Previous Thread: >>109390789

/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.

Frog >>>>>> fox

>>109417381
IEMs are turning the fucking frogs gay.

I wish I had a frog maid

>>109412217
Maybe? I'd sooner buy 10 different $30 IEMs than 1 $300 IEM, because I have no reason to believe the $300 will sound better than any of those $30 IEMs. At least I'll have a better chance of getting a pair I like the sound of, that's not fatiguing and fits my ear and doesn't break. I guess the more disposable income I have the more I'll tend to buy more expensive IEMs, but I think it's a tapering off curve. If I earnt ten times what I do now, maybe I'd try out some $100 IEMs instead of $30 ones.

For now I'm enjoying my CCA Trio and Truthear Gate, to the point I have no desire to try anything else.

>>109414376
So long as the resistance of the wire is significantly less than the impedance of the speaker, you're fine. Factor of 10 is what I'd use for engineering, go factor of 100 if you're pedantic, doubt you'll come out much thicker than 12ga.

File: 0072IByLgy1ifn61ctf6tj31h(...).jpg (2.32 MB, 1939x1295)

2.32 MB JPG

Headpos won

>>109417569
>I have no reason to believe
the absolute state of poorfags itt. I'm fucking done with this 3rd world hugbox for retards. I could understand making claims from direct comparisons but this is another level and I don't want to be associated with subhumans who make such claims.

>>109417569
>>109418743
$300 IEMs sound worse actually. As someone that owns multiple and heard dozens. Avoid BA pos at all costs.

>trust me bro
post pictures Rajesh

File: IMG_20260405_113426.jpg (3.8 MB, 4000x3000)

3.8 MB JPG

>>109418979
Costs more than your house, saar.

>>109417569
I see that my post from yesterday broke few minds heer
But hypothetical situation.
Would you rather have 10 iems for 30 usd each or 10 iems for 300-500 USD each?
Next question
Would you rather have 10 iems for 300-500 each or 10 iems for 1000-2000each?

I wasn't saying u have to spend your living cash on fucking iems. I was saying that given a chance and unlimited budget everyone here would be balls deep into sumit fi iems, headphones, amplifier, DACs, DAPs and so on.
I'm having usually around 2-3 sets for 100-500 USD, usually trying to flip one for another just not to get bored but If I would have enough money I would do it but with +1000usd iems.

And as I said, EQ is for poor people, it's even done cheapest way possible, not thru nice DAPs or DACs but with trash tier DSP cables from AliExpress or vibecoded app.
EQ is ultimate mark of a poorfag and very 3rd world coded. Living even in poorest eu countries you can buy headpos and iems good enough to avoid EQ

>>109419010
Lime ears terra opinion?

File: IMG_20260731_171436170_HDR.jpg (2.63 MB, 4096x3072)

2.63 MB JPG

>>109419010
I don't know what does it trying to prove in $300 vs $30 argument. I don't know what's the leftmost but rest is like what? 3-4K?
>Costs more than your house
Caught. I'm already away for the weekend and only took these modest pos.

>>109419218
>>109419233
There's exactly 0 $300+ IEMs that I'd like to own, even for free. When you can actually try this stuff instead of just dreaming about it it's not so magical. If an IEM more comfortable than mine and closer to my personal target existed I'd already own it. Expensive headphones and speakers at least have better distortion. Expensive IEMs got nothing.

File: images (1).jpg (42 KB, 480x639)

42 KB JPG

>go outside with small IEMs and a dongle
>it just works
>go outside with an audiophile stack
>get arrested

>>109419284
So wtf are u here instead of buying wireless earbud with superb comfort, EQing it to your target and call it a day.

When u actually try this stuff u take it for granted, any downgrade is painfull, that's why u don't see guys that tried higher end gear and went back to cheapest stuff possible. People just like nice things and gk kunten isn't exactly nice, it's plastic.

>>109419464
Tws don't have better comfort, the weight is concentrated in one place, and if the tips are oval they collapse when you're lying on your back.
>that's why u don't see guys that tried higher end gear and went back to cheapest stuff possible
Super review tried everything and his main IEM is Lan.

>>109419502
He sleeps with iems man, of course that smallest one will be his fav. He also shilled lots of stuff like volume s or lumen , hard to say which one is his fav but it's far from one and done 5usd shitbud

I donth think he can say something is his favorite when reviewers like him are on constant rotation trying to catch up with new things.
U can't say cheapest one is his favorite when he has like 50k USD if not more in iems and other gear he have

>>109419597
If were to also sleep with IEMs I'd be spending like 18 hours a day with IEMs. I guess if you aren't as invested you spend more time in the discovery stage of IEMs. Learning to EQ is nothing on my timescale.

>>109419502
>Super review
guy who listens to the shit that would sound good run from cardboard box hooked to potato.
I too enjoy my Akatsuki Records from Rosemary but come on.

remember that TOTLzo rated Asperger Hane 9/10, and most kilobucks barely reach 8.

>>109419841
No, I'm not that invested. I probably have something with adhd because I have lots of problems with focusing on my work so I can't really listen to anything at that time because my output is abysmal even without it
Usually I'm listening when I'm playing games or drawing so maybe 1-2h per day and that's not everyday.
And if u treat that hobby like that you can chew thru maybe 2-3 pairs of iem per year. Currently I'm stuck with last years stuff and binary mems is on the way to me but I think that's it for this year. And I don't need EQ at all, I don't listen that much so even brighter stuff isn't really annoying to me. And if peaks are so annoying that it really requires eq for me it's just trash product don't worth my money and into returns it goes. Had that few times, usually with headphones

Holy shit you poor fags are pathetic. Imagine buying a $20 cable, you poor third worlders, because you can't afford a $10K cable. And you call yourselves audiophiles.

>>109420141
retard

>10k cable
heh, I don't believe in that made up nonsense
>10k IEM
:O

>>109419879
>>109419966
>reviewers who actually heard all the expensive and cheap shit and can discern between them
vs.
>an anon
shut the fuck up.

>>109421399
if you don't like embarrassing contradictions, then don't make them. someone had to call it out.

>>109421425
I didn't make any. You're a reviewer simp so I just called you a cuck.

>>109421432
defending the embarrassing contradictions make one just as culpable in the embarrassment. it took you no less than 2 minutes to reply so obviously you really are feeling some type of way about it.
I'm embarrassed for you.

>they care about sound quality
lol! https://www.soundguys.com/how-to-choose-earbuds-160652/

>>109420962
Anon mogs, where do you think you are.

>>109421472
I accept your concession.

