Given all those variables, and pardon my ignorance, but do you think we will get to a target for IEMs which will be more representative to what most people hear?
I guess it throws me off when I see a linear freq response the manufacturer went for and then added a huge peak at around 13khz. I would think that the response would continue to be linear throughout all the freq range with slight deviations for added ‘ taste’.
For instance if they wanted more ‘ air’ why not add a 2-3db increase and not one around 10db?
Funny enough I have ZERO to do with nightjar , which I think is an IEM manufacturer? Or is it the name of a specific IEM?
That was a name a friend and I came up with after a bad Apple autocorrect , so it stuck.
Back to IEMs. I wonder if anyone does compression measurements as well. Maybe some of the shrill highs I hear are compression. Dunno.
Finally received my KE4, and undoubtedly would pick this over DaVinci for my taste.
But I admit a lot of people might prefer DaVinci.
KE4 is more detailed to me. Better sense of Naturalness.
DaVinci has more stage depth & the bass is boomier as well as the lower mids are a bit elevated.
I even have the Hype 4 which is another " New Meta " contender, and it’s a tough competition.
You mentioned the bass on Dusk is faster with better attack than the DaVinci.
Is that because of the EQ of the bass on Dusk, or technicalities ?
Because I listen to all my headphones with EQ and want to get DaVinci but I love fast transients without the timbre and thickness being affected. ( ala planar, which I don’t like).
The only other thing that ‘ worries’ me about the DaVinci is that crazy peak at around 13khz. If I can EQ that out I’m good.
On some IEMs the treble is harsh and I can’t dial it out without it getting too dull. Like the Kato I had and returned. Plus the Katos attack was too slow for me. No punch.
