Cadenza II

Great review. Thanks. I agree with your conclusions. Did you have an issue determining which was the left and right earphone? The printed instructions in the box mention an annotation on the earphone itself (as opposed to the cable) which I could not find. Plus the diagram shows the cable L and R on the opposite side to the correct side. I eventually figured it out by listening to left and right channel videos on YouTube. The printed materials included with the IEMs were incorrect.

Dunu Titan X (Not S) or Cadenza II. The Belle is not a good IEM for gaming, IMHO. If you want to go up to $100-150 there are a lot more options. But I wouldn't recommend anything that price without starting with something else to k ow what you do or don't like.

The OP approach was pretty terrible too. He is trying to compare a value based entry level product, with a cheap DSP cable, to the Nothing Ear 2024 TWS, which is a target curve DSP Tuned 11mm driver, and is probably more in line with a $50-75 single DD IEM, like the Singolo or the Cadenza II. When you make sweeping emphatic statements based off of an entey level product, you lose the plot entirely. It would be like saying "US Sports Cars Suck, and the Corvette is a joke!" And then put in the body of the post "So I have a Chevy Spark Rental Car, but when I went back to GR Corolla, it was way better." Yeah, no shit...

For a TWS the Nothing Ears aren't bad. They are tuned to a custom 5128 curve, and have pretty good EQ presets. I would say they are on par with a $50-60 pair of IEMs. Like the Cadenza II, or the Singolo. But your experience is pretty typical, and what most peoples take away is from their first venture into IEMs.. I'm not entirely sure what OP was doing... But, to each their own. Let him eat cake.

A lot of newbies try to wear IEMs like TWS earbuds. Where they sit more proud of the ear canal, instead of IN the ear canal, hence the name "IEM". Plus too many people go for PEQ settings and think they actually correlate to any meaningful description. For example the "balanced" EQ Preset moves the sub bass shelf closer to the lower mids, and increases it to about parallel with the Pina Gain. Ita still closer to JM1 or Harman than the default tuning of the Dawn, for example. But not OP thinks that "balanced" and its more U shaped than "balanced". Plus when you get into the audiophile side of it, we have a COMPLETELY different understanding of what "flat" or "balanced" is so it just adds to the confusion of the terminology.

Its not that hard once you know what the proper lossless master sounds like. Edit: Awww, so fragile. If you understood how obvious the dynamic range of a recording is crushed by lossy codecs, its very obvious to tell the difference. Just because the codec is capable of reproducing the frequency, doesnt mean it can keep the same dynamic range across the recording. And certain elements of a song, like cymbals, simply do not translate well, or get crushed, washed out, and even artifact when they hit the dynamic range ceiling. So, sorry, not sorry, if your hearing sucks, and/or you have never listened to proper lossless audio before. But it is as obvious as a small batch micro roast next to Folgers. If you think Starbucks is high quality, you should probably stay out of Coffee Subreddits. For example.

I have, it's still not hard. The problem with the way most ABX is done by the people that want to "prove" it, is that they don't want you to listen multiple times. They don't want you to be able to flip between the comparisons, or they like doubling up the same track multiple times. Every time someone has tried to ABX test me, they want to change the rules mid test, because they don't like the outcome. I score 90%+ accuracy on all of the online codec tests. Again, it's not hard if you know what to listen to. And know what the artifacting sounds like. Most of the time, it's literally just the dynamic range. And the less range there is, the higher the compression level. In some instances, it's even possible to determine the codec, whether it's mp3 or ogg, just based on how a certain segment of the audio artifacts from the compression algorithm. No matter how much people want to say there is no difference. When you are removing sound as a means of reducing file size, you are losing data in the track. Period. You can't fake what is no longer there, and pretend like it is.

No, OP claimed that. I said it's not hard if you know what to listen to. Depending on what you are conditioned to hear. And I know how ABX works, what I very clearly said, was that people who have specifically tested me wanted to change the rules mid test, because I was getting the results correct. I know what my hearing range is. I even know my left ear is weaker than my right. But I can pick up on the differences in the tracks. To me it isn't subtle. And, again, you can put whatever spin on it you want. Lossy codecs make music flat to me. You assume I know nothing about this. When I have spent literally years of my life messing with various forms of encoding software, and perfecting encoder output options for the highest quality encodes. I used to be very prolific in the scene back in the early music sharing days. Literally from the early days of MP3, through to testing FLAC before it was released publically. And have access to industry tools, and testing against RIAA standards. So please, spare me the sophomore explanation of audio engineering.