File: 1761864867440870.png (49 KB, 581x496)

49 KB PNG

>reviewers who actually heard all the expensive and cheap shit and can discern between them
vs.
>an anon
shut the fuck up.

>>109421618
you just went from
>you're a reviewer simp
to
>now I'm a reviewer simp
you're not really thinking this through, anon.

>>109417472
Who are you quoting? Don't post shit that could be instantly turned against you if you don't want to be called out.

Yo bro spamming reports doesn't mean you accepted any concession. It means you lost and you're mad. I'm listening to anon over any fuckass reviewer. Always get good and objective advice from my mans anon. Stay cucked.

>"I don't take glowing reviews of IEMS seriously when they go against my opinion"
>"I take negative reviews of IEMS seriously when they agree with my opinion"
the spin. the logic. the irony.

>>109421717
>>109421674

>>109421748
He says as he does exactly that.

>>109421765
elaborate, please. are you really failing to see the contradiction?
your feelings might be clouding your judgement, if I'm being frank.

File: 1761871118481056.jpg (104 KB, 1000x1000)

104 KB JPG

>>109417472
t.

>>109421795
I'm seeing it just fine. You worship reviewers except this one reviewer. There's no world where
>>109420962
and
>>109421618
are not equivalent.

>>109421812
>>109421748 <---Explains it very succinctly and you're spinning it into a twisted, childlike defensive posture, for some reason and it's working against you. Embarrassingly so.
You really missed the plot on this one.

>>109421914
What's your youtube channel lil guy? I wanna watch your reviews.

>>109421914
It explains why you lost. If you say >>109420962 then you must believe in >>109421618

>understands that the post that's repeating him is wrong
>doesn't understand that his post is wrong for the exact same reason
it's like watching those videos of kids where they say the tall glass has more water

>>109421929
>It explains why you lost.
you're entirely and utterly incorrect in your assumption. we're past this being an argument. you should reread the entire exchange a few times over so that it finally sinks in.
unless denial is your forte.. which obviously, >>109421980
it is. well, I'm going to have to accept your concession on this one last time, unless you really feel the need to cope some more. this was truly the easiest quibble of the thread so far. anything else?

File: 1781575518034804.png (462 KB, 1079x633)

462 KB PNG

>>109422169
You're not even trying to argue anymore, you just look at me like this.

>>109422197
I feel vindicated. You brought this on yourself and there's no turning back.
I highly suggest you thoroughly read the exchange so that you don't make the same mistakes again. Take care

>>109422295
I accept your concession.

File: 655e0fa544c67c1ee5ce0ccc_(...).jpg (73 KB, 500x377)

73 KB JPG

>>109422300
Never gave it to you. But here's a token of my appreciation anyway.

>>109421929
Many, Many people lost. The techs are in the driver and no one can measure why. There are no good looking cumulative spectral decay waterfalls of a multidriver pos. Crin can't get this out of the most r&d heavy oem groups either. Maybe in a few years. Warp speed to nothing? N+1 drivers makes it measure worse? Techs are in the drivers.
If you have a significantly better driver package why would you struggle selling to a tiny headfi market anyways.
There is nothing unique for a reviewer to share besides their feelings and measurement flaws. Vanishingly few people can actually store techs in their brains to do ab comparison, as the hypothesis predicts: ab(x) is beyond the scope of your head. As IR=FR, your HRTF is your experience. A better driver won't cure God's crudest sense.
What remains is the cargo cult.
The reviewers have done a good job of steering the enthusiast product tunings.
Can you prefer V2K or lasers exciting your nerves for more fidelity by removing HRTF entirely.

> Son of man, in the midst of the rebellious house thou art dwelling, that have eyes to see, and they have not seen; ears they have to hear, and they have not heard; for a rebellious house [are] they.

>>109422398
Neural interfaces will be even more difficult to tune than IEMs since you'll have to assume the inner ear anatomy too. Fidelity isn't the same thing as accuracy. Most music is made to be played on speakers in a room, that's the accurate way to hear it, even if the fidelity is lower.

>this one reviewer tried expensive iems and prefers cheap ones
somehow this says everything about all expensive iems and nothing about this reviewer

>>109422295
the only mistake is you assuming anybody here gives a shit about what crinacle says instead of realizing you're being mocked with your own logic. but you also wrote this reddit shit >>109417469 so the complete lack of self-awareness checks out.

>>109422527
this doesn't say anything. imagine caring about reviewers.

File: file.png (1.02 MB, 2248x767)

1.02 MB PNG

I was on the fence between the Moondrop Pudding and Golden Age 2, but I guess I'll wait, stumbled onto this while searching for their upcoming model we don't know much of yet
https://fccid.io/2AY45-MD-TWS-042-L

Funny how we get absolutely everything from the FCC, down to the internal components, circuits, chips and even the waifu packaging. I don't understand shit about the 9000 pages irradiation report but I'll trust the chink, surely they have my well being in mind.

>>109422540
>the only mistake is you assuming anybody here gives a shit about what crinacle says.
if this were true, you wouldn't be using his talking points as ammo for your "argument". see >>109421618
oopsies.
>so the complete lack of self-awareness checks out.
yes, on your part. anything else? tell us more of your delusion so I can shut it down again.

>>109422656
you correctly quoted the posted that's mocking you, now read my post again.

>>109422608
I heard bass distortion on the original golden ages so I don't trust their planar platform, but maybe they improved it in 2 and here.

>>109422674
no wonder your tantrum posts got deleted. you're in a thought loop you seriously cannot get out of.
you have my pity.

>>109422699
always projection with you. you thinking that that post agrees with crinacle is entirely a you problem. nobody said that.

>>109422719
anything else before we move on? get it all off your chest in one post if you could, please. this general deserves better.

>>109422739
no, I rest my case. feel free to throw another tantrum.

>>109422754
the pleasure was all mine

>>109420194
well that's completely different. the IEM has better materials and engineering.

File: 1776981202907011.jpg (778 KB, 3114x1122)

778 KB JPG

>>109422885
>the better material

>>109422955
nta, but that ali speaker doesn't come with crossovers. it's more about how well it is implemented in the overall package than the speaker by itself.

File: IMG_20241021_021832.jpg (2.07 MB, 4000x5333)

2.07 MB JPG

>>109421487
Real sound quality is in the faceplate.

There's no headphone general anymore.

Someone recommended me the Sennheiser 400 series but I have a fan blowing in my office so open-ear probably isn't gonna work. What's the best soundstage on a pair of closed-ear headphones?

Also I don't know where else to ask this but is the iCON USoloLive a good XLR interface?

