Cadenza II

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.

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.

Because you want good passive isolation, you are going to want to avoid the Gate, the Bunny, the LAN, and the Wan'er. While i am a BIG fan of the Bunny, they might as well be open backed. Same with the Gate. The Wan'er also has a LOT of sound bleed. The Vivace is a little better, followed by the Cadenza, the Zero2 and the Chu 2. Overall, isolation wise, the Chu2 is the best on that list. But i would caution that, if you are going to be in the worship band, sweat is an issue. And 1: Metal Shells and Sweat usually means corrosion. 2: The Cadenza nozzles are WELL known for their corrosion. So...sadly, dont do that. I would look at the Cadenza, or the Zero 1, not the 2. As they have a flatter bass profile, and a little more upper mids presence. Which will fit into the vocal range a little better for actual live monitoring. Some other options i would look at are the TRN MT5, the Simgot EW100p, the BLON BL-03 II, Kinera Celest Wyvern Black, the Remix version if you want more vocal forwardness and less bass, and most importantly, tips tips tips. Get yourself some memory foam tips, and use them, this will GREATLY improve isolation and fit while playing. Or some foam filled silicone tips. To help reject outside sound.

I don't understand this. The Cadenza is a relatively small IEM, in shell size, shape, and nozzle diameter. So I can't fathom how small and obtusely shaped your ears would have to be to have issues with the KiwiEars Cadenza. Makes no sense to me at all.

Klean or Red Lion or Cadenza. Those are the only things on that list I would recommend. In that order.

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.

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.

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

Cadenza II are an easy recommend. Yea they cost more than a Chu II but the cable included costs more than a Chu II on its own, and they sound reallllly good.

Yo acabo de adquirir unos cadenza 2 y si los recomiendo por el precio, valen la pena

2 is a huge upgrade over the 1. They sound so natural and pleasing to the ear, whereas the 2 sounded very anemic and recessed.

Awesome review, these are a significant upgrade to the original! To me Cadenza 1 sounded very thin and recessed in the mid range and the lower treble is kind of peaky and artificial sounding. A good budget set when it came out but has been power crept by the competitive market.

Kiwi Ears Cadenza 2 - a very natural and pleasant sounding IEM that's well tuned across the frequency range. A great budget pick for gaming and movies cause of its balanced tuning and capable technicalities.