Redefining Neutral? A Buyer's Guide to IEMs from the "New Meta"

Introduction to a New Neutral

For the better part of the last decade, IEMs have seen an increasing shift towards a target-based tuning approach. What that target is has changed over time. Or rather, it’s perhaps more accurate to say that there has been little agreement on what the target should be. However, the introduction of a new, more accurate measurement system (the B&K 5128), brought on a renewed effort in trying to develop a universal tuning target for headphones and IEMs. Perhaps even a new way to define neutral.

For IEMs, this proposed new neutral is colloquially known as JM-1 + 10 dB tilt. More specifically, it is the population average anatomical baseline (DF HRTF) for IEMs with a 10 dB downwards tilt from 20 - 20 kHz added on. You can watch this video from JM-1’s creator that explains it in depth. While calling it the new neutral is somewhat contentious, the JM-1 + 10 dB tilt curve has been adopted by some reviewers as the “new meta” tuning to describe a few prominent IEMs in the market today. And it is these “new meta” IEMs that I will be reviewing today.

But first, I must clarify that from a Headphones.com perspective, JM-1 + 10 db tilt is not a target curve. JM-1 is what IEM graphs from Headphones.com are calibrated to, but with a range of preferences overlaid (the tilt). The “new meta” JM-1 + 10 dB tilt tuning falls approximately within the center of this range, which is presumably why it has been used as a target by other graphs that don’t show preference bounds. IEMs don’t need to fall strictly on that center line to sound good to a given individual.

Why “Meta” is a very confusing word

The other important wrinkle is that the word “meta” is a bad way to talk about a target curve. Personally, when I think of meta, I think of it in the context of games where there’s a generally agreed upon “optimal” strategy that most people go for. For IEMs, it implies that there is an agreed upon best tuning and that IEM manufacturers are trying to follow that.

That’s just not true. There is quite a large variation in the tunings of IEMs that many people enjoy. Of course, there’s the infamous “Harman-tuned” IEMs, which has been abused to include anything with abundant upper mids and a distinct bass shelf (instead of truly following Harman IE 2019). Both reviewers and manufacturers share the blame; reviewers keep bringing it up as a talking point, and manufacturers latch on to it for marketing purposes even if the tuning doesn’t follow the target curve at all (the Hisenior Mega5EST being the prime example).

But we’ve also seen the rise of individual targets from prominent reviewers and collaboration products that match their personal targets. These collaboration products have been widely popular, despite them all having slightly different tunings from one another. And of course, we can’t forget the recent explosion of planar IEMs which tend to have a distinct frequency response to other IEMs.

All of this contributes to why using the word “meta” to describe a target curve is extremely confusing. There is no agreement on what the “old meta” is, nor are manufacturers all aligned in tuning towards some sort of “new meta”. Meta is currently being used to describe a market trend (JM-1 + 10 dB tilt) within a subgroup of the IEM community, not a winning strategy broadly used by IEM manufacturers to optimize sales. And while it can seem like many hyped up IEMs are all variants of the same tunings nowadays, until we see most of the market truly converge into one target curve, the word meta remains a misnomer.

The DaVinci and DUSK

All that preamble to say, I’m personally more interested in is how good these “new meta” IEMs are subjectively. As someone who has reviewed and enjoyed many IEMs over the years, new measurements and new targets present a very interesting new way to look at products. Should I give up on everything I once loved for the new hotness? Should I buy the cheapest IEM that graphs closest to JM-1 + 10 dB tilt? Are the old IEMs bad? These questions and more are what I’ll be tackling today as I look at the newest wave of IEM hype.

The primary comparison in this article will be the DUNU x Gizaudio DaVinci ($300) and MoonDrop x Crinacle DUSK ($360). These are the two most well-known of the “new meta” IEMs and were tuned with the JM-1 + 10 dB tilt target in mind. There are a handful of other popular IEMs that fall into the “new meta”, and I’ll go over them in the comparisons section.

With that out of the way, let’s talk about sound. As a reminder, the frequency responses of the DaVinci and DUSK here are calibrated to the population average DF HRTF (AKA JM-1).

