>>105938316
No, since we know people hear a difference even when literally nothing has changed. This alone creates a steady population of techs retards. My core argument is that all your hear is air pressure, and there's nothing about air pressure that EQ can't fix. Yes, we know that fit and anatomy literally change how IEM performs, but it changes nothing except air pressure at different frequencies.
>>105938417
>no rig no opinion?
Yes. 0.1dB volume difference is enough to skew perception.
>harman trained isn't a real qualification or the flex you think it is, you indoctrinated nutjob. weak as hell groupthink.
There are multiple apps for training. Their core is the same - boosting/cutting some part of a track and learning to identify what changed by ear. After you learn to hear those differences on a track you'll be able to hear them in IEMs that supposedly graph the same. Merely as differently tonality, not some magic. And you'll be able to EQ them out appropriately.
>it doesn't erase the physical difference between $10 pos and something 100x its price.
Acoustically there is no difference.
>targets are average because manufacturers don’t know your ear.
if you're fine with average tunings you don't care about audio.