna gain
Sure I get the point but does your individual HRTF, etc. actually sound neutral or in the case of IEMs should that be considered part of the "mastering setup".
>For example I hear a 9k peak with speakers
This makes me think at least some specific details aren't so important for recreating >what the artist intended

>>109261272
nta but you should ignore the whole spiel about "as the artist intended", because it is a ephemeral and vague concept at best.
you should focus on the reproduction side of things, which is to make your audio setup "transparent". this is achievable by making it sound the best to you; preference is neutrality.
research shows that aligning the sound with your HRTF will sound optimally good.

>>109261272
>Sure I get the point but does your individual HRTF, etc. actually sound neutral or in the case of IEMs should that be considered part of the "mastering setup".
headphones.com guys said that headphones equalized to (vaguely) HRTF sounds mostly flat so there's that.
I think it's a bit more complicated than just EQing pos or headpos to HRTF but that's much closer to a useful starting point than some pos tuned to some target. But for an individual using your ears is the only way.
>This makes me think at least some specific details aren't so important for recreating >what the artist intended
"specific details" such as?
there's a whole discussion about what you should tune headphones to DF or something more specific like what grell wants (and fails) to do. If you believe people who's done it headphones tuned to your DF HRTF sounds very good.

why arent modular plug headphone cables as common as iem ones?

>>109261336
somehow, this is the first time i've seen this topic being brought up and it is honestly baffling, i really don't know why this is the case desu

>>109261336
headpos stuck in the past

Can snag myself some Audeze iSine20, should I?
They seem cool.
No sub-50 IQ replies please

>>109261350
at that point just pick a iem that you think look good and is comfortable, if it's not an absolute pos (reasonable FR, low distortion) you can EQ to sound pm as good as you want.

>>109261355
>No sub-50 IQ replies please

>>109261370
i'm actualy serious, there won't be any difference from a reasonably good (ie truthear pure ) iem + EQ.

>>109261370
>>109261378
any meaningful*

>>109261378
Can you not read?

>>109261392
i'm sorry if you can't accept the truth.

>>109261405
You are so intoxicated by your own farts that you don't even know why I am admonishing you.

>>109261350
you are already sub 50 IQ if you are seriously considering so I'd say go for it.

Fun fact: you can 100% enjoy IEMS without giving a flying fuck about HRTFs or EQ.
Anybody criticizing/needing to dictate your personal enjoyment is a loser.

>>109261437
uum I fail to see who asked?

>>109261415
At least give a reason you sub-75 IQ idiot.
>>109261437
Anons should learn that you can very easily have a balance.

>>109261451
>At least give a reason you sub-75 IQ idiot.
reason for what?

>>109261464
If you don't have any experience or useful information, don't reply like an untrained dog.
The least you could do is spit out a reason for the negative reaction, but I already know what you are going to say based on your sub-60 IQ.

>>109261350
for how much?
i have the 10 and comfort can definitely be an issue. the cable it comes with is kinda flimsy too, dont know if it's the same one between the lower end isines.
it definitely will still hold up to now, but there are so many great (better) options available these days.
get it if it's a decent price for the sake of 'experiencing history', but temper your expectations and dont expect it to blow your socks off.
im personally keeping an eye open for the ugly white ones.

File: graph.png (272 KB, 2000x1000)

272 KB PNG

>>109261311
>research shows that aligning the sound with your HRTF will sound optimally good
>preference is neutrality
I'm finding it hard to consolidate this with the clear difference between blind preference-based targets (Harman, PEQdB) and average HRTF measurement targets (JM-1 with or without bass boost LPF).
Sure, Harman never claimed to be perfect but listening to music the difference between the two is quite pronounced. Surely this difference isn't just due to errors in their methods.

>>109261333
>"specific details" such as?
The 9k peak. If you can hear a 9k peak from flat speakers then is it the job of the iem to reproduce those speakers or to produce something that sounds flat?
Also the claim was that for them speakers produce a 9k peak, not that IEMs produce a 9k dip.