As usual, the preference bounds demonstrate the limits of how much deviation an IEM could have that people still found acceptable without it starting to be perceived as imbalanced. It gives us a rough guide to understand that, for example, the DaVinci is likely to come off as bass dominant given how it starts to exceed those bounds. A flat line at 0 demonstrates the population average DF HRTF calibration, while the dotted slope in the center shows the 10 dB downwards tilt that these IEMs are tuned to.

Note: For this review, I will only talk about the DUSK using the Default DSP preset as that is the intended tuning.

Sound

Bass

The DUSK has a very balanced bass tuning. Enough of a shelf so there’s sufficient quantity, but not enough that it ever comes off as bass heavy. The bass quality here is quite good. There’s strong definition and transient control across the board. It sounds tight, able to punch and rumble on a dime. However, there are a few minor nitpicks. For how responsive the bass is, I find its decay to be unnaturally quick. While the DUSK can deliver deep, booming bass notes, it can feel like they evaporate too quickly in trying to get to the next passage and I’m not fully satisfied. Additionally, it sometimes lacks a bit of texture. Still despite my complaints, I would say the bass quality of the DUSK is among the best you’ll get around this price range or even beyond.

The bass of the DaVinci is outstanding. As in, it sticks out from the rest of the frequencies due to excessive quantity. Personally, I think around a 2 dB reduction would be ideal. Unfortunately, this quantity exposes the rather middling bass quality. It’s thumpy and boomy and works well for the floor toms of a drum, but there is some bloom to the notes and a lack of definition. It’s “fun”, but not precise. Like the DUSK, it lacks texture. But the DaVinci also lacks the level of articulation the DUSK has. That said, it should be known that I’m quite picky about my bass presentation. The DaVinci isn’t actually bad. It doesn’t sound overly smeared or pillow-y, nor is it bloated. For the $300 asking price, I can live with it.

Mids

The midrange of both of these IEMs are exceptionally well-tuned. However, there are some notable differences despite how closely they graph to one another. The DUSK is a very unique experience. It gives the sense that there’s very little of the “masking” effect going on here - it pulls out timbral nuances in a way that’s different from many other IEMs. However, it can also sound cold. Pianos and acoustic guitars in particular exhibit this. You get less depth in the keys, and guitar strums lack that underlying richness of the acoustic body. Snares also don’t have as sharp of a crack. Electric guitars, however, are sensational. The DUSK’s midrange brings such a clarity in the riffs that draws out things I normally don’t hear. Vocals are excellent, though compared to the warmer DaVinci, it can feel like they aren’t drawing as much power from their diaphragm as they should. Which is quite odd because there’s actually less energy at the 3 kHz peak than on the DaVinci.

The DaVinci on the other hand has a much more “traditional” midrange presentation, one that will be familiar to pretty much anyone experienced in this hobby. In terms of sound, I have nothing to nitpick about here for any instrument. It’s all very well balanced with a light layer of body from the large bass shelf.

Now, I know what people want to know is which is better. The DUSK or the DaVinci. This is a hard question for me to answer. The clarity and uniqueness of the DUSK’s midrange is very appealing to me as it sets it apart from the vast majority of IEMs out there. However, the slight coldness on certain instruments sometimes takes me out of the experience. With the DaVinci, nothing ever disrupts my enjoyment. The tonality is just satisfying. But as someone who is privileged enough to listen to hundreds of IEMs, I would take the DUSK’s mids over the DaVinci’s because it does something a little extra, something that pushes it over the edge despite some of its shortcomings. But if I hadn’t heard so many other IEMs and had to only pick one, I would take the DaVinci.

Treble

Like the mids, the DUSK has superb control in its treble. Once again, it feels like there is no sense of masking going on at all. And best of all, it’s not peaky or sharp for me, nor does it have an exaggerated sense of airiness. However, it is bright. Just a bit too much for the overall balanced tuning that the DUSK is going for. As such, hats and cymbals end up being somewhat distracting, and this is exacerbated by its timbre coming off as a little brittle and thin. In effect, it’s not a forgiving IEM. If you like rock or metal tracks with poorly recorded, trashy cymbals, the DUSK’s treble might not be the most tolerable.

