ER3SE / ER3XR

The best way to figure out which reviewers to trust is to start with something you know extremely well and work backward. For me, that was the ER2XR — I looked up reviews, found who heard it the same way I did, and followed those people. Here’s my personal breakdown of reviewers and how well they tend to align with my ears: **Zeos** Fun and entertaining, but not useful for accuracy. He says everything is good. **AndyVault** He has a very enthusiastic, flowery review style where almost everything comes across as good or great. The issue for me is that he uses that same “everything is excellent” language even on IEMs I personally know are weak or are bad. So I don't trust his reviews at all. **Akros** Smart guy with real insight, but his delivery is extremely long, dense, and meandering. There *is* good information in there — it just takes work to extract it. I use Gemini to summarize his videos in seconds. **AudioAmigo** Very solid impressions and good comparative descriptions. Where I differ: his ranking charts can feel inconsistent (some placements don’t match how he describes things). But his explanations of tonality and technical differences are useful. I think adding a quick “sound signature” summary (V-shaped / Meta / Warm) would make his reviews even stronger. It's so odd he doesn't add one. **Paul Wasabii** Consistently excellent. Honest, straightforward, and clear about both strengths and weaknesses. Uses graphs well and explains *why* something might sound the way it does. Very reliable for me. He will let you know if the IEM isn't good. **Prime Audio Reviews** He kinda talks like Dankpods lol. One of my favorites. Concise, clean, and to the point. Good at highlighting what works and what doesn’t. Just a very easy reviewer to follow because he doesn’t waste time and he's concise and on point. **Honest Audiophile** Great at describing sound, honest about flaws, and very detailed. The only thing I skip is the long source-chain discussions (he goes like 10 minutes over what source he uses) — they go deeper than I personally need. He just needs a screenshot for that (and his videos would be 10 minutes shorter on every single one) Everything else is very high quality. **Sharur** Pure entertainment. Everything is bad. And you are bad. **Mark (Super Reviews)** Well-structured and honest. Even though our preferences don’t perfectly match, he’s extremely reliable about sibilance and brightness. If *he* says something is too sharp, that’s a serious warning — because he likes brighter tunings than I do. **Audio-In Reviews** High production value. But they drag on too long. I just skip to the middle of his video because that's when the review actually starts, ie not looking for a video of an IEM sitting on a coffee wall for 7 minutes. I have shit to do. I often disagree with his impressions on certain sets (e.g., Meze Alba, Kefine Delci). I cared nothing for those iems and imo I have better iems I much prefer. It might simply come down to taste: he seems to enjoy tunings like Alba/Delci more than I do, and that’s where our preferences diverge. **JaysAudio** About 50/50 for me. He’s good at comparing graph-similar IEMs and has a solid sense of value, which I appreciate. But his preferences lean noticeably bright, and that influences some of his conclusions. I always keep that in mind when watching him. He loves Simgot and touts Simgot often in his reviews. I hate all Simgot iems rofl. They are ALL trash.

Going to use a grading system: A, B, C, D, F like in school A means excellent B is good C is average D is bad F is absolute fail **Mixing:** Going to avoid using the word "neutral" because then every mofo comes in the thread saying, what's neutral. Let's use the word "even-keeled'. Good iems for mixing are generally more even-keeled. If it has way too much bass you'll thin out your mix. If it's way too trebly and bright and shouty you're going to overcompensate. Ideally you want something more even-keeled. **Enjoyability:** Subjective. But how enjoyable it is **Critical Editing:** This isn't the same as mixing. But it means will it let you know if you have shit audio. If I listen to Kanye's sibilant ass tracks does he sound sibilant on them? If I listen to Lana White Dress is she sibilant on it? She better be. If I watch a DMS video from 6 years ago, does he sound sibilant on it? He better. Because he does. This is important because you need to evaluate your audio and the iem lets you know your audio is shit before thousands of people hear it. Etymotic ERXR Enjoyability: C to B to A. Pretty good, depending on who you ask Critical editing: A+. Very good at letting you know areas of trouble in your audio Mixing: D. Poor soundstage Truthear Hexa Enjoyability: D. I hate it Critical editing: A+ with wide bore tips Mixing: C. Imo actually a bit thin on lowend. You'll overcompensate. Also the soundstage on Hexa is kinda eh ngl. Salnotes Zero Original Enjoyability: C. I think it's ok. Or mid. Critical editing: B. Honestly pretty good at letting you know egregious areas. The version 1 is less forgiving with sibilance than 2, so it's better for critical editing. Zero 2 blunts the sibilance out (better for enjoyers; bad for audio engineers) Mixing: A. pretty neutral imo Softears Studio 4 Enjoyability: A to A+. Very enjoyable IEM Critical editing: D. Ironically. It smooths out all sibilance so you won't know sibilance is there. This is why it's so beautiful sounding. Mixing: A+. Very neutral. I'd even say probably my closest definition of neutral Moondrop Blessing 2 Enjoyability: D (harsh, shouty, bright, sibilant). Same with Blessing 3. Critical Editing: A. These are very picky with harshness in vocals. I genuinely think these are the Sony MDR 7506 in iem form. Mixing: A Zigaat Lush Enjoyability: B to A Critical Editing: C You won't really find problem areas of sibilance. You really really really have to crank it to hear it. Mixing: A. Pretty even-keeled. Kiwi Ears Orchestra Lite: Enjoyability: B to C Critical Editing: A. Excellent at picking out flaws. Mixing: A+. Excellent at telling you the whole picture. Excellent for mixing. Very very even-keeled.

Letshouer Cadenza 4 Enjoyability: A to A+ Critical Editing: B to A Mixing: A. While a bit U-shaped it's not egregious. It's enough to make decisions. Sennheiser IE200 Enjoyability: B to A Critical Editing: D to F (rounds out a lot of sibilance imo, which is actually a good thing for enjoyers). Mixing: B. Kind of shocking but while people call this v-shaped this is actually not as v-shaped imo. If you monitor yourself using these iems it'll sound exactly like you down to the microphone. Most other v-shaped iems don't do that. Crinacle Daybreak Enjoyability: B to A- Critical Editing: A (rofl. It's funny because it genuinely is good at picking out bad audio. If it sounds harsh it's because the original track is harsh) Mixing: B (This is more of a "Meta" tuned iem. But imo just enough where it sounds true) Crinacle Dusk Enjoyability: B to A+ (depending on who you ask) Critical Editing: C on Analogue. F on DSP. It rolls out sibilance by quite a large margin. Mixing: A on analogue mode. Honestly pretty neutral. almost HD600ish. But about a C on DSP mode. Tanchjim Origin Enjoyability: C to A (depending on who you ask) Critical editing: A (it'll definitely let you know spicy regions Mixing: A. A bit bright-slanted but definitely capable for mixing. Theioaudio Legacy 2: Enjoyability: C Critical editing: A+ Mixing: A+ Xuan NV (honorable mention) Enjoyability: A Critical editing: B Mixing: D (too bassy imo) I mention these because imo these are the Audio Technica M50x of iems but the size of 2 quarters. They basically give you accurate vocals down to the tee but thumpy bass. The vocals are very accurate on these. Not good for mixing though. Dunu Titan S (original) Enjoyability: C Critical editing: D (the treble is rounded out quite a bit) mixing: A (these are my imo pretty close to neutral)