I don't know what to tell you dude. Lossy files sound flat to me. And unless the codec parameters are heavily tweaked to expand their encoding range, specifically with some custom VBR parameters, and occasionally even a slight drop in input gain, otherwise it all gets jammed together, and becomes a smeared flat mess. I hear it, I cant unhear it, and it's one of the first things I notice when AB testing files... A complete lack of depth, range, and seperation. Also, maybe it wasn't you, but someone mentioned Spotify in a list of lossless music providers. They are locked at 24/48, I assume for broad compatibility with BT sets, which is still fine 99% of the time, but it's not "ture" master quality, even if it is "technically" a lossless format. Semantics.

As long as you are attenuating your ears with something, a little goes a long way. I used to be a big Electronic Music Festival guy, and unsoundbags wear earplugs under my beanie. I could hear everything and everyone just fine. And there was plenty of bass to feel, that I didn't need my ears wrecked from it. Interesting enough, my left ear has a similar odd spot around 2k, and as I get older, I find i am more sensitive to sibilance around 6k. Which I never was before. I don't know if that is just a perception/pallette change, or what?? But I find it interesting all the same. And it's kinda fun to track it, having been an audio nerd for so long, and reading up on audiology and hearing loss. So, I have had a half dozen people do ABX testing with me. Twlling me there is no audible difference in things. Specifically in Lossy Encoding, and in DAC Filtering. I have around a 90% success rate with all of the on-line tests I have done, I genuinely don't find them that difficult. When doing the live ABX testing with friends, and we are simply testing which is the highest bit rate, it's pretty easy again. They didn't like that I was picking it out. So they changed it to "well, what bit rate is it then?" And it became "see you can't tell", well, I CAN tell which is better, and usually always tell which is the lossless master, but being exact on which bitrate it is, is a little absurd. Same with DAC Filtering and Non Oversampling. I can tell if the sampling is the same or different. I can generally tell when it's in NOS, but then the goal post gets moved again to "well, which filter is it?!" That's almost impossible to tell just by ear. But I can tell if it's the same or different. Where it gets difficult is if it's a well mastered track with proper headroom, and it is a quiet passage, where there isn't a lot going on, and the encoder has room to make the best use of the available bitrate. And it's really really damn close, even to the lossless master. About the only way you can tell is if there is a sharp metallic sound like a triangle or a cymbal, or it leads in to some kind of swell. Then you can hear the encoder steuggle to compensate for the sudden increase in information. Every Lossy Encoder has tow work within guardrails of its capability. When it comes to 24bit audio or DSD, there is a lot of available headroom. And things have a tendency to ring out more, and decay more naturally. When you clamp that upper frequency response, it's going to run out of usable bit depth, and it just does what it can. And you get that watery shimmer to them as they decay. Thanks things like VBR can help, and better encoding parameters can make a bit of difference. But when you have really busy tracks, and limited bit depth to work with, a lot of those sounds just all get mashed together. That mashing together makes any kind of dynamic range in the track disappear. Everything becomes a two dimensional smear. It's like taking a 24bit PNG, and converting it to an 8bit GIF, ita gonna have a lot of banding, and any detail that was there, is going to be washed out, because the subtleties are gone. And just like there is a wide range of JPG encoding options, there is a massive range of MP3 encoder options as well. And how they are set up makes a difference. And back in the day, we would do it on a per album basis, because of how the album was mastered, and where in the FR the majority of the sound is coming from. Instead of just using generic default settings. Most of those default settings do mess with the loudness, and have some mild form of normalization, because it allows for the encoder to use less bits for dynamoc range and more for data. And with more people using TWS in transparency mode, this is acceptable, so many do it. So when you are on Amazon or iTunes, or Tidal, and you select reduced quality tracks, they sound different. So, yeah.. Anyway. Hopefully you can see this isn't really something I care to argue over, it is what it is. If lower quality works for you, then, great... Listen to what makes you happy.