The DaVinci doesn’t have this problem. Despite having a seemingly larger peak on the graph, I don’t hear it as an issue at all. The treble of the DaVinci plays well with the overall warmer tilt of its tuning. There is a crispness in the treble that isn’t oversharpened, giving a tasteful amount of definition to the upper harmonics. The only comment I have is that it makes the hats and cymbals sound a little washy.

Presentation

Technical performance is where the DUSK sets itself apart. It’s not immediately obvious at first listen, but the more I hear it, the more I appreciate what it can do. The soundstage width is good, and the center image has a natural bit of depth, so sound feels more pushed to the back of the head rather than right between the eyes. This opens it up to fantastic imaging and great layering. Instruments don’t all crowd on the same plane and the placement of notes in the stereo field is precise. It really is commendable. Tying all of this together is that sense of timbral control I’ve mentioned earlier. It doesn’t push detail in your face, but as you listen and take in the music, the DUSK effortlessly reveals tons of little passages and riffs and motifs that you are free to pick-up on. In this regard, it easily competes with IEMs several times its price (mandatory disclaimer that diminishing returns hit extremely quickly and that price has no correlation with sound quality).

The DaVinci is firmly in the “good but not outstanding” camp. Soundstage, imaging, resolution, and layering, they’re all a step behind the DUSK. Imaging is less precise, notes are less articulate, and instruments bump a little more into each other. It’s totally fine for the price and mostly competitive with other options but when compared back-to-back with the DUSK, its limitations are noticeable. The DUSK has more character. However, I would say that for most people, the difference isn’t critical. Personally, even though “technicalities” is something that I value more than others, when I start listening to the DaVinci I don’t find myself constantly wishing for the DUSK’s performance. The only thing that I’m annoyed by is its middling bass performance.

Make or Breaks

Comfort

The DUSK is surprisingly comfortable despite its size. It fits very nicely into my ear and I can go for a long time without feeling it. The DaVinci is unfortunately more ergonomically challenged. Though the nozzle isn’t actually that much larger than the DUSK, the lip on its nozzle and angle of insertion can make it painful. I find that part of the problem is actually the stock DUNU tips which have a thick nozzle stem. Doing a bit of tip rolling helped with the comfort significantly.

USB-C DSP Cable

The DUSK requires the use of MoonDrop’s FreeDSP cable for the DSP that allows it to achieve its tuning. There’s arguments whether DSP is “cheating”; I personally don’t care as long as the outcome is good. While I can confidently say that the DUSK’s sound is excellent, I’m less thrilled about this cable. If you’re only using the DUSK with your phone while you’re on-the-go, it’s fine. MoonDrop did a great job with the ergonomics of the cable.

But for dedicated listening at my desk, it’s a bit more annoying. I can sometimes hear noise issues with the cable depending on how the audio driver is engaged (see Listener’s article for more info). It doesn’t plug into my existing amps, so no knob to control volume (though the rocker controls on the cable work). Using it with a DAP will be tricky. Lastly, you need to install the MoonDrop app to get the DSP working, which isn’t really a problem but just an extra step I’d rather not do. The DaVinci doesn’t have this problem. It’s all plug-and-play.

That said, I think Resolve made a very fair point during his DUSK review: The DUSK’s DSP options may have additional value as a learning tool to understand how you might enjoy different EQ profiles. And because the FreeDSP cable also allows for individual EQs, it allows you to further customize to go a step further and customize your DUSK precisely to what your preferences.

Note: Crinacle has provided EQ values for the DUSK here if you want to try it yourself without the DSP cable.

Comparisons

Hisenior Mega5EST ($550)

A year before the advent of the B&K 5128 or any of this talk about a “new meta”, the Mega5EST appeared quietly on the scene. The world of IEMs is admittedly very reviewer driven, and because Hisenior didn’t send the Mega5EST to anyone for review, it got very little attention outside of some folks who got to try it in demo shops. It didn’t help that Hisenior marketed it as being tuned to the Harman target, when in reality, the Mega5EST serendipitously ended up being a great representation of the “new meta” tuning. It was the release of the Subtonic STORM that gave the Mega5EST a second chance as people noticed how similarly they measured to one another.