>>109423121
that's cope

>>109423991
what are you arguing for, driver quality? lol

>>109423309
Sennheiser HD 480 Pro

>[...]at a certain point with headphones or speakers, it's just personal preference for the different ways of designing these things, which does change the comfort and sound color.[...] And I don't want to go into measurements because I don't think that's really going to help you, because measurements will only get you so far.
Measurebators lost.
https://youtu.be/S2PZSmEfeJw

>>109424128
now in ear measurements can take you pretty far

File: kek.png (417 KB, 1358x764)

417 KB PNG

>>109424204
Wow, now you can see 5-10dB swings due to positional variation. Just use your ears, lil bro. It's not that hard...

>>109424128
Comfort is king as always

>>109424308
>Just use your ears, lil bro.
n-no...
>It's not that hard...
it is...

*BRAAAAAAAAAAAAAPPP*
Can your EQ fix that?

i'd get a mysticraft myth but fuck paying 300 bucks for broker fees and import tax

i would like hiby to update the firmware on the r1 midi
i have the normal r1's 1.6 firmware on mine, but i want the old midi theme back

>>109425009
Monarch MKIV owns this fraud

>>109425009
where u can buy it? i think it was sold out everywhere. Welcome to EU, its better to buy from china thru hifigo and linsoul because they avoid paying vat tax so everything is cheaper

>>109425009
many retailers and most who sell used are happy to underdeclare

asians especially seem to just do it automatically

File: HHs2yX8bYAA__Sh.jpg (1008 KB, 4096x2730)

1008 KB JPG

Headphones general is dead so seeking advice here

What are some good looking headphones? Things you could convincingly wear for style.
I'm looking for great sound quality and audio localisation, but most audiophile hphones look like hunks of busy plastic.
I like the glossy and sleek look of pic related, and the red LED is cool (I know the headphones themselves are shit, I checked)

>>109424308
This is why you can't buy by reviews and graphs and why you must EQ by ear.

File: 1769049015906702.png (533 KB, 554x554)

533 KB PNG

>>109426715

>>109426715
>Muh looks of headphones
When do you transition?

>>109426826
>I'm a man so everything I wear should look like horrid diarrhea shit

>>109426931
There's less than 10 headphones in existence with "great sound quality". Good luck finding something that doesn't look like "hunks of busy plastic" among them and then having the money to buy that, Newfag retardbro

>>109426715
hd 800
audeze lcd line
mdr z1r
sennheiser he-1
denon ah-d5000
r70xa
dan clark aeon
focal clear/utopia
mdr cd900st
stax x9000
stax sr007/009
stax lambda
hd 600
stax omega/sigma
audio technica w1000/5000s
(basically just buying for looks alone) beyerdynamic anything

some might be stretching what you find as good, but with a question like this i just assume you mean better than gaming headsets/anc trash

File: headphones,higher res.jpg (527 KB, 1920x1200)

527 KB JPG

>>109427032
forgot pic

>>109426715
thats AI, you should ask AI about that or ask if it could generate u headphones u want

File: 610QCeypRnL.jpg (96 KB, 1600x1600)

96 KB JPG

>>109427121
It's not AI jeetbro, her @ is Shirase_Rin. She does cosplay photoshoots.
The headphones are also real (but fucking horrible)

>>109427032
I like how beyers look, but I heard they are way too bright. Still worth?
I'll check out the rest of the list, thanks :)

>>109427149
>I like how beyers look, but I heard they are way too bright.
yeah all of them are, even 1770/1990 with retarded peaks, if any of them make sense to buy then its the dt 770 because all closed backs suck anyway, but they dont sound good in my opinion, but everyone is different and the unit variation is pretty high

if it was me and i removed the more retarded $ choices i'd pick one of these, they are from cheapest to most exp
hd 6x0 line > r70x > aeon > lcd 2/x > hd 800
closed back would be a different discussion because i think they are all not worth buying until ive been proven a good one exists, at least for my tastes

>>109427149
Maybe Moondrop stuff, looks pretty neat but they are heavy and require amps. Other look I really like is aune ar5000, Dan Clark stuff, they even using piano black on few headphones.
And most of that shit isn't really portable, leaks sounds like crazy, requires amp and if u really need something to show it's better to steer away from these into lifestyle wireless ANC headphones

File: unnamed.jpg (29 KB, 512x339)

29 KB JPG

>>109427254
if we are only talking about looks, then it's simple, there is only one option

>>109427254
I've never looked into lifestyle headphones. Thanks though, I'm mostly listening to music on my PC when I use headphones, so stuff being cumbersome isn't really a concern
Are Sony BT ones good, audiophile autism wise? I've also heard a lot of criticism for Moondrop recently

>>109427305
>I've also heard a lot of criticism for Moondrop recently
every single chinese heaphone/amp company is horrible and you should avoid them liek they are a plague
it's one thing if your $20 chu2 dies, no one cares and iem culture is just pure consumerism where it's funko pops 101, people probably dont even notice if 1 of their 50 $20 iems is dead in a drawer, but headphone audio shit is expensive and adds up even if you just need parts, let alone total death
it really is never worth the gamble to buy anything but the actual good products in the field, and it's not a long list of options really, i basically put them all in my initial list minus a few

>bt
basically anything anc headphone is just going to be tuned for normalfags who want +20db bass but some models might have variation i guess, but if your going to go down that way you might as well get beyers to not have a battery die next your ear, least you never have to worry about replacing it

>>109427305
Maybe audeze Maxwell 2, good sound, good headset, nice looking, wireless.

>>109424956
Why did you buy brapping pos...

File: Screenshot_20260801-105551-964.png (188 KB, 720x1220)

188 KB PNG

>>109417381
100
Music and media
No preference
N/a
What kind of headphones should I get if I just want to listen to sound
Are these good? I was going to go with the air pods 4 for 99 but I'm not sure

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SunSpAbG9dA

File: f74chcvizngh1.png (2.53 MB, 3414x1880)

2.53 MB PNG

>>109429108
mogged by Jay
Samsung IO 69 is dogshit plagued by knockoffs. TanchXixtas always get the same IEM.

>>109429222
nice. we're going back to trusting the very people that have actually tried out all the tiers of IEMS.

>>109429222
Pokemon card collecting but u won't make any money in long run and u are going deaf
It's good to be wired headphones enthusiast, truly elite hobby without being infested by chinks pumping endless stream of plastic shit and jeets fighting over it. IEMs are fast fashion of audiophile hobby and literally feel good trinkets for 3rd worlders.
Meanwhile I will enjoy my full size open back dynamic driver headphones with german and japanese engineering heritage

>>109430177
>3rd worlders
developing nations count as 3rd world nations, too, no doubt.