>>109261549
Around $250, all accessories. Brown version, I am quite intrigued by the openness, Illustrious was a nice little party trick but I want to experience the extreme end of it

>>109261552
the story of preference targets is rather complicated. PEQDB only applies to 711 measurements and while the sample used is very high, the quality of the data itself is rather questionable; since it doesn't account for leakage tolerance (arguably the most basic of parameters to control) and the results are replicas of previous targets (harman and knowles) we can ignore this one. same for knowles (rehash of harman but with high frequency volatility, already common knowledge in the preference research sphere)
this leaves us with pop-avg targets (jm1 and all DF+tilt derivatives) and harman, and the discussion has to go to 5128 territory
new harman research shows that listener preference varies by a lot, and that it seems like the overall relation between bass and treble tilts is quite important. i recommend you read the new papers (should be open access) so you get a better idea (look up MoA studies). they also had another paper comparing preference for harman (weird transitionary version from 711 to 5128) and found that the soundguys target scored more or less the same; both were about the same, and soundguys' target is very close to jm1 (they also tested a jm1 botched up version which scored not great)
the difference is, imo, showcasing the variability in preference between listeners.

>>109261559
i'd get it for that much.
get good tips though, really helps with the comfort. if the tips can hold the earpiece in your ear without using the hook or the rubber wing fin thing, then use that. means good fit and seal which helps a huge deal.
and they're definitely open. could be a bit disorienting that your ears are plugged up but you can still clearly hear everything, you can have a conversation with it on while music is playing.

>>109261552
and to clarify, all of these are preference targets. while the derivation might differ, they all use established preference research conclusions to guide their methods and results (harman through MoA studies, jm1 through tilts in response correlating to preferred speaker in-room responses)

>>109261614
Alright, thanks for the insight. Always looking for unique additions to my collection and it seems like this one will fit the bill quite nicely.
Unfortunate that the Cipher cable is for lightning but it is what it is.

>>109261476
>but I already know what you are going to say
well? what am I going to say?

File: graph.png (296 KB, 2400x1038)

296 KB PNG

>>109261580
>>109261616
Thanks for the response.
>since it doesn't account for leakage tolerance
I also find it interesting how he is now obsessed with poorly isolating shallow fits seemingly without considering how it affects measurable FR.
>new harman research shows that listener preference varies by a lot
That doesn't surprise me. I would expect most listeners to tend to prefer what they're used to and thats exactly what I'm personally struggling with the most rn, I expect my current pos to sound a certain way so its hard to judge whether a different EQ is more preferable or just different.
I wonder if any tests "prime" the subjects by first getting them to listen to a well tuned speaker setup.
>i recommend you read the new papers (should be open access) so you get a better idea (look up MoA studies).
Sure, I will. Access shouldn't be a problem for me but its always nice to see more open access research.
>they also had another paper comparing preference for harman (weird transitionary version from 711 to 5128) and found that the soundguys target scored more or less the same
Would that be the 2024 Harman target?
>they all use established preference research conclusions to guide their methods and results
Sure. I wasn't aware of the newer Harman curves and it is nice to see that it's been dragged halfway to JM-1. Almost reassuring that the research is improving and converging on a general recommendation.

>>109261552
>I'm finding it hard to consolidate this with the clear difference between blind preference-based targets
in tests SG target (which is basically jm-1 with harman 2018 filters) did as good as harman 2019 for IEMs despite huge apparent difference.
It might've just show that these targets are just "good enough" and personalized target exists that will be always preferred
>difference between the two
more precisely it's the difference between same IEM EQed to some target via graphs instead of ear. you do realize why it's problematic?

