I do.

Two points:

1. There isn't any solid research I know of to suggest that humans can hear higher than 20 kHz, and 48 kHz is a high enough sampling frequency to render anything at 20 kHz and well higher. The benefits you would get with higher sampling frequencies are probably nonexistent, and if they're not, they're absurdly small. I don't think you need to worry about it.

2. MQA adds significant artifacts to high-res audio which, unlike the alleged improvement in resolution, are audible. Plain old FLAC files are generally considered better. See here: (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pRjsu9-Vznc) (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NHkqWZ9jzA0)

Idk actually…Etys have got a special tool, but I don't know much in the way of filters on IEMs. I'm not sure they're always interchangeable, actually…

If they're IEMs, it's possible that one of their filters is clogged. This caused an imbalance on my Etymotics a couple years ago, and I fixed it in about a minute by replacing the filter. You aren't putting these in right after showering, by any chance?

*albeit very forward and energetic. Necessary tradeoff in the 2k range.

Upvoting for the triangle

I love how you increased the core count by literally just looping the cable back on itself 😆

I like chiptune because square waves, which have harmonic content distributed across a wide range of frequencies in a relatively even manner, form a large percentage of instruments. It makes it really easy for me to tell whether something's tonality is solid or completely off its rocker.

"Damage" is an equally valid term, the reply was just a joke. You're good.

Well but this is just the thing. Some people would absolutely disagree and say that if they have the same bass FR, they won't have different bass response. But others would not! It's one of the most heated disagreements in headphonedom.

Here are my two points:

First, as I said, it's not always so much how much louder the bass is as a whole as how smoothly it transitions into the mids. And this can affect the character of the bass a lot. Second, if you're looking for "fast" bass, that can boil down to treble response too. Bass instruments will have higher harmonics that are affected by higher frequencies, and these can also affect the impression of what sounds clean or not—whether these higher harmonics are rendered accurately.

But I would probably have to try a good planar headphone before I could authoritatively say of myself "no it's just FR but more nuanced" or "there actually is a je ne sais quoi to the bass texturing."

The Harman target isn't actually flat. If you go back and read the research, Olive et al started with their own "good speakers in a good room" and then took input from a group of trained listeners on tweaking the bass and treble response.

When we talk about "audio quality in general," much of that can actually be gleaned from a savvy interpretation of the frequency response graph. If it sounds "muddy," that's likely because there's too much bass and the drop in volume between the ~80 Hz and ~200 Hz domains is too abrupt. If it sounds "piercing," that likely means it's too loud between the 4 kHz and 10 kHz. If it sounds "unnatural," then there's probably some weird spikes between 500 Hz and 4 kHz.

Interpreting frequency response graphs can be a very nuanced thing, and even (perhaps especially) the most experienced reviewers often swear that they don't tell the whole story. If you look up graphs of the KZ CRN, you'll find that it looks extremely accurate—but many reviewers felt that it had unnatural lower treble. The Campfire Andromeda, meanwhile, has a rather weird-looking graph, but almost every reviewer I've read says its tonality is gorgeous, if a bit odd.

Others will probably chime in and point out that there are other graphs you can use to understand a heaedphone. The most notable one is the waterfall graph, which (allegedly) documents resonances where the headphone takes an unnaturally long time to stop sounding when a specific frequency is played. Others argue that this just isn't how headphones work. I don't know enough about physics to say who is correct.

But I would consider the video u/SupOrSalad linked to be authoritative on the subject.

I have heard that the Yincrow X6 is also just a Vido with a better cable, and many regard the X6 as among the best earbuds, period. Or at least that's what I heard a year or so ago.

Okok seems that I wasn't clear, I meant to mention that lower frequencies take longer to decay. I'm just a bit doubtful about the whole resonances thing. Could you give me a counterexample?

From what I've heard, it's generally regarded that the CSD decay time is purely a product of frequency and initial volume. I.E. something that starts quieter won't ever ring longer than something that starts louder.

That's very well-tuned husks filled with styrofoam to you! ahem.