>It's good to be wired headphones enthusiast, truly elite hobby

Why is this retarded headpos user posting in the iem general?

>>109430661
Saar pleas buy new Tanchjim Ola 10 with newest curry coated dynamic driver, totally different than 9 previous models. Thanks saar, please do the needfull

>>109430661
because the headphones general is fucking dead and this is the closest thing to it
You are still free to discuss your chinese toys

>>109430177
Enjoy your hair loss lmao

>>109430768
I'm bald, to much testosterone. Still better than estrogen injections from plastic shells inside my ears

>>109430177
>Meanwhile I will enjoy my full size open back dynamic driver headphones with german and japanese engineering heritage
absolutely based

File: 1770141037450591.jpg (12 KB, 279x180)

12 KB JPG

>baldy is malding that his thread is dead

>>109430875
Show hairs ( hope they are not greesy and black)

I love listening to garbage.

if Harman showed different tuning preferences for male and female subjects, do those preferences change for trans people??????

>>109431303
whatever sounds best for lolicore or one of the retarded breakcore subgenres, thats their curve

>>109431453
what I mean is, if an individual starts off with one preference because they are one gender, does the preference change after they transition??

>>109431592
doubtful but not impossible
preference can change depending on time of day or mood lol

>>109431592
Yes. Trannies follow a certain pattern once the estrogen is high enough:
>Get aroused with JM-1 + some tilt adherence and 5128 data
>Allergic to bass shelf
>Love to larp as audio knowledge
>Addicted to sine sweeps and per-channel EQ

>>109431663
>preference can change depending on time of day or mood
is this accounted for in the Harman studies?

>>109419365
dudes out here walking around listening to bangers on his ghostbusters proton pack™ aka particle accelerator like its completely normal

File: chifi.jpg (329 KB, 1257x894)

329 KB JPG

just coming up on 3 months in the hobby how am i doing?

>>109432420
3 months, my ass.

>>109432420
what show is big pimp watching over there?

>>109432420
mental illness

File: Screenshot_20260802_12202(...).jpg (206 KB, 719x720)

206 KB JPG

im tempted to get this. should i?

>>109433201
if those were real all the overwatch incels would buy them, especially if they had ears on them

File: 20260802_123009_copy_1200x1600.jpg (144 KB, 1200x1600)

144 KB JPG

>>109433223
yeah, well...

>>109433251
>its real
okay fair point, they would buy literally anything

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UxLLmj1vIaM

>>109434244
i never know what is going on with sharur, but i like the effect he has on people
telling redditors they can only buy two headphones, $5 shitbuds or lcd 5's always makes me laugh

How quiet does my room need to be to justify open-ear headphones?

>>109434268
is the ambient volume doesn't bother you with no audio playing thro a headphone or iem you are fine usually, but if you have loud fans or black people around u it can be questionable

wtf makes an iem a "gaming" iem?

>>109434332
marketing fluff term mostly, but if it gives you an advantage in FPS, in that sense you could call it a gaming IEM.

>>109434268
I can even use them with gaming PC on full went cooling. Some of them are semi open but what I tried was so open that there was close to zero effect on sounds coming from outside so if its loud around you I would go for closed backs or iems

>>109434244
why doesn't he go to a canjam and position himself close to the subtonic booth or something? let totl copers hear this thing and make some money

it's time to puncture these scam brands i think

oh he's banned? that's convenient. maybe someone could go on his behalf then or something. if you're sitting on a hobby killer like this you'd wanna get it out there i guess

>>109434856
does he even heard more expensive stuff? or he is just like most jeets here so priced out around 10 usd with mindset that it must be sumitfi then and everything more is scam?

>>109434961
he, like many dumbasses, fell for the Moondrop Variations meme.

>>109434961
he owns very expensive headphones (lcd 5) and has been to canjams so i assume he has. but yes these are the best earphones in the world and presumably he expects a large portion of listeners to agree if they were exposed to it

>>109435309
Oh ok, that's weird, he owns audezes flagship and shills plastic akg stuff. How does he chooses stuff to shill? Based on what? Because if he likes lcd5 there is tons of natural sounding headphones for cheaper, based on his video thumbnails he thinks most of that stuff is scam, jet he is using one of the most expensive examples. How this is adding up inside his head?

>>109435440
don't know. got to assume he bought it at least partly for credibility and memes

And another question, what's he doing for living? Because spaming yt with hundreds of videos that industry you are interested in is a scam isn't exactly best way to get job inside that industry. Like I can't imagine someone is hiring him near audio stuff after looking up on his yt.

>>109435440
Based on sound quality with EQ. It should be able to play movie level volumes without distortion(rules out most headphones) and it should have low noise isolation(his entire reason for shilling those akgs with dogshit QC).

>>109435440
he just likes making people upset
he make a 6 min vid saying how bad a topping amp was because his controllers batterys were dead and all the redditors lost their minds over it
who even knows if he actually likes anything including the lcd 5s because he lives in a permanent state of trolling
he has or had a reddit page to ask for headphone advice where one of the mods was identified purely by being a guy with worn pad dt 990's, and every anwer they gave to peoples questions was a shitpost

>>109435281
He bought it(and later Nova) during his "EQ=cope" stage but 1DD+EQ is so obviously superior he stopped using it,

>>109429222
>chu 2 in top tier
Chuzo won.

>>109436755
>1DD+EQ is so obviously bait and cope
what's inferior is some people's hearing ability/psychoacoustics perception.
and you agreeing with Sharur on anything is laughable. opinion discarded

>>109434623
Well I have a fairly loud fan on most of the time, because its hot as fuck here and I think that if I lowered the temperature anymore I'd be paying double in power costs.

>>109438055
no eq and no iems, opinion discarded

File: file.png (24 KB, 1210x138)

24 KB PNG

>>109438055
How good should one's hearing be to prefer objectively inferior BA pos?

File: file.png (229 KB, 1225x691)

229 KB PNG

>>109424308
Meanwhile a "bad" IEM.

>>109438083
I accept your concession, thanks.
>>109438213
does Storm have objectively bad distortion?

File: 68747470733a2f2f73332e616(...).gif (105 KB, 220x165)

105 KB GIF

EQ is only good for cranking up the bass when you wanna rock out with your cock out. Other than that, *pic related*

>>109438588
>does Storm have objectively bad distortion?
Is water wet?
>>109438603
Calm down gramps.

>>109438671
>Is water wet?
Dp you mind showing us these distortion plots for Storm?

only retards "eq in" frequencies. only right way is to "eq out". you're supposed to reduce distortion, not add it.