>>109261580
>showcasing the variability in preference between listeners.
well the thing is same people were highly rating both SG and ie2019... so it's not even preference between listeners

>>109261776
>I wonder if any tests "prime" the subjects by first getting them to listen to a well tuned speaker setup.
initial tests did, iirc when harman scaled up the listening tests they didn't continue doing so but you should double check by reading the papers (see the op for link)
>Would that be the 2024 Harman target?
no, in the study they call it harman2019, idk where you got 2024
>>109261792
sorry, should have made it clear that i was mostly talking about preference ranges. both are rated highly precisely because there is a range of preference between listeners and in listeners themselves. whether this is due to inaccurate matching of targets to listener anatomy or other reasons such as variable preference targets, idk

>>109261552
>The 9k peak. If you can hear a 9k peak from flat speakers then is it the job of the iem to reproduce those speakers or to produce something that sounds flat?
this is kinda complicated. if you swipe speakers you will hear positional ques etc. but if you'll try to add such things to DF devices like IEMs and headphones it will be just heard as coloration.
Why 9k peak is preferred to no 9k peak is probably just individual preference and discrepancies in IEM's own tuning
>Also the claim was that for them speakers produce a 9k peak, not that IEMs produce a 9k dip.
that's not surprising because IEMs bypass what creates 9k peak (tho most iems kind do have dips around 9-10k for reasons)

What is a good replacement for the kiwi ears cadenza? They are good but i have faggot little ears and it's so big for me.
The cheap the better.
Usually used for gaming on switch and listen videogame soundtracks

>>109261855
something small like bunny? or chu2-3

>>109261866
Bunny? New on IEM so i don't know about those. The chu they look nice but how they sound?

>>109261552
>>109261846
the 9k peak, if heard on speakers, is there and should not be removed. whatever you hear with speakers is good from an anatomy-influence point of view
with head-worn devices like headphones and iems, the question gets complicated as anon said.
if you listen to reference speakers, and were to transfer this sound to iems, you are changing from one sound field to another; speakers are localizable sound sources in a free field, while iems/headphones are localization-independent devices and thus "operate", psychoacoustically, in a diffuse ffield.
when you listen to speakers, you have localization cues that should remain there. with iems, you should aim for your personalized DF. HOWEVER, when you listen to sweeps, it will NOT sound flat (DF "flattening" only works with broadband recognizable signals, not sine waves) and will NOT sound the same as with speakers (since they operate in different sound fields and thus different brain inverse TF)

>>109261881
tanchjim bunny
>The chu they look nice but how they sound
they should sound pretty similar to cadenza. their tuning is almost 1 to 1.
bunny is a bit more neutral

>>109261783
>you do realize why it's problematic?
Do you have a reasonable solution? You can't EQ to a target by ear. I find it hard to believe anyone could EQ by ear to a neutral response without also having access to a reference.

>>109261920
They look nice but i don't find any jack port or is there a version with them and i'm so stupid i can't find then? Also any other options?.
Very grateful for your help btwm

>>109261942
>Do you have a reasonable solution
abandon targets and EQ by ear.
>You can't EQ to a target by ear
you don't need to
>I find it hard to believe anyone could EQ by ear to a neutral response without also having access to a reference.
some won't be able to do it even with reference

>>109261944
>They look nice but i don't find any jack port or is there a version with them and i'm so stupid i can't find then
both should have 3.5mm versions

>>109261952
you don't have to abandon targets altogether imo.
i like to use a flatter target for iems that are way more V shape than i like, but then EQ by ear from that.

>>109261967
Thank you dear anon

>>109261996
I mean I can't ban you from using targets lol
it would be one thing if you at least could measure your own units cause otherwise you are just EQing somebody else's unit measured by some cheap 711 clone coupler to a "flatter" target derived from some bs math listener came up with lol
if it sounds better for you I guess it is what it is

>>109262030
I mean it isn't perfect but the same method with a few adjustments by ear got some cheap kz sounding almost identical to my planar headphones so i don't think it's such a terrible technique.

