LSA HP-2 Ultra. After going through a couple dozen headphones, it came out as my top choice by far.
Feel free to private message me if you want to know more.
i think what youāre hearing there is a complete and total lack of soundstage. i get what youāre saying but you can see visually that the bomb is in front of you, not inside the drone cam which means awful soundstaging capabilities. if it sounds like itās inside your head itās because the soundstage is being squished to basically nothing and the imaging is all thatās left.
1 Like
I tested this earlier, and I agree on soundstage being squished but not that much, got a good imaging on the bomb being outside but it sits closer to your head than I expected.
It really depends on what IEMs you are testing with.
soundstage depth is kinda hard for some iems to do for some reason. how do the different distance tests in that video sound? are they very noticeably different distances on the timeless? donāt have a pair to test with but still curious.
1 Like
I donāt have Timeless, sorry. Maybe someone else in here can help with the test 
1 Like
Oh I donāt disagree that soundstage is just plain bad on IEMs. But if youāre telling me you disagree that IEMs do near-head imaging better than headphones then agree to disagree, I suppose. I stand by my opinion that is shared by many that headphones have poor imaging due to their fundamental architecture which can be perceived to be āimprovedā by soundstage but doesnāt really fix the crux of their problem. For instance, Headphone Imaging: All You Need To Know
1 Like
no i agree but that test isnāt quite definitive. at that scale that bomb at the beginning is equivalent to like 5 feet in front of you. also my headphones iām wearing do the imaging in the first few seconds just fine and its very noticeable pans at first, but they are forward pans as they should be and are subtle, as they should be. any way you look at it those pans should sound like they are in front of you not in your face.
2-3 feets at best, at least thatās what I heard and what it looks like from the vid.
I hope this is a joke because I am laughing.
It appears like youāre EQāing with your eyes or just have insane hearing capabilities. With those Q values, youāre boosting 15db @ 2250??? You know most canāt hear above 16K right? Most people canāt even hear that high and youāre boosting @2250???
No offense but this is exactly the ridiculous EQ usage Iām talking about. Youāre not adjusting the Timeless curve in an attempt to correct audible issues with its FR, youāre attempting to turn it into something itās not.
It also does not appear as if you really understand how to use APO properly. All the exact same Q values, every band on peak filter, entire decibel values for every HZ, 400-1750 & 5,000 - 12,500 all at zero. You know those inputs can be shut off or removed? I hope you do realize, you donāt have to boost in full decibels. You can adjust at .25, .5, .75 or more if you modify the preferences. But who needs fine adjustment control and nuance when you can always make big bold adjustments like +15db?
This simply looks like someone who likes to add bass and thinks adding 15DB boost at 22050 will make things more airy? Because Moar is bettar?
Have fun playing with your sliders. If you ever really do want to understand how to use EQ properly to actually target a curve, check out Resolves YouTube videos on the topic. They are a good place to start. But anyway, Iām positive Iāve wasted my time. I tried. Iām out.
5 Likes
I know all of that. Can the EQ be made better by adjusting certain values? Most certainly.
I EQ with my ears and there is a difference. I just have to listen and be truthful to myself. Idc what anyone else is saying 
If I adjust the Q value to be higher, the increase becomes narrower in frequency. I deliberately do not touch it because I like it just fine at 1.41. Maybe Iāll like it better at 2 or 1, havenāt played around too much with it yet.
When I increase 22kHz I also affect neighboring frequencies with Q set at 1.41. So yes I am not just increasing 22kHz but rather a big portion of the air frequencies, and this does have a definitive impact on the perception of air and it just sounds better, idk what to tell ya. Itās untapped potential being tapped as far as Iām concerned.
And it is glorious on the Timeless
2 Likes
Need deep insertedā¦usually use sedna ligth mā¦change to msā¦low impact hit harderā¦finally change to sā¦hit really realy hardā¦
Not eqā¦source hiby r6 proā¦balance outputā¦fiio cable
You okay dude? Sounds like you have a stroke.
1 Like
Hahaā¦I m okā¦just sharing my experienceā¦not everyone like or trust but thats okeā¦soā¦day time i hear timelessā¦nigth time i used mest mkiiā¦I buy timeless because I use iem about 4-6 hours a dayā¦I m affraid my mest would brokeā¦must has a company
1 Like
Hi, i know it may sound ridiculous but any aspect of Timeless is equal or even better than Mest MKII ?
Price 
6 Likes
Mest mkii has better/good depthā¦that why imaging much betterā¦for meā¦price performance ratio for timeless realy2 goodā¦only when You try to find something negatifā¦you will get the negatif thingsā¦but when You remember the priceā¦You will forget thatā¦clarity, sound stage, midā¦think on par to mestā¦but 3d imaging mest betterā¦219 usd vs 1799 usdā¦thats good ratioā¦and I think ( I only have planar this time), planar realy sensitiveā¦a little change from cable swap, eartipsā¦lo/hi gain at dapā¦the impact very muchā¦
4 Likes
Thanks. If Timeless can compare with Mest in Soundstage, Clarity and Mis, itās a very good iem.
Except depth and imagingā¦dont forget to swap cables and eartips ā¦
1 Like
I think he/she meant the excess āā¦ā you put in your sentences. Could be wrong though.