>>109438760
If your EQ "adds" distortion you forgot negative preamp. You compensate by increasing the overall volume. If it distorts at that volume it would distort without EQ as well.

why is epz g10 so good, bros?

>>109438061
So be prepared to hear that when u using open backs. Due to that noise floor u can lose bit of background information but overall if it doesn't bother you u can buy open backs. I don't have any problem with loud PC in background and personally like being able to hear what is happening around me when Im using headphones

>>109438760
in/out doesn't really make sense as it is arbitrary to media as a whole. “In” vs. “out” doesn’t really make sense as a universal rule. every YouTube video, film, album, individual track, game, etc. can have a completely different frequency balance baked into its mix, so objectively speaking, neutral targets are the key to consistency (and techs if the mix calls for it).
this is why I always say the more a speaker's FR strays from neutral, the more skewed the audio's intended mix can and will be. but if you're just trying to achieve tonal preference more than caring about what is more correct to the audio, that's totally fine too.

preference is subjective, the purpose of a reference is not

Myth, Dawn -X, Crimson or Europa? inb4 Que

>>109439007
The problem is IEMs don't and can't have "a reference", since they change their sound depending on who's using them.

>>109439063
I get your point, but human variations being inconsistent doesn't mean that consistent implementation of sound means nothing at all. reference doesn't *have* to produce identical results for every single person, because it's just a starting point for consistency. otherwise, individual variations would be an argument against having any reference at all, which doesn't track.

>>109439166
You can have a reference on speakers since they don't do that.

>>109439176
but that doesn't mean IEMs can't have a reference tho. it means the reference has a wider margin of individual variations around it.
do you really want to say HRTF research, ear simulators, coupler measurements, and IEM targets are pointless because no two people hear the exact same thing?

>>109439261
Reference doesn't have any margins. Preference does.

>bro can't use a multimeter to match the voltage
embarrassing
https://youtu.be/FLFpg0wQ81E

>>109439319
Useless since IEMs have different sensitivity. No excuse for not using his rig though.

Yeap, speakers are superior. Second are headphones because they still interacting with your own ears despite being flawed in that regard and worst for reference and natural sound are IEMs because they have to artificially emulate amplification effect of your own ears and us we know if something is designed to work for everyone it's just shite.

>>109439349
nvm, since it's the same IEM you can use a multimeter

>>109439299
>Reference doesn't have any margins
reference can have variations around it. reference as a baseline doesn't have to be an exact endpoint for every individual.

>>109439409
The reference is a flat-on axis speaker with controlled off-axis. Nothing individual.

There are preference bounds for speakers just like for headphones and IEMs, it's just not the reference.

>>109439421
ok but that's a reference playback system, not an argument that IEMs can't have a reference target.

>>109439451
The argument is IEMs change depending on who's using them unlike speakers. Imagine if you entered a room and the speaker got a midrange dip for everyone else in the room. That's what happens with IEMs. The device itself changes.

>>109439478
that's not really the device itself changing. the IEM's output doesn't change because another person puts it in their ear, the acoustic coupling between the IEM and that person's ear changes and it's the same for speakers too.
speakers have a measured output but the room and listening positions affect what reaches a listener.
it doesn't invalidate having a standard reference for IEMs. you're conflating “the reference doesn't perfectly predict every individual's perception” with “there is no reference.” neutral or the least amount of coloration added to any audio being thrown at a transducer, is the reference.
I should have said transducers from the get-go, rather than speakers because you took it at face value thinking I'm talking about bookshelf speakers or something.

>>109439650
An in-room speaker response cannot be a reference. An anechoic room response is a reference. Two flat on-axis speakers in an anechoic room will have the same response at the eardrum. Two IEMs won't. The ear canal is as important as the cabinet of the speaker. With bad seal even IEM distortion changes. And it's not just about the seal quality, but the geometry and acoustic impedance too.

>>109439650
And saying "transducer" would make your post literally meaningless. There's no such thing as a reference transducer. A transducer will have a different frequency response depending on the cabinet volume.

the "I can hear drivers" meme needs to die

File: endgame.jpg (998 KB, 4032x3024)

998 KB JPG

>PEQdB Diamond β was then evaluated against three comparison targets in an online, loudness-normalized, blind A/B shootout: PEQdB Ultra, Knowles, and Harman IE 2019. Results were analyzed separately for in-ear and over-ear headphone entries. Listeners were identified by browser cookies, yielding 704 in-ear listeners across 870 completed entries and 489 over-ear listeners across 592 completed entries. Each listener was normalized to contribute a total weight of one within each headphone category, preventing repeat entries from dominating the aggregate results

We already have the best reference.

>>109439785
good morning, sir

>>109439650
but you can't really make flat IEM... because it doesn't interact with half of HRTF you can make it flat only on individual level.
flat speakers with good off-axis response will be proffered in all situations - good room, bad room, 1 speaker, 2 speakers etc.
flat tuned IEMs will lose to literally anything else
reference target for IEMs is complicated because it's hard to agree on what it even should be. If ie2019 and SG similarly preferred despite being very different which one should be the reference?

>>109439870
crinear reference isn't flat?

well fuck me running then.

>>109439914
Bro fell for the oldest trick in the book.

>>109439785
true
https://youtu.be/q0ttxNEE1P4

File: 1754605067470781.jpg (129 KB, 1072x874)

129 KB JPG

>>109439785
"we averaged 700 races and found the best race"

>>109438333
fucking 8k dip for it to measure well on 711 couplers is CRAZY
is moondrop retarded or what?

File: you.png (21 KB, 1200x1206)

21 KB PNG

>>109439785
>>PEQdB Diamond β was then evaluated against three comparison targets in an online, loudness-normalized, blind A/B shootout: PEQdB Ultra, Knowles, and Harman IE 2019. Results were analyzed separately for in-ear and over-ear headphone entries. Listeners were identified by browser cookies, yielding 704 in-ear listeners across 870 completed entries and 489 over-ear listeners across 592 completed entries. Each listener was normalized to contribute a total weight of one within each headphone category, preventing repeat entries from dominating the aggregate results

>We already have the best reference.

>>109439914
>crinear reference isn't flat?
not universally no

>>109431286
I only listen to real music
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=b0RWxcdttx0

https://youtu.be/OOFdmdHvOKc?t=542
w-wow... techs lost (again)

This is not a subscription feed for your or your favourite nano celeb's YouTube channel. Nobody wants to see that shit. I know some jannie lurks these threads often. Why does xhe let this happen?

>>109440529
>reccs sine sweep but no warning about the volume, noobs will get hearing damage and tinnitus.
>repeats the same ear canal stuff for the 115th time
wow what a nice review, no wonder ppl would rather buy from bloom audio

>>109440557
it's on topic review of a popular moondrop TWS, faggot.