>>109261442
you failed to hear, as well.
>>109261451
>you can very easily have a balance
tbf, I can somewhat agree. but I counter that the more "knowledge" someone holds on these things just weigh on them and can drive them nuts getting in their own way of simply enjoying themselves.

>>109261336
Headpos is obsolete. There's a very good minixlr to mmcx adapter so you can use IEM cables on some headpos.

>>109261437
That's not a fun fact, that's what most people do. Goyim were a mistake.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IO7Ihbufjbw

Have we discussed yet that two IEMs EQd to the same target won't always sound the same because of acoustic impedance? Just learn to EQ by ear nigga.

>>109262276
>Have we discussed yet that two IEMs EQd to the same target won't always sound the same
more like won't ever sound the same

>>109262276
>>109262281
learn to eq

The techs are stored in your heart.

My pentakilobuck IEM is not for shitposting

>>109262354
>"You have 0 shits"

>>109262344
*balls

>>109261855
The bunnies are smaller than my already timy cadenza's. Use the medium sized tips and they fit like charm.

>>109262291
teach me, faggot

>>109262281
All-BA pos and bullet pos are the biggest offenders in this but everything else gets pretty close.

>>109261855
Tripowin Ruta10 to comfortmaxx

Is a HiBy R6III 2025 worth the premium vs something like a sony a307?
WIll use local files on sd and stream off apm and ytm.

>>109263238
Not really, I would buy maybe something with newer soc because old hibys performance is abysmall. If u don't need that much features u can buy something smaller and cheaper like jm21 or M21.

File: silhouette.jpg (65 KB, 1366x911)

65 KB JPG

this image adequately captures the statue for me because i mostly care about general information like dimensions and shape

File: 1775471196820.png (814 KB, 1261x925)

814 KB PNG

>>109263608
same desu

>>109263608
I like how horse is panned to the right

>>109262421
>>109260841
literaly read the EQ guide on the OP

>>109261437
But that's how I use mine. With TWS and earbuds on top of that.

>>109260857
Dogma Check is the single best thing /iemg/ has spawned, by a country mile.

>>109260978
oh no no no not a chipping black paint
Lan-like silver shells were much better

File: 1755078155801.jpg (2.53 MB, 4000x5333)

2.53 MB JPG

still the best IEM out there

>>109264049
what are those and custom covers?

>>109264149
CrinEar Furry

>>109260857
tldr: Chu 2 keeps winning

>>109264049
what's the floid stuff?

Comfort > techs.

Hex > Storm

cute waifu>>>>>>>>

PEQdB>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>

>>109264373
you're not wrong, see >>109264185

HRT + JM-1 (-1/oct) >>>>>>>>>>>>>

>>109264214
comfort > looks > waifu > techs.

>>109264478
techs = looks + waifu

>>109264519
Techs = Driver Quality.
Drivers need to be fast. Beryllium DDs, balanced armatures, planars, ESTs. Preferably also many of them to eliminate IMD.
When these conditions are met, every technical ability, from details to soundstage and layering etc. will get better, even if the tuning itself is exactly the same as in a cheap 1DD.

>>109264557
>Driver Quality
completly irrelevant as long as you don't have a free airplane tier pos.
>Drivers need to be fast
also completly irrelevant on iems.
>from details to soundstage
that's just FR.
>even if the tuning itself is exactly the same as in a cheap 1DD.
again no, it's just about FR.

>>109264557
Driver quality is in the faceplate.

Sigh do we really have to post the distortion and dogshit multidriver IR again.

i recently bought a pair of LETSUOER S08s
i've been using them as my main pc earphones, but the cable is fucked to the point that the left earphone doesnt work anymore, im assuming from all the mild twisting i did when putting them on and off again, and this isnt the first time this happened to me with a pair of earphones
are there any cable manufacturers that make cables that dont get ruined from simple twisting?