Except... They do. Because the lack of dynamic range is the easiest way that I can tell. Compressed music sounds flat. The higher the compression level, the more 2 dimensional the sound gets. It's like the old Loudness War days. Lossy algorithms have a tendency to boost everything up, so there is less heavy lifting when compressing. Now, things like VBR can go a long way to making this less obvious, by giving more space for that dynamoc range. And some encoders like OGG Vorbis are very good at managing dynamoc range. But even still, they all focus on removing excess data. So a lot of harmonics and dynamoc interactions of instruments are not allowed to fully "ring out", and become clamped sounding, and flat. Like I have said elsewhere, you are literally taking data away from the audio, and once it's gone, you can't magically bring it back. Instrumentation is a lot of harmonics and overtones, and much of that exists in the range that lossy codecs compress. For most people who don't know better, and use compressed Blue Tooth for their listening, yeah, it's fine. But once your library is mostly lossless, and you are intimately familiar with your music, the moment you hear it compressed, it stands out. Even in my car (which is capable of 24/48 over BT), I can tell when Tidal or Amazon has data issues, and drops the quality from UHD, to HD, to Lossy Compressed. Even though a compressed medium like BT, in a shitty playback like a car stereo.

You just repeated what i said, with more words. When you are moving from a 24bit lossless master, to a 16bit Lossy format, there will be a significant loss of data. And there will be a clamping of the FR and the loudness. Yes, this is ENTIRELY dependent on the codec and the engineering parameters set on the encoder at the time of encoding. You are preaching to the choir here. The question was "how can you tell", and MOST lossy files that are not aourced from a HQ encoder group, have Normalization applied to some level. And THAT is the easiest form for me to tell that the quality of the file has changed from the lossless original, because the dynamic range has changed. There are even examples of this, like Coldplays Parachutes that was mastered in 24bit/192kHz, there is even compression artifacting on the CD master. And it gets worse from there as you go down. Also, I am sourced in some of the information in that ASR thread. Just saying.

For sure, there are ways around all of this. The fact is, most don't. I specifically bring up Parachutes, because you can look at the physical media, and perceive these differences. At the end of the day, that's down to who masters the track, and in this case, it was done very poorly. You CAN get close to the 24bit master in a lossy format, but you have to play with a lot of parameters to get it to work right. And, frankly, most streaming services and studios, don't care. One of the other really big issues that bothers me with this, is that there are often multiple revisions of the UHD mastering. This is particularly bad with classic rock. I genuinely go out of my way to find and save the original recording versions of those albums, because some of the UHD mixes are absolute garbage. Real "try hard" level stuff. And in those cases, it's painfully obvious which version you're listening to. And I would rather have the lower quality original, than an over sanitized remix of a classic that didn't need mucking with. But I digress... Lossy tracks just stand out to me. I don't dislike them, I use them all the time. I have several utility DAPs, and I specifically go for quantity over quality, especially for gym or yard work, where I am wearing cheap BT Earbuds anyway, and it really doesn't matter. Because there is enough ambient noise that there is no such thing as "critical listening." But for everything else, it has to be lossless. To me there is, and always will be, an audible difference.

I didn't say harsh, I said treble forward. And yes, the Cadenza is very zingy, and se have actually described it as "harsh", and can understand that. The Cadenza 2, while neutral, also has a lot of upper frequency harmonics, and air to the presentation. It COULD potentially be problematic. What would be SUPER helpful, is if you could find an online tone generator with a slider that allows you to scroll through the frequencies, telling yoibwhat frequency it's at, and you can isolate which frequency is actually causing you to have discomfort, and then once we know what frequency/frequencies to avoid, we can look at sets that isolate that frequency more than others. Because it may not even be "treble", it might actually be the upper midrange, or some other sympathetic frequency inside that upper mids to treble area. If you go to squig.link and click on the EQ tab on the left of the screen, and scroll to the bottom, there will be a tone generator with a slider there.

Here is my "review" of the Chorus. Its a Belle with a Nozzle Filter on the Faceplate. If you tape over it, it measures EXACTLY the same as the Belle, right down to the time domain differences on a waterfall graph. Is the Chorus better than the Belle? Yes, i think it is. Subjectively, i think it looks better than the Belle. Objectively, it does sound SLIGHTLY better because of the slightly slower bass decay with gives it a more plush feeling on rolling bass notes, without removing impact of percussive instruments too much. But, i literally had a Chorus in one ear and a Belle in the other, and my brain adjusted to the sound without even so much as an adjustment period. So we are talking about MINOR differences in sound here. I would get the Chorus over the Belle for aesthetics alone, but if money is an issue, buy whatever is cheaper, unless you are a big B_Media fanboy.