>>109440452
so why is it called Reference then ??

>>109441212
anon is being nitpicky. even reference bookshelf speakers are called reference, despite variations in different listeners' HRTFs and "FR at the eardrum", etc. don't let them move the goalposts and make their own definitions

>>109441212
because crin named it so?
>>109441319
not appropriate comparison.
flat speakers are flat
flat IEMs are strictly NOT flat
HRTF differences have no bearing on speaker performance for the most part
>don't let them move the goalposts and make their own definitions
bro you are retarded lol do you really want to argue? think a bit more about it instead

>>109442197
I'm not letting you argue against something I never said a flat IEM is the same as a flat speaker, or that HRTF variations have the same magnitude for both. my point was that individual variations don't logically mean an IEM can't have a reference. a reference target can define a standard transducer response even when the final acoustic transfer function is different between listeners.
that's literally why we need to distinguish the transducer's response from the listener's HRTF/coupling.
having competing targets and disagreements over what an optimal IEM target should be doesn't explain away that IEMs can't have references. it just shows that there are competing reference standards. you seem to confuse different claims altogether.

>>109442197
nobody is arguing that IEM references are not equivalent to a flat speaker reference.

>>109442322
>my point was that individual variations don't logically mean an IEM can't have a reference
I'd say it is not established if they can or can't. But currently they don't.
> a reference target can define a standard transducer response even when the final acoustic transfer function is different between listeners
what is it a reference for then? 5128? average HRTF? preference like ie 2019?
>that's literally why we need to distinguish the transducer's response from the listener's HRTF/coupling.
Everybody with a brain make that distinction already. Who's "we"? Either way "transducer's" response" is less relevant than what people actually hear.
>>109442333
"IEM reference" is pretty meaningless because of reasons I already stated

>>109442402
you're making this way more of a semantic anal-retentive thing than it needs to be. how bout you define "reference" for us?
if you're just saying “IEM references aren't universal and more complicated than loudspeaker references,” then I agree w that. if you're saying, “but IEMs can't really have a reference at all”, then I disagree.
a reference doesn't have to produce the same perceptual result for every single listener or even be universally preferred. it can be a baseline in a measurement/target framing.

>>109442511
>then I disagree
what is your argument tho?
>a reference doesn't have to produce the same perceptual result for every single listener or even be universally preferred. it can be a baseline in a measurement/target framing.
why tho? who that product will be for? Again there's no real agreement what it should be. So now what? You are making a reference via some arbitrary understanding? (like what crin did) If you make JM-1 reference via 5128 and most people won't hear it as such then why the fuck do we need it?

>>109442599
if JM-1 measured a certain way on 5128 doesn't produce the exact same perceived response for every person, that tells you something about the limits of the measurement/target relationship and individual HRTF variations, not that having a common target is useless.
the point of a common target is to give everybody a shared baseline to measure and communicate against. it doesn't have to be a perfect prediction of every individual's perception to be useful
otherwise we'd be left with “everyone hears differently, so there is no meaningful baseline”. which is exactly what I've been disagreeing with this whole time.

https://www.forbes.com/sites/marksparrow/2026/05/21/fidelity-collective-buys-up-westone-audio-and-etymotic-brands/

I'm surprised that there is still a market for such outdated and overpriced products.

>>109442692
>if JM-1 measured a certain way on 5128 doesn't produce the exact same perceived response for every person, that tells you something about the limits of the measurement/target relationship and individual HRTF variations
irrelevant. I'm talking in practical terms.
>the point of a common target is to give everybody a shared baseline to measure and communicate against
use case?
>to be useful
for what
>otherwise we'd be left with “everyone hears differently, so there is no meaningful baseline”
that's exactly what we are left with currently. Well it's not exactly "everybody hears differently".
>which is exactly what I've been disagreeing with this whole time
you are disagreeing but you are not providing any arguments at all

>>109443154
>irrelevant.
explain why before I repeat myself.
explain why flat speakers are flat and IEMS "strictly are not flat" before we talk in circles again.

>>109443309
>explain why before I repeat myself.
because it doesn't matter?
the matter of the fact is that there's no real common target. like factually it is the case.
>explain why flat speakers are flat and IEMS "strictly are not flat" before we talk in circles again.
speakers are flat because they measure flat. your HRTF will not change that. They will be preferred by most people.
Flat IEMs literally can not be flat because they bypass ear interaction and need to be tuned to compensate for that. They need to sound flat not be flat.

File: 1644970044167.jpg (115 KB, 802x738)

115 KB JPG

So cheap foams were a bust. They do have memory foam properties which is an upgrade from fake foams. But they last only a few weeks, less than a month later my foams fully expand in just a couple seconds. Basically no better than the old fake foams.

>>109443309
if u measure speakers with microphone and they have flat fq response they are flat, that sound in route to your year is mangled my your specific hrtf but it still flat at sound source. With iems u have avarge hrtf baked into crossover circuit or sound filters and unless it was made to your specific hrtf its not flat. If u took that sound and subtracted influence of "your" ear from it FR chart wouldnt look like flat line from 20hz-20khz. So unless iem was done to your specific hrtf from the ground up it can't be flat.

How many times with human speech and vocals u had that feeling that sound is changing when u use IEMs or headhpones and person u know sound different than usual. Its because FR of IEMs or headphones u used isnt exacly neutral and reference for you and even shitty speakers from your laptop measure flat enough that sound going thru your ears will results in natural sounding humans.

I think u can also show that with fr graphs with targets substracted from it, they are close to that target but not exacly, if you somehow (i dont know how) measure FR of your own ears and head, then substracted it from raw measurements result would be flat like line but not exacly flat to call it neutral and reference

>>109443694
>because it doesn't matter?
"argument" over then. I accept your concession

>>109444001
guess you are too stupid to argue after all. I did warn you

>>109443694
>>109443927
nta but i think the point is that listener variation doesn't make the target useless, it just limits how well it predicts any one person's perception. you wouldnt say BMI ranges are useless just because it becomes less accurate for unusual body types. and lack of consensus on a target doesnt prove that any one target cant have a practical function

if im understanding this correctly its so uncontroversial it shouldnt even be a discussion

>>109444020
he's talking about reference target tho he did not give use case for
> lack of consensus on a target doesnt prove that any one target cant have a practical function
It's multiple things. Not only there's no consensus on a target... IEM itself will change its behavior because of6 ear canal anatomy. So even reference tuned IEM will not sound so in ANY ear unless they do something dumb like huge 8k dip on moondrop pudding.