I don’t have the Mega5EST (or the Hype 4 below) in front of me, so take this with a grain of salt. I’d say the Mega5EST is more like the DaVinci than the DUSK. The bass quantity of the Mega5EST is a little less than the DaVinci, coming off as better blended into the mix. The quality is also slightly better as well, with less pillowyness, though still not particularly amazing. Without doing a proper A/B comparison I can’t say which midrange I truly like better, so I’ll call it a wash. Both of them have great midrange tonality with nothing to complain about.

The treble of the Mega5EST is where I have a bit of an issue. It’s a little brighter than the DaVinci which I do like for that extra touch of treble presence. But I hear an upper treble peak somewhere that, while it isn’t painful, does throw off the timbre of hats and cymbals more than the DaVinci. On a technical level, they’re both about on par with one another.

Overall, I see the DaVinci to be a cheaper variant of the Mega5EST. The DaVinci doesn’t make the Mega5EST obsolete, just less price-performant. Some people will probably like the Mega5EST more than the DaVinci. Whether that’s worth the extra $250, I’ll let you decide. At least the comfort is a little better.

Thieaudio Hype 4 ($400)

Before the DaVinci and DUSK, the Hype 4 came out as a bit of a proto-new meta IEM. While it’s closer to the JM-1 + 10 dB tilt tuning than most other IEMs, there are still some noticeable deviations in the lower midrange and treble. It has a large bass shelf like the DaVinci, but the bass quality is even more of a step behind. While it has more articulation and definition than either the DaVinci and Mega5EST, it has a slight hollowness to it and a lack of depth. While I find the midrange to be similar in enjoyment to both of them, the Hype 4’s is leaner. The treble of the Hype 4 is reminiscent of the DUSK. It’s on the brighter side with plenty of energy, but very well-controlled in rendering treble notes. It doesn’t have quite the same level of resolving ability as the DUSK, however.

As with the Mega5EST, it’s hard to justify the $400 Hype 4 over the DaVinci or DUSK. There isn’t a standout reason to pick it over those options, unless you really don’t want to use the DSP cable of the DUSK, but want an IEM with a similar amount of treble brilliance.

Kiwi Ears KE4 ($200)

In the weeks that I spent writing this review, the Kiwi Ears KE4 was released. It’s the latest iteration of the new meta IEM. And at $200, it’s become a very compelling option.

It has a tastefully balanced bass shelf like the DUSK, a recessed upper mids tuning that makes it relatively warmer to the other options, and a crisp upper treble. The treble isn’t painful for me, but I can see it coming off as peaky or oversharpened for some. There’s the occasional mini-explosion of the treble note instead of being a smooth experience. I won’t call it a dealbreaker, but it’s getting close to it.

The best thing about the KE4, however, is its bass performance. It beats out the DaVinci, Mega5EST, and Hype 4. I’d say it’s on par with the DUSK, but in different ways. The DUSK’s bass is about control and articulation. The KE4’s is about dynamic impact. The only nitpick is that it doesn’t have the same subbass depth as the DaVinci. But I’m still very pleased as I haven’t been impressed with the bass of a Kiwi Ears product before.

For the rest of its technicalities, the KE4 is satisfactory. Dynamics as mentioned are solid. Staging and layering are alright. Resolution has a bit of that “upper treble exaggeration” feel, but otherwise isn’t lacking too much. All in all, I’m going to say the KE4 is the best value so far when it comes to these new meta IEMs. Assuming the treble doesn’t bother you. If so, then the DaVinci is the safest bet. Alternatively, you can use some tips like the Divinus Velvets which helps to significantly tame the treble, though at the slight cost of some dynamics.

This is Brilliant, but I Like This

Now that we’ve made the rounds looking at all of these “new meta” IEMs, the question remains: what about the old IEMs I used to love? This is where I give my usual statement of “If you’re satisfied, stay satisfied”. There’s no need to rush out to buy a new product because people are hyping up the latest and greatest. It won’t automatically make what you used to love obsolete.

For example, compared to the MoonDrop Blessing 3, the DUSK is obviously better tuned. It’s fuller and more bodied in the mids. There’s a more effortless, controlled, and natural presentation of notes compared to the occasionally strained sense you get from the Blessing 3’s very forward midrange. But that’s when I have them side-by-side at a desk comparing them passage-by-passage.

When I want to use the Blessing 3 just to listen to music, I don’t find myself longing for the DUSK. A couple tracks in, and I don’t want to take them out to do more comparisons for the sake of a review. And while I do prefer the DUSK’s tuning and can confidently say it is a better IEM, there isn’t that big of a difference in how much more I enjoy the DUSK over the Blessing 3. Maybe 10%? Sometimes I even forget which I have in my ears when I’m lost in my favorite tunes.

A Conclusion of Sorts

Reviewing audio gear is weird. It’s an ambiguous mix of a Consumer Reports-style broad strokes recommendation and a highly anecdotal personal experience. There is admittedly a strong double standard as well. As headphones and IEMs approach the more boutique, the more experiential the review becomes. But for IEMs in highly competitive segments, where it’s become a race-to-the-bottom of target curves, reviews primarily take on the lens of “What do I think will appeal to the most number of people?”.

That’s what the “new meta” IEMs in this article are for. If you don’t already own some good IEMs, the IEMs in this article are going to be your best starting point. Though the question of whether the JM-1 + 10 db tilt curve is significantly preferred over other target curves is still to be answered by research (Harman style), I think it’s likely these IEMs will largely fit the preferences of the average listener. Thus, they all get my recommendation.

But that’s not to say that it will perfectly match an individual preference. Personally, I like to think of the JM-1 + 10 dB tuning as a “One Size Fits All” approach rather than a target curve. It’ll probably work for most people, but you’ll want to do a bit of tailoring so it really fits your skin. As you can see in this review, I had something to nitpick with every IEM. EQ exists because personalized audio is the logical outcome of a subjective hobby. Individuals are rarely the average. Yet in the same breath, I also think that part of the joy in this hobby is about finding new and unique experiences, different flavors to fit different moods. Yes, this includes those so-called “technicalities”. It’s why IEMs in particular have such an appeal. And so despite the race-to-the-bottom competitive pressure brought on by the most recent wave of hyped up “new meta”-tuned IEMs, we see boutique products from luxury brands continue to find their customers.

Ultimately, if you’re reading this article, you fall into one of two camps. The first is someone who doesn’t have a good pair of IEMs to begin with. Long story short, pick any one and enjoy. Probably the Kiwi Ears KE4 given that it’s the best value. Music will sound great. But for those in the second camp, you probably have a good collection of IEMs already and are wondering if the “new meta” is worth trying. To that, my answer is also yes. It’s not anything that will blow your mind, but it is very good, and may challenge what you previously thought you preferred. Treat it as another chapter in your audio journey rather than a final destination.

Final Rankings

Admittedly, that was a lot of words for a review if you just wanted to know how each IEM stacked up against each other. So to make things easy (though you really should read the article to get more nuance), here’s how I’d rank them according to pure sound quality, personal enjoyment, and value. The important thing I want to stress is that all of these IEMs are really quite good. The absolute difference between these rankings is fairly minor.

Sound Quality

1. MoonDrop x Crinacle DUSK
2. Kiwi Ears KE4
3. DUNU x Gizaudio DaVinci
4. Hisenior Mega5EST = Thieaudio Hype 4

Personal Enjoyment

1. DUNU x Gizaudio DaVinci
2. MoonDrop x Crinacle DUSK = Kiwi Ears KE4
3. Hisenior Mega5EST = Thieaudio Hype 4

Value

1. Kiwi Ears KE4
2. DUNU x Gizaudio DaVinci = MoonDrop x Crinacle DUSK
3. Thieaudio Hype 4
4. Hisenior Mega5EST