Yeah, at the end of the day, its a budget set. And you picked the better looking one, so no shade there. But i was, admittedly, a little disappointed at the execution being just a Belle with a vented back design. They kind of over hyped it as some polished, updated, and retuned set, and it was just a little too gimmicky, IMHO. It did make some of the phasing cleaner on the IEM comapred to the Belle, which i do think makes it sound mildly better, but its super hair splitting. As far as "neutral" goes. Thats an entirely loaded question. And, the biggest reason is that "neutral" is entirely made up of what people THINK neutral should sound like. And curves like JM1 and the entire 5128 HATS curve, are all somewhat based on the OG Etomytic diffuse field, which is trying to emulate an "in room speaker" target to replicate a Studio Monitor. And that signature hump is part of the room gain they experimented with to get the same feel. Its technically not anywhere close to "flat", but its what the perception of neutral is. And now that we have Harman and JM1, and the 5128 target, "neutral" is about as far from it as ever. And the arguments about how to present bass, and mid bass presentation are just as crazy. Is it tiltied, it is gliding, it is elevated, is it tucked, does it have a peak over mids in a tilt, or is is level to mids, where does it start, etc. etc. etc. The idea that an IEM is "neutral" is purely up to speculative and subjective preference. Remember, the only reason why the Reference is "neutral" is because it lands in the 5128 HATS target. Does your ear do that? Probably not. Is your ear going to hear it the same as a fake Head and Torso Simulator will? Not a chance. Now, that all being said, i think there are some really good cheap introductions to "neutral", that you should consider to see if it is even on your radar. The first is the Cadenza 2, at $50, its one of the closest "new meta" style tunings for under $75. Of course there is the venerable Hexa. Which has that flat rising bass response. SOme people love it, some hate it. Then you have things like the Ziigaat Lush, which is JM1 inspired, but flatter in its presentation. with a toned down treble region. But it goes onsale for under $150 regularly. Of course there is always the Daybreak, which is also a decent introduction to the tuning of of the Reference, using 5128 targets, at $180. So, you can kinda pick where to start. Personally i would go with the Hexa, and see if you even like 5128 target, or if its too boring and bland. As some reviewers call it "plain like water".

Why these two? Cadenza is a$30 IEM (Get the KB01 for $20, it's exactly the same) And the other is an $80 dollar tribrid IEM. They aren't in the same class. So I am confused as to why these two?? The Cadenza is mildly better than the Chu2, but not enough to not call it a side grade. And the KB01 exists for Chu2 money if you really want to hear it. The EW300 is sub mid. Lots of ear gain issues, and generally not that amazing. It's way over hyped, IMHO. If you want that tuning, get the TRN Shell, or the new Simgot EG280. I like it more than the EW300, ans it comes with a DAC that has EQ tunability via their app. There is a lot a lot of good stuff at $50, and even better sub-$100. So it's weird to see two totally different priced IEMs as your choices.

The part of the shell that contacts your ear is the same between the two. The Cadenza has a little bigger booty. So it sticks out a little more, but both are equally comfortable. If you want to wear it under a winter cap, or side sleep, probably the KB01.

T10 is great. Vastly superior to thr Cadenza. But, 2 things... 1: Planars NEED Power. The more, the better. So you will need a decent Dongle DAC with good power to drive them.. 2: If you have small ears, avoid the T10. It's round shape is not conducive to comfort. I have pretty average sized ears. Medium shading towards small and the T10 hurt my outer ear, I get hot spots, and extreme discomfort. Tip selection helps. And everyone's anatomy is different. But ve aware a lot of people find it uncomfortable, despite its fantastic sound quality.

I didn't say harsh, I said treble forward. And yes, the Cadenza is very zingy, and se have actually described it as "harsh", and can understand that. The Cadenza 2, while neutral, also has a lot of upper frequency harmonics, and air to the presentation. It COULD potentially be problematic. What would be SUPER helpful, is if you could find an online tone generator with a slider that allows you to scroll through the frequencies, telling yoibwhat frequency it's at, and you can isolate which frequency is actually causing you to have discomfort, and then once we know what frequency/frequencies to avoid, we can look at sets that isolate that frequency more than others. Because it may not even be "treble", it might actually be the upper midrange, or some other sympathetic frequency inside that upper mids to treble area. If you go to squig.link and click on the EQ tab on the left of the screen, and scroll to the bottom, there will be a tone generator with a slider there.

