JAY's audio memes (and reviews/ranking too I guess)

IEMs / Other In-Ear Monitors (IEM)
162

Hey guys! Hope everyone’s enjoying their Friday - let’s talk about the JOYODIO Shine.

So, when I first got into the IEM rabbit hole I had the “pleasure” of listening to some early KZs and CCAs, and frankly they were terrible. Now, in 2023 you would think an $80 IEM would sound a lot better, but, unfortunately the Shine reminds me of those early days although without the nostalgia. But before we start I want to thank Linsoul for sending me these - unfortunately I just can’t recommend them, but feel free to check out their other stuff.

Anyways, starting with the low-end - it’s pushed back. It lacks the impact and slam even when I compare it to a cheaper set like the Waner and Hola. Out of all the switches the Standard has the most low-end, but it still sounds weak and low-res. I don’t know what driver they’re using but it’s not a high-quality one that’s for sure, and I also don’t recommend the Standard switch because not only is the bass light so you can’t really feel anything, but it’s also not very detailed, and on top of this you also run into the issue of masking with the added mid-bass - so it’s just a lose lose lose situation. The R&B tuning without the mid-bass sounds the best since if you’re not going to get quality bass anyways, you might as well not have it get in the way and mask everything. So I just end up going with the R&B switch as default because all of the other ones are not good.

Moving on to the mids - they’re recessed, and vocals are way too harsh especially female artists like Taylor Swift, and pretty much most female JPOP and KPOP artists. The boosted 1-2K area masks instruments like pianos and brass and over sharpens higher notes on woodwinds and horns. The sharp treble on top of this takes away your focus from the mids, so you end up just getting a lot of harshness and fatigue without actually hearing the midrange details (there’s also a mid-scoop on many of the switches). The only upside is that with the R&B switch at least there’s no mid-bass bleed or masking, but everything just sounds unnaturally harsh and thin. I literally couldn’t finish Hi High by Loona and almost died at the 2:40 mark - and the hifi, pop, and classical switches just makes things worse because now you have even more treble and less bass.

To make things worse, on top of this harshness you also have very peaky and uneven treble region which makes everything even harsher, and unlistenable. I mean the graph literally looks like a rollercoaster, and the peak around 15K really sealed the deal. Electric guitars, cymbals, and female vocals are sharp and harsh even at mid-volume. I had to turn it down just so my ears didn’t die, but at that point the low-end is basically gone, and you can’t hear the mids because they’re even more recessed now - so all you hear is the treble, a hollowed out midrange and vocals, with a lifeless low-end. The hifi, classical, and pop switches makes this even worse because they actually RAISE the treble even more and lower the bass - like why? Why? This isn’t even a treble-head set at this point because it’s so harsh and not smooth - the Shine is basically for people with high frequency hearing loss.

Now, I tried to save it by putting on Hana filters, and it did help tame the treble and make the Shine listenable at mid-volume, but the bass was still lifeless and vocals (1-2K) are still harsh. The dynamics are just absolutely horrible on this thing - I have to constantly readjust the volume every 15 seconds or so. There’s also just so many better options out there - like the Quarks DSP is literally $15 and craps all over it, well to be fair the Quarks DSP craps on most sets regardless of price, but even the LAN and Hexa are better and doesn’t kill your ears; what’s the point of having 4 tuning switches if they’re all bad?

I really don’t understand how any reviewer can recommend this with a straight face - I’d be really cautious of their intentions otherwise because the Shine is one of the worst sets I’ve heard this year. Also, the inside of the case is falling apart after a few days of use. I mean… At least it looks nice??

Anyhow, thanks for reading!

6 Likes
163

Thanks for taking that bullet for us. I could not have bothered with it

2 Likes
164

No-problem GIFs - Get the best GIF on GIPHY

165

Hey guys - happy… Monday? Let’s talk about the Moondrop LAN.

As some of you may know, the Chu was a huge hit when it came out and completely changed the game in the $20 price bracket. Now - I don’t think it’s competitive anymore, but, nonetheless it still paved the way for what was to come. Unfortunately, the LAN does not hold the same magic and disruption power as the Chu, but let’s just jump into it.

Starting with the bass - it’s ok - average for today’s standards. Texture is alright, impact is there, gets the job done, there’s some rumble, and it has decent speed and little bass bleed. It’s nothing mindblowing and certainly doesn’t have the impact and texture like the EA500 (review of that coming later this week), but it does have better separation than the Waner, Hola, and Cadenza (needless to say it’s much better than the original Chu)… that is until you compare it to the Quarks DSP, then the LAN ends up sounding muffled and not as well separated - while lacking in sub-bass extension.

Vocals in particular sound a bit muffled and pushed back, but also slightly sharp at the same time. Now, the LAN is better than the Warners and Holas when it comes to clarity, but when you A/B it with the Quarks DSP there’s a night and day difference in the timbre. The Quarks DSP just sounds so much more clear, open, and complete, and doesn’t feel like I’m looking for missing parts of the singer’s voice or mid-range. And speaking of the mids, they’re a bit recessed and covered up. Again, comparing it to the Quarks DSP it’s not as clean, clear, and well separated. I wouldn’t say the LAN is bloated and it’s certainly better than the Aria-like signatures, but there’s definitely some masking going on even though it might not look too bad on the graph.