>>109264606
do it

>>109264666
look in the recs, links are in the OP
Tripowin, Xhinks, Hakugay etc.

only a sad clown would have so many qualms navigating the blurred lines between their gear's technical competency and well/poorly-mixed audio.
neutral tuning gets you closer to the intended mix, but that only gets you so far if piss poor speakers are already giving you piss poor imaging.
poorly mixed audio will always sound poorly mixed, even on TOTL gear.
"as the artist intended" isn't a thing and is a marketing slogan of Beats by Dr. Droop or whatever.

File: 1780803549018037.png (2.22 MB, 604x3379)

2.22 MB PNG

>>109264684
Driver quality is when the quality is bad. Augment with R2R and tube amps.

File: 1767034751431604.png (946 KB, 1876x3240)

946 KB PNG

>>109264684

>>109264770
>neutral tuning gets you closer to the intended mix,
Mastering isn't mixing.

File: Screenshot 2026-01-19 014049.png (6 KB, 618x49)

6 KB PNG

>>109264780
maybe you should take up carpentry or something

>>109264802
and mixing isn't mastering. duh

>>109264804
>discussion about IEMs
>posts a screenshot about amps
Maybe you should go to an ophthalmologist.

>>109264812
Yeah, so we agree IEMs can't change imaging.

File: kasj.jpg (122 KB, 1246x200)

122 KB JPG

>>109264815
circular thinking

>>109264821
can speakers and headphones "change imaging"?

>>109264829
>posts the full version where it's clear it's about amps
Will you ever get tired of being retarded?

>>109264840
are you on dope?

I wonder if psychosis or certain meds like HRT and testosterone affect hearing?

>>109264856
You keep posting some retard that replied to an amp chart with an IEM THD chart. You can't comprehend that more than one person can post the same image. Hope this helps.

>>109264836
idk, ask in /hpg/. EQd hd600 has the same imaging as hd800 so probably not.

>>109264875
understanding what THD even is would help. he just saw the reply and thought you can't post this image in any context.

>>109264875
it would help if I was talking to someone with balls. apparently I'm not

>>109264912
There's more to life than balls, ballzo.

>>109264921
One knob, to rule them all.
One knob to find them.
One knob to bring them all,
and in the darkness bind them.

If we're talking about 2 channel stereo audio, of course.

File: 1780397299272206.jpg (153 KB, 1074x1197)

153 KB JPG

A) You can't EQ imaging
B) You can EQ imaging
Choose wisely.

>>109264872
idk but i have moderate to high test and all my iems are bassy. anecdotally this doesnt seem to be the case with hrt types

>>109264967
coloration/EQ can "affect" imaging cues, but that doesn't mean you're actually doing anything meaningful to what's already baked into an audio mix besides exaggerating things like footsteps for FPS, or room ambiance in a public speaking audio track, etc.
the cleaner a mix is depends on way more than keeping each element sitting cleanly in its place on the frequency spectrum and not interfering with anything else.
thinking you're doing the hard work by EQing at home is so much an afterthought that only an arrogant person would be ignorant enough to think they're doing the heavy lifting themselves.

hope this helps >>109264770

>>109265044
Only someone that never heard Storm would say this.

>>109264967
What does imaging mean?

>>109265073
I don't trust BA bass for shit, dawg.

>>109264790
>sharur
lmao

anyway, of course if you use an absolute pos you are gonna have distortion, that's not gonna happen on any reasonably good iem.

>>109264967
you actualy can, same for soundstage, both of those are just FR.

>>109265361
hello baitness, my old friend

>>109265327
Yeah, 1DDs don't have this problem.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jXhRVGKkdsA

>>109265163
It's the image on the faceplate.

>>109261001
What are those pills?

>>109265361
fr no cap?

holy.. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zLPBkrwM4G8

>>109265777
autist convention

>>109264557
>Drivers need to be fast.
how does one measure speed of a driver?
>When these conditions are met, every technical ability, from details to soundstage and layering etc. will get better
You say this as if it's an established fact... but in what way was it established?