GO FOR CADENZA 2 I got them, tried many different tunings, Cadenza 2 is a GREAT all rounder, relaxed sound, nice warmth since it got the KARS 2.0 (and it does a great job), plus it has a beautiful cable and a solid fit.

Celest Wyvern Abyss Celest Pandamon 2.0 Most Kiwi stuff. Nearly all of them. With the exception of Quintet which seems to be built differently. But Kiwi Ears Belle was super tiny and comfy. Kiwi Ear Astral, no issues. Kiwi Ears Cadenza v1 and v2 pretty comfy. As far as larger iems go, Zigaat Lush fits really well on me for some reason.

**Iems that look good that sound pretty good** Juzear Defiant, Celest Wyveryn Abyss, RSV Mark 1, Tea Pro, Dusk, Tanchjim Origin, Celest Pandamon 2.0 (I like it anyway), Yu9 Que, Elysian Pilgrim, EM6L (with Kiwi ears flex eartips), Dunu Kima 2, Sivga Que, Zigaat Lush, Misty Blue, Cadenza 4, Kiwi Ear Astral, Moondrop Variations, Twistura Woodnote, Fosi IM4 (but some eq may be needed), Xuan NV, IER M7, Kiwi Ear Orchestra Lite (in green), Tanchjim Fola, Softears Studio 4, Truthear Hola, Shure SE846, Andromeda 2020, Softear Volume S **Iems that look good that I don't like the sound of** Moondrop Blessing 3, Tipsy M3 (their shells looks sick), Chu 2 (used to like it but standards have went up), 7hz G1 (looks sick in white) (sounds bad tho), Kiwi Ears Cadenza (purple) (it's pretty but vocals are too thin), Mega5EST (pretty shell) (sleepy sounding to me), RSV Mark 2 (sick design) (but the bass gets overbearing over time), A bunch of Zigaats look nice but I didn't like them (Ziggat Arcanis, Zigaat Crescent, Zigaat Odyssey), Canpur Silver Flash, Inawaken Twilight (Harman 2019, hate it), Chopin (thin vocals), Letshouer S08 (sick in black) (I used to like it but don't like it as much anymore), Kiwi Ears Cadenza v2 (pretty faceplate but cookie-cutter sound), a crapton of Simgots have beautiful faceplates but I don't like how they sound (EW200, EW300, Supermix 4, all of them except EM6L), Crinacle Blue Zero (harsh), Crinacle Blue Zero 2 (harsh at high volume), Truthear Nova (gorgeous shell, quite a unpleasant sounding iem), Phoenix call version 1 (gorgeous shell but lackluster sound), Dunu Falcon Ultra (gorgeous shell but imo can get harsh at times)

I just feel like a lot of the recent iems and upcoming iems don't really seem all that interesting and aren't worth the money. Let's go through the list, shall we? Kefine Klean SE. (yawn) Wan'er Red Lion - I mean it's good for the eartips. But (double yawn). Ugly looking shells too. Orchestra 2 - No. Everyone complaining about comfort Hype 4 Mark 2 - So as if the Hype 4 Mark 1 wasn't fatiguing enough already they decided to amp up the treble even more. Skip. Dunu Titan X - lots of complaints about the sound. Also a fugly faceplate. Kiwi Ears Cadenza v2 - I have it. It's yawn-worthy imo Mems EP321- Probably a point of contention but I didn't really like it. Pretty thin mids and vocals. Dunu 242 and Dunu 142 - None of the reviewers/reviews seem all that exciting. Also lot of people just say get Astrals. So that's a pass. Tanchjim Soda - Just. no. Tanchjim has really gotta get thier act together because all their stuff just is too samey. Letshouer Ember - eh Oopus Whatever - I just don't care. No one seems thrilled about it. Supermix 5 - Lots of people politely saying it sucks. punch Audio Portazo - Doesn't interest me. Tinhifi everything - eh. Bright crap all the time. Kefine Arnar - Nobody really cares. EPZ P40 - Honestly? I didn't care much for it. I heard Audio Amigo's unit at an event. Defiant beats it imho Cozoy D1 - eh. Ugly faceplate too Letshouer Astralis - Basically a Letshouer S08. With a bit more subbass. Eh. Roselsa CJ20 - lotta people saying it's bright af (no offense) Is this just the year of suck?