Treble is fine for the most part at mid-volume, but it starts getting spicy and fatiguing once you crank it up. It’s not metallic like the Chu, but it’s still sharp enough to be noticeable in female vocals and cymbal strikes. Again, comparing it to the Quarks DSP it’s not as refined dynamically and not as smooth. This is probably because of the big drop at 10K followed by a quick escalation afterwards - which really hurts the overall dynamics because you definitely hear the energy on songs like Hi High, Strangest Thing, and Model. The stage is also a bit cramped like the original Chu, and imaging is the same as the others.

Now, the LAN isn’t horrible - it’s better than the Waner, Hola, Zeros, but it’s not ideal especially when you have the Quarks DSP that’s better in every area for less than half its price. It’s passable, but it doesn’t make sense to get it right now - if you want more mid-bass grab the EA500, and if you want a subwoofer like sound then there’s the Khan. Otherwise, the default and benchmark is still the Quarks DSP. So ya, I don’t really recommend them, and that’s pretty much all I have to say. Thanks for reading!

4 Likes
166

You are rather consistent about where Quarks DSP stands for you. I’m not SUPER interested in type-C connection IEMs but you are making a compelling case to at least try it

1 Like
167

If you’re a mid-bass head (which you are) then you’re probably not gonna like it LOL. But the clarity, dynamics, and timbre is insane on these little things. Everything just feels “correct” and natural since it’s pretty much the compensated diffuse field target.

There’s some floor noise if you’re listening to podcasts or at very very low volumes (no issue at regular listening volumes), and start/pause lag but those are minor stuff. And the build isn’t metal or anything, but ya - sound wise it’s :ok_hand:

1 Like
168

I’m definitely a weird one. I watch so much of the chase for great sub-bass and modding to push the sub-bass and tuck the mid-bass, and I’m just like…huh?

But at the end of the day, the only thing that matters is that the music hits you in the gut. So shine on, Quarks DSP, you crazy diamond!

2 Likes
169

Mid-bass tuck is really nice for vocal clarity and separation, but lacks the thickness and slam from the mid-bass - good thing there’s different sets for different vibes :metal: EA500 and Quarks DSP is really all you need tbh for a good while

2 Likes
170

Happy Saturday guys - it’s finally Galileo time. Took over a month, but just look at how stunning they look, really, probably one of the most beautiful plating I’ve ever seen. It also comes with this high quality cable - very sturdy, and the case is a tank - overkill but why not. But cosmotics aside, how do they actually sound? Well, very very smooth.

Starting with the low-end, it’s very clean with a slight hint of warmth. The impact and separation in the bass is very punchy with fast decay - it’s more sub-bass over mid-bass, but drums and male vocals still have a very good weight to them without sounding muffled. I think Letshuoer did a really good job at balancing the bass without getting too much in the way of the mids, but admittedly, there is some warmth to the midrange and vocals, making the Galileos sound more weighted and forward than the Quarks DSP, but less warm than the EA500.

It’s not bass light, but also not a bass set by any means - you’re still going to get more impact and meat with EA500 in-terms of the overall low-end, although at the cost of more coloured vocals and masking more clarity. And Sub-bass wise the Galileo has more sub-bass impact than the Quarks DSP and its overall low-end sounds more forward, heavier, and more enjoyable, but at the cost of feeling less open and clean overall.

In-terms of the mids, the Galileo is forward leaning in its instruments and vocals, and due to its darker treble and neutral leaning low-end, it shifts your focus to the mid-range which is the star of the show. Although it’s not as open and clean as the Quarks DSP, I actually prefer this forward signature more on slower songs like first love and all too well because it feels more intimate and I can hear the vocal details better, whereas the mid-bass dip in the Quarks DSP results in more open and further vocals and sounds more correct, but less enjoyable imo. The EA500 on the other hand has a bit too much warmth and hurts clarity which is why I prefer the balance of the Galileo the best out of the three… but for faster tracks like Strangest Thing and Forever Love, the Quarks DSP still sounds the cleanest.

So, so far everything has been great, but the only issue I really have is in the treble. Although this darker tuning is really good for scaling and the overall dynamics of the Galileo is as smooth as the Quarks DSP - it just lacks the air and extension to cymbal crashes, female vocals, and combined with the forward leaning mid-range it makes the treble even harder to hear compared to the Quarks DSP and EA500. When I A/B the Galileo with the other two, it feels like I’m missing parts of the song because it gets hard to pick out the treble because of the roll off. Now, a pro of this decision is that I never experienced any fatigue on any song or at any volume - it’s a very smooth and intimate listen, but the trade off is you are losing treble resolution. If the Galileo had more extension I would easily recommend it as a warmer Quarks DSP with better imaging, but as of now it’s more of a niche IEM for those who want a smooth listen, or listen at high volumes - so I guess people like me.