>>109264666
ain't no way "mild twisting" is enough to fuck up cables that way...

>>109264770
>technical competency
is a clown term in the first place

>>109265512
it all comes down to FR at the eardrum.
in a perfect world if you had a good scan of your ear canal and the math to emulate it, you could emulate any iems / headphone with a cheap iem just by eq.

the only limitation to EQ your iems is treble can't perfectly be mapped easily (but close enough) and the software isn't aware of your exact anatomy.

though you could EQ by ear to imitate pm anything that's not too weird, in some case you may need some dynamic EQ but it still all come down to FR.

>>109266339
>it all comes down to FR at the eardrum
they really do not want to accept that for some reason. And when you ask wtf else is there the answer is silence or delusions

File: 1756727152624569.jpg (14 KB, 400x400)

14 KB JPG

I've been using the wrong EQ preset for my porta pro the whole time

and that's why steering is exhaustive when it comes to explaining how cars move!

>>109260841
can i get recommendations on a iem without a cable that hooks over your ear? i just want it to be like the classic earbuds

>>109266506
I honestly was both amazed and kinda disappointed when i found out i could eq my 50$ iems to sound better than my 1500$ open back planar headphones.

I still use them a lot as they are more comfortable when at home and i like the open feeling but i no longer feel like I'm missing on sound quality when I'm not at home.
The only reason i don't use iems full time is comfort.

>>109266537
You can use any iems you like with a Bluetooth module.
If you want a smaller package then you will need an all in one just don't get rayons lol.

>>109266506
yeah no one thinks this

File: IMG_20260713_222426.jpg (2.82 MB, 4000x5333)

2.82 MB JPG

>>109261350
Buy if above 50 IQ, don't buy if below 50 IQ.

>>109266522
I usally notice if EQ is wrong immediately (especially if it's music)

>>109266537
the way iems fit into your ear necesitate the over-ear loop.

>>109266566
thinks what

>>109266537
Bullet style IEMs.

>>109265433
400mg gabapentin according to the op

what is everyone using for parametric eq? is there an equivalent to equalizer APO for linux?

>>109266537
something like tin hifi c0 can be used like that

>>109266599
i thought you were talking about people not accepting that identical signals would sound identical

>>109266628
JamesDSP and you use the convolver option. It's great. I just switched to Loonix a week ago and I love it.

is there any reason to upgrade my punch audio portazo to a more expensive bass head iem

>>109266610
>>109266633
do you guys know if something like zero ultima would be good? this is my first time into iems kek

>>109266628
I use the built in PEQ of my DAC

>>109266549
No they aren't

>>109266628
Im using my Qudelix as DAC and Qudelix chrome app for parametric EQ.

>>109266693
>>109266700
You guys are extremely stinky with your virus apps and virus dacs.

>>109266628
Easyeffects

File: 1772214553805932.jpg (183 KB, 1340x745)

183 KB JPG

>>109266704
is this you?

holy shit balanced does sound better than single ended

>>109266746
>loud = better
rookie mistake

>>109266718
No I just don't use a chinese virus.

>>109266770
and you got this opinion on tik tok?

Still cringing at that one time I was riding the sub and some dude was thumbs upping while smiling and pointing at my DAC + IEM setup like a redditor while I was listening to music and I just ignored him. Sorry for ignoring you twin, that shit just made me uncomfortable.

>>109266786
No that's where we got you from.

>>109266796
I am not trying to seduce you when I dance they call me Macarena and the boys they say que estoy buena

>>109266768
its not just louder, idk how to describe it its like theres just more sound

>>109266809
Is this some shakira song?

>>109266824
you mean better imaging and separation?

>>109266824
>theres just more sound
About 6dB more to be precise.