Lately these are my favorites. I don’t know their exact sound signatures, but here’s how I’d describe them: Celest Pandamon 2.0 (with Kiwi Ears Flex eartips) – Super small, comfy, and chill—similar vibe to the Aful Explorer. I actually prefer these over the Salnotes Zero, 7Hz Sonus, Crinacle Zero Red, Artii T10, Tangzu Waner 1/2, Kefine Klean, IE200, Truthear Hexa, Moondrop Lan Reference, Chu 2, FDX1, Blessing 2, Kiwi Ears Cadenza, Inawaken Dawn, Dunu Titan S, and Truthear Gate. It’s about $20, a total “grower.” Boring at first, but comfort and tuning make it great. Likely warm or neutral-warm. Softears Studio 4 – Kicks ass. Especially on female vocals. I prefer it over all Meta-tuned and Harman IEMs. Campfire Andromeda 2020 – Neutral-warm with massive soundstage. Letshouer Cadenza 4 – On par with the Studio 4; I can’t pick a favorite between them. I can't describe how it sounds correctly and it's an IEM that shocked me because it (looks) like it'd be a Blessing 3 on graphs. Sounds nothing like anything out there. It's just an amazing IEM. I think it's U-shaped. Etymotic ER2XR – Love these for sentimental reasons. My EDC setup—always in my work bag. I use the Final Audio E multipack with the red adapter and my own tips. Dunu Kima 2 – The definition of neutral-warm to my ears. Filled the one gap in my collection (Lush, Dunu SA6 Mk2, Truthear Pure, S08, Explorer, etc.). The Kima 2 nails what I was missing. For budget stuff which surprised me. Xuan NV and Defiant. Both are spectacular with female and male vocals. Great punchy bass. Xuan NV is a bit more...liberal with bass. Defiant sounds more...correct with bass. But both are giant killers. Though the Defiant feels like more of a dragon slayer.

**Iems that look good that sound pretty good** Juzear Defiant, Celest Wyveryn Abyss, RSV Mark 1, Tea Pro, Dusk, Tanchjim Origin, Celest Pandamon 2.0 (I like it anyway), Yu9 Que, Elysian Pilgrim, EM6L (with Kiwi ears flex eartips), Dunu Kima 2, Sivga Que, Zigaat Lush, Misty Blue, Cadenza 4, Kiwi Ear Astral, Moondrop Variations, Twistura Woodnote, Fosi IM4 (but some eq may be needed), Xuan NV, IER M7, Kiwi Ear Orchestra Lite (in green), Tanchjim Fola, Softears Studio 4, Truthear Hola, Shure SE846, Andromeda 2020, Softear Volume S **Iems that look good that I don't like the sound of** Moondrop Blessing 3, Tipsy M3 (their shells looks sick), Chu 2 (used to like it but standards have went up), 7hz G1 (looks sick in white) (sounds bad tho), Kiwi Ears Cadenza (purple) (it's pretty but vocals are too thin), Mega5EST (pretty shell) (sleepy sounding to me), RSV Mark 2 (sick design) (but the bass gets overbearing over time), A bunch of Zigaats look nice but I didn't like them (Ziggat Arcanis, Zigaat Crescent, Zigaat Odyssey), Canpur Silver Flash, Inawaken Twilight (Harman 2019, hate it), Chopin (thin vocals), Letshouer S08 (sick in black) (I used to like it but don't like it as much anymore), Kiwi Ears Cadenza v2 (pretty faceplate but cookie-cutter sound), a crapton of Simgots have beautiful faceplates but I don't like how they sound (EW200, EW300, Supermix 4, all of them except EM6L), Crinacle Blue Zero (harsh), Crinacle Blue Zero 2 (harsh at high volume), Truthear Nova (gorgeous shell, quite a unpleasant sounding iem), Phoenix call version 1 (gorgeous shell but lackluster sound), Dunu Falcon Ultra (gorgeous shell but imo can get harsh at times)

go with cadenza II, hexa is fatiguing in longer sessions and might be boring if you came from tws, dont know about eg280…