For slower songs I actually prefer the Galileo over the Quarks DSP because of its excellent volume scaling, heavier note-weight, and more forward vocals, so I would still recommend the Galileo if you have similar listening habits like me. As an all rounder though, the Quarks DSP is still the King - it just sounds more open, clear, and “correct”. That being said, I think Timmy did an amazing job with the overall presentation, design, and what he was trying to go for - which I think was a smooth and effortless listening experience, and it delivers. But honestly, I bought it as a collection piece because the plate design is so beautiful… But ya, thanks for reading!

8 Likes
171

Hey guys. Hope everyone’s enjoying their week - it’s Meteor Time. To be perfectly honest, I was slightly disappointed by the Meteor when I first heard them. They felt overly warm to me… that is until I hit shuffle and Playing God came out - then it all clicked and I understood why people loved them so much. So, let’s just jump into it.

The main star of the show is the low-end, but more specifically the mid-bass. Bass drums and bass guitars sound alive, authoritative, energetic, and drives the momentum of the song forward. The Meteor got me bobbing my head back and forth with its thick and meaty low-end, and the Rhythm section sounds forward and in your face giving that lively characteristic. The impact and note-weight is also heavy with extended rumbles, and the Meteor’s bass doesn’t sound like a BA at all. Separation in the low-end is also fantastic - I can clearly pick out individual notes from bass guitars, and the texture and detail in the bass is one of the best I’ve heard. The Meteor is perfect for instrumental tracks, specifically songs with lots of lower frequency instruments.

However, the mid-bass can get too much on songs like Forever Love, Model, and Traces of Time where masking occurs and overtakes the vocals and pushes them backwards into the mix. Now, vocals aren’t congested or muddy, but they do sound a bit too distanced, less open and less clear when I A/B the Meteors with the OG Monarch and Quarks DSP. Although vocals never get fartiguing - it does get harder to pick out the texture in busier tracks because the focus is shifted onto the low-end and treble. Similarly, the rest of the mid-range is also coloured and isn’t as clean and well separated as the Monarch, but, the upside is that the Meteor’s note-weight is a lot more natural and less thin and light - it’s definitely not neutral, and I would categorize it as a warm set.

Now, usually a lot of bass focused IEMs have bad treble extension, but the Meteor’s treble is actually one of the best I’ve heard. Even though it may look like a lot on the graph, the extra mid-bass really helps balance this out. Cymbal strikes are surprisingly airy and extend all the way cutting through the warm low-end, and violins and flutes have a very beautiful shine to them. The treble is also very smooth and not fatiguing at all, and the overall dynamics and scaling of the Meteor is fantastic and I’d highly recommend using at higher volumes. Now, I don’t think this signature would’ve worked if there was less mid-bass, but as of now the energy and quality from both the low-end and treble is top tier.

So here is where it gets hard. I really love the Meteor when it hits with certain artists like Polyphia, Denzel, Kendrick, and on songs with lots of low-end rhythm instruments, but on the other hand, I also can’t completely recommend them for busier tracks with lots of midrange or vocal-centric ballads because it does get too warm and hurts clarity. So depending on your library the Meteor can either be a grand slam, or a bit too much. If you have convenient access to EQ I’d recommend just making a quick adjustment which helps with masking and makes the vocals and mid-range more open and clear (Peak 200hz, -2db, factor Q 1) - for example on Somebody Else by the 1975 this EQ really helps make the vocals more open and clear without affecting the overall momentum of the song.

Comparison with some other sets coming soon, but that’s all for now. Thanks for reading!

10 Likes
172

Well if I wasn’t already looking forward to my chance to listen to these, this would definitely hype me up a level or two

2 Likes
173

They’re called MEATeors for a reason :joy:

3 Likes
174

I hear the Assteroids have an absurd low-end.

2 Likes
175

Is the timbre okay at this “MEATeor” :sunglasses:? Does it do better than the S12 on overdriven and ultra dynamic tracks?
Lately I’ve noticed that companies have started to bring back the mid-bass, which is admirable!

2 Likes
176

Thank goodness! I NEED midbass in an IEM for it to be listenable for me. All the IEMs coming out with boosted subbass and scooped midbass sound so lifeless to me. Give me some midbass punch with a fast, agile driver! :metal::sunglasses:

6 Likes
177

You and me both, brother. From your mouth to God’s ear

1 Like
178

hmm, wonder how an iem with a

DD woofer (sub)
Vented BA (mid-bass)
DD full range (mids/treble)

would be like…
(kinda Z1R-ish setup)

1 Like
179

I’d be interested to hear no doubt. I think combining the authority of DD bass with a BA to add low level detail sounds like a config that has potential. I’m a fan of novel driver arrangements and implementations.

180

yeah, since you asked for mid-bass quantity but with speed. I think a BA woofer (vented ones) will do the job. Like the Sonion 38 Acupass stuff.

1 Like
181

I like the bass in my A12t and A18s and their low end detail is quite addicting, but for the most part I tend to prefer the bass you can get from a fast DD. That’s why your idea of combining the two driver types to work on bass together sounds like it has potential. If it was to actually combine the weightiness and tactility of the DD bass with the detail abd agility of BA bass it would be fire! :fire: