I don't hear anymore details with the Blessing 2. In fact the bass tuning of the TE Zero make it a bit more easier to tell apart instruments.

I own the Blessing 2. Then I got the Truehear Zero and to be honest I don't think the Blessing 2 are better.

That would be for live performances, musicians use systems like the "Xvive U4 Wireless". But that's not 'wi-fi', that's just 2.4GHz

Nice.

> you can pull out all the little details without exaggeration

Such as ? Can you hear faint cymbal hits in the background now for instance. Is it to the detriment of tonality and timbre ?

> The soundstage is fantastic

By how much? How many centimeters or meters were added?

I get my flac files music from Amazon Music. Store them in my NAS.

Maybe you had a bad reference and a well tuned pair of earphones sound bad to you at first, or you had a good reference and the earphones are badly tuned but you get used to the sound after a while, and now that becomes your reference which is a bad one.

Or you never had a good reference and the new earphone won't improve the situation. Hence you don't know what a well tuned earphone sounds like. You still get used to it.

These are your possibilities.

A nice and robust bass boost with propper pinna gain. All with a single drive. Very interesting

Just show that distortion is significant/audible beyond certain level, then do not measure/publish the frequency response beyond that level. At that point the whole discussion about "multitone intermodulation torture test " becomes utterly irrelevant to the frequency response . It is that simple.

> multitone intermodulation torture test

I think you are missing the point here.

Even if it is true that the 'real and true' measurement for audible distortion is the 'multitone intermodulation torture test', absolutely nobody is using that to review headphones or iems to talk about 'technicalities' or 'sound quality' except perhaps for some obscure nerdy gnome in a cave.

Secondly, that 'multitone waterboarding test' is kinda silly because the overwhelming majority of the distortion is usually concentrated at very low frequencies, since that's where the drivers has to move more to displace air. That's where the non-linear distortions rear their ugly heads first. Something that can be more easily identified with a normal a total harmonic distortion measurement. If the transducer can't pass simple that test at decent loudness, I don't see what's the point to continue with more exotic tests.

> The basic measurements that we use don't fully describe sound quality

If people measure the headphone at 150db and is distorting like Death metal guitar of course that the frequency response is rather useless.

But if the traducer is not significantly distorted then I don't see what's the point that you are trying to convey here. If it matters then measure it and report at what level the distortion becomes audible. Then obviously, do not measure the frequency response when this is the case. Such a silly and moot point...

IEMs are not free from resonances but they are less prone to some resonances than most headphones.

Headphones create multiple sources of sound between the ear and the can, which can create more standing waves, out of phase cancelations and additions, etc. Some very sophisticated headphones got rid of this using acoustic meta-materials.

A good evidence of this is that the group delay for iems are usually much cleaner compared to headphones.

But resonances still exist with iems particularly at higher frequencies where the wave length is comparable to the length of the ear canal.

Nevertheless , if the measurement device is fairly accurate at higher frequencies then it would be easier replicate at least most of the sound signature, as long non-linear distortions are not significant.

Sadly, most measurements you find of the web were done with inferior couplers that make this task more difficult to do.

> that usually audiophiles love to describe it as: punch, slam, soundstage, resolution, separation, imaging, speed, decay, much more other.

That understanding of "technicalities" is very poorly defined and do not seem to have any correlation whatsoever with any measurable characteristic of the headphones. Chances are those are just figments of their imagination. Which is why nobody should take into account that kind of nebulous claims to make any purchase decision

> As I read again in comments somewhere, that usually impossible to recreate identical tuning, but I don't why and what science are behind it

The problem with headphones is that they sometimes create resonances (standing waves) that are very difficult to recreate with equalization and it would be futile to do so. Nevertheless, with the right measurement you can actually recreate the sound signature of any headphone, even if not identical.

> By comparison a reviewer's standard for a recommended loudspeaker is +/-1.5dB.

In real life you almost never get a loudspeaker that produces a flat frequency response within +/-1.5dB . That's fantasy unless you listen to very high end speakers in a perfect anechoic chamber which is not happening. So more like +/10dB in real life. In that sense both headphones and iems can produce a smoother frequency response than most loudspeakers.

If you can hear non-linear distortion then the transducer is very low quality, excessive power is applied beyond what the transducer was designed for, or both. Most of this distortion is usually concentrated at very low frequencies. Decent transducers do not produce audible distortion other than the frequency response itself at normal listening levels.

Since most people who talk about technicalities do not measure nor talk about how the transducer creates distortion nor any technical aspect associated with distortion such as levels, their talks about "technicalities" can be dismissed as gibberish.

> waterfall plots

These plots which are nothing but a fancy and convoluted plot for resonances are can be very misleading and not very useful to meaningfully interpret data. Even more useless for headphones and iems.