>>109444031
does retard even understand what the fuck he is arguing about and why?

>>109444093
nobody said reference will sound the goddamn same to everybody. holy shit

>>109444111
it will not sound the same to anybody what is it referencing?
you are trying really hard to actually not give ANY use case for any reference target. why?

>>109444020
i think targets are our only options if u really need that close to neutral and reference sound with portable on head audio.
But i understand that talking about science behind it. For my headphones and iems nothing is close to natural sound for me if we are talking about human voice, you can easly check that playing random yt vocieover video on your laptop/pc speakers and then on your iems. For me some of them are closer to neutral, some of them are far from neutral. And im talking only about human voice. If u had chance of hearing music instruments live u know how they should sound and i think that lack of neutral reference sound in iems and headpos also aplies to that. Even with most audiophile reviewers if something is good they will say "piano is like right nex to you" or "trumpets are sounding like you hear them live" and so on. So everyone is chasing that neutral, reference type sound in onhead audio but to get that in 99% u need to spend 1000s of usd for custom made, custom tuned to your specific hrtf custom made target or play with EQ for days fine tuning every fq to your neutral target

>>109444122
>what is it referencing?
it's referencing a baseline that can be compared to other systems when you want to see how the same audio sounds on different systems. ideally reference should be uncolored with preference tunings so you have a more accurate representation of what you're hearing compared to, say, budget big box electronic store speakers or headphones and higher end shit.
for producing audio, your reference monitor is your main monitor, even though you should be testing what you're making/mixing/mastering against other systems to ensure that the audio translates about the same across every system you throw at it, i.e., a car system, a P.A., mobile phone speakers.
>inb4 "it won't sound the same"
no shit, the point is that you want a basis of consistency, which is why neutral is ideal if you want no coloration at all for your playback and intend on listening as close to the audio's intended mix as possible.
for fucks sakes.

>>109444101
why impose that neutral must be perceptually invariant to be useful?

>>109444217
exactly. thank you. this is the crux of my argument.
I've been talking about a reference as a standardized baseline, while they're begging for assurance that it works as a universal perceptual endpoint. they're both different definitions

>>109444166
>it's referencing a baseline that can be compared to other systems when you want to see how the same audio sounds on different systems
the fuck are you on about?
when you want to hear how the same audio sounds on different systems you take that audio and play it on different systems
>your reference monitor is your main monitor, even though you should be testing what you're making/mixing/mastering against other systems to ensure that the audio translates about the same across every system you throw at it, i.e., a car system, a P.A., mobile phone speakers.
first of all if you have reference speakers you can EQ anything to them no targets needed. second of all people are using all kind of stupid dogshit for studio like famous sony mdr-7506 or whatever. It's a far cry from real neutral or standardized decides lol
>you want a basis of consistency
wow do you tho? I wonder how music industry survived so far without it. Ah wait they already have it it's called flat speakers in a treated room.
>which is why neutral is ideal if you want no coloration at all for your playback and intend on listening as close to the audio's intended mix as possible.
what is neutral for IEMs?

>>109444217
Useful how?
>neutral
what's that

>>109444281
>when you want to hear how the same audio sounds on different systems you take that audio and play it on different systems.
no shit, sherlock. you use a neutral system with less coloration to understand what the intended mix went for.
> second of all people are using all kind of stupid dogshit for studio like famous sony mdr-7506 or whatever. It's a far cry from real neutral or standardized decides.
Yamaha NS-10 happened. it wasn't even put out on the market to be a "studio monitor". it was supposed to be for regular consumer use until legit audio people realized it was useful to use as a reference to cross check their mixes, especially among other speakers. it's not what you do, it's how you do it.
>I wonder how music industry survived so far without it. Ah wait they already have it it's called flat speakers in a treated room.
problem for you, is you cannot name a single music producer/mixing or mastering engineer that swears by strictly "neutral" monitors. go for it buddy.
>neutral
>what's that
less coloration. not straying far from what's baked into the audio.

>>109444290
what are targets? and why is this exempt for the predictive function they have?

for being pissy and peevish about all this, anon sure isn't doing much to hide their inquisitive nature and is learning something, even if they won't willingly acknowledge it.

>>109444381
targets can be literally anything
>predictive function they have
since when

>>109444353
Are you confused? I don't really care if monitors are neutral or not

>>109442322
You still don't get that there's 2 things happening, that the expected response changes(HRTF) and the response of the IEM itself changes. When you take one IEM and measure it at the eardrum of two different people you get two different responses. You lump everything into HRTF and think there's some "true" transducer response. It is an actual area where you could talk about drivers, because BAs are more affected by this and DDs less affected.

>>109444271
The crux is you insist on calling it a reference when what you really want is preference. Something that changes can't be a reference, simple as. Preference works just fine as the baseline and has been just that for years.

>>109444574
Preference targets have that. They just really really really want to call their preference target a reference.

>>109444655
>>109444708
you are making two different arguments here. yes, the response at an individual's eardrum can be different between people because the IEM/ear coupling changes and I never denied that. that's exactly why standardized measurement conditions exist in the first place.
if we're talking about an IEM's “reference response,” we can specify the measurement/reference plane instead of pretending the individual's eardrum response is invariant. but “something that changes can't be a reference” is just an assertion about what you're allowing the word reference to mean. a standardized reference condition doesn't stop being a reference because real-world implementations introduce variation. and preference isn't synonymous with reference. they can overlap, but they're not interchangeable concepts no matter how hard you try to force a false binary.
at the end of the day, all this comes down to is your personal stipulated definition of reference and you have yet to establish why it's the only valid one.

>>109444609
>I don't really care
apparently.

>>109444839
All these variations do not in exist in the actual reference - speakers. Don't complain about the definition. Look at reference speakers and try to find an equivalent in IEMs. There isn't any.

>>109444851
you keep saying “there isn't any,” but you haven't established what an IEM reference would have to satisfy beyond “behave identically in every human ear.”
that's not an argument against IEM references, you're saying IEMs can't satisfy your definition of one.

>>109444872
If something doesn't satisfy a definition of a reference then it's not a reference. And if you're really mad about definitions, if something doesn't behave like reference speakers then it's not a reference. It very much is an argument against IEM references. Your argument boils down to "I know it's preference but I want to call it reference".

>>109444839
>that's exactly why standardized measurement conditions exist in the first place.
do they exist for IEMs? Who standardized them?
>we can specify the measurement/reference plane instead of pretending the individual's eardrum response is invariant.
JM-1 is a "reference plane" but by itself it's pretty useless because nobody prefers raw JM-1.
>a standardized reference condition doesn't stop being a reference because real-world implementations introduce variation
but then we go back to what should be considered as reference? my ears? your ears? fucked up average ear?
>at the end of the day, all this comes down to is your personal stipulated definition of reference and you have yet to establish why it's the only valid one.
no nobody actually is talking about definitions except you...