>>109266643
not exactly
what do you call constant retardation about driver quality and techs that is not in FR
because a lot of people think that unironically

>>109266830
yes this
>>109266834
grow up

how can we spice up this thread?

>>109266746
it doesn't
>>109266824
bruh

File: 1763267245937206.png (100 KB, 268x271)

100 KB PNG

>>109266840
Match the volume.

>>109266698
They are.
In fact the bass response is better due to them being iems and it's also more detailed, you can't beat physics and there is a lot more signal loss between the diaphragm and your eardrum using headphones.

>>109266704
Equalizer314 on android
And easy effect on Linux.
You can just use foss.
Though I'm writing my own eq as i'd like something as featureful as peq studio but that directly works with pipewire.

>>109266824
Just match volume on both balanced and no-nbalanced with sound level meter and compare, dumbass. There's no additional sound. One is just a bit louder than the other.

>>109266863
>Equalizer314 on android

Wanted to shit on you but I forgot what the best EQ on android was becuase I haven't used it in ages.

>>109266849
grow up
>>109266852
i have, balanced sounds superior, have you never heard your iems though a balanced cable before? have you never A B tested them? there is an obvious difference even when matched to the same output volume

>>109266888
This one is pretty new, most people use wavelet but i only use foss stuff and that eq is has actually more features.

File: rn6.jpg (212 KB, 1080x1080)

212 KB JPG

imagine you could measure this extra bass vent and recreate it on fr with a iem without the mechanism. might be nice to think about for someone in case things have started to blur together

>>109266920
Might switch to that then. Shout out anon for the spoonfeed.

>>109266897
you haven't and it doesn't. audiophile toddler tier post.

>>109266897
you are so stupid you don't even understand what's happening when headphones play louder lmao
imbecilic
feel free to explain how "balanced sound" can improve anything
>have you never heard your iems though a balanced cable before
obviously
the only difference is that I can hear a noise floor with it LOL

>>109267005
>>109266980
grow up and maybe listen when you put in your pos every once and a while

>>109266549
>>109266856
headpos eternally btfo its over unironically

its ok we accept headpos refugees here but watch your step

>>109267017
you can't even say anything specific
grow up what? is it a codeword for being delusional? no thanks

shoving earwax deeper into your ear canal with IEMs but yeah somehow headpos btfod amirite

>>109267085
>shoving earwax deeper into your ear canal
that's a you problem

File: trvth.png (402 KB, 1600x900)

402 KB PNG

>anons who spend thousands of hours EQing and doing sine sweeps without any reference
>Air Pods Pro 2/3 chads who drag up and down 3 EQ bands to taste
Who would win ?

ichads already won without doing anything

>>109267431
EQ you only need to do it once, once you know your preferred target curve you can autoeq to that instantly on any new hardware.
Also if you have issues like something sounding muddy or hissy you won't be able to fix it with a 3 channel non parametric eq lol.

>>109260857
>>Graphs are not sound.
False. They literally explain sound as best we understand it.
>They don’t show staging, dynamics, or fit.
False. They show all of the above and more.

>Use your ears, not just squigs.
Ears, especially untrained ones which you undoubtedly have, have been proven to be worse for collecting objective results than even an uncalibrated frequency analysis.

Bought OnePlus Buds Pro 3 and they sound great out of the box, even better with an EQ, but they come with bonkers 300-400ms latency on my phone. Tried Earfun Air Pro 4+ which supposedly sound pretty good but I personally didn't enjoy the tuning out of the box. They sound better after an EQ but I still don't really like them, plus the frequency response changes when you enable ANC like my WF1000XM4s did which is annoying. What do I buy now? All I care about is audio quality, ANC/transparency and battery life.

Anon A: I like how this sounds


Anon B: Erm no you actually don't

>>109267864
nobody says that

>>109267890
>>109267670

>>109267864
this entire thread in a nutshell

>>109267941
it's only one anon being a relentless antagonizer