They might work in a higher price range, but getting a good DAC and amp and good earphones for $15 is not really happening.

Good example of why DSP earphones are a terrible idea.

You mentioned the price the exact same number of times as I did. It's nice that we're clarifying the bracket they're competing in - the Chu most certainly didn't have a shot of competing with more expensive IEMs, and I very much doubt the Quarks DSP does. Hell, the Chu is quite far from my preferred $20 IEMs, even.
There's just a limit to how much you can do at this price point, the significantly better technicalities in more expensive earphones are related to their better drivers.

You might like its frequency response very much, but there's absolutely nothing groundbreaking about it. It's just another $20 IEM, much like the Chu was just another $20 IEM. Technicalities existing is not something that can even be debated.

As far as tonality goes, I agree, but I can get that information just from looking at the graphs. The technicality scores sometimes seem completely random to me.

Meh, I think his graph database is extremely useful, but his reviews never seem to align with what I hear so they're useless to me.

The cheap stuff often has QC issues, same as with the wired stuff, there are just many more points of failure for TWS.
Regardless, charging regularly is far more of an annoyance than a wire to me. I think it's totally sensible to keep around a TWS pair for going to the gym or running or whatever, but it could never replace wired earphones to me.

While wireless audio has its uses (exercise is the biggest one), it's in every possible way inferior to wired audio. TWS earphones are overpriced, unrepairable devices with a lifespan of maximum a few years. Wires aren't even an actual issue outside of marketing materials.

The ones I've liked on it were RHA dual density silicone, Tennmark Whirlwind, and to a lesser extent, Newbee foam tips.