>>109444901
>if something doesn't behave like reference speakers then it's not a reference.
bullshit assumption. you've missed the plot entirely because you are stuck on your personal take.
>Your argument boils down to "I know it's preference but I want to call it reference".
still wildly incorrect. why is listener invariant behavior a necessary property of a reference rather than a property specific to loudspeaker references? I don't think you're even really following the conversation anymore as you have absolutely zero ability to agree on anything here.

>>109444926
No reference in any other field depends on who's using it. Neither do reference speakers. Keep getting mad at reality. See how it works out.

>>109444919
>no nobody actually is talking about definitions except you...
now you're seriously in denial. reread the entire exchange until it starts to make sense. we're done talking in circles.
oh, and I accept your concession yet again.

>>109444872
again you have 2 problems
1. there's no real reference target
2. even if there was IEM will change its sound inside your ear stopping being a reference
unless you find a way to solve them discussion is pointless

>>109444941
notice how you ignored actual arguments and decided to continue talking about definitions when nobody cares?

>>109444954
ultimate projection. you are too dense to see any flaws in your own personal take, it's grueling. at least other anons have some good reading material to pore over with this thread, rather than your continuous emotional outbursts. thanks for the exchange, and your concessions. take shelter, btw

File: Screenshot 2026-08-03 030002.png (99 KB, 1302x588)

99 KB PNG

oh snap

>>109444998
Targets with listener variation baked in that are used for IEM development and comparing different IEMs already exist, they're called preference targets. You're just really upset you can't call them reference. Why? Vanity?

>>109445011
Not oh snap. That is not close in the slightest. PRX will give you hearing damage. Not a joke.

>>109444998
I'm literally just waiting for you to provide your argumentation which you so far did exactly zero times...

File: 1af34f03ebbb65fc8e9d037d3(...).jpg (24 KB, 314x304)

24 KB JPG

Look bro, I just buy IEMs that sound good. Pays not to be a retard.

>>109445204
>I just buy IEMs
retard confirmed

>>109445143
>>109445174
what are you on about?

>>109445258
Yes. PRX is also a just a driver that is more akin to a DD than a true planar like all others.

>>109445143
>hearing damage
in what way? just turn down the volume bro

>>109445281
How?

>>109445281
>true planar
what exactly constitutes a "true planar"?

File: Screenshot 2026-08-03 035458.png (76 KB, 185x222)

76 KB PNG

>>109445281
>PRX is also a just a driver that is more akin to a DD.
are you sure about that? please explain.

>>109445204
>frogposter
>not a retard
Good one.

>>109445428
what has this thread devolved into, amiright?

>>109444901
i guess it depends if you mean reference should mean a defined and reproducible standard fixed by methodology, in which case listener-invariance is one property some references can have and not a defining one, or a standard that delivers acceptable consistency to listeners. i guess if you've only thought about it coming from loudspeakers you've never had to separate these before, and it's not obvious that you shouldn't

nta*

>>109445502
Do you think about this when measuring mass, length, time? Or is this the IEMs that are the outlier? Almost like you're trying to put a circle into a square hole.

>>109445533
>Or is this the IEMs that are the outlier
yes

There was an old meta of calling DF reference and Harman preference. But this fell out of favor when someone asked "which DF".

File: 1769527228951245.png (174 KB, 2400x1038)

174 KB PNG

>>109445011
According to techtards even if the graph and the driver are the same the more expensive IEM has more techs. Because of "engineering" or something. And here you are comparing different FRs and drivers. Doomed from the start.

File: hgfjhgfkiuoiu8oiyuo.jpg (42 KB, 976x476)

42 KB JPG

EQ status?

>>109445556
>>109445533
yeah no other professionals or fields have ever understood reference in this way before, i'm just being pedantic

>>109445626
>And here you are
all I did was provide a graph. you're assuming I am implying they have the "same techs" or some odd shit, which would mean you are putting words in my mouth. grim.

>>109445697
Would you rather have dick in your mouth?

File: 1764796801077184.png (595 KB, 1590x813)

595 KB PNG

This post and graph don't imply anything, move along.

>>109445715
that's pretty awful and inappropriate. you must be practicing your English.

>>109445747
Nobody should take you or your "graph" seriously then. Noted.

>>109445769
Correct. Just because somebody posts something doesn't mean he means anything.

>>109445779
Because if the wrong thing was implied, it would just be silly and incorrect. Probably a sign of a true schizo

File: IMG_20241005_010712.jpg (2.37 MB, 4000x5333)

2.37 MB JPG

>>109435281
Obsoleted by fox IEM.

>>109439319
You'd realistically need a true RMS voltmeter or oscilloscope to get a useful reading, but yes, for the same IEM you could just output a sine wave and measure the voltage.

>>109443889
Just don't use foams bro, they're gross.

Guys idk where to post this. I recently got into audio shit but more vintage hifi/speakers so not really relevant to this thread but I have a stupid newbie question. Can a 'bad' amp that sounds fine cause pressure/fatigue on my ears? it seems to be the case because I swapped my old amp for another old amp and the pressure has gone away but how is this possible? they both sound the same but one hurts while the other doesn't.

>>109448278
You could measure them and see. Most likely they don't actually sound the same since audio memory goes to shit after 4 seconds. A bad amp can change the sound of a speaker quite significantly. Or even just bad wire contacts.

>>109448501
I wish I could measure them. The 'bad' amp as far as I know isn't even bad but man does it rape my ears basically instantly upon turning on. I think I will just replace instead of going through the measuring route as the 'bad' one is just a cheap entry level plastic one from the late 80s. I am really surprised at the difference.

>>109448562
Might be some high frequency noise.

>>109448562
i get fullness in the ears sometimes if bass isnt defined enough. like if its too continuous my brain cant metabolize it well. maybe small changes to envelope shape could do this if you were already at a threshold

most noticeable with subbass though. with iems. so probably not that

>>109448278
i bet some kind of fq is peaking on bad amp. download microphone app with fq spectrum chart on ur phone, then use sine generator to check what is going on

>>109417469
thanks man :)

File: tangzu.png (184 KB, 1080x2046)

184 KB PNG

he's dead

>>109449955
His name?

>>109449973
they haven't disclosed his name

>>109445634
Can't save that driver config.

>>109450631
Sure you can. Just need a good crossover implementation.
Where do you think the failure point is? The MEMS driver?

>>